What is the "Crisis"?

[Brother_John]

I think stmaria is asking why you relate legal divorce to decrees of nullity.

There are myriad reasons that people get divorced. There are not so many reasons for a decree of nullity to be granted.

I would think simple math would answer that…Divorce is at epidemic proportion in recent decades in relation to decades or centuries before.

More divorces would then equate to more requests for annulments, no?

The statistic as to the number of annulments granted is thrown around like bermuda grass seed, but nobody ever brings up how many annulments were APPLIED for during the time periods in question, as if to imply that the Church is throwing annulments around willy-nilly, whereas they were refusing them before? I don’t think so. Maybe someone can prove me wrong .

Divorce is rampant in today’s society. Being Catholic does not insulate you from the world. We should be thankful that the divorced seek annulment as opposed to leaving the Catholic Church all together.

 

[mgrfin]

Do you deny that the Council of Constantinople in 543 condemned and anathematised the doctrine of the apocatastasis, according to which everyone will share in the grace of salvation? It appears from post number 243, that you maintain that Catholics are supposed to hold to thiis doctrine which has been formally condemned and anathematised by the Catholic Church?

You didn’t answer me: Do you have the original acts of Second Constantinople. How can they be ‘de fide definita’ is no one has them?

Here is some scripture for you:

SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD

“And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father has sent his Son to be Saviour of the world”. (1 John 4: 14)

“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, himself man, Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all, bearing witness in his own time”. 1 Tim 2: 5-6

“For God so loved the world, as to give His only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him John 3: 16-17

God’s love for us was revealed when God sent into the world his only Son so that we could have life through him; this is the love I mean: not our love for God, but God’s love for us when he sent his Son to be the sacrifice that takes our sins away. We ourselves say and we testify that the Father sent his Son as saviour of the world" (1 Jn 4:8-10, 14).

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.” 1 Tim 2: 4-6

I doubt that any supposed acts you have of a Council will stand in the way of Sacred Scripture.

BTW, I doubt that anyone in the Church preaching Universal Salvation accepts “apocatastasis”.

BTW, the Synod of Constantinople is not an Ecumenical Council. Despite the correct understanding of Universal Salvation as it appears in Scripture, I don’t believe that what you might have to say regarding “apocatastasis” is de fid definita. But this is purely a secondary matter. We don’t accept "apocatastasis’ or teach it in terms of Universal Salvation - that Jesus came to save all. period.

This is just another attempt to bloody Vatican 2.

prayers and charity for all who post here

peace

 

[bobzills]

I don’t believe that what you might have to say regarding “apocatastasis” is de fid definita.

Are you claiming here that these anathemas and condemnations of the doctrine of apocatastasis are not to be held by all Catholics?
People here don’t have to take my word for it. They can read it for themselves in the Catholic Encyclopedia online:
newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

 

[japhy]

That is interesting. You have the original acts of 2nd Constantinople. They must be worth lots of money, since the original acts are lost.

Well, both CCEL.org and NewAdvent.org report the anathema:

Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople), The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen, n. IX: “If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.”

Second Council of Constantinople, The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen, n. 9: “If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις ) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.”

 

[japhy]

I would think simple math would answer that…Divorce is at epidemic proportion in recent decades in relation to decades or centuries before. More divorces would then equate to more requests for annulments, no?

More requests for annulments, certainly. More actual decrees of nullity? That’s not certain.

 

[bobzills]

I would think simple math would answer that…Divorce is at epidemic proportion in recent decades in relation to decades or centuries before.

More divorces would then equate to more requests for annulments, no?

Well let’s take a look at the simple math and compare the rate of increase in divorces with the rate of increase in annulments:
Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.
Why has the number of annulments in
the RCC gone up by more than one thousand times more than the number of
divorces in the surrounding culture?
The simple math provides evidence to support the claim that the RCC has changed its teaching on marriage annulments to where just about anyone can get an annulment for the most trivial of reasons. We read that Father Doherty has quoted a Tribunal official as saying:
“There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”

 

[japhy]

You didn’t answer me: Do you have the original acts of Second Constantinople. How can they be ‘de fide definita’ is no one has them? … BTW, the Synod of Constantinople is not an Ecumenical Council.

Fine, no one has the original Greek; we only have a very old Latin version. And I thought it was one of the ecumenical councils…

Despite the correct understanding of Universal Salvation as it appears in Scripture, I don’t believe that what you might have to say regarding “apocatastasis” is de fid definita. But this is purely a secondary matter.

Perhaps we misunderstood you. Yes, Jesus came for all humanity, but not everyone will be saved.

 

[Brother_John]

Well let’s take a look at the simple math and compare the rate of increase in divorces with the rate of increase in annulments:
Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.
Why has the number of annulments in
the RCC gone up by more than one thousand times more than the number of
divorces in the surrounding culture?
The simple math provides evidence to support the claim that the RCC has changed its teaching on marriage annulments to where just about anyone can get an annulment for the most trivial of reasons. We read that Father Doherty has quoted a Tribunal official as saying:
“There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”

His point may well be valid. If the marriage didn’t “stick”, then it likely was flawed to begin with, no? Kind or a broad statement, but there is a modcum of truth to it.

 

[japhy]

His point may well be valid. If the marriage didn’t “stick”, then it likely was flawed to begin with, no? Kind or a broad statement, but there is a modcum of truth to it.

A flawed marriage and an invalid (i.e. non-existent) marriage are two different things.

 

[mgrfin]

Well, both CCEL.org and NewAdvent.org report the anathema:

Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople), The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen, n. IX: “If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.”

Second Council of Constantinople, The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen, n. 9: “If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις ) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.”

I didn’t know that the Emperor was infallible.

You are misunderstanding Universal Salvation. If you read Scripture you will understand that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the World. No one ever said that everyone is going to be saved. It is been repeated over and over that no one of us believes that people will accept the message of salvation, and some will reject it.

Do you think we are all so naive to believe anything like that, that all men are saved, none condemned, and you have to go out to find some inconsequential emperor to quote to us???

Please have some Christian faith in us. I believe this is just more to smear the Second Vatican Council, for it makes no sense otherwise.

Prayers and charity for all who post here.

peace

peace

 

[mgrfin]

His point may well be valid. If the marriage didn’t “stick”, then it likely was flawed to begin with, no? Kind or a broad statement, but there is a modcum of truth to it.

Have you talked to a Canon lawyer? Find out when the Holy See entrusted the determination of and the power to declare a marriage null and void. At that point you can start counting. That was the game changer. My guess it is some 40 years ago.

peace

 

[peary]

That is not the correct picture. First of all, the fact is that the words for the Consecration of the wine have been mistranslated so that pro multis is mistranslated as “for all.” Why has this been done except to hint at the possibility of universal salvation. QUOTE]

**Once the gentiles were included, ALL were included in salvation. In fact, go read the book of ACTS. One can translate pro multis as meaning “for the multitude” (“for the many”… for the many WHAT? Those that hear the Word of God and keep it! And I don’t think you can mix apples and oranges here.).

If there were no universal salvation, then why do we have missionary orders whose priests, brothers, and good sisters risking their lives going to foreign lands proclaiming the Gospel if the Church didn’t believe in universal salvation? Missionary orders have been around since Christ’s mandate to go to the ends of the earth and proclaim the Good News and baptize all men (obviously this includes women too). You view of salvation is way too slanted and may be your undoing in the long run. Careful!**

 

[japhy]

You are misunderstanding Universal Salvation. If you read Scripture you will understand that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the World.

I suggested we were misunderstanding you in post 267. From my experience, the term, “universal salvation” means the belief that all creatures will be saved. This is distinct from the “salvific universality” of Jesus Christ (cf. Dominus Iesus)

I believe this is just more to smear the Second Vatican Council, for it makes no sense otherwise.

No, if we’re “smear[ing]” anything or anyone, it’s the ICEL which gave the US a poor translation of the Roman Missal. The coming English translation of the 2002 Missal has corrections that are sorely needed; see this letter for details. Vatican II did not produce the poor English translation (nor did it envision the Canon being translated into the vernacular!).

The issue of pro multis being “for many” or “for all” was taken up by the CDWDS in this letter.

“It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven” is a valid statement because the shedding of the blood was so that sin may be forgiven, but not “It will be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sins”, because not everyone will have their sins remitted.

 

[japhy]

One can translate pro multis as meaning “for the multitude” (“for the many”… for the many WHAT? Those that hear the Word of God and keep it! And I don’t think you can mix apples and oranges here.).

“Many” can be a noun, just like “few” can: “The few, the proud, the Marines.” Wheelock’s Latin says this about multis as a noun:

mult.is              N      2 2 LOC P N                 
mult.is              N      2 2 DAT P N                 
mult.is              N      2 2 ABL P N                 
multum, multi  N (2nd) N   [XXXDX]    lesser
many things (pl.); much; many;

mult.is              N      1 1 LOC P F                 
mult.is              N      1 1 DAT P F                 
mult.is              N      1 1 ABL P F                 
-, multae  N (1st) F   [XXXDX]    lesser
many women (pl.);

mult.is              N      2 1 LOC P M                 
mult.is              N      2 1 DAT P M                 
mult.is              N      2 1 ABL P M                 
-, multi  N (2nd) M   [XXXDX]    lesser
many men/people (pl.); the common/ordinary people; the many; common herd;

If there were no universal salvation, then why do we have missionary orders whose priests, brothers, and good sisters risking their lives going to foreign lands proclaiming the Gospel if the Church didn’t believe in universal salvation?

We seem to be dealing with a confusion of terms. Some people use “universal salvation” to mean “everyone will be saved”; other people use “universal salvation” to mean “salvation is offered to everyone”, that Jesus is the “universal redeemer” (Dominus Iesus, n. 11).

 

[mgrfin]

bobzills;3390624:

That is not the correct picture. First of all, the fact is that the words for the Consecration of the wine have been mistranslated so that pro multis is mistranslated as “for all.” Why has this been done except to hint at the possibility of universal salvation. QUOTE]

**Once the gentiles were included, ALL were included in salvation. In fact, go read the book of ACTS. One can translate pro multis as meaning “for the multitude” (“for the many”… for the many WHAT? Those that hear the Word of God and keep it! And I don’t think you can mix apples and oranges here.).

If there were no universal salvation, then why do we have missionary orders whose priests, brothers, and good sisters risking their lives going to foreign lands proclaiming the Gospel if the Church didn’t believe in universal salvation? Missionary orders have been around since Christ’s mandate to go to the ends of the earth and proclaim the Good News and baptize all men (obviously this includes women too). You view of salvation is way too slanted and may be your undoing in the long run. Careful!**

You are saying that the Words of Consecration must be translated from the Latin. There is no truth to that.

The teaching Magisterium of the Church has said that the words of Consecration are: 'for all" It doesn’t changed the form of the sacrament, and those words are valid for the Consecration of the wine.

The nay-sayers of Vatican 2 would like to smear that this is "universal salvation’ in whatever bad sense this is (apocatastasis), which it is not. Christ died for all mankind; his salvation is for all mankind. Not everyone accepts salvation, so do not receive it.

Theologically, the english words of consecration of these words is accepted by the teaching Magisterium.

Say it over and over it: 'get over it".

 

[mgrfin]

It is my understanding that the doctrine of the apocatastasis, according to which everyone will share in the grace of salvation, has been formally condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto

Who teaches “apocatastasis”? Tell me about Catholics teachings this, and please source it for us.

We believe in Universal Salvation, that is, Jesus died for all mankind. Some accept, some reject. There is no OSAS in the Catholic Church. You can go to hell.

Please answer the question? Who teaches “apocatastasis”?

prayer and charity to all who post here

peace

 

[japhy]

The teaching Magisterium of the Church has said that the words of Consecration are: 'for all" It doesn’t changed the form of the sacrament, and those words are valid for the Consecration of the wine.

Yes; for the past 40 or so years, the Church has accepted the “for all” translation. Now, however (especially after Liturgiam Authenticam), the translations must be reviewed and redone, and adhere tightly to the Latin; LA n. 20 states:The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.

You are saying that the Words of Consecration must be translated from the Latin. There is no truth to that.

Well, the translations of the Roman Missal are translations of the official Missal which is in Latin. And the Scriptures say “for many” (in Greek, of course) in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 (cf. Isaiah 53:11-12). Did you read the letter I mentioned about this issue?

And LA n. 23 says:In the translation of texts of ecclesiastical composition, while it is useful with the assistance of historical and other scientific tools to consult a source that may have been discovered for the same text, nevertheless it is always the text of the Latin editio typica itself that is to be translated.
So it sounds like there IS truth to it!

 

[DustinsDad]

…UNIVERSAL SALVATION exists. It is in Scripture and it is in Tradition. It is a doctrine of our faith.

Try proving your heretical thesis that Jesus didn’t die to save everyone.

Universal salvation doesn’t mean Jesus died to save everyone. Universal salvation means everyone is saved…and this is not Church teaching. Condemned.

The offer is universal. Salvation is not.

And you know this.

So what is your problem?

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Wonderful! Thank you for your research. You have done a fabulous job!

However, let’s keep a few things in mind:

1. You are reading the statement like an American. Try reading like an Italian. There is a different level of imperative when you consider and compare both cultures.
2. The translation which has been approved for us is the 1973 English translation of the Missale Romanum - this translation has been accepted by the teaching Magisterium.
3. For centuries (at least from the 12th century) the accepted form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is very simple, as follows:
   a) For the bread: “This is my Body”
   b) For the wine: “This is my Blood”

That is all that is required. The remaining words are an embellishment. With the pronouncement of the above, Transsubstantion occurs.

Doesn’t that just make you crazy? Write to your Bishop, if it bothers you. Or, if you are really upset, you can write to the Holy Father. I have his address if you need it.

Prayers and charity for all who post here.

Peace

 

[DustinsDad]

…Write to your Bishop, if it bothers you. Or, if you are really upset, you can write to the Holy Father. I have his address if you need it.

Prayers and charity for all who post here.

Why the hateful and condescending sarcasm all the time, followed in the next line by calls for charity?

Do you not even see it?

Why are you here?

DustinsDad