Who Believes in the Unity of the Church?

[LUISV]

It is not that easily dismissed, since the Orthodox say that the filioque is a heresy.

It is not the filioque that is heresy. Its addition to the Creed is the heresy. And again the need for a council.
Mistranslations from Greek to Latin caused the Frankish iconoclasts to think that the Second Council called for the worship of icons. The Greek better translates to the english, venerate. The latin translation used was adoratio, worship. Translation is dificult enough but when you are called to do a word for word translation often times meaning is lost. Same thing happened with the Creed. That is why I consider the filioque a product of transliteration and that it should resume its proper place as a non-issue.

The root cause for the filioque dispute was language. Rome no longer spoke Greek and more often than not sent non-Greek speaker as emesaries to Eastern Churches. Imagine a UN meeting where all the interpreters go on holiday and leave the delegates to hash out policy. I think we would see flaring tempers and flying furniture.

 

[EasterJoy]

I read that Father Doherty has quoted a tribunal official as saying that “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.” Then how can there be any unity when any marriage can be declared invalid according to a tribunal official?

Annulments do get turned down, at least in our archdiocese. I know a woman who tried to get an annulment from her husband, who just plain left her. This was in the eighties, I think, and not since Rome has recommended that things to be tightened down.

When asked in the paperwork why he left, the deserting husband reportedly responded something like “I just didn’t feel like being married any more.” Having been unable to find an impediment in the marriage, the tribunal concluded that issuing a decree of nullity was not appropriate.

The woman asking for an annulment couldn’t get her husband back and couldn’t re-marry, either. So even though tribunals don’t want to deny marriage to any who have a right to marriage, denial of decrees of nullity does happen.

 

[bobzills]

It seems from the above, however, that we are actually in agreement that the Catholic Church has never taught limbo (Ieaving open the question of whether bishops or priests gave that impression in their sermonizing and catechesis).

I disagree because limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism.

 

[bobzills]

Annulments do get turned down, at least in our archdiocese. I know a woman who tried to get an annulment from her husband, who just plain left her. This was in the eighties, I think, and not since Rome has recommended that things to be tightened down.

When asked in the paperwork why he left, the deserting husband reportedly responded something like “I just didn’t feel like being married any more.” Having been unable to find an impediment in the marriage, the tribunal concluded that issuing a decree of nullity was not appropriate.

The woman asking for an annulment couldn’t get her husband back and couldn’t re-marry, either. So even though tribunals don’t want to deny marriage to any who have a right to marriage, denial of decrees of nullity does happen.

The statistics indicate an enormous increase in the number of annulments from what it was in 1930:
9 annulments per year in the USA in 1930 versus more than 60,000 annulments in recent years in the USA.
And Father Doherty quotes a tribunal official as implying that just about any marriage can be annulled, if the tribunal is given enough time to find and confimr the impediment.
So is there unity on the question of who is and who is not married in the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The statistics indicate an enormous increase in the number of annulments from what it was in 1930:
9 annulments per year in the USA in 1930 versus more than 60,000 annulments in recent years in the USA.
And Father Doherty quotes a tribunal official as implying that just about any marriage can be annulled, if the tribunal is given enough time to find and confimr the impediment.
So is there unity on the question of who is and who is not married in the Roman Catholic Church?

Yes, there is unity, along the following lines.

1. Those who have married according to proper form are presumed to be married.
2. Those who have requested an examination of the validity of such a marriage receive a verdict from a tribunal upon which all may act with moral certainty.

Reception of the sacraments is a contingent matter, especially as it involves intention of ministers, which are not readily open to objective verification. We can work on very well-founded presumptions, but such historical facts (not backed up by divine revelation) are never considered to reach the level of certainty of faith (one cannot even say with certainty of faith that one has grace - why set the bar any higher for matrimony?).

 

[bobzills]

Yes, there is unity, along the following lines.

1. Those who have married according to proper form are presumed to be married.
2. Those who have requested an examination of the validity of such a marriage receive a verdict from a tribunal upon which all may act with moral certainty.

Reception of the sacraments is a contingent matter, especially as it involves intention of ministers, which are not readily open to objective verification. We can work on very well-founded presumptions, but such historical facts (not backed up by divine revelation) are never considered to reach the level of certainty of faith (one cannot even say with certainty of faith that one has grace - why set the bar any higher for matrimony?).

Becasue the SSPX does not accept the annulments and insists on setting up its own tribunal to examine each case.

 

[I_Believe]

Do Catholics have to believe that artificial birth control is wrong? If so, then how come a commission of Catholics set up by Pope Paul VI said that the teaching should be changed?
Also, if Catholics are supposed to believe that it is wrong to vote pro-choice, how come a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, Father Drinan, was the most pro-abortion Congressman ever in the history of the USA?

Usurpation.