V
Vico
Guest
See this thread “**Original Sin - Catholic and Orthodox” **and you find a discussion about ancestal vs original sin.
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
Those interested can see the requirements for a decree of nullity concerning a marriage from EWTN at:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=573426&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Annulments&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=6&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
A declaration of nullity is a decree issued by a Church Tribunal stating that a marriage is invalid. A declaration of nullity does not dissolve a marriage, as if it was a type of divorce granted by the Church. It does not mean that the human relationship was void of meaning. Rather, a declaration of nullity is a ruling of the Church’s court that says that some essential ingredient was lacking in a marriage from the time of consent. A declaration of nullity has no civil consequences, and it does not say that no civil marriage existed. A declaration of nullity does not render children illegitimate in the Church (canon 1137). Several causes can make a marriage invalid. The problem with the consent, however, must be something that was present at the time of the marriage and not merely be a change in attitude or behavior that developed later.
Laxity in granting annulments has been condemned by John Paul II, and is part of that laxity of some bishops which has existed from apostolic times.
Also see:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=497617&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Annulments&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=50&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=573426&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Annulments&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=6&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
A declaration of nullity is a decree issued by a Church Tribunal stating that a marriage is invalid. A declaration of nullity does not dissolve a marriage, as if it was a type of divorce granted by the Church. It does not mean that the human relationship was void of meaning. Rather, a declaration of nullity is a ruling of the Church’s court that says that some essential ingredient was lacking in a marriage from the time of consent. A declaration of nullity has no civil consequences, and it does not say that no civil marriage existed. A declaration of nullity does not render children illegitimate in the Church (canon 1137). Several causes can make a marriage invalid. The problem with the consent, however, must be something that was present at the time of the marriage and not merely be a change in attitude or behavior that developed later.
Laxity in granting annulments has been condemned by John Paul II, and is part of that laxity of some bishops which has existed from apostolic times.
Also see:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=497617&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Annulments&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=50&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
G
Ghosty
Guest
, Christian Classics, 1978, p 126].
No one may choose to interpret a Magisterial text to their own opinion, in a way contrary to that of the Magisterium and expect to override the Magisterium; of such is the selfism so prevalent in fallen human nature – private opinion. Of such have all the heresies and schisms arisen. So long as Christ’s Magisterium is denigrated, so long will the divisions remain.
As St Paul teaches: “a multitude, through one man’s disobedience, became sinners” (Rom 5:19). Our guilt lies in our human nature received sinful from Adam’s nature.
Similarly: The solemn teaching is: that God gave Adam Sanctifying Grace and immunity from death; Adam lost these gifts by his sin, became an enemy of God and slave of the devil; Adam transmitted his guilt and its evil consequences to all his posterity; man still has his free will. (Council of Trent). [My original citation from* Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 360].
Baptism remits the guilt of original sin, that is, human nature in the fallen state resulting from the willful disobedience of Adam and Eve, and incorporates one into the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It infuses sanctifying grace into the soul of the recipient and imparts an indelible character.
Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].
Nothing you’ve cited goes against what I said, except the incorrect translations of Trent. I never said we don’t inherit Original Sin, I said we don’t inherit guilt. Again, check out the actual text of Trent to see what is taught. Here’s what the Catechism says:
This is why Trent says reatum and not culpa. The term guilt, in modern English, denotes personal fault, and we most certainly do not bear any kind of fault for Adam’s sin.
Peace and God bless!
V
Vico
Guest
The key word is “almost”. A reason for so many annullments could be that there are truly very few valid marriages due to misunderstanding the comittment of marriage, which simplified, is that it is sacramental and must be open to children, perpetual, and exclusive, or there may be psychological problems which make one of them unfit for marriage, such that they cannot form a valid marriage, or impediments such as misrepresentations. Or it can be that a Catholic attempts marriage outside of the Catholic Church, then there is no marriage at all, marital relations are then actually fornication (in this case it is not even assumed to be valid and does not require a tribunal but only documentation of being non canonical). Or a ratified marriage, that is not consummated, can also be found null, for it is not complete until consummated. No declaration of nullity is given until another marriage is attempted.
S
sidbrown
Guest
According to an article in Catholic World Report, January 2010, page 16, the number of Catholic marriages is way down, to about 60% of what it was in 1965, but the number of cohabiting couples is way up. And we see that at the same time, the number of marriage annulments is way up from what it was in 1965. So what is the conclusion? Could it be that Catholic couples are saying why bother with marriage, when several years from now, a Church tribunal can declare the marriage null and void for some trivial psychological defect, so we were really never married in the first place anyway.
A
Aramis
Guest
His grace Basil is a former Independent Orthodox Bishop and monk, who is currently practicing in one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. He’s experience in both canonical and uncanonical (by the Eastern Orthodox Communion’s standards, that is) Orthodoxy.
He’s that practical gray area: Orthodox, but receiving in the Catholic Communion.
G
Ghosty
Guest
In other words, he’s as Melkite as anyone. If he were at our mission he’d likely be on the Parish Council.
Peace and God bless!
M
Madaglan
Guest
I saw bishop basil phoenix in his name, but I did not realize he was an actual bishop.
D
Diak
Guest
You enjoy quoting other sources (EWTN, etc.) which is fine, but you seem to exclude or have problems with actual Magisterial and conciliar statements that have been given to you. You are impying serious things will very little substantiation - I see no theological denial of the things you are purporting are being denied.
I will completely agree with Ghosty, that nothing noncomplimentary from the Eastern Christian position nor transgressing any Magisterial teaching has been presented. I rather have given (not even in its entirety, as it is volumnous) the Magisterial appreciation for the theological, spiritual, and liturgical patrimony of the Christian East. I’ll again quote from the Magisterium at the Second Vatican Council:
You are gravely mistaken in the second part of your definition, and thankfully this is not how this is understood by the Church of Rome in dealing with her Eastern sister Churches. As Pope Leo XIII already acknowledged in Orientalium Dignitas:
As Orientalium Ecclesiarum states in its preface:
“Undivided heritage of the universal Church”. A beautiful phrase indeed.
A
Abu
Guest
The Dogma of Trent on Original Sin teaches the personal guilt of Adam & Eve for Original Sin, but nowhere does the Magisterium assume a personal or actual sin or guilt in Adam’s descendants. What is present in our fallen human nature is the stain of that sin in each of us – we all born sinners (St Paul, Rom 5:19) – Adam transmitted his guilt to our nature – left in a state of sin. That is why the CCC #403 teaches that Adam “has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted….”
The consequences of Adam’s sin and our state of sin are the loss of: sanctifying grace, of integrity, of immortality and happiness (therefore suffering), and of enlightenment.
Baptism remits that state of original sin, and incorporates us into the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It infuses sanctifying grace into the soul of the recipient and imparts an indelible character. All of the other consequences of the inherited original sinful state of our nature remain – our growth in holiness depends on our cooperation with the redemption of Jesus to enable salvation.
The accusations of fallibility in the teaching against contraception, of falsehood in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the falsehood that the Church allows divorce and remarriage, also remain without any justification.
The consequences of Adam’s sin and our state of sin are the loss of: sanctifying grace, of integrity, of immortality and happiness (therefore suffering), and of enlightenment.
Baptism remits that state of original sin, and incorporates us into the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It infuses sanctifying grace into the soul of the recipient and imparts an indelible character. All of the other consequences of the inherited original sinful state of our nature remain – our growth in holiness depends on our cooperation with the redemption of Jesus to enable salvation.
The accusations of fallibility in the teaching against contraception, of falsehood in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the falsehood that the Church allows divorce and remarriage, also remain without any justification.
V
Vico
Guest
On this forum, back in Jan 2008, puzzleannie posted on the topic of Catholic divorce. And said:
“Every year I deal with approx 20 families in various stages of marriage issues that result in eventual decisions on validity of a first marriage. Half are invalid due to lack of form (one partner was Catholic and did not obey Church laws on marriage). About one quarter are invalid because either party had a previous marriage with civil divorce.”
H
Hesychios
Guest
An Eastern Catholic, in other words … correct?
S
sidbrown
Guest
So in the Catholic world, very few people living together are married, as contrasted with the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox world, where almost everyone is married?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Other statistics are available [here (http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/) …
Interesting facts:
Total Population
- 1965: 45,600,000
- 2009: 65,200,000
- 1965: 58,632
- 2009: 40,666
- 1965: 0
- 2009: 16,380
V
Vico
Guest
I would not conclude that.
You asked before: “Could it be that Catholic couples are saying why bother with marriage, when several years from now, a Church tribunal can declare the marriage null and void for some trivial psychological defect, so we were really never married in the first place anyway.”
My post was just to show the types of issues observed by that one person, in the anullments, of which half are non-canonical, and one quarter are prior marriage. The prior marriages would be canonical marriages, the non-canonical would probably be civil or other church marriages.
Since the mystery of crowning is a covenant between each of the individuals and each with God, it must be founded on truth and understanding for it to be valid. Otherwise it is just on paper and has no indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Y
YADA
Guest
And divorce [in general] and remarriage [outside of the church] are not purely secular or catholic issues - but Orthodox as well …
See here:
helleniccomserve.com/divorce.html
including increases in Orthodox interfaith marriages:
goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/guest-writers/interfaithmarriage
Co-habitating is an issue the Orthodox have to deal with just as the Catholic Church does -
See the issue dealt with here:
goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/attending-to-your-marriage/shouldwe
wwrn.org/articles/28039/?&place=greece-cyp-malta
uocc.ca/en-ca/faith/beliefs/
Both Ortohodox and Catholic Churches struggle with issues that impact the lives of the faithful and work to oppose the ‘secular’ influences … In this we are united - we must continue to build up the Christian family, following Christian ideals - even if we do so imperfectly - we should always strive for what the Church teaches …
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear sister (I finally got that right! 
) 5loaves,
5Loaves:
The distinctive Latin concepts generally include the notions of (1) fire (literal or metaphysical); (2) assignment of temporal quantities of time (i.e., number of years that an indulgence can remit purification in Purgatory; (3) some physical pain as a necessary element of purification. It must also be stressed that these distinctive points of the Latin concept are only theologoumena in the Latin Church. They have never been dogmatically imposed under pain of heresy.
I know that when people talk of “Purgatory,” the Latin concept automatically comes to mind, with all its distinctive (and sometimes objectionable) qualities. At best, we can say that “Purgatory” is a Latin term. But the concept of Purgatory is part and parcel of the recieved Holy Tradition of all our Churches, Western, Eastern, and Oriental.
What non-Catholics oppose about the Catholic teaching on Purgatory is often (always?) the Latin theologoumena, which are wrongly perceived to be what the Catholic Church as a whole teaches.
I believe the proper response by non-Latin Catholic to question about Purgatory should be, as stated above: "Sure, the term Purgatory is from the Latin Church, but St. Paul teaches us not to war over words. What the Catholic Church as a whole teaches about Purgatory is the same.
Hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
) 5loaves,What you have stated here:I don’t know, you’ll need to tell me.
Here’s the whole quote. I welcome being corrected and/or have what I said amplified according to what you’ve asked.
is exactly the dogmatic definition of Purgatory that the Catholic Church has taught. I wish I had the time to look up the links and post it for you, but if you look at the dogmatic decrees of the Lyons, Florence, and Trent (as well as Vatican 1), you will find that what you have stated above is exactly what the Catholic Church has always and ever dogmatically taught about Purgatory.
The distinctive Latin concepts generally include the notions of (1) fire (literal or metaphysical); (2) assignment of temporal quantities of time (i.e., number of years that an indulgence can remit purification in Purgatory; (3) some physical pain as a necessary element of purification. It must also be stressed that these distinctive points of the Latin concept are only theologoumena in the Latin Church. They have never been dogmatically imposed under pain of heresy.
I know that when people talk of “Purgatory,” the Latin concept automatically comes to mind, with all its distinctive (and sometimes objectionable) qualities. At best, we can say that “Purgatory” is a Latin term. But the concept of Purgatory is part and parcel of the recieved Holy Tradition of all our Churches, Western, Eastern, and Oriental.
What non-Catholics oppose about the Catholic teaching on Purgatory is often (always?) the Latin theologoumena, which are wrongly perceived to be what the Catholic Church as a whole teaches.
I believe the proper response by non-Latin Catholic to question about Purgatory should be, as stated above: "Sure, the term Purgatory is from the Latin Church, but St. Paul teaches us not to war over words. What the Catholic Church as a whole teaches about Purgatory is the same.
Hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\Deacon Population
\
While there were no permanent deacons in the Latin Church in 1965, I find it hard to believe there were NO deacons at that time, as all who were ordained priests in 1965 (and still are to this day) have to spend SOME time as a deacon, even if it’s just 24 hours.
Code:
* 1965: 0
* 2009: 16,380While there were no permanent deacons in the Latin Church in 1965, I find it hard to believe there were NO deacons at that time, as all who were ordained priests in 1965 (and still are to this day) have to spend SOME time as a deacon, even if it’s just 24 hours.
- Status