That’s an excellent question. I’m not sure I should go into it too much in this thread, but a couple points:
We don’t see an explosion in other groups because they’ve already had theirs.
Wow, you have the best understanding of this that I have heard yet. Thank-you.Vatican II reaffirmed every single teaching of the Church from the time of Christ to the present. It is not true that the Council departed from previous teachings of the Church. It reworded some teachings, added more theology and scripture to others, but changed none.
The changes that the Council proposed were not to teachings, they were to pastoral practices. There is a big misunderstanding among many Catholics that everything the Church ever taught was an official teaching, especially regarding the form of the mass. These were official because they came from the Church, but they were not dogmas. No dogma was touched by the Council.
Of course there were misunderstandings. But those who like to believe that every other council the Church has had went without a glitch are living in a fantasy land. The Council of Trent took more than 100 years to be correctly implemented and understood. The Councils of Chalcedon and Alexandria both had to take place to address the same questions, because the answers were not clear the first time around. Even after that, there were still debates and still are to this day.
Vatican I is still in discussion and there are still unanswered questions about it among scholars and bishops.
Every Council stirs up a great deal of dust. With each one, there is always a group of people who rebel or throw in the towel and leave the Church. It is very human to become frustrated and to run whn frustration strikes instead of riding the storm. That’s the greatest difference between a saint and a demon. Satan is a coward.
JR
You know no matter what the Church does its gets it don’t it? I think that the reason there are more annulments is the the world is more corrupt today then ever.
Check this article out: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
Verbum
The issue is not the number of annulments. The issue is the number of people being invalidly married. This suggests a lack of good preparation for marriage.
Excellent point!The issue is not the number of annulments. The issue is the number of people being invalidly married. This suggests a lack of good preparation for marriage.
JR
Because they show you were wrong to say: “I believe the increase in annulments reflects the increase in divorce rates across the board throughout society.”
But if 95% of everyone in the Catholic world is not married, then where does that leave us?The issue is not the number of annulments. The issue is the number of people being invalidly married. This suggests a lack of good preparation for marriage.
JR
Ah, I see…this is all about proving me wrong. Wonder what I did to make myself so special.
Stats in post #76 show your assumption is wrong.
That leaves us with a society that does not properly understand the marriage covenant, which we can’t deny. This is true not only among Catholics. It’s a phenomena that has been promoted by the secular consumer society that says you can always return it, if you’re not satisfied.
Welcome, Christi!What a way to make a splash into the forum with my first post
While it may be easy or convenient to blame VII for all the changes we see in our parishes I think many of the posters to this thread have missed the bigger picture.
While I would wholeheartedly agree that the Mass may seem “less sacred” then it once. That was NOT the intention of nor do I think it can be blamed on VII. I think the general malaise we see and many ascribe to VII can be blamed on society asnd the decline in morality in general…
Society is drastically different now than it was in the 60’s the results of those drastic differences are felt everywhere and in all aspects of our lives. In the 60’s it was common practice for folks to leave their doors unlocked, offer assistance to strangers, act with proper reverence in church… Sadly it seems all of things have gone the way of black and white TV.
Does there seem to be less reverence for the Blessed Sacrament than when I was a kid? absolutely… Do I think we need to do a better job cathecitising (sp?) our children? certainly… I could go on and on. Can we blame VII for that? I think the blame falls squarely where it usually does… with you and me and the person sitting on our left and right each sunday morning.
The abuses we hear of and all to often witness in the liturgy and the sacraments do occur, I do not at all dispute that. However to point the finger at VII is to miss the forrest for the trees IMHO. The blame lies in the way WE as lowly human beings have implemented and interpreted the Holy Spirits actions in VII.
When we start to think we know better than the Spirit of Truth who can do no wrong and can not lie, or the Holy See… perhaps we should spend more time practicing the virtue of humility…
Pax Christi
But it is true only among Catholics that annulments are recognised for the most trivial of reasons, such as spending too much time at the gym. If 95% of all Catholics are not really married, then what does that say about the credibility of Catholic Sacaraments. How do we know then that the same may hold true for 95% of all baptisms possibly being invalid for some trivial reason or another?That leaves us with a society that does not properly understand the marriage covenant, which we can’t deny. This is true not only among Catholics. It’s a phenomena that has been promoted by the secular consumer society that says you can always return it, if you’re not satisfied.
JR
This is no reflection on the sacraments. The sacraments are efficacious. However, in the Sacrament of Matrimony, certain conditions must be present for the sacrament to be valid. The issue is not whether the sacrament is valid. It is always valid.
I notice that you mention that one of the grounds for an annulment is (5) immaturity. But did you know that “A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage”This is no reflection on the sacraments. The sacraments are efficacious. However, in the Sacrament of Matrimony, certain conditions must be present for the sacrament to be valid. The issue is not whether the sacrament is valid. It is always valid.
When we say that a marriage is invalid, we are not saying that the sacrament is invalid. We are saying that the sacrament never took place.
In the sacrament of Baptism, this is very different. Baptism depends on the words, the use of water, the intention of the person doing the baptizing, not the person being baptized. A person can be baptized against their will and the baptism is valid. A person cannot be married against their will, just an example.
The conditions for impair the sacrament of marriage from taking place.
Hypothetically, a husband or wife who spends too much time at the gym may have a problem with priorities that he or she brought into the marriage, rather than acquired later. If this can be proven, then the marriage bond is invalid. The person never had the proper priorities to begin with. This is a very vague and sketchy response, but I hope you get the picture.
- Marrying because you feel that you must marry, such as a pregnancy
- Not believing in the permanency of marriage
- Not wanting to have as many children as God sends
- Believing that one can leave a marriage if it does not go well
- Immaturity (regardless of age)
- Addictive personalities
- Homosexual or lesbian feelings
- Lack of commitment to the spouse prior to the marriage
- Infidelity before the marriage
- Lack of faith in the sacrament
- Lack of proper preparation for marriage, such as poor pre-marital preparation
Fraternally,
JR