www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Annulments

Dear Brian,

You are right, of course.

But King Henry did what few other Catholic monarchs in Europe at the time did - he wanted the Pope to bless his second marriage.

Other kings, as in Spain, simply had their concubines and that was that.

King Henry VIII was actually considered a pious king for his time.

He prayed the Psalter and Rosary daily, for example, and was, at best, a "Schismatic Roman Catholic."

In fact, although the figures of St Thomas More and others are celebrated as the enemies of King Henry, the fact is that it wasn't so clear cut as that, as you know.

Catherine of Aragon's father not only invaded Rome, he murdered many Catholics and held the Pope of the day in great disdain.

Henry actually hated the emperor for acting in such a way toward the church.

His break with Rome was dictated more by political necessity than by theological conviction.

And his one great love of his life, Catherine Parr, asked him to establish a Benedictine Abbey and have many Masses said for her soul.

After Cromwell finished ravaging the Catholic monasteries, he was shocked to have the King tell him to "go Catholic" again.

Alex

Yeah, no crap! Why do you think I reffered to him as "Blessed"?

Naw! You mean the North Ameircan Church is amok?! I don't now why this has never dawned on any of us ever before . . . :rolleyes:

You sure can.

Are you saying the Church, East or West, has never had her hypocrites?

You really are naive, aren't you?

Claiming marriage is indissoluble, but allowing couples to sin gravely by marrying a second, or a THIRD, time isn't hypocritical?

What would you think about a Church that allowed gay marriages as a concession to human weakness, even as it held gay marriages to be sinful?

What would you think of a Church that allowed the gravely sinful act of artificial contraception as a "concession to human weakness"?

Oh wait, the Orthodox do allow that one . . . :rolleyes:

Dear PaxTecum,

Yes, I must be naive to think you could ever think in terms other than Latin triumphalism tinged with anti-Orthodox sentiments.

The point is that what the Orthodox Church says is what the Orthodox Church practices.

Unlike your Church.

Thank you for pointing out my great naivete in this regard. I can't believe my stupidity in even trying to hold a civil conversation with you.

I won't make that mistake again - ever.

Alex

I want to clear the air here.

Paxtecvm, you better start making an effort to be polite. Please.

Alex, some of your comments are also "triumphalistic"!!!


The situation in America today is simple: a group of tribunals doing something wrong. Why can't you see that, Alex? The Catholic teaching is not hypocritical--certain men who are not infallible are VIOLATING Catholic teaching. THAT is the problem. It is wrong of you to use this in order to throw mud on the Catholic understanding of the indissolubility of marriage.

LatinTrad

Whatever happened to the idea of separating and not remarrying? Isn't that what the Catechism teaches? If I went through a marriage that was so bad I wanted to end it, I certainly wouldn't want to remarry and go through it AGAIN with someone else!!!

Dear LT,

O.K., if I sound triumphalistic, I apologise.

I've never heard PaxTecum apologise for anything, especially not to Cantor Joseph for calling his views "heretical."

So that must mean that we Byzantines are better than you Latins . . .er . . . sorry about that.

So you are saying, do I have this right, that it is the fault of lay tribunals.

And who is running the Church, laity or bishops?

Don't bishops have to approve those annulments?

But it is not their fault because of liberal laity?

Again, so what if the RC Church believes in this or that thing - if its general practice goes against it.

And this isn't comparable to a situation like birth control where laity choose to simply ignore the Church's teaching.

In this case, episcopal approval is needed for annulments, is it not?

What is the extent of the Church's subversion in the U.S.?

I've heard, on EWTN, about an organization of Catholics, so-called, who are all over the U.S. and who are working to subvert its moral teaching - including priests and even some bishops.

What's the score there?

Again, it is not good when what the Church says and what the Church does isn't in agreement.

Agreed?

Alex

Dear Tammy,

But I think the point is that these people want church annulments so that they can get remarried in the RC Church.

Otherwise, they can separate, get a civil divorce and live their lives alone without bothering with an annulment - is that not correct?

And why aren't you on a marriage tribunal?

Alex

What do you mean, "so what"?

So, the true faith is preserved!

How individuals apply this teaching is something God will judge. It's our responsibility to live in accord with this teaching regardless.

I know. I just don't see why they would WANT to remarry if their first marriage was so BAD they had to END it.

Ha, ha! I've done civil jury duty and that's bad enough! Seriously, I don't think I'm a good candidate to pass judgment on the sacramentality of other people's marriages, or lack thereof.

Dear Tammy,

Well, I think the reason many get divorced (or, if one is a Roman Catholic in North America, "annulled") is to find a "better" partner in however a way they define it.

The sacramentality of the marriage in marriage tribunals seems to be the thing that is swept under the carpet for convenience' sake.

And if RC bishops approve of such annulments, which it would appear that indeed they do, then they are giving the Church's approval to them.

That would appear to suggest that they are themselves changing Catholic teaching on marriage, whether or not they have the power to do it.

But I haven't heard Rome stop the process and there haven't been any mass waves of episcopal firings that I'm aware of.

Again, so what if the RC Church says this or that, if its own bishops don't follow it or else "reinterpret" it in a way that is clearly not in keeping with the original meaning of that teaching.

One doesn't have to be an Eastern Catholic to ask these questions.

Many traditional Roman Catholics do this all the time.

Some of these I actually like.

Alex

I am going with LatinTrad on this one.

Church teaching on declarations of nullity are correct and are the traditonal teaching of the Church. Ahh...but in practice marriage tribunals make mistakes and petitioners may decieve the tribunal.

My priest friend who was a judge on a tribunal told me just because you get a declaration of nullity doesn't mean that you don't have to answer for a marriage after divorce when you go before the judgement seat of Christ.

Paul

Slava Isusu Christu!

But does not the Church believe in [ilex orandi, lex credendi[/i]?

Is this not the point that the good Dr. Roman is making, that the praxis of the Roman Catholic Church in North America is a reflection of what it believes? Argue about what is the "true belief" all you want, but people practice what they believe, and, sadly, annulments are being used as "Catholic divorces" in the United States.

Instead of arguing with Alex over the nuances of what this means and telling him he's wrong, perhaps we all should pray for a return to the proper practice of what the Roman Catholic Church says that She believes.

In Christ,
mikey.

Hello Mickey,

Lex orandi, lex credendi means:

law of prayer is law of belief.

it has nothing to do with praxis.

I hope I understood your post about that.

Paul

Dear Mikey,

Yes, bingo! (No Catholic pun intended . . .)

Speaking of naivete, I have a serious problem with exactly what you've raised.

Annulments were never intended to be as copious as they appear to be in the U.S. today.

Psychological reports on marriage partners fitness to remain within the marriage - these are accepted by Latin Church authority.

The traditional Latins here have argued to lay the blame on laity on the tribunals.

That doesn't cut it.

The Church doesn't have to act on what the laity recommend - or what psychologists prescribe.

Traditionalist RC's are faced with a major problem that they appear content to simply bury their heads in the sand over - the inconsitency between what the U.S. Church says and then does on marriage annulment.

Paul said that the annulments are in keeping with Church teaching.

I'm only suggesting that if that is the case, then the RC Church in America has "raised the bar" on how one may obtain an annulment from previous times.

And IF that is the case, what becomes of the traditionalist RC case that the Church's teachings are the same in these matters, never change and the Orthodox Church is wrong etc.

In fact, if one compares the rules governing Orthodox Church annulment grants, they are clearly of a much more specific nature than the granting of an annulment in the RC Church on the basis of a psychological report.

And these RC annulments are approved by the Church in the U.S.

So who is heretical or wrong here? The laity? The Bishops for approving the annulments on the basis of lay advice? The priests involved? Who?

It isn't quite the simple matter of saying, "Well, there is a lot of liberality and modernism in the Church."

It is the U.S. church and her bishops that approve this.

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

I am aware of what lex orandi, lex credendi means. I was applying that principle to marriage tribunals, which are, for better or worse, official bodies of each local Roman Catholic Church. As such, they reflect on the prayer life of that church. Lex orandi also carries with it a connotation of how one practices one's faith, not just through prayer but through living. Should not we, as Christians, be "praying unceasingly" as St. Paul tells us? Is not everything we do a form of prayer?

I hope that clarifies my use of lex orandi, lex credendi for you and apologize for not making it clearer at the beginning.

In Christ,
mikey. (not miCkey...my ears aren't THAT big )