Posted on 09/08/2015 5:07:28 AM PDT by NYer
It’s my understanding that it becomes an issue for the Orthodox Church if an individual seeks to be married again after a previous marriage ends (otherwise, there isn’t a sacramental question). The bishop of that Diocese will receive a letter from the priest who is to conduct the wedding of that individual and will then either grant or deny the request for a second marriage to be performed.
I understand that the second marriage ceremony is actually different from the standard and includes prayers of repentance for the first marriage.
Attempting to change doctrine and succeeding at changing doctrine are two different things. No one said the Holy Spirit would prevent popes from attempting to change doctrine, only that they wouldn't succeed.
A judicial process is not doctrine, however much it may undermine doctrine. We are not guaranteed that the pope will be smart, competent, effective, a good preacher, that he will smile a lot, or even be a good person. We are only guaranteed that he will not teach as true a matter of faith or morals that is not true.
Papal infallibility is actually quite narrow, and quite rare. For a pope to be infallible he must:
The last time that happened was when Pope St. John Paul II said that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women priests. Before that was in 1950 when when Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Here's the language Pope Pius XII used to invoke the charism of infallibility:
Here's how John Paul II put it:
In both cases they made it clear that it was a matter of faith and/or morals, that they intended to invoke infallibility, and that all Christians now in the future were bound to hold that belief.
There is still debate among orthodox—that is to say, "right believing"—theologians about whether or not canonizations are infallible.
I believe you’re correct.
It’s important to understand, though, that the Orthodox Churches do NOT require a declaration that the first marriage never really existed before approving a second marriage. Thus, they hold that either a) the first marriage somehow ended before one of the spouses died, or b) that it is OK to be in more than one marriage at a time.
Neither of those two possibilities conforms to Catholic doctrine and therefore, neither of them is a suitable model for the Catholic Church to follow.
I think it is unfortunate that the Orthodox churches are known by that name. The word Orthodox means “right believing”, and they are not “right believing” in this matter or in some others. They are closer than most Protestants, but don’t forget that they are schismatic and therefore, no longer forming part of the Catholic Church, have lost the charism of infallibility.
I respectfully disagree, and evidently so does Cardinal Burke in some respect as referenced in #16 above.
I agree that Pope Francis undermining doctrine, but he's not changing it. At least not in an ex cathedra way.
Cardinal Burke is speaking in generic terms, and did not specifically cite this process. If you feel that the Pope is indeed changing a Doctrine please tell me which one he is changing.
However, this is an end-run around the whole thing in order to change doctrine - without having to get into the messy question of the fact that you can’t change it. Not even if you’re the Pope.
So what we have now is a de facto divorce: automatic unless there’s one party who wants to contest it, no defender of the bond, mostly laypeople (bureaucrats equivalent to a county clerk) involved in the process, a wide range of vague reasons that can be interpreted any way you want, and a nice low fee. Heck, maybe they should install an annulment vending machine in front of the diocesan headquarters.
Look for a process to make annulments retroactive - that is, currently divorced and remarried people will be given a special fast track (one of the “reasons” for an annulment was living with someone else). They’ll be processed right through and then will be free to marry again (or at any rate, continue their second “marriage,” now legitimized. Just wait.
Again Specifically tell me what doctrine is being changed.
What I realized is that he does things the way Obama does - through administrative means, by issuing the equivalent of an Executive Order which renders any law or discussion immediately pointless.
He achieves his goals exactly the way Obama or any other leftist does.
Did you read my post? I said no doctrine is being changed. What he is doing is proceeding, through an executive action, to change the practice in such a way that marriage is not insoluble - without having to “proclaim” anything.
Then you follow it up with: without having to get into the messy question of the fact that you can’t change it. Not even if you’re the Pope.
Which is a contradiction. either He is changing it or he is not, If you believe that he is changing it then please tell me what doctrine he is changing.
Exactly! But from a theological perspective, we need to be clear. Undermining a doctrine with lax practice is not the same thing as actually changing it. Moving the tabernacle to a closet off to the side doesn't formally change the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but it certainly changes it in peoples' minds. And that's what he's doing here. It's my suspicion that he's doing it so that it becomes harder and harder to distinguish between annulment and divorce so that a future pope will formally change the doctrine. That won't happen, of course, but there's nothing to stop him from trying.
Look for a process to make annulments retroactive - that is, currently divorced and remarried people will be given a special fast track (one of the “reasons” for an annulment was living with someone else). They’ll be processed right through and then will be free to marry again (or at any rate, continue their second “marriage,” now legitimized. Just wait.
In my darkest predictions I did not see this. But you're right. That'll be coming.
NO you did not. If I read your post correctly you seem to disagree with the change in the process. That is not the Doctrine.
My point is that this is having the effect of changing the doctrine - without actually changing it, since he knows that he can’t.
Everybody expected something like this to be the “pastoral solution” that would come out of the Synod, but he has now completely eliminated any possibility of objection from orthodox cardinals and has simply turned annulment into defacto no-fault divorce.
This annulment “revision” process was started last year, but it was with a view to making it more authentic and not reducing it to a quickie divorce. The Pope just unilaterally did what he wanted to do, which was make it a quickie divorce.
The next big thing will be “gay marriage.” The German, Austrian and Swiss bishops are in favor of this (well, with the exception of Muller and a couple of others) and, frankly, I think that was what they wanted the so-called Synod to focus on all along. So brace yourself for that one.
I don’t think he can do that with an “executive order” (motu proprio) but he’ll find a way.
The rightly-named Orthodox Churches do not hold that one can be in two marriages at the same time.
Then there are only two other possible explanations for their practice of allowing second marriages while the first spouse is still alive:
Neither of these beliefs is "orthodox" (with a lower case "o").
Third possibility, that one of the spouses was insincere about their vows and thus turned the marriage into a legal fiction.
100% Orthodox!
But I do have to note that so many of the recent changes we’ve seen in the Roman Catholic Church has moved them closer to the Orthodox position.
Now if the Pope will just stay away from the “Liberation Theology” sinkhole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.