|
Post by katy777 on Aug 17, 2021 22:12:15 GMT
Oops I changed my answer. The church conveys what Jesus told Peter. It teaches to love God, and the Trinity. To hold Mother Mary in hyperdulia and the saints dulia. It teaches that God is love, and to follow Jesus' teachings. And worship.
It also teaches to give God what I can like widows mite. Everybit helps..
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 18, 2021 13:28:49 GMT
Converts say this at the Easter Vigil profess an abbreviated version of this: (from the Vatican website)
PROFESSION OF FAITH
I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 18, 2021 14:08:10 GMT
Converts say this at the Easter Vigil profess an abbreviated version of this: (from the Vatican website) PROFESSION OF FAITH I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed. I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. Thank you for providing this. This says it all. Doesn't say a word about disciplinary matters, or issues of Church governance and order.
IOW, I can think (for instance) that the Church was crazy for erecting a see-city in a tiny little place like Gaylord, Michigan (I don't, just stating the hypothetical), and I am in no way a less-faithful Catholic on account of it. Just saying. (That venerable old Catholic city of Bardstown, Kentucky, in the heart of that state's "God's country", the home of Jim Beam bourbon and front yard Marian shrines, would make far more sense as a see-city, if it weren't for that place up the road called Louisville. The nearby little city of Owensboro, hometown of Catholic Florence Henderson and Protestant Johnny Depp, see-city of its own diocese, also sports some serious Catholic chops of its own. The deacon who laid my father to rest was from Owensboro.)
There would be certain gradations as one moves on up to more important things, such as priestly celibacy, which as I said, as a practical matter is "not quite a doctrine, but more than just a discipline".
FWIW, the Orthodox do not make such sharp (or even subtle) distinctions between doctrine and practical discipline. To them, it's all God-breathed, in their case, "just one big ball of Orthodox". Not to say that such a distinction doesn't exist, it's just not part of their everyday thinking. (I might be overly "Rome-splaining" something about a Christian confession not my own.)
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Aug 31, 2021 7:03:48 GMT
There is a question as to what extent are the marriage annulments of today a "teaching of the church" which must be believed. I personally do not believe that the practice in the USA of granting marriage annulments today corresponds to what was taught about marriage annulments in 1929. There were 9 marriage annulments granted in 1929, whereas in years after Vatican II, the number has risen to 50,000 or more per year in the USA alone. I can only guess that the term "teaching of the church" is a vague and uncertain phrase and that in fact, the "teaching of the church" varies over time. Take for example the question of limbo, or the question of capital punishment, or the question of torture used in the Inquisition.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 31, 2021 16:22:20 GMT
That people in 1929 probably had never been told they could receive and annulment does not mean that people should not pursue one now. There are some reasons why the Church would "annul" some marriages, but there's not all that many reasons. I know many in RCIA who have been denied. It speaks to circumstance, pressure, and whether or not it was a natural or Church union. I will never understand why so many people don't want their brothers and sisters who had a bad situation to come back into the fold and receive the Sacraments. The notion "too bad for you" is egregiously unfair and cruel. There are reasons why people need annulments and they should seek them. A good advocate and the Tribunal handles these things privately and for the good of a person's soul. They are not given out like candy as some people on CAF asserted. Not by a long shot. With 70 million Catholics in the U.S. alone, one would expect more that 9 inquirers.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Aug 31, 2021 18:43:03 GMT
I will never understand why so many people don't want their brothers and sisters who had a bad situation to come back into the fold and receive the Sacraments. Possibly because they take Luke 16:18 seriously. Not just the literal interpretation, but the spirit of what Jesus meant.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 31, 2021 18:49:40 GMT
That's the whole point of an annulment. So people do not remarry without the Church deciding if the marriage was valid.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 31, 2021 23:26:27 GMT
That people in 1929 probably had never been told they could receive and annulment does not mean that people should not pursue one now. There are some reasons why the Church would "annul" some marriages, but there's not all that many reasons. I know many in RCIA who have been denied. It speaks to circumstance, pressure, and whether or not it was a natural or Church union. I will never understand why so many people don't want their brothers and sisters who had a bad situation to come back into the fold and receive the Sacraments. The notion "too bad for you" is egregiously unfair and cruel. There are reasons why people need annulments and they should seek them. A good advocate and the Tribunal handles these things privately and for the good of a person's soul. They are not given out like candy as some people on CAF asserted. Not by a long shot. With 70 million Catholics in the U.S. alone, one would expect more that 9 inquirers. The practice of annulment today, taken all by itself, is not "teaching of the Church", at best, it is sacramental theology applied to concrete situations, a variation on the theme of casuistry. It is a discipline that may be too lenient, may be about right, or might not even be lenient enough. Pope Francis himself has questioned the validity of many modern marriages (due to a lack of understanding what marriage really is), and this time, I agree with him.
In simplest terms, someone who is competent to make such a judgment, sits down and looks at objective facts. If they indicate an invalid marriage, then annulment granted. If the facts do not rise to the level of being able to declare the marriage invalid, then there's no annulment, and everyone either has to live with that, or possibly appeal it to the Roman Rota for a "second look". I guess they could also either move to another diocese, or find another diocese with jurisdiction. When I looked into it (and that's all I did, I never filed), I was told that you either have to do it in the diocese where you got married (in Poland, which would be a logistical nightmare), or in the diocese where you now live. I thought they might be able to do it in the diocese where I lived at the time of our marriage (Arlington), but they said they would have no jurisdiction with me not actually living there now. Probably just as well, Arlington's annulment questionnaire is extremely intrusive. I tried to make the case for having had quasi-domicile in another diocese at the time of marriage (my parents' home, I still kept some things there, went there three or four times a year, had a place to stay, even had a checking account there), sorry, no go.
In all brutal honesty, I probably have more of a preference for not getting married --- a guy gets set in his ways after a certain age --- but it would still be good to have the freedom "just in case", and more importantly, it would free my wife up to regularize her own situation (her "husband" is also in need of a regularization that may or may not have happened, he's divorced too). Eleven years now and she's never filed. No idea why not. It's not that hard.
But if someone can't get an annulment --- if they're turned down --- and doesn't want to jump through the hoops of trying to get the decision reversed (and hoops they would be, oh, boy, would there ever be hoops!) --- an appeal that might fail as well --- then you just realize that you are married, you are not free to marry someone else, and that is just that. Nobody ever died from not being able to be married. Our culture fetishizes the meeting of one's physical and psychological desires no matter what, and that's something many people just can't accept. Celibacy may just be your lot in life. Move on and find other things to make your priority in life. That's what I've done so far. (And no, it wasn't easy. Not a thing easy about it.)
As a bit of an aside, whenever I hear someone say "I can't do that", or (more frequently) "I can't NOT do that", I'm reminded of what activist and humorist Dick Gregory said about smoking. He said that if a white person knew that the next cigarette they smoked would turn them into a black person, would they be able to stop then? Assuming that white person would have an issue with becoming a black person --- and the vast majority of white people at that time would have had an issue with that (to say the least!) --- the question kind of answers itself. I mean no race-baiting in quoting this (after all, it was Mr Gregory who said it, not me, and he was black), I just think it's a useful thought experiment. The reader might wish to let that soak in for awhile.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Sept 1, 2021 8:50:37 GMT
The practice of annulment today, If there is no marriage, are the children of an annulled marriage illegitimate?
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Sept 1, 2021 13:06:45 GMT
ABSOUTELY NOT.
This is an old misconception. The ruling by the Tribunal does not have any bearing of the status of legitimacy of any child. Period.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Sept 1, 2021 13:30:40 GMT
From this website: www.churchannulment.com/faqsIf we had children, can the marriage still be annulled? Yes. One of the legal grounds for annulment is an openness to children; however, that doesn’t mean that a marriage that produced children is restricted from getting an annulment due to other legal grounds. It is a common misconception that an annulment makes children illegitimate in church law. That is false; it does not! Of course, a Catholic annulment is a separate process from a civil divorce, but the Church will ask if the civil obligations are being fulfilled.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Sept 1, 2021 15:12:20 GMT
The ruling by the Tribunal does not have any bearing of the status of legitimacy of any child. The fact that the children are legitimate means then that there was a marriage in the first place. In order for a tribunal to hear a case, the couple must first get divorced. After the tribunal grants the annulment, they are free to remarry. But Jesus said: Luke 16:18: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,"
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Sept 1, 2021 15:49:58 GMT
No, you are mistaken. The legitimacy stems form the Father being KNOWN. Read the link I posted. Read up on Divorce in Biblical times as well.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 1, 2021 22:04:09 GMT
The ruling by the Tribunal does not have any bearing of the status of legitimacy of any child. The fact that the children are legitimate means then that there was a marriage in the first place. In order for a tribunal to hear a case, the couple must first get divorced. After the tribunal grants the annulment, they are free to remarry. But Jesus said: Luke 16:18: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery," No, in this case, legitimacy is a kind of legal fiction, if the Church says they are legitimate, then they are, even though, technically speaking, they were "born out of wedlock" (in that a marriage never existed). It is entirely within the power of the keys of the Church to bind and to loose, again, to create a type of retroactive legal fiction. She does likewise when she grants a sanatio in radice ("healing" of an irregular marriage, even without knowledge of the party opposed to such a thing, if it comes to that). Legal fictions also exist in secular law. From all indications, Ohio was never legally admitted as a state of the Union. When this was discovered, the House went back and "backdated" Ohio's admission to the Union to 1803, when the admission "should have" taken place.
If I may, I am going to take a slightly contrarian tack on this, and say "okay, so what if they were 'illegitimate'? --- that is no reflection upon the child, it's not their fault". It seems that the Church, at least in our time, confers "retroactive legitimacy" as much to mollify the sensibilities of those who would say "being an illegitimate child is a bad thing", as to ensure certain legal rights, in countries that might rely upon the Church to declare legitimacy. As a friend of mine in college so wisely put it, "there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents". How true.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Sept 3, 2021 2:38:09 GMT
"okay, so what if they were 'illegitimate'? --- that is no reflection upon the child, it's not their fault". It has to do with the inheritance rights which at one time in certain countries were available only to legitimate children. Take for example the case of a man who attempts a second marriage, but is already legally married to his first wife. The second marriage has been annulled by the court because he had not divorced and he hid his first marriage from his second wife.The court declares that the second marriage was null and void and that the children were not legitimate and for that reason, the children of the second (attempted) marriage have lesser ( or no) inheritance rights in the case when the father dies without a will. The legitimate children from the first marriage have a greater claim to the inheritance.
|
|