Quote:

---

You have vaguely referenced that our liturgy is invalid (or whatever term you would use) without offering specifics, despite the request for them

---

Hey man, this untrue. I don't believe that and never said it, and in fact explicitly denied taking this stance.

The thing that makes this more than simply uncharitable is that YOU were the one that pressed the issue multiple times about whether or not the liturgy was invalid, when I never brought it up.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You have vaguely referenced that our liturgy is invalid (or whatever term you would use) without offering specifics, despite the request for them

---

Hey man, this untrue. I don't believe that and never said it, and in fact explicitly denied taking this stance.

The thing that makes this more than simply uncharitable is that YOU were the one that pressed the issue multiple times about whether or not the liturgy was invalid, when I never brought it up.

---

I apologize if this came across as more than uncharitable. The reason for the phrase "whatever term you would use" was specifically to avoid accusing you of claiming our liturgy as "invalid", as you had previously said you would not take a formal stance on the matter. I simply have no other word for it in my lexicon, am at a loss to define your issue, and was trying to leave open the fact that you may not agree with the verbiage.

I also acknowledged that it is me pressing the issue when I said that I requested specifics.

So in order to try and leave this conversation as charitably as I can, let me avoid any potential accusations of liturgical invalidity and substitute it with this: You have declined to substantially explain your problems with our liturgy (which you acknowledge are specific differences, and therefore should be readily identifiable) but you did not refrain from using said problems as a barrier to reunion.

Yes, I did decline other than the entire spirit and outcome of Vatican II, but then we had a whole discussion about how teaching and praxis are hand in glove and other RCC posters specifically agreed with me.

Suffice to say your whole list is like that, much like the rest of the conversation a willful misunderstanding of what I say, or intentionally saying things I did not, or ignoring where I repeatedly point out these are real East/west differences that you do not understand. But it is too much to say that I have made the charge that your liturgy is invalid, so I had to respond to that.

There are some liturgical rites within the catholic church that are just as old if not a bit older than the tried and true St. John Chrysosdom's Liturgy used every sunday in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The conversation here is actually about everything but that. Like how the Pope has the power to change the liturgies and that the power of the pope has neither resulted in uniformity nor constancy. And the extension of that power to change via the pope is the power to continually try to drill down further and further defining canon and how christianity lines up against philosophy. That is why most catholic liturgies aren't very old at all, because someone does have the power to change them.

Zobel is underplaying the point that there are differences between east and west that shape priors and what even is asked as a question within theological contexts.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

There are some liturgical rites within the catholic church that are just as old if not a bit older than the tried and true St. John Chrysosdom's Liturgy used every Sunday in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The conversation here is actually about everything but that. Like how the Pope has the power to change the liturgies and that the power of the pope has neither resulted in uniformity nor constancy. And the extension of that power to change via the pope is the power to continually try to drill down further and further defining canon and how Christianity lines up against philosophy. That is why most catholic liturgies aren't very old at all, because someone does have the power to change them.

Zobel is underplaying the point that there are differences between east and west that shape priors and what even is asked as a question within theological contexts.

---

How things are different today versus the late 19th century... Pope Pius IX is reported to have said when being presented with a show of support for adding St Joseph into the Roman Canon (Eucharistic prayer I or the Anaphora): "I cannot do that; I am only the Pope."

747Ag said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

There are some liturgical rites within the catholic church that are just as old if not a bit older than the tried and true St. John Chrysosdom's Liturgy used every Sunday in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The conversation here is actually about everything but that. Like how the Pope has the power to change the liturgies and that the power of the pope has neither resulted in uniformity nor constancy. And the extension of that power to change via the pope is the power to continually try to drill down further and further defining canon and how Christianity lines up against philosophy. That is why most catholic liturgies aren't very old at all, because someone does have the power to change them.

Zobel is underplaying the point that there are differences between east and west that shape priors and what even is asked as a question within theological contexts.

---

How things are different today versus the late 19th century... Pope Pius IX is reported to have said when being presented with a show of support for adding St Joseph into the Roman Canon (Eucharistic prayer I or the Anaphora): "I cannot do that; I am only the Pope."

---

But the pope didn't just waive his hand and change it. It was a council that called for changes to the liturgy. It was a group of bishops (that admittedly asked for outside council, wise or not) that worked through the changes and Pope Paul VI's role was to approve or not. He chose not to overrule the will of his brother bishops. Had he overruled them, he would be a dictator. By not overruling them, somehow it's his fault alone. I'm fine with that as long as we give credit to all the times the pope also overruled abject heresy against the will of his brother bishops, like in the robber council of Ephesus.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

There are some liturgical rites within the catholic church that are just as old if not a bit older than the tried and true St. John Chrysosdom's Liturgy used every sunday in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The conversation here is actually about everything but that. Like how the Pope has the power to change the liturgies and that the power of the pope has neither resulted in uniformity nor constancy. And the extension of that power to change via the pope is the power to continually try to drill down further and further defining canon and how christianity lines up against philosophy. That is why most catholic liturgies aren't very old at all, because someone does have the power to change them.

Zobel is underplaying the point that there are differences between east and west that shape priors and what even is asked as a question within theological contexts.

---

Are you suggesting that your councils, or even your patriarch, are incapable of changing the liturgy? If every bishop acts as pope in his region, then every bishop reserves that power, no? Clearly the liturgy has had changes since 34 AD, so someone or some groups have the power to change it, right?

That said, if we want to say the conversation is about everything but the liturgy, I'm ok with that. I was questioning the reasoning behind using the changes in liturgy as a barrier to unity. Do you view the separate liturgies as reason not to commune? Or is the main reason just papal supremacy/infallibility with the liturgy as an aside?

want to add one other thing

Quote:

---

- You have repeatedly said we view marriage as a legal contract despite this not being our teaching, as I have stated

---

So, some funny things is that in this thread, there is a quote from a Pope who uses the term "the matrimonial contract" and "contracted marriage" and "the marriage contract"

And the whole discussion was not about marriage in the abstract, but specifically about annulment. The problem is you seem to be creating a dichotomy between a legal contract and a sacrament. I don't think this is tenable within your own tradition.

This person - canon law doctorate, who was in charge of an RCC marriage tribunal and is still a presiding judge - describes an annulment as this:

Quote:

---

An ecclesiastic annulment is a declaration by the Church that a marriage which was thought to be valid was not legally binding. This might be because of some defect in the consent given on the day of the wedding, or possibly a defect in the psychological capacity of one of the parties.

When an annulment is granted, the Church is not saying that there never was a marriage. The union certainly was a sociological fact, and the memory of it may even be cherished, but the legal contract on which it was based turned out to be invalid.

---

And describes "defective consent" as

Quote:

---

If, on the day of the wedding, one of the parties lies about an essential property of the marriage, it amounts to fraud going to the heart of the contract.

---

So - again - not sure why the ire. Or maybe it should be directed elsewhere.

I am going against my better judgement responding to this, but I will attempt to show the difference in hopes that this is a genuine desire to get my perspective.

Excerpts from the catechism of the Catholic Church, paragrpahs 1601-1666:

Quote:

---

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament

The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent;

The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."

If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act.

Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children

---

If you want to control F the document, you will see that the marriage itself is never referred to as a contract. It is a covenant with contractual elements

I don't really feel like doing the same amount of work as I have on the past 4 pages to analogize this, so I'm going to do a bare minimum job here:

The New Covenant is not a legal contract, and yet we recognize there are conditions that we must meet (what you call faithfulness in another thread) which get both our our faiths labeled as legalistic by outsiders. The Church is not in a legal contract with God, yet we have ecclesiastical laws governing bishops, jurisdiction, etc that we have received with the Holy Spirit's guidance to stay in right standing with Him. Baptism is a sacrament, but it has contractual elements (form, matter and intent). I can go on.

While the word "contract" may be tossed around loosely due to it's ease in explaining marriage to the average person, this is not the formal teaching of the Church. You can find tons of videos on youtube explaining the difference, and the fact that there are so many stems for the way people casually call it a contract.

I don't believe I am misunderstanding the early church. I agree that the earliest liturgies themselves were still based on a tradition being handed on. What I am saying is that they have changed, and was done so by apostolic authority of the apostles successors. Those successors still exist today, so unless they have lesser abilities than a bishop in the 400s, capacity for change should still exists today. I appreciate the context you have provided, but can I get clarity from you on that?

I get you are saying "it's not about the liturgies" but can I get clarity on your view of potential reunion necessitating changes to our liturgy? Or are you saying if we rejected papal infallibility the downstream effects would naturally be a reversion of our liturgy to a prior form? Lastly, have you ever read the novus ordo mass? I'm really looking for specifics on exactly what it is that causes this heartburn for the east outside of aesthetics.

I have brought up two ways the office of the papacy and the infallible magisterium has protected the west in a way id did not in the east:

1. Divorce and remarriage at the request/pressure of government forces. Jesus says it is adultery to remarry after divorce. Even if we want to grant the caveat of "except in cases of adultery", we are still seeing situations where people are seeking the priests blessing to commit what Jesus called adultery. This is as equally and horrifyingly scandalous to me as your view of our liturgies changing

2. Artificial contraception. We have a truck load of evidence of significant change on moral teaching in a contemporary setting. There were many inside of our church (and a ton of external pressure) that wanted a change, yet the pope stood resolute and settled the issue. I see no such structure in EO for something like that to happen and we see a sweeping change with seemingly no internal recognition of it. Because there was no way to teach it definitively when the consensus was there (as widely evidenced from 1960 and before), contraception eventually is given varying degrees of license.

This means that if I wanted to convert to orthodoxy, I have to consider which patriarch I want to align under. This isn't an issue for those already born and baptized into EO, but from the outside, if I want to make a well reasoned choice, I have the ability to bring my own understanding of the faith with me. If I see contraception as licit, I will want to make sure I find a priest/bishop who will allow for it. If I plan on using IVF, I need to make sure to align with a priest/bishop who will allow it. At the current moment, if I feel a desire to be in union with Constantinople, I will have to choose the correct church to join, as not all are. Or if I wanted to be aligned with Moscow.

This would fall under an east/west difference, I'm sure. From the outside, it looks like a significant lack of unity despite the liturgy being standard.

The wording of this is extremely confusing but the key word is "above human law". Referring to marriage as a contract is bound to cause confusion and I'm not sure why they do that because in the context they make it clear that if it's a contract at all it's a contract between a couple who becomes 1 and God.

I've only heard marriage explained as a covenant, something that is unbreakable. With that being said there is a ton of gymnastics that occur during modern annulments that have essentially made them "Catholic divorce".

I had an in-law (far removed) who was granted an annulment after 37 years of marriage and 4 children, ridiculous. Annulments are supposed to be extremely rare, used only when there's evidence that a marriage was not actually effected, not just from someone who has grown tired of being married.

The Banned said:

---

I don't believe I am misunderstanding the early church. I agree that the earliest liturgies themselves were still based on a tradition being handed on. What I am saying is that they have changed, and was done so by apostolic authority of the apostles successors. Those successors still exist today, so unless they have lesser abilities than a bishop in the 400s, capacity for change should still exists today. I appreciate the context you have provided, but can I get clarity from you on that?

Again, what does less authority even mean? And why does it matter that you can change what has been handed you? The early church was tasked as a whole with a different mission than we are. Nobody joins the priesthood to change the liturgy. Thats not a thing. Priests sign up nowadays knowing full well that the 'norming period' of christianity has passed.

I get you are saying "it's not about the liturgies" but can I get clarity on your view of potential reunion necessitating changes to our liturgy? Or are you saying if we rejected papal infallibility the downstream effects would naturally be a reversion of our liturgy to a prior form? Lastly, have you ever read the novus ordo mass? I'm really looking for specifics on exactly what it is that causes this heartburn for the east outside of aesthetics.

Their is no means of reunion on compromising terms. As both sides hold no position they don't consider fullness of the faith and thus aren't willing to cut. I'm saying that the rise of the bishop of Rome to the office of infallible See has lead to a thousand years of slowly meddling with things to the point that they are very different on closer inspection. Thats why I said Orthodox wouldn't have an issue with an unchanged liturgy from 1900 years ago, but would have an issue with the same liturgy if it was meddled with over time. Its not even whats inside the new mass, its the fact its a new mass. The argument is so far up into priors you can't even see it here.

I have brought up two ways the office of the papacy and the infallible magisterium has protected the west in a way id did not in the east:

1. Divorce and remarriage at the request/pressure of government forces. Jesus says it is adultery to remarry after divorce. Even if we want to grant the caveat of "except in cases of adultery", we are still seeing situations where people are seeking the priests blessing to commit what Jesus called adultery. This is as equally and horrifyingly scandalous to me as your view of our liturgies changing.

Man, I have no desire to take a 1000 years of church differences and only examine in through marriage. Zobel's done a good job here trying to explain it. My weak understanding (because divorce isn't really an area I spend much time on) is that divorce is bad, Jesus has spoken out how he did not like granting the Israelites means for divorce. But he did grant it. So in the event of adultery, abandonment, or extreme violence - divorce can be granted. Getting remarried is a whole different issue and brings up issues of earnestness and if the priest will even perform the sacrament. Even if he does, the priest is not to go to the reception.


2. Artificial contraception. We have a truck load of evidence of significant change on moral teaching in a contemporary setting. There were many inside of our church (and a ton of external pressure) that wanted a change, yet the pope stood resolute and settled the issue. I see no such structure in EO for something like that to happen and we see a sweeping change with seemingly no internal recognition of it. Because there was no way to teach it definitively when the consensus was there (as widely evidenced from 1960 and before), contraception eventually is given varying degrees of license.

This means that if I wanted to convert to orthodoxy, I have to consider which patriarch I want to align under. This isn't an issue for those already born and baptized into EO, but from the outside, if I want to make a well reasoned choice, I have the ability to bring my own understanding of the faith with me. If I see contraception as licit, I will want to make sure I find a priest/bishop who will allow for it. If I plan on using IVF, I need to make sure to align with a priest/bishop who will allow it. At the current moment, if I feel a desire to be in union with Constantinople, I will have to choose the correct church to join, as not all are. Or if I wanted to be aligned with Moscow.

Because america is an immigrant country, you can orthodox shop the easiest here. The rise of travel and ease of immigration means a lot of first world countries have the ability to shop around. This is a modern thing. 'Bringing your own faith' is a big red flag because thats not how orthodoxy works. You accept the teachings of orthodoxy as you are living in obedience to God. Your own faith is modern catholicism and so there are differences to overcome before any baptism. But you don't really priest shop on something like IVF. Thats not going to bear fruit for your walk with God and aid you in your salvation. I wouldn't hold up the catholics here as presenting a unified front on hot topic issues. If I wanted to become catholic and participate in homosexual relationships there's plenty of german archdioceses I could find refuge in. And the whole church shopping thing misses the point. All of the orthodox churches hold to the same theological believes. That is what defines orthodoxy. You're not going to find a russian church who doesn't have an icon of Mary, nor a Greek one that doesn't believe in the begottenness of Christ.

This would fall under an east/west difference, I'm sure. From the outside, it looks like a significant lack of unity despite the liturgy being standard.

The catholic church is not unified among the laity nor continuous across time among the priest class. It has all the problems of Protestantism boiling under its surface. The ability for the office of the pope to change things very central to church life to this day is not a pro, its a con.

---

I'm not arguing against it being a sacrament or a covenant but it is also a contract and the word occurs 49 times in that page, and the canon lawyer talks about it as a contract, and it can be annulled by a defect in the contract itself between the people. I am not sure this is something to like, actually argue about, though. I should just shut up.

Zobel said:

---

Take it up with your canon lawyers who actually do annulments. They say the sacrament is based on a legal contract. Who am I to argue?

Or this
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/moral-and-canonical-aspect-of-marriage

"Marriage is a contract"

---

Sadly, exactly what I expected.

Rather than assume your motives, as you do when claim to either "willfully refuse to understand" (and I think you and I would agree that matters of the will are of potentially grave significance) , I'll just keep it simple:

- Do you believe the informal writing of a particular canon lawyer are designed to contain the fullness of church teaching?.
- Do you believe the canon lawyer was attempting to approach the theology that undergirds sacrament of marriage?
- Do you believe the writing of a singular priest (not a bishop) is equal to the formal teachings of a group of bishops and archbishops?
- Are the quotes you chose from these non-authoritative sources a case of you more than, less than or equally "willfully refusing to understand" the catholic magisterium as you claim I have done with your faith?

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Take it up with your canon lawyers who actually do annulments. They say the sacrament is based on a legal contract. Who am I to argue?

Or this
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/moral-and-canonical-aspect-of-marriage

"Marriage is a contract"

---

Sadly, exactly what I expected.

Rather than assume your motives, as you do when claim to either "willfully refuse to understand" (and I think you and I would agree that matters of the will are of potentially grave significance) , I'll just keep it simple:

- Do you believe the informal writing of a particular canon lawyer are designed to contain the fullness of church teaching?.
- Do you believe the canon lawyer was attempting to approach the theology that undergirds sacrament of marriage?
- Do you believe the writing of a singular priest (not a bishop) is equal to the formal teachings of a group of bishops and archbishops?
- Are the quotes you chose from these non-authoritative sources a case of you more than, less than or equally "willfully refusing to understand" the catholic magisterium as you claim I have done with your faith?

---

This may be a dumb question but, I mean, what's the point of a cannon lawyer if not for law and contracts? Why would they get involved in a sacrament?

no, i don't think im willfully refusing to understand. i genuinely think you're wrong, and are going way to far out over your skis with a hard "marriage is not a contract" stance that you're taking for reasons related to argumentation and not theology.

you can see the contractual language in CCC 1625, 1628, 1629, 1631, 1649, 1650.

or in Casti Connubii in which the papal encyclical calls the two people the "contracting parties", describes the state of being married "contracted matrimony" says "the nature of this contract" is different from the union of animals, union of men, etc, describes it as a "marriage contact" and "this contract sanctioned by divine law" and notes that the sacrament "is denoted by the indissolubility of the bond and the raising and hallowing of the contract by Christ Himself". It also says marriage is contracted repeatedly, and says that when "the dangers of divorce are present, the marriage contract itself becomes insecure."

Leo XIII's Arcanum likewise links the sacrament with "the matrimonial contract" and notes that "in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded."

my argument doesn't require that the lawyer is speaking ex cathedra, but YOURS requires that the lawyer is wrong for explicitly calling it the contract, as is the CCC and your popes.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Take it up with your canon lawyers who actually do annulments. They say the sacrament is based on a legal contract. Who am I to argue?

Or this
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/moral-and-canonical-aspect-of-marriage

"Marriage is a contract"

---

Sadly, exactly what I expected.

Rather than assume your motives, as you do when claim to either "willfully refuse to understand" (and I think you and I would agree that matters of the will are of potentially grave significance) , I'll just keep it simple:

- Do you believe the informal writing of a particular canon lawyer are designed to contain the fullness of church teaching?.
- Do you believe the canon lawyer was attempting to approach the theology that undergirds sacrament of marriage?
- Do you believe the writing of a singular priest (not a bishop) is equal to the formal teachings of a group of bishops and archbishops?
- Are the quotes you chose from these non-authoritative sources a case of you more than, less than or equally "willfully refusing to understand" the catholic magisterium as you claim I have done with your faith?

---

This may be a dumb question but, I mean, what's the point of a cannon lawyer if not for law and contracts? Why would they get involved in a sacrament?

---

My understanding of Anglicanism is that you also view marriage as a sacrament, but that there is a contractual component. You also have canon lawyers, so this may be a good question for your own priest and bishop or canon lawyer.

My answer: canon lawyers handled the contractual element The right to declare a marriage null, which is the declaration that the sacrament was never present, is reserved to bishop. The canon lawyer has no more authority to declare nullity that he is given by his or her bishop.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Take it up with your canon lawyers who actually do annulments. They say the sacrament is based on a legal contract. Who am I to argue?

Or this
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/moral-and-canonical-aspect-of-marriage

"Marriage is a contract"

---

Sadly, exactly what I expected.

Rather than assume your motives, as you do when claim to either "willfully refuse to understand" (and I think you and I would agree that matters of the will are of potentially grave significance) , I'll just keep it simple:

- Do you believe the informal writing of a particular canon lawyer are designed to contain the fullness of church teaching?.
- Do you believe the canon lawyer was attempting to approach the theology that undergirds sacrament of marriage?
- Do you believe the writing of a singular priest (not a bishop) is equal to the formal teachings of a group of bishops and archbishops?
- Are the quotes you chose from these non-authoritative sources a case of you more than, less than or equally "willfully refusing to understand" the catholic magisterium as you claim I have done with your faith?

---

This may be a dumb question but, I mean, what's the point of a cannon lawyer if not for law and contracts? Why would they get involved in a sacrament?

---

My understanding of Anglicanism is that you also view marriage as a sacrament, but that there is a contractual component. You also have canon lawyers, so this may be a good question for your own priest and bishop or canon lawyer.

My answer: canon lawyers handled the contractual element The right to declare a marriage null, which is the declaration that the sacrament was never present, is reserved to bishop. The canon lawyer has no more authority to declare nullity that he is given by his or her bishop.

---

That's not anything I've been exposed to. We're more conservative than acna at large. We've even had discipline inside the parish but never involved a lawyer. Always handled by the rector or bishop.

Zobel said:

---

no, i don't think im willfully refusing to understand. i genuinely think you're wrong, and are going way to far out over your skis with a hard "marriage is not a contract" stance that you're taking for reasons related to argumentation and not theology.

you can see the contractual language in CCC 1625, 1628, 1629, 1631, 1649, 1650.

or in Casti Connubii in which the papal encyclical calls the two people the "contracting parties", describes the state of being married "contracted matrimony" says "the nature of this contract" is different from the union of animals, union of men, etc, describes it as a "marriage contact" and "this contract sanctioned by divine law" and notes that the sacrament "is denoted by the indissolubility of the bond and the raising and hallowing of the contract by Christ Himself". It also says marriage is contracted repeatedly, and says that when "the dangers of divorce are present, the marriage contract itself becomes insecure."

Leo XIII's Arcanum likewise links the sacrament with "the matrimonial contract" and notes that "in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded."

my argument doesn't require that the lawyer is speaking ex cathedra, but YOURS requires that the lawyer is wrong for explicitly calling it the contract, as is the CCC and your popes.

---

1. When I engaged a company to build the house that my wife and I designed and now live in, we entered into a residential construction contract. My wife and I acted as a contracting party and the builder acted as a contracting party. Question: is the house itself a contract? Or was the contract a manner in which we outline how the house was to come into being/came into being, and as such, an agreement by which we can determine if the product was actually what both parties agreed to in the beginning?

2. In Casti Connubii, prior to any variation of "contract" being invoked, this was stated:

And to begin with that same Encyclical, which is wholly concerned in vindicating the divine institution of matrimony, its sacramental dignity, and its perpetual stability, let it be repeated as an immutable and inviolable fundamental doctrine that matrimony was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God, the Author of nature, and by Christ Our Lord by Whom nature was redeemed, and hence these laws cannot be subject to any human decrees or to any contrary pact even of the spouses themselves. This is the doctrine of Holy Scripture;[2] this is the constant tradition of the Universal Church; this the solemn definition of the sacred Council of Trent, which declares and establishes from the words of Holy Writ itself that God is the Author of the perpetual stability of the marriage bond, its unity and its firmness

Marriage is a divine institution with sacramental dignity. Does the fact that contractual elements exist necessitate that the sacrament itself is a contract?


In Arcanum, two sentences after the phrase "marriage is the contract itself", we find this: "But the form and image of these nuptials is shown precisely by the very bond of that most close union in which man and woman are bound together in one; which bond is nothing else but the marriage itself."

So I would ask the following: have you read both of the documents you referenced in full, and sought a catholic treatise on them?

Lastly: To what degree do you believe my argument rests on an individual canon lawyer?

I don't even know what "less authority" would mean. The disagreement with our liturgy is so nebulous that I struggle to wrap my hands around it. Despite a number of questions seeking specifics on exactly what bridge the novus ordo seems to have crossed, I haven't been given any. So let me give you premises and a conclusion, so that you can show me where I'm going wrong:

- Premise 1: the liturgy was changed in the past by apostolic authority.
- Premise 2: Apostolic authority exists today
- Conclusion: The authority to change the liturgy exists today.

This does not mean the liturgy should be changed. It merely demonstrates that it can be validly changed. Can you please show me where my logic has failed from an EO perspective? Or, if the liturgy can be validly changed, but the change still represents rupture, I'm extremely eager to understand why.

I agree that there are multiple points that need addressing for reunification, but the original inference was that the liturgy stood in the way. I stated that it did not prevent other eastern churches, or even Anglican churches, from reunifying. They kept their liturgies. So I'll ask plainly: isolating this from all other differences, does our liturgy act as a block to unity in and of itself?

I'll grant you divorce and remarriage are separate. Jesus never fully condemns divorce, per se. It would make sense that there is some room for one spouse to seek physical distance from an abusive spouse. However, remarriage is explicit: it is adultery (with the possible exception of your spouse committing adultery first). The EO bishops have been giving blessings to a number of unions that objectively meet the criteria of adultery. I'm happy to discuss whatever details of the past 1000 years of difference you are willing to share with me, if you choose. Until then, I'll ask this: How can a bishop counsel a couple that is actively engaging in what our Lord defines as adultery and tell them they can continue? If you have a framework for this, I am genuinely open to it. It is an incredibly weighty issue that the world needs answers to, and I have not been presented with a coherent explanation

I agree that "bringing your own faith" is a big red flag and I would probably go a step further in saying that "faith" in God is in danger of being faith in yourself. That said, the fact that there is opportunity for it is very real, unfortunately. If, as zobel has said, every bishop acts as his own pope, a bishop giving advice to continue in grave sin doesn't seem to have a potentially negating authority. Even if a pan-orthodox council is convened, do the bishops teaching something contrary to what you believe not have full autonomy to both refuse to attend the council and ignore it's findings?

I would push back here: anyone can become catholic while participating in homosexual relationships in particular German archdiocese. Homosexual acts have been formally declared and defined as grave sin. Approaching the Eucharist with unrepentant grave sin has been formally declared and defined as grave sin. There is zero wiggle room. If you find a bishop that tells you this act is ok, that bishop is a heretic, and it doesn't require the pronouncement of even one other bishop, much less the unanimous consent of bishops, for this to be true.

When you say all orthodox churches have the same theological beliefs, my initial reaction is to rebut it. Instead of doing that, I will assume I'm missing something. What all does the term "theological beliefs" encompass in your opinion?

What things do you believe the office of the papacy can change that would be particulary problematic? In the event you feel this question too broad, if you can provide me with the top 2-5 things central to the church that the pope could change, I'd like to consider them.

Member when i said it was tedious?

What a stupid argument, I am sorry I got into it. You can be right.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Take it up with your canon lawyers who actually do annulments. They say the sacrament is based on a legal contract. Who am I to argue?

Or this
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/moral-and-canonical-aspect-of-marriage

"Marriage is a contract"

---

Sadly, exactly what I expected.

Rather than assume your motives, as you do when claim to either "willfully refuse to understand" (and I think you and I would agree that matters of the will are of potentially grave significance) , I'll just keep it simple:

- Do you believe the informal writing of a particular canon lawyer are designed to contain the fullness of church teaching?.
- Do you believe the canon lawyer was attempting to approach the theology that undergirds sacrament of marriage?
- Do you believe the writing of a singular priest (not a bishop) is equal to the formal teachings of a group of bishops and archbishops?
- Are the quotes you chose from these non-authoritative sources a case of you more than, less than or equally "willfully refusing to understand" the catholic magisterium as you claim I have done with your faith?

---

This may be a dumb question but, I mean, what's the point of a cannon lawyer if not for law and contracts? Why would they get involved in a sacrament?

---

My understanding of Anglicanism is that you also view marriage as a sacrament, but that there is a contractual component. You also have canon lawyers, so this may be a good question for your own priest and bishop or canon lawyer.

My answer: canon lawyers handled the contractual element The right to declare a marriage null, which is the declaration that the sacrament was never present, is reserved to bishop. The canon lawyer has no more authority to declare nullity that he is given by his or her bishop.

---

Ok, so in what way is the law not superior to a sacrament if someone can make that determination? Doesn't that elevate it above it if that determination can be made ex post facto?

Marriage is closer to mystery than law; it's organic and develops over time according to the needs, wants, and actions of those in it. We all find ourselves in roles we don't want and life situations we never chose; that's simply what marriage is. There's a reason we have the axiom that women marry men wanting them to change and men marry women hoping they don't. The epistles model our behavior in marriage on Christ and the church, not conditioning it on our spouse. We love as Christ loved the church, not based on whether the church lives up to a contract.

This has always been weird to me. Probably why I lean more orthodox than roman.

The Banned said:

---

I don't even know what "less authority" would mean. The disagreement with our liturgy is so nebulous that I struggle to wrap my hands around it. Despite a number of questions seeking specifics on exactly what bridge the novus ordo seems to have crossed, I haven't been given any. So let me give you premises and a conclusion, so that you can show me where I'm going wrong:

- Premise 1: the liturgy was changed in the past by apostolic authority.
- Premise 2: Apostolic authority exists today
- Conclusion: The authority to change the liturgy exists today.

This does not mean the liturgy should be changed. It merely demonstrates that it can be validly changed. Can you please show me where my logic has failed from an EO perspective? Or, if the liturgy can be validly changed, but the change still represents rupture, I'm extremely eager to understand why.

Dude we've already gone over this. The orthodox church considers itself to be in a time of preservation and continuation. There is no desire to change norms already established by the early church. This is the core difference between RC and EO. EO most core by-law is that we cling fast to what we've inherited. The RC most core by-law is that the Pope is able to change things however they want. The EO is inherently inoculated from ecclesial nonsense by compromised leaders.

I agree that there are multiple points that need addressing for reunification, but the original inference was that the liturgy stood in the way. I stated that it did not prevent other eastern churches, or even Anglican churches, from reunifying. They kept their liturgies. So I'll ask plainly: isolating this from all other differences, does our liturgy act as a block to unity in and of itself?

The anglican church will implode in 20 years. It has waffled on taking any strong stance on anything. There are high churches, low churches, women priests, LGBT. This is the fruit of compromise. They have no inherit belief that they preserve the early church. When you take that first step yourself, its easy to get drug the whole length by the demons and rotten fruit of progressivism. Hows that synod on synodality treating y'all? Progressive groups sad they didn't get their agenda-yet, but they'll get it one day.

The other 'eastern unifications' you speak of are the product of Jesuit meddling. Purposefully allowing very similar Byzantian rites in areas that the EO had historically been to extend the Pope's influence as long as it ties up under the Pope. How neat.

I'll grant you divorce and remarriage are separate. Jesus never fully condemns divorce, per se. It would make sense that there is some room for one spouse to seek physical distance from an abusive spouse. However, remarriage is explicit: it is adultery (with the possible exception of your spouse committing adultery first). The EO bishops have been giving blessings to a number of unions that objectively meet the criteria of adultery. I'm happy to discuss whatever details of the past 1000 years of difference you are willing to share with me, if you choose. Until then, I'll ask this: How can a bishop counsel a couple that is actively engaging in what our Lord defines as adultery and tell them they can continue? If you have a framework for this, I am genuinely open to it. It is an incredibly weighty issue that the world needs answers to, and I have not been presented with a coherent explanation

I agree that "bringing your own faith" is a big red flag and I would probably go a step further in saying that "faith" in God is in danger of being faith in yourself. That said, the fact that there is opportunity for it is very real, unfortunately. If, as zobel has said, every bishop acts as his own pope, a bishop giving advice to continue in grave sin doesn't seem to have a potentially negating authority. Even if a pan-orthodox council is convened, do the bishops teaching something contrary to what you believe not have full autonomy to both refuse to attend the council and ignore it's findings?

I would push back here: anyone can become catholic while participating in homosexual relationships in particular German archdiocese. Homosexual acts have been formally declared and defined as grave sin. Approaching the Eucharist with unrepentant grave sin has been formally declared and defined as grave sin. There is zero wiggle room. If you find a bishop that tells you this act is ok, that bishop is a heretic, and it doesn't require the pronouncement of even one other bishop, much less the unanimous consent of bishops, for this to be true.

Great. Now why hasn't any of the Pope's gone straight medieval on German bishops? He knows there are pink palaces all across his archdicoese. But the pope knows if he brings the hammer down on sin it'll shatter the catholic church into at least two pieces, and then further unraveling. And then it'll look a lot like Protestantism wont it?

When you say all orthodox churches have the same theological beliefs, my initial reaction is to rebut it. Instead of doing that, I will assume I'm missing something. What all does the term "theological beliefs" encompass in your opinion?

You join an orthodox church, not THE orthodox church. There are small allowances for local cultural practices. Orthodox churches are unified in their theological and liturgical practices. Its basically a federation. The only thing holding the federation together is commitment to the theology and the tradition passed down and preserved. An orthodox church wouldn't suddenly pop up and go, 'we allow women priests.' Because there is an inherited orthodox understanding that the priesthood is the most virtuous expression of specifically man. An orthodox church wouldn't say, 'mary was an immaculate conception' because of the inherited church tradition about original sin doesn't require mary to be conceived without original sin. If any churches were to affirm something other than orthodoxy, they wouldn't be orthodox. An orthodox church wouldn't bend over backwards to try to plug plato and aristotle into Christian contexts, spend hundreds of years diving into philosophy. They would just say it doesn't fit on anything more than a superficial level.

Do you see how this fastness to tradition, and the early church, and the church fathers creates constancy? And how a bishop declaring themselves supremely authoritative on everything creates confusion

What things do you believe the office of the papacy can change that would be particulary problematic? In the event you feel this question too broad, if you can provide me with the top 2-5 things central to the church that the pope could change, I'd like to consider them.

Pope has the authority but would never do it.
Step one: Renounce papal supremacy, change title to Bishop of Rome, renounce the filioque
Step two: Remove a thousand years of papal only decision making
Step three: Reestablish the Bishop of Rome as a patriarchate of the orthodox church.
Step four: Force Notre Dame to join a football conference.

This is so much to ask of, it'll never happen. Which is why reunification stalls and both sides have said to stop trying to discuss reunification.

---

Look if marriage is a contract, you and your spouse are the collateral underwriting it. All collateral is some amount of damaged goods. Contracts get signed anyways. Post facto inspection revealing that the collateral is in worse shape than presented, or deteriorated faster than anticipated does not mean there was no contract.

Anglicanism won't implode but the episcopal church and CoE will certainly diminish. Right now the divide is money and people: orthodoxy and the laity are concentrated in what we call the global south (or conservative western churches), while heterodoxy and money are in the west.

The roman church set up ordinariates to receive Anglicans and Anglican priests, headquartered in Houston. They're going through the same issues as we all are: priest shortages, fewer children (save TLM adherents, but that has other issues), and a lack of pre-programmed immigrants. Should be interesting to watch demographic growth the next few decades led by conservative Christians here at home.

Quote:

---

Step four: Force Notre Dame to join a football conference.

---

Well done sir. I'll respond to the rest later in the weekend

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Look if marriage is a contract, you and your spouse are the collateral underwriting it. All collateral is some amount of damaged goods. Contracts get signed anyways. Post facto inspection revealing that the collateral is in worse shape than presented, or deteriorated faster than anticipated does not mean there was no contract.

---

But marriage isn't a contract. It is a covenant with contractual elements. The "marriage contract" is a part of entering into that covenant, and contracts can be found to be void after the fact all the time. A voided contract here means that you never actually entered into the sacramental covenant, which is what marriage is.

As I showed earlier in this thread, we can liken this to baptism. If a mormon converts to you church, he or she will need to be rebaptized. This would also be needed for a Christian who thought they were baptized, but the trinitarian formula wasn't used. These people may have lived their entire lives believing they were a baptized Christian, but your church is here to examine that after the fact and say they were not truly baptized. Why? How would you explain this to a convert?

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Take it up with your canon lawyers who actually do annulments. They say the sacrament is based on a legal contract. Who am I to argue?

Or this
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/moral-and-canonical-aspect-of-marriage

"Marriage is a contract"

---

Sadly, exactly what I expected.

Rather than assume your motives, as you do when claim to either "willfully refuse to understand" (and I think you and I would agree that matters of the will are of potentially grave significance) , I'll just keep it simple:

- Do you believe the informal writing of a particular canon lawyer are designed to contain the fullness of church teaching?.
- Do you believe the canon lawyer was attempting to approach the theology that undergirds sacrament of marriage?
- Do you believe the writing of a singular priest (not a bishop) is equal to the formal teachings of a group of bishops and archbishops?
- Are the quotes you chose from these non-authoritative sources a case of you more than, less than or equally "willfully refusing to understand" the catholic magisterium as you claim I have done with your faith?

---

This may be a dumb question but, I mean, what's the point of a cannon lawyer if not for law and contracts? Why would they get involved in a sacrament?

---

My understanding of Anglicanism is that you also view marriage as a sacrament, but that there is a contractual component. You also have canon lawyers, so this may be a good question for your own priest and bishop or canon lawyer.

My answer: canon lawyers handled the contractual element The right to declare a marriage null, which is the declaration that the sacrament was never present, is reserved to bishop. The canon lawyer has no more authority to declare nullity that he is given by his or her bishop.

---

Ok, so in what way is the law not superior to a sacrament if someone can make that determination? Doesn't that elevate it above it if that determination can be made ex post facto?

Marriage is closer to mystery than law; it's organic and develops over time according to the needs, wants, and actions of those in it. We all find ourselves in roles we don't want and life situations we never chose; that's simply what marriage is. There's a reason we have the axiom that women marry men wanting them to change and men marry women hoping they don't. The epistles model our behavior in marriage on Christ and the church, not conditioning it on our spouse. We love as Christ loved the church, not based on whether the church lives up to a contract.

This has always been weird to me. Probably why I lean more orthodox than roman.

---

Again, to the baptism correlation: If the baptized is baptized against their will, not baptized in water, baptized with the wrong intent when referencing the Holy Trinity, the baptism is said to have never existed. There are other possible reasons as well. Does having the capacity to review components of a baptism needed to be present in order for the baptism to have been sacramental mean the review criteria is superior to the sacrament?

These types of formal elements exist in every sacrament the church offers it's faithful. Proper intent is a necessary component of every sacrament. This is why we can see that ordinations may be invalid, baptisms may be invalid and yes, even marriages may be invalid. The process to determine that is not superior to the sacrament.

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Look if marriage is a contract, you and your spouse are the collateral underwriting it. All collateral is some amount of damaged goods. Contracts get signed anyways. Post facto inspection revealing that the collateral is in worse shape than presented, or deteriorated faster than anticipated does not mean there was no contract.

---

But marriage isn't a contract. It is a covenant with contractual elements. The "marriage contract" is a part of entering into that covenant, and contracts can be found to be void after the fact all the time. A voided contract here means that you never actually entered into the sacramental covenant, which is what marriage is.

As I showed earlier in this thread, we can liken this to baptism. If a mormon converts to you church, he or she will need to be rebaptized. This would also be needed for a Christian who thought they were baptized, but the trinitarian formula wasn't used. These people may have lived their entire lives believing they were a baptized Christian, but your church is here to examine that after the fact and say they were not truly baptized. Why? How would you explain this to a convert?

---

Dude I'm just going to refer back to Zobel here and the line of argument they brings up. The Catholics own canon lawyers and canon digression say it's a contract. Welcome to dissecting the frog, it kills it. Who am I to argue with it. Again, how can a priest not perform a sacrament when performing a sacrament.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Look if marriage is a contract, you and your spouse are the collateral underwriting it. All collateral is some amount of damaged goods. Contracts get signed anyways. Post facto inspection revealing that the collateral is in worse shape than presented, or deteriorated faster than anticipated does not mean there was no contract.

---

But marriage isn't a contract. It is a covenant with contractual elements. The "marriage contract" is a part of entering into that covenant, and contracts can be found to be void after the fact all the time. A voided contract here means that you never actually entered into the sacramental covenant, which is what marriage is.

As I showed earlier in this thread, we can liken this to baptism. If a mormon converts to you church, he or she will need to be rebaptized. This would also be needed for a Christian who thought they were baptized, but the trinitarian formula wasn't used. These people may have lived their entire lives believing they were a baptized Christian, but your church is here to examine that after the fact and say they were not truly baptized. Why? How would you explain this to a convert?

---

Dude I'm just going to refer back to Zobel here and the line of argument they brings up. The Catholics own canon lawyers and canon digression say it's a contract. Welcome to dissecting the frog, it kills it. Who am I to argue with it. Again, how can a priest not perform a sacrament when performing a sacrament.

---

I have heard many a priest say that this is the one sacrament where the husband and wife are performing the sacrament- not them.