The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
adoro.te.devote, Graeculus, Peter Kristof, deaconjoseph2021, Kirah
5,694 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 111 guests, and 182 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,941
Posts413,335
Members5,693
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 12 1 2 9 10 11 12
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by ajk
I have many, many issues with the theological ramifications of what Msgr. Burke writes. To do him justice, I should read his entire book but on the basis of what has been quoted here it would be a waste of my good money. Considering his impressive credentials and especially his authority I find his writing here (including some incidental remarks that I intent to explore) theologically benighted and frightening.
I think better of Msgr. Burke's book after reading on his website: "My book,The Theology of Marriage: Personalism, Doctrine and Canon Law (Catholic University of America Press, 2015), continues to involve me in "to's-and-fro's" of opinion. Something to be welcomed." So I would read it though for me it is not a cost effective purchase.

As he says, he offers an opinion. He speculates and carries a certain mindset to its logical conclusion. As a scholar it is legitimate for him to do this. His proposed conclusions here should not be presented or taken as the voice of the Rota.

Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
No, they are not. This is a serious error on your part.

Being institutionally incorporated is absolutely necessary for salvation, that is the true meaning of EENS. See for example: Unam sanctam (1302), Cantate Domino (1441), and Syllabus errorum 17-18 (1864)





Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by ajk
I think better of Msgr. Burke's book after reading on his website: "My book,The Theology of Marriage: Personalism, Doctrine and Canon Law (Catholic University of America Press, 2015), continues to involve me in "to's-and-fro's" of opinion. Something to be welcomed." So I would read it though for me it is not a cost effective purchase.

As he says, he offers an opinion. He speculates and carries a certain mindset to its logical conclusion. As a scholar it is legitimate for him to do this. His proposed conclusions here should not be presented or taken as the voice of the Rota.


I don't think he is referring to his own view. I think his comment pertains to dealing with the opinion of others, as the overall context indicates.

Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
"St. Thomas, as always, is informative in his metaphysical overlay on theology. But it is a metaphysics and it is an overlay: instructive, not definitive."


The statement by St. Thomas: "But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond," cannot be argued against. It is the spouses themselves who contract the marriage bond, not the priest. I can't imagine any argument that could demonstrate otherwise.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
"What is clearly stated is that between baptized spouses the sacrament of marriage obtains if and only if the marriage is valid. Makes sense."

You are clearly misinterpreting what it states.

What!!?? Are you saying this is incorrect: " between baptized spouses the sacrament of marriage obtains if and only if the marriage is valid"? Do not read more into this. It says between baptized spouses every valid marriage is a sacrament and every marriage that is a sacrament is valid. (see below at the end)

Originally Posted by RomCatholic
Canon 1055.2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptised persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.
How is this different from what I said except for including the word "contract"?

Originally Posted by RomCatholic
What it is stating is that marriage between Christians, and the sacrament of matrimony are one and the same thing.
No. Every "valid marriage."

Originally Posted by RomCatholic
As Pope St. Leo XIII stated:

A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is 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.
OK. Nothing I've said contradicts this. Actually I though Fr. Burke could be interpreted as permitting such a separation.

Originally Posted by RomCatholic
You should stop pressing the issue.
What issue? I think you're imagining things.

Originally Posted by RomCatholic
You are clearly in error.
Still to be determined: who is the you.

You can demonstrate the perceived error in my statement by simply giving an example of either of the following:

1) a valid marriage between Christians that is NOT a sacrament

2) a sacramental marriage between Christians that is not valid

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
"St. Thomas, as always, is informative in his metaphysical overlay on theology. But it is a metaphysics and it is an overlay: instructive, not definitive."

The statement by St. Thomas: "But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond," cannot be argued against. It is the spouses themselves who contract the marriage bond, not the priest. I can't imagine any argument that could demonstrate otherwise.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917):

Quote
...where the parties have already given their consent, where the marriage is consequently an accomplished fact and the priest has said "ego conjungo vos in matrimonium",


Quote
Indeed the Spanish rituals, especially that of Toledo, even down to modern times, recognize a double ceremony. In the first, after a solemn admonition to disclose any impediment that may exist, the parties give their consent "per verba de præsenti", and the priest, at least in the later forms (see "Manuale Toletanum", Antwerp, 1680, 457) pronounces the words: "I on the part of God Almighty join you in wedlock", etc. None the less the priest is directed in the rubric which immediately follows to warn the parties that "they must not dwell together in the same house before receiving the blessing of the priest and the Church".

The first entry does have the comment:

Quote
The words of the priest, "Ego vos in matrimonium conjungo", which, though sanctioned by the Council of Trent, are apt to convey the false impression that the priest is the minister of the Sacrament, are not primitive, at any rate in this form, and are only to be found in Rituals of comparatively recent date.
[emphasis added]

Interpretation: Canonists (and some theologians) have constructed selective arguments with over-reaching conclusions based on incomplete information, becoming so ingrained and unquestioned, that they must now with hindsight justify their excess by making it appear as dogma. This is the are you going to believe me or your own eyes proof. "Ego vos in matrimonium conjungo." Not even the Byzantine ritual has such an explicit statement.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
No, they are not. This is a serious error on your part.

Being institutionally incorporated is absolutely necessary for salvation, that is the true meaning of EENS. See for example: Unam sanctam (1302), Cantate Domino (1441), and Syllabus errorum 17-18 (1864)


Are the Orthodox "institutionally incorporated"; are they saved?

Are the X "institutionally incorporated"; are they saved?
X= Lutherans; Methodists; Baptists; the baptized; etc.


Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
No, they are not. This is a serious error on your part.

Being institutionally incorporated is absolutely necessary for salvation, that is the true meaning of EENS. See for example: Unam sanctam (1302), Cantate Domino (1441), and Syllabus errorum 17-18 (1864)


A "serious error on" on whose part? From the CCC [emphasis added]:

=================================================

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324



"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism [Ecclesiae, in quam homines per Baptismum ... intrant] as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

868 The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is "missionary of her very nature" (AG 2).

870 "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines"(LG 8).


Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
No, they are not. This is a serious error on your part.

Being institutionally incorporated is absolutely necessary for salvation, that is the true meaning of EENS. See for example: Unam sanctam (1302), Cantate Domino (1441), and Syllabus errorum 17-18 (1864)


Are the Orthodox "institutionally incorporated"; are they saved?

Are the X "institutionally incorporated"; are they saved?
X= Lutherans; Methodists; Baptists; the baptized; etc.



No, none of the above mentioned Christians are institutionally incorporated in to the Catholic Church. This is non-controversial. The dogma of EENS requires one to be both mystically and institutionally incorporated into the Church. The only way for this to happen is through formal conversion, or through an unexpected miracle.

Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
"What!!?? Are you saying this is incorrect: " between baptized spouses the sacrament of marriage obtains if and only if the marriage is valid"? Do not read more into this. It says between baptized spouses every valid marriage is a sacrament and every marriage that is a sacrament is valid."

A marriage cannot be valid without it also being a sacrament. They mean the same thing.

"Canon 1055.2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptised persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament."

Canon 1055.2 is referring to Christian marriages in general. What it is stating is that the sacrament cannot be separated from the marriage contract, as long as both are validly baptized.

"Nothing I've said contradicts this. Actually I though Fr. Burke could be interpreted as permitting such a separation."

You are misinterpreting the meaning of canon 1055.2. Also, Msgr. Burke does not in any way suggest that a separation can occur; in fact, he states the exact opposite.


"1) a valid marriage between Christians that is NOT a sacrament

2) a sacramental marriage between Christians that is not valid"

There is no difference between validity and sacramentality.

Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
You emphasize the part about the council of Trent, yet neglect the part which states: "are apt to convey the false impression that the priest is the minister of the Sacrament, are not primitive, at any rate in this form, and are only to be found in Rituals of comparatively recent date."

What the priest says is absolutely irrelevant.

""ego conjungo vos in matrimonium""

The rite of marriage no longer uses this phrase. Furthermore, it is not proof of anything.


"Interpretation: Canonists (and theologians) have constructed selective arguments with over-reaching conclusions based on incomplete information,"

That is not accurate at all. As I have demonstrated, it is the other way around. All the evidence I have so far provided demonstrates that the blessing of the priest is not essential, nor does it confer the sacrament. This goes back as far Pope Nicholas I, and can be traced even earlier to Tertullian and St. Augustine.


"becoming so ingrained and unquestioned, that they must now with hindsight justify their excess by making it appear as dogma."

This is the exact opposite of the relevant facts. Nor has it been my contention that it is dogma, rather, it is a theologically certain opinion.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
No, they are not. This is a serious error on your part.

Being institutionally incorporated is absolutely necessary for salvation, that is the true meaning of EENS. See for example: Unam sanctam (1302), Cantate Domino (1441), and Syllabus errorum 17-18 (1864)


Are the Orthodox "institutionally incorporated"; are they saved?

Are the X "institutionally incorporated"; are they saved?
X= Lutherans; Methodists; Baptists; the baptized; etc.



No, none of the above mentioned Christians are institutionally incorporated in to the Catholic Church. This is non-controversial. The dogma of EENS requires one to be both mystically and institutionally incorporated into the Church. The only way for this to happen is through formal conversion, or through an unexpected miracle.
The questions have two parts and you have selectively only answered the one part -- the other part: "are they saved?"

Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Since the topic of discussion isn't EENS, I'm not going to respond.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 4
Now you say:

Originally Posted by RomCatholic


"1) a valid marriage between Christians that is NOT a sacrament

2) a sacramental marriage between Christians that is not valid"

There is no difference between validity and sacramentality.


Note: no example given.

Before you said:
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
"What is clearly stated is that between baptized spouses the sacrament of marriage obtains if and only if the marriage is valid. Makes sense."

You are clearly misinterpreting what it states.

What!!?? Are you saying this is incorrect: " between baptized spouses the sacrament of marriage obtains if and only if the marriage is valid"? Do not read more into this. It says between baptized spouses every valid marriage is a sacrament and every marriage that is a sacrament is valid. (see below at the end)...
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
You should stop pressing the issue.
What issue? I think you're imagining things.
Originally Posted by RomCatholic
You are clearly in error.
Still to be determined: who is the you.
You can demonstrate the perceived error in my statement by simply giving an example of either of the following:
1) a valid marriage between Christians that is NOT a sacrament
2) a sacramental marriage between Christians that is not valid


You seem incapable of accepting something that's true as true unless YOU say it. This complicates dialog.


Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
I gave you two conditions which they can be saved.

Page 11 of 12 1 2 9 10 11 12

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5