HereAndGone2
No bio...
User ID: 4074
HereAndGone2
1d ago
From a Catholic viewpoint, yes; if the prior marriage was valid and sacramental and did not have grounds for annulment, then a civil divorce just dissolves the secular legal union but not the church marriage.
HereAndGone2
1d ago
if unity had been his highest priority, Leo could have simply authorized the consecrations in the first place
Kinda tricky to do that for a bunch who declare that the entire papacy and the structure of the Church has been invalid since Vatican II, including that you yourself got ordained under the new rubrics and possibly aren't even a proper priest at all. Would they even acknowledge that he had permission to authorise their consecrations?
They’re already walking a tightrope on being conservative enough to prevent an exodus from their own right wing hardliners and near associates
That's what happens when you start fissioning, and what will be the end result of cutting ties with Rome. The same kind of purity death spiral you see on the left, the really radtrad hardliners will find an excuse to break off from them for not being strict enough, and they'll end up with their bishops cutting loose and ordaining clergy for the breakaways and everything gets even smaller and smaller in a People's Front of Judea versus Judean People's Front kind of fallout.
And some of the splinters will go the other way, like the Danube Seven who claim they do too have apostolic succession since an independent bishop ordained them, even if they were ladies, so they in turn could ordain etc. etc. etc. all the womenpriests.
I too am surprised this happened, but I think Rome finally ran out of patience. The SSPX have been burning through second chances at a rate of knots, and Leo is young enough* that he doesn't have the sympathy with them that the likes of Benedict did.
*Yeah, he's seventy, but Benedict was ordained in 1951 and Leo was ordained in 1977. Whole different generation and experience of growing up with the new Mass.
HereAndGone2
1d ago
Ha ha. No, I meant the "openly gay and proud of it, here is me living with my same-sex partner but not married, next year I'll be the first lesbian bishop in this diocese" kind of ordinations.
HereAndGone2
1d ago
HereAndGone2
1d ago
There's an alternate universe perhaps where Cranmer had a higher eucharistic theology and insisted on maintaining sacrificial priesthood as a pillar of the English establishment,
That's the one without the wife in a box, yes?
I'm kind of sorry for Cranmer, and kind of not, so I can't resist laughing at him. I think he was honest in his beliefs, but man was he ever a doormat for Henry. Granted, it was 'bow or have your head chopped off' but the speed at which he went 'whatever the king says' is amazing. See his letter about Anne Boleyn where he's 'I'm astonished to hear this story but if the king says it, then okay, it must be so!' and he trots off to the Tower to dissolve the marriage that a just few years back he had worked so hard to legitimate, never mind that he owed his rise to the influence of the Boleyns:
Cranmer had the desire to put his reformist ideas in to practice, but realised he could not act on them until he acquired a more influential position. Cranmer’s relationship with Anne Boleyn and her family is seen as the starting point for his political motivations. As the Boleyn family’s chaplain, Cranmer suggested to them that if Papal authority was ended, Anne could marry Henry and become Queen of England, replacing Catherine of Aragon. Henry claimed that he could marry Anne as his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, the wife of Henry’s deceased brother, was illegitimate. Thomas Cranmer was subsequently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in March 1533. This caused a great deal of surprise, particularly as there were better qualified candidates. As Cranmer was in Austria at the time and unable to stake his claim for the position, some powerful influence must have been working on his behalf at Court.
HereAndGone2
1d ago
Rome recognizes the marriage of two baptized Protestants as sacramental, right?
Oookay. We're getting into the weeds here, but let's take a shot at it (to mix all the metaphors). Basically, it divides into two questions:
(1) Are Protestant marriages valid? Yes
(2) Are Protestant marriages sacramental? Well, does the denomination in question consider marriage to be a sacrament? Luther, for one, did not (the Reformation in general reduced down the seven sacraments to two or three).
The Church may indeed consider that marriage sacramental under certain conditions:
Question:
How are Catholics to view Protestant marriages?
Answer:
Generally speaking, Protestants have two valid sacraments, baptism and marriage, although they usually do not consider marriage to be a sacrament. Assuming the husband and wife are both validly baptized and that there are no impediments to the marriage, the Church presumes Protestant marriages to be both valid and sacramental.
I don't know enough about the different views in different Protestant denominations to say "marriages in denomination X are sacramental in their view and marriages in denomination Y are not".
The thorny question of "is this marriage between two Catholics licit, valid, both, neither, one or the other?" depends in part on the status of the minister. Marriage is the sacrament that spouses administer but if the priest assisting at the ceremony is not properly ordained, or if the couple are doing what they know is forbidden (as would be the case in defying the Pope and getting SSPX married) then they are breaking the rules (and rules came in due to a lot of confusion during the mediaeval period over "is this person/this couple truly married or not?" If you look at cases during the Tudor period, and not just in England but on the Continent, nobility and royalty were making and breaking marriage alliances based on 'were X and Y pre-contracted or not?').
Break the rules = break the law = illicit.
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.
§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church.
Can. 1109 Unless the local ordinary and pastor have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from office or declared such through a sentence or decree, by virtue of their office and within the confines of their territory they assist validly at the marriages not only of their subjects but also of those who are not their subjects provided that one of them is of the Latin rite.
Can. 1110 By virtue of office, a personal ordinary and a personal pastor assist validly only at marriages where at least one of the parties is a subject within the confines of their jurisdiction.
The "local ordinary" is the bishop of the diocese where the parish in which the marriage is taking place is located. Clearly, if it is being performed by an SSPX priest (who are now excommunicated) then it's not happening with the permission of the bishop and the priest has not been delegated by him.
HereAndGone2
1d ago
Sorry to see this happen, but yeah. Consecrating bishops is crossing the line.
And in a few years the "we are the real Catholics, Vatican II was a Satanic plot" set will be ordaining gay and women priests. Happened with other splinters before them, will happen to them.
HereAndGone2
2d ago
You're really telling me that motherhood is now equally low status in the USA, Latin America, the Middle East, and South Africa to depress fertility below 2
Were you not aware of the long-running campaigns to promote contraception and reduce births in Third World countries? Decades of "having lots of kids like your mom and granny did is bad and wrong" are going to reduce the status of motherhood even in poor countries.
Family planning was and is seen as one of the panaceas for what ailed the developing countries. Get women educated and into the workforce to combat poverty, stop having lots of kids the majority of whom would probably die early, and those who survived would push up population figures which were already straining the resources of those countries, stop girls being married off early/having tons of kids, and the numbers would balance out by reducing deaths due to famine and disease and war, and the rising tide would lift all boats. China's One Child Policy was just the extreme implementation of that thinking.
As policymakers seek to eliminate poverty and uphold human rights and dignity, they cannot afford to ignore one essential ingredient for sustainable development: voluntary family planning.
Family planning saves lives. It enables couples to choose whether and when to have children. It preserves women’s and girls’ health, and empowers them to pursue education and work. It boosts their ability to save, contribute to the economy, and invest in the health and education of their children. In sum, family planning enriches communities and strengthens economies.
Yet there are an estimated 214 million women in developing countries who have an unmet need for modern contraceptives.
Five years ago, at the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning, leaders affirmed the importance of family planning to women’s empowerment and global prosperity. Governments and partners committed to addressing contraceptive needs, with a vision of reaching 120 million women and girls with modern contraceptives by 2020.
This year, UNFPA, the United Kingdom, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are organizing a follow-up Family Planning Summit. It is an opportunity to assess progress, review how family planning can contribute to new and critical global development goals (such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development), and recommit to enabling every woman to realize her right to choose whether and when to have children.
Kindly note that little phrase "whether or when to have children". It's not just "space out pregnancies to be manageable so you have five kids over ten years or more", it's "decide if you want to have kids at all". Motherhood becomes low status when it's only the ignorant, rural, and poorest of the poor having so many kids just like in the old days.
HereAndGone2
2d ago
I will remember these kind comments the next time Amadan has to get out the Big Stick to give me a whacking 😊
HereAndGone2
2d ago
The Church of England swayed this way and that, in the power struggles over the centuries. Henry at its inception was pretty much still Catholic, he was not a doctrinal innovator (to the chagrin and impatience of those of his court who were all-in with the Reformers) and it was only gradually that a lot of the liturgical changes happened. Edward his son, having been raised by his more Reformed relations, was more Protestant and stripped out much more. Mary who succeeded him tried to roll back changes but died too soon. Elizabeth who succeeded her was not concerned so much with internal belief as external, and most importantly, political acquiescence. And James who succeeded her had been raised by the Presbyterian Scottish nobles in a much more Bible-oriented, Reform version of Protestantism.
As Supreme Head/Governor of the Church, the monarch's personal beliefs of course held much sway when steering the direction it would go (see the 18th century satirical song The Vicar of Bray about how the titular vicar trims his views to suit the political currents in order to hold on to his benefice). But the clergy and the rising middle-class also had a lot of influence, and there were perpetual struggles between those deemed High Church (much too like the despised Roman Catholics), Low Church (more in tune with the other Protestant Reformation churches like the Presbyterians) and the Broad Church, who thought of themselves as traditional, middle of the road, and not concerned with finicky points of doctrine and liturgy, just a basic "God and the Ten Commandments and no need to go deeper than that".
So the Empire was built and at its peak governed by the 'simple basic Christianity' Protestants, and if you don't think that was their view of the matter, take a gander at this, The Secret of England's Greatness:
The scene depicted is based on a popular but unfounded anecdote current in the 1850s. When asked by a diplomatic delegation how Britain had become so powerful, 'our beloved Queen sent him, not the number of her fleet, not the number of her armies, not the account of her boundless merchandise, not the details of her inexhaustible wealth … but handing him a beautifully bound copy of the Bible, she said 'Tell the Prince that this is the Secret of England's Greatness'. In Victorian times, ‘greatness’ was linked to a sense of Christian duty. This helped justify British colonialism as a 'civilising mission', supporting the belief that religious conversion brought about global improvement.
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Yes, we are Insidious, aided by our Machiavellian Italian co-religionists, our dour but doughty Polish co-religionists, the Bavarians (are they even proper Germans?), the French (well, what is there to say about the frogs that has not been said before?) and the gloomy, blood-drunken Spanish all of whom you foolishly permitted to immigrate to the unspotted virgin territory of the USA! Bwa-ha-ha, too late, too late!!!!
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Great. Now you are making me defend the Catholics.
Fear not, heretic, once the Great Day of Total Domination comes and the Pope is both secular and spiritual head of the entire world (as is only right and proper), we will remember those who aided us and your cell in the dungeons will have a tiny slit to permit some cloudy natural daylight enter, and you will only be tortured by the Inquisition once a month!
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Protestants have no will to power in the sense of large state or quasi-state institutions
Let me roll on the floor laughing here. Yep, no will to power. Just wanna sit at home being a Quietist Pietist, reading the Bible at mother's knee and knitting in the rocking chair.
Not like they went out to conquer empires or the likes.
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Permit me to stand up and salute the papal flag while the anthem of Vatican City plays (and I didn't even know there was an anthem until now) as a detachment of the Swiss Guard march pass, and the Jesuits rub their hands sinisterly and huddle together plotting and scheming in the shadows (naturally).
I wipe away a quiet tear of pride. It's been centuries by this point, and still! And still the Sinister Papal Global Conspiracy (Polluting Pure WASP America Version) rides high in the charts, obsessing the minds of many! Why, we even pulled off the coup of getting one of your own, an American citizen of the good old USA, elected pope all the better to infiltrate and corrupt the Pure White Protestant State for a Pure White Protestant People!
Let's recall some of the greatest hits of the past:
(1) they're coming for our kids! (2) Don't let them ashore (3) Only the KKK can defend us! and Mormons or Catholics - which are worse? (4) The American Pope!
Micks, Spics, and Hicks - the Papist Menace still menacing to this day!
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Sure, people can rent it out. But not everybody can rent it out for the entire day for a private event officiated by Nancy and anyone else wanting to get married that day can go whistle.
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Yes, indeed. No True Scotsman would ever say that. No True Scotsman would open an account on X back in 2009 and post about "vote for Connie Chan not Scott Weiner!", and (possibly) be a sex and intimacy coach/therapist.
Purely a right-wing MAGA voting conservative!
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Thank you for the Austen one, I have no idea how I managed an AAQC but all donations gratefully received!
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Kamala's 2019 run was an absolute gift to the Republican campaign because all they had to do was run the ad with the clip of her solemnly nodding about "absolutely, gender reassignment surgery and treatment paid for by the taxpayer for illegal immigrant criminals in jail, I am fully for that".
Golden. And she walked herself into that one because she misjudged that pandering to the progressive extreme was the way to go, forgetting that "it's Joe's turn now" and that she was giving way too many hostages to fortune. She did get her reward as his VP but that was as much "well he said he was gonna pick a black woman, might as well be her" as anything else.
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Shhh, Nybbler, we are not supposed to NOTICE because nothing happened, nothing at all, and if it did it was the right wing fascist bigot haters who did it, and if it wasn't then it could have been, and anyway it was a good thing it happened!
HereAndGone2
3d ago
he's a stronger politician.
Oh he definitely is, but his attempts at rebranding recently have been laughable - "I'm a dyslexic Irish Catholic rebel from a hardscrabble upbringing where my mom worked three jobs! (and meanwhile my dad introduced us to the Getty family and I got to go to school with their kids and hang around with them and get the patriarch to fund my businesses, but it's not like I'm privileged or anything)".
Moment he goes national and tries the "I understand the hard lives of middle class people, I was one myself" he will be slaughtered. Sure, Gav, ordinary lower-middle-class folks get to shut down SF City Hall for an entire day to oblige the wedding of their billionaire pals:
Stanlee and his team carpeted the entire rotunda of City Hall with bright teal and pink Persian rugs, completely transforming the space. “We draped all the archways on the second floor and first floor with turquoise and rose pink velvet drapes with 12” long gold thread fringe,” he explains. “We hung in waterfall fashion off the grand staircase railings, from top to bottom, thousands of pale pink dendrobiam orchids. Large stone urns on pedestals filled with pastel roses were through the rotunda and a top the staircase. I wanted to channel Ann,” Gatti says. “The colors, patterns and fabrics were a nod to Ann.”
...“San Francisco’s City Hall is designed to inspire awe—a symbol of the city’s power and resilience after the devastating 1906 earthquake and fire, with its white marble detailing and soaring dome that looms more than 300 feet overhead,” Hamish notes. “But despite the architectural magnificence—and the panoply of state, with Nancy Pelosi officiating and Governor Newsom and Mayor Breed in attendance—the ceremony managed to feel extraordinarily intimate and personal, with Tobias’s charming vows and his passionate kiss that dislodged Ivy’s crown!”
HereAndGone2
3d ago
Platner in Maine
The guy everybody was losing their life over? I think it'll be very damn interesting to see what he does once he sits his backside into the seat, and if he just votes with the mainstream Dems or decides to get up on his trotters and call for the People's Socialist Revolutionary Republican Democracy Democratic Republic right this second 😁
HereAndGone2
3d ago
It was the leftists screaming anti-Semitism, my friend. You can't No True Scotsman your way out of this.
HereAndGone2
3d ago
The amazing thing is how the extremists really do sound like the conservative caricature of the lefties. "Surely they can't be like that in reality/Whoops..." The lead-in to the "but we hate you!" screaming by the maker of the video was 'in your wildest dreams' stuff:
"Scott, I think your legislation on trans issues and your legislation specifically protecting queers on sex offender registry is fantastic. Like, I really applaud you for that and I think you deserve to be here for that".
You did not just say that. Tell me you didn't. Imagine a GOP politician getting praised for protecting people on sex offender registries 🤣
(There was also criticism of his housing policy and aligning with YIMPYs (sic) before launching into the stuck record you've been terrible you've been terrible you've been terrible stuff).
I'm not sure if it's me or kittycat you are jeering at, but okay boomer.
More options
Context Copy link