faraci.robert
faraci.robert likes from rhemes1582

Clericalism: Hardliner Archbishop Justifies Abuse Against Kneeling Faithful

St. Louis IX : Lover of The Most Blessed Sacrament of The Altar: The Most Christian King, and defender of The Church; please obtain Grace for the faithful to persevere in the face of such an evil that is running unchecked in The Church today.
faraci.robert likes from Jim Dorchak

Bishop Schneider Talks to Gloria.tv about the Abu Dhabi Document

I am praying that you get well soon from your cold! Jim
faraci.robert likes from Eva
33
Politician-Cardinal - In 2014 Cardinal Tobin said otherwise than recently: Cardinal Tobin Insults Catechism: “Very Unfortunate,” “Hurtful” Language On HomosexualsMore
Politician-Cardinal - In 2014 Cardinal Tobin said otherwise than recently:
Cardinal Tobin Insults Catechism: “Very Unfortunate,” “Hurtful” Language On Homosexuals
archindy.org

Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Indiana on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling (June 25, 2014)

Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin led the Catholics in central and southern Indiana who are part of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis from 2012 to 2016.
Tobin is a sodomite, sowing dissent.
Wow! It took me aback to find Tobin's signature under that orthodox statement from 2014. It confirms to my mind that, as I suggested in my email to …More
Wow! It took me aback to find Tobin's signature under that orthodox statement from 2014. It confirms to my mind that, as I suggested in my email to him in response to his NBC interview, Tobin should and would have known better than to mislead the interviewer and that he did so deliberately. His flip-flop here certainly appears hypocritical; either that or it represents an "evolution" of his views (from Catholic to heretical). I have long seen him as a bishop with the heart and aspirations of a politician, just as you suggest, and once wrote to him that he should resign from the episcopate and the clergy and seek a career as a politician.
View one more comment.
faraci.robert likes from Reesorville

Gloria.TV News on the 19th of December 2016

Cardinal Muller said that there are some cases when a confessor can decide for a penitent when a previous marriage was null.

The Council of Trent said that those who declared that church courts could not judge marriages were excommunicated.

The Council of Trent was speaking of a heresy wherein people were asserting that the church did not have the authority to judge such things, and those who …More
Cardinal Muller said that there are some cases when a confessor can decide for a penitent when a previous marriage was null.

The Council of Trent said that those who declared that church courts could not judge marriages were excommunicated.

The Council of Trent was speaking of a heresy wherein people were asserting that the church did not have the authority to judge such things, and those who held that this was a heresy were excommunicated. Many of the canons of the Council of Trent are of a similar nature, in that they anathematize people who question the validity or effects of the sacrament, or the authority of the church to grant them... primarily because the Council was facing a widespread protestant heresy that denied the sacraments and the church's authority over them.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I question if that specific canon means the same thing as stating that the Council in fact demanded all cases where a previous marriage might have existed must necessarily have been dealt with by a church court. It could be rather interpreted as meaning that the Church had the right and authority to judge such cases, and not that every such case must necessarily be judged by a church court.

To use some practical examples, suppose you had a man in Saudi Arabia who had four wives. And the fourth wife was a Catholic who got married in an Islamic ceremony. Later she realized this marriage was against what the church taught, left him, confessed this and the priest absolved her... why would you need a church court to give her an annulment before you could conclude her marriage never existed and this man was not her husband?

Or if two Catholic males had a homosexual marriage, and they later repented and separated, then went to confession... why would an annulment be necessary?

I think the purpose of the annulment is to make a formal declaration when the case is in doubt, and you need an authoritative opinion... not when it is an absolute and complete certainty. Maybe I am wrong.