Posted on 11/10/2004 6:37:01 PM PST by 1stFreedom
Hopefully, that helps people understand where this thread originates.
Legalism.
>>Most of this is your opinion.
Actually, most of it isn't. Most of it is based upon Canon law and documents of the Rota.
I suspected you'd spew your misinformation here.
Sinkspur and I have gone round and round on this many times. The positions he argues are the same positions which keep the waters muddy.
Your reply was that of a..... uhh, weenie!
It's not legalism. Legalism would hold that there is no such beast as an anullment!
Sink,
Look, I can admit that I can be wrong.
I ask you to show me the points where I am wrong, but please provide facts (canon law, etc) to back up your claims. Simply saying that I'm wrong isn't enough.
Man am I glad I left the catholic church.
sinkspur wrote:
Most of this is your opinion.
Hopefully, that helps people understand where this thread originates.
Only death truly resolves the question of annulment. Why? The decision is never truly final because:
o It’s dependent on honesty and conscious of the parties involved.
• The tribunal only makes it’s decision based upon this honesty, and the tribunal can err
o It’s dependant on the efforts of the tribunal to ensure a just investigation and decision
• An unjust investigation most likely cannot discover the true nature of the bond
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."
The decision of a tribunal, after appeals, is final.
Canon law is promulgated directly by the Holy See, no council is involved. And canon law itself is not "infallibly defined," but of course it reflects and implements various dogmata of the Faith which are infallible definitions.
For example, the statement that "a valid and consummated marriage between baptized Christians cannot be dissolved except by death" is infallibly defined dogma taken straight from the Gospels. That naturally gives rise to the question, "What constitutes a valid and consummated marriage between baptized Christians?", and the whole mechanism for answering that question is what is specified by canon law.
Good luck...let the Holy Spirit lead you.
Jesus is the current that pulls all who love Him...from any denomination or none at all.
Jesus is the force greater than anything on this little planet.
Just my opinion, of course.
>>"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."
But man was never given authority to bind evil in heaven. This is a misapplication of this verse
>>The decision of a tribunal, after appeals, is final.
Therein lies the catch -- when is the final appeal? New evidence can keep a case open forever (in theory). Even a "final" tribunal decsion can be appealed with new evidence.
I tell you what, I'll try to find the source for this claim. I'll put it in the "on hold" category until I can back it up with more than the argument that the "final" judgement can be appealed with new evidence.
Are you a lawyer?
>>Canon law is promulgated directly by the Holy See, no council is involved.
This is not entirely true. Canon law has been established by Church Councils (Council of Elvira, 300? AD for instance.) But I cannot say if this was at the prodding of the Pope or not.
>>And canon law itself is not "infallibly defined," but of course it reflects and implements various dogmata of the Faith which are infallible definitions.
I would say my understanding of it is the:
If an ecumenical council defines it, then by it's nature it's infallible (it's on faith and morals, and related to marriage part of the deposit of faith, etc). I could be wrong.
For example, the statement that "a valid and consummated marriage between baptized Christians cannot be dissolved except by death" is infallibly defined dogma taken straight from the Gospels. That naturally gives rise to the question, "What constitutes a valid and consummated marriage between baptized Christians?", and the whole mechanism for answering that question is what is specified by canon law.
We are human beings, working with human judgment. Only moral certainty is required, not absolute certainty.
You are becoming extremely scrupulous over this.
You are certain you are married to a woman you no longer want to be married to.
>>Perhaps emotional abuse has become a new valid reason, though, but I doubt it.
If the abuse did not occur at the exchange of vows, the marriage is valid. Even so, abuse itself isn't grounds for anullment -- though the Bishops here in the US seem to be pushing that.
I've been reading this just now:
http://www.rcab.org/Information/Annulment/marriage.html
Unfortunately, the examples it gives do not immediately indicate how someone like Ted and Joe K. got their annulments.
Maybe Joe Sr. forced Teddy to marry Joan?
You forgot to include the tribunal's going-rate (to give the petitioner the decision s/he wants)...
>>You are becoming extremely scrupulous over this.
No, not really. The problem is we all have accepted the unscrupulous theology of dissent as being the norm, and anything else as being scrupulous.
Canon laws aren't suggestions which can be flexible. They are absolutes.
The fact that anullments are given in the first place is not scrupulous. The church doesn't have to give them at all. The fact that it does is anything but scrupulous and legalistic.
He answers prayer...ask Him what He thinks...
or would you rather argue the fine points promulgated by humans.
Are you willing to listen to Him
...or do you only believe your minds...and not your hearts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.