What???
Whaddya mean, "Never?"
Posted on 12/25/2017 7:03:30 AM PST by Lera
Which we ALL know is considered about as good as shackin' up by members of the OTC!!
Some years back, Slick Willy declared that Mary and Joseph were “homeless”.
It’s getting worse all the time. Pretty soon, leftists will announce that Jesus and Satan are one and the same.
The Pope is a fool, a nut, or both.
Probably both.
If they both signed the paper or said *I do*, consent was given, whether they had second thoughts about it later or not.
That whole *consent* thing is just an excuse.
How ironic.
Catholics get on Prots about how loose Prots morals are and for divorce, and yada, yada, yada, and here we are, me the *Prot* defending the sacredness of the marriage vow and you, the Catholic, giving me all kinds of reasons and excuses for conditions under which it can be broken.
Just how is the Catholic church the champion for marriage when it offers church sanctioned dissolution of marriage with the right excuse and the right amount of money, if you’re the right person, of course.
And of course most annulments are given to those who were married outside the Catholic church.
After all, wouldn’t want to discourage fresh blood from joining by being hard nosed about their former marriage and divorce, now would they?
So the Catholic church doesn’t recognize the validity of a marriage not performed within it? Just who do they think they are to feel they can define marriage for the entire rest of the human race and claim to have a monopoly on legitimate marriages?
GOD established marriage, not the Catholic church. They have no business telling others that since they weren’t married in the Catholic chruch, they were living in sin.
In #16 I listed, admittedly off the top of my head, what I called "obvious examples" of conditions which would invalidate an attempted marriage. They were:
I also, in another reply, said there has been (in my opinion) rampant abuse of the annulment process in the USA, with American diocesan tribunals granting annulments literally in the tens of thousands for "defect of consent due to psychological immaturity."
This is not an expression of Catholic doctrine but a negation of it. The psychological criterion for nullity is supposed to be "incapacity" to consent because of "only the most severe forms of psychopathology": not merely "We were kinda immature."
Now, I need to address an impression I apparently gave you which is not correct. Namely, your comment was, "So the Catholic church doesn’t recognize the validity of a marriage not performed within it?"
This is not the case. The Catholic Church recognizes all marriages as "really marriage," even between pagans or Wiccans or atheists, so long as they intended marriage. Marriage is a primordial, natural institution of God which belongs to the whole human race. This is respected as "natural marriage."
Over and above the natural, a marriage is regarded by the Church as, you could say, "supernatural" or "sacramental" when the parties are baptized Christians. Not just Catholics: any baptized Christians. So even if you don't think your marriage is exactly a Sacrament, WE consider Protestant Matrimony a Sacrament, because St. Paul said it is an effective "outward sign" (sacrament) of an inward spiritual reality (the union of Christ and the Church), what Paul calls in Ephesians a "Magnum Mysterium."
So Protestant marriages are presumed to be valid and an outward sign of the Magnum Mysterium and therefore sacramental.
If two baptized Protestants got married in a Protestant church, their marriage to each other will automatically be recognized by the Church and will be presumed to be both valid and sacramental.
The problem, or potential problem, is that while Catholic marriage preparation is supposed to stress the teachings that Matrimony is, by God's design, lifelong, faithful, and fruitful, a Protestant may or may not have been given these teachings. They may have entered into this Sacrament almost inadvertently assuming it's lasting and faithful only unless or until it is dissolved by civil divorce, and fruitful only when and if they decide to have children, at which time they'll stop deliberately blockading or sabotaging their fertility.
Of course, it's certain that there are Catholics who have such a defective idea of marriage, too. But the presumption is that Catholics entered into it at least having been taught what Catholic marriage is; and non-Catholics may or may not have been taught this.
If a couple honest-to-God didn't know a marriage was supposed to be indissoluble, lifelong, exclusive, and open to childbearing, and had never been taught this, then there is a stronger case that they never intended "marriage" in the full and rightful sense of the word. You can't be said to have consented to "marriage" if you don't know what "marriage" is.
Your thoughts?
Yikes.
Seriously.
Whaddya mean, "Never?"
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.