Replies

Sorry for not seeing your post until last night when i was going through my posts.

Sir, with all due respect, you are not a Catholic. Why don't you let Catholics explain Catholic belief? I don't presume to lecture Protestants about Baptist beliefs, or AOG, etc.

The answer is that no one had addressed the issue with more than cursory statements as yet, and second, often Catholics show only give a superficial answer or indicate more ignorance of Roman Catholicism than me, and or make absolute statements when in reality valid theological debate exists due to lack of clarity. And it was not my intent to falsely present Roman Catholic teaching, while you should be allowed to sincerely explain Protestant beliefs if needed,

Your post is correct in some areas, but wrong in many others. For example: “However being married to an unbeliever is one of the many grounds (psychological abnormality, stubbornness, etc.) for possible annulment.”

Wrong. A marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.

“Marriage” here refers to civil type marriage, not Catholic sacramental marriage, and how can my statement on annulment be wrong if there was no valid marriage according to Rome in the first place? [emp. mine throughout]

SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS [to valid marriage], Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM) Can. 1125” The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled.

And a regards Pauline Privilege, according to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272,

Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural (not sacramental) marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. But if a Catholic marries an unbaptized;/non-Christian person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.

However, they seem to contradict the invalid state of mixed marriage according to Can. 1086, as they state: The Pauline Privilege does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege.

Thus if this site is accurate and marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is indeed marriage then i would be wrong by using “annulment” rather than “dissolved” — the latter resulting in Rome sanctioning divorce in this case — while you would be in error by invoking Pauline Privilege for dissolution of marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, versus between two non-Christians, one of whom later becomes a believer.

“et in Scripture, marriage is covenanted “leaving and cleaving,” and all consummated marriages are called marriage...Where dissolution is allowed, it is divorce, not annulment.”

And that makes it okay? Are you serious at all? How many divorced and remarried people in your congregation? Your "reformation"....

My statement is not wrong, and going on the attack mode against divorce, and making Luther like a pope, will not negate the truth of my statement against liberal Catholic grounds for annulment. And given the tens of thousands of annulments granted on various grounds, multitudes of other RCs may not have valid marriages — though it is to be presumed they are valid unless determined otherwise.

“water; except in case of absolute necessity'

Wrong again; water is always required.

I refer you to such Catholic teaching as, “When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) as in cases in which what we normally call water was not available. Which gets into technicalities, but i do not think there is an absolute rule that would disallow a baptism such as in the case of an unconscious man dying in a foxhole if the only liquid they had was natural runny mud. Thomas at least allowed for river water that turned somewhat muddy. And clear authoritative rules are what would be needed.

“But pressed more precisely, “intending to do what the Church does” in baptism would exclude almost all Baptists and Protestants from having been “properly baptized,” as they do not intend baptize in order to have sins forgiven”

Wrong again. Sacramental intent in baptism consists in intending to administer Trinitarian Christian baptism. Belief in a specific theology of baptism is not required. For a cogent discussion of this, see this essay.

That was framed more as a hypothesis, as it “can be a matter of interpretation,” and thanks for the link, but as the discussions shows, there is a deeper understanding of the theology of baptism than simply intending to baptize in water using the Trinitarian formula. And which allows for some valid debate, and in making an absolute statement you may be choosing one Catholic authority over another. The issue is the “intention of doing what the Church does,” and as one inquiring poster (who was told to ask a priest) expressed, Trent speaks of valid baptism consisting of having the intention of doing what the Church does, not simply an intention of baptizing. The CCC states “The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.” (1256) And the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect [which in Catholicism includes baptismal regeneration], in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual [see 2^nd paragraph; and for the following]. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

CIC Canon 869: Those baptised in a non-catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptised conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptised or of that of the baptising minister. (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2W.HTM)

Nor is there any Eucharistic consecration if a priest does not intend to consecrate the host but only to make a pretense. (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm)

Historically, even Luther held to baptismal regeneration, and baptism by heretics was generally considered valid, and yet before Vatican Two, “Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration...Still...if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid.” (ibid)

Yet most Protestant churches today cannot be thought of intending to do “what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect” according to Rome. Both the Protestant and Catholic churches intend to baptize, but for Catholics baptism is not simply an outward confession of the Lord Jesus in body language, and testifying to an inward reality, but baptism is defined as an act by which “all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin,” (CCC 1263) and the baptized are incorporated into the Church, (1267) sealing the Christian “with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ.” (1272) and is “the beginning of new life.” (1275)

“Insufficient faith” by the minister may not itself invalidate baptism, but which is rather ambiguous, however, “Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does.” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html)

Thus, valid baptism may be presumed unless serious ground exists for doubting that the ministers intent was “kosher,' and similarly a couple who may later be granted an annulment, meaning no valid marriage took place, are to be considered married until determined otherwise.

And in case, whatever ecumenical tenor and affirmation of Protestant baptism Lumen Gentium was meant to have is offset by past seemingly absolute statements (though i understand how Rome seeks to reconcile them):

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (ex cathedra according to Manning):
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff..."
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). — http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html (Note, some translations say “when the Greeks..")

Papal Bull Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV, 1441 No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. -
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm

In summary, as regards corrections, if marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is indeed marriage then i should have used “dissolved”, while my parenthetical statement, “ water; except in case of absolute necessity'” should have clarified what was meant and what was debatable, likewise that debate exists over what “intent” means as regards the requirements for valid Roman Catholic baptism, and “could” (my rather than “would” exclude almost all Baptists should have been stated.

And I do want to thank you for at least bringing some need for correction to my attention and which warranted further investigation, as i do not want or need to misrepresent Catholic teaching (and i typically document my work), but which i sometimes see done by Catholics (besides Protestants) by making statements on things which are not as absolute, clear or as uniform as they sometimes make them out to be.