Posted on 04/29/2014 2:33:52 AM PDT by NYer
Well, where do you see a fault?
while Father’s tone was unhelpful, what he said essentially is true. Someone who is living in an objective state that cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation until and unless their objective state changes. Essentially, Father was giving you the truth. What is more pastoral than that? He could have stated it much better, however.It would not have been helpful to you in any way had Father given you absolution and said, “Go in peace.” You would still be in that objective state of sin.
The problem is, any of those reasons/exceptions/excuses the Catholic church gives should be picked up by the priest in the pre-Cana classes.
If the priest didn’t pick up on the fact that there were those kinds of problems, he certainly wasn’t doing his job.
It also is a strike against a single priesthood as single men DO NOT KNOW what it takes to be married.
As far as the mental capacity or age exception, what priest is going to be marrying someone who is so mentally deficient that they can’t handle the marriage or someone who is so vastly underage that they don’t qualify? Any priest who lacks discernment and integrity to refuse to marry such persons does not belong in the office performing such functions.
Whatever happened to *for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, til death do us part*?
Annulment makes a mockery of marriage when it treats it so lightly. Those people stood before God and made a vow to each other before Him as their witness.
That's pretty hard to argue with. Can't blame you for not wanting to go there.
So what was the woman supposed to do? Divorce her husband? Make her sin?
Her question was a valid one.Does this mean I can never receive the Sacrament of Penance and shouldn’t bother taking communion until I force the man I love to convert to my religion and get married in a Roman Catholic Church? It sounds so contrived!
And does *forcing* someone to become Catholic mean anything? Would it make it a *valid* marriage if he went through the motions and pretended to be Catholic?
You won’t get a straight answer out of a Catholic to a simple yes or no question.
You know that.
We’re working on that on another thread and you’ve seen the results there.
The woman had to separate from her husband till such time that they marry in the Catholic Church, or remain divorced. Divorce, by the way is not a sin; fornication is.
They could have been married in the Catholic Church while the husband was Protestant on a dispensation from the bishop, almost always available. That she did not do that puts her in a state of sin, which she cannot be absolved from while living with the man.
The priest and the RCC and take it and put it somewhere. She's legally married, she is not in a state of sin. Separating from her husband, which goes against clear Scriptural command would be sin.
And you claim divorce is not a sin? Pray tell, show us where in the CCC it says that. Then why annulments?
1 Corinthians 7:3-5 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:10-16 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord):the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Why do you teach things contrary to Scripture? Why does the Catholic church teach things contrary to Scripture?
That's forcing people to sin. Real sin. Not the made up stuff the Catholic church has called sin.
Is every Pre-Cana class conducted by a Priest? Please try and learn the facts before you rush to comment.
THEY WERE NEVER MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE CHURCH!
And does *forcing* someone to become Catholic mean anything? Would it make it a *valid* marriage if he went through the motions and pretended to be Catholic?
Show me from this thread or Canon Law where the spouse must become Catholic! Go ahead I dare you! You clearly did not read a single posting on this either from the other Catholics or myself. How many times was "Dispensation from form mentioned"?
Keep bearing false witness and telling us that you are a Christian.
I agree it is best not to go there!
I see a dodge.
Yes or no is quite sufficient.
Is THIS a yes or a no?
This is SO deflective on SO many levels...
The passage from I Cor 7:10-16 is talking about {assuming is the case of} a “normal” marriage, a marriage where there is no abuse. It must be, or else one would be forced to conclude a woman (or a man) who divorces their spouse because they are suffering regular, physical abuse has “sinned”. IOW, I seriously doubt our Lord expects a woman to stay married to a man (live with a man)’who beats her on a regular basis.
Besides this isn’t even the circumstance here. Annalex was saying that the woman in the OP should separate from her husband until and unless they either get a dispensation for their marriage or they get their marriage convalidated. Which isn’t in contradiction with Scripture in fact is supported by it (I Cor 7:3-5). (Assuming both agree to the separation)
This CHALLENGE from one who, apparently, cannot reply to my question with a simple yes or no?
You have no credibility.
You have no credibility.
Your question was answered in several posts on this thread. I don't think that my answering it one more time will make a difference for you. I myself posted Canon law on the topic as did several others.
I also think it is very indicative that You of all people should try to make comments out not answering questions.
No; it was NOT!
It was danced around.
#66
Is this REALLY infallible doctrine of the Church?? |
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.