Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: terycarl

And that stuff wasn’t resolved BEFORE the marriage?

No priest should have agreed to marry a couple without first covering those bases.

Stupid, but excuses for church sanctioned divorce abound.

What hypocrisy to condemn divorce and then sanction it under a different name.


306 posted on 05/27/2015 7:39:41 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
Stupid, but excuses for church sanctioned divorce abound. What hypocrisy to condemn divorce and then sanction it under a different name.

The church recognizes divorce....doesn't sanction it, but recognizes it....what the church does not allow, sanction, nor approve of is remarriage....constitutes living in a state of adultry.

320 posted on 05/27/2015 8:34:28 PM PDT by terycarl (COMMON SENSE PREVAILS OVERALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: metmom; terycarl
**And that stuff wasn’t resolved BEFORE the marriage?**

Engagements and wedding banns used to be posted in newspapers, church bulletins, and within and outside the church. There was a waiting period so anyone who objected could speak up. They even built that part into the ceremony.

Conclusion: Yes, Virginia, there are impediments to marriage that may not be evident at the time. Priests can't read minds, or we wouldn't need auricular Confession. But that's another thread! God bless you!

385 posted on 05/28/2015 10:22:08 AM PDT by Grateful2God (Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson