Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New papal decree clarifies role of deacons and result of defections on marriage
cna ^ | December 15, 2009

Posted on 12/15/2009 3:47:50 PM PST by NYer

Denver, Colo., Dec 15, 2009 / 05:16 pm (CNA).- This morning the Vatican published a Motu Proprio from Pope Benedict called “Omnium in Mentem”  and dated October 26. According to J.D. Flynn, a canon lawyer for the Archdiocese of Denver, the new document clarifies the nature of a deacon's orders and the impact of defections from Catholicism on the validity of a marriage.

“Omnium in Mentum,” roughly translated as “Everything in Mind,” deals with two unrelated topics, a fact that caused Flynn to observe that it's probably easier to publish one Motu Propio than two.

Writing in an explanatory note for the Motu Proprio,  Archbishop Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, commented on the modified canons (1008, 1009, 1086, 1117 and 1124). These variations, he said, "concern two separate questions: adapting the text of the canons that define the ministerial function of deacons … and suppressing a subordinate clause in three canons concerning marriage, which experience has shown to be inappropriate."

The first issue addressed by the Motu Propio is the role of the diaconate.

Part of the current canon “describes sacred orders as participating in the headship of Christ,” Flynn explained. “The Motu Proprio clarifies that priests and bishops participate in the headship of Christ 'in persona Christi,' whereas deacons serve the Church, the people of God, through the ministry, services, or 'diaconias' of liturgy, word, and charity.” Thus, Flynn said, the document emphasizes that there is a “clear distinction between the diaconate and the presbyterate.”

“The distinction is between the deacon who acts “in imago Dei” and the priest who acts 'in persona Christi,'” Flynn explained. 

What this means in layman's terms is that “we see the diaconate as a unique ministry unto itself and not simply a step along the way to the priesthood,” he added.

The second item considered by the Motu Propio is an obscure clause regarding a dispensation in canon law.

The reason for this allowance under the 1983 Code of Canon Law was to attempt to support the institution of marriage, even for Catholics who had renounced the Faith, Flynn said. Catholics who defect from the faith, or formally renounce it, must do so by writing a letter to their bishop stating their defection.

The only consequence of a defection prior to “Omnium in Mentem” was that the defector would subsequently be able to “get married validly without observing canonical form,” noted Flynn. This would mean that a defecting Catholic could validly be married in a civil ceremony, for example, without a dispensation.

“This Motu Proprio eliminates the impact of defections on marriage and requires that defectors follow canonical form for marriage,” he stated.

Stressing that “this idea that you can defect from the church by formal act for the purposes of marital validity has always been a sort of anomaly to our theology,” Flynn explained that the document abolished the anomaly.

He also noted that, “in the United States, we get very, very few defections by formal act.”

“What this really is, is an affirmation of our theology. Theologically we understand that what makes us Catholic is our Baptism or our reception in to the Church. Whether we want to be Catholic is not germane to the question of whether we are Catholic. Whether we follow the teachings of the Church or not is not germane to the question of whether or not we are Catholic. The thing that the church says is that all Catholics are bound to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Thus, at the theological level, the document establishes “that the Church does not participate in a congregational ecclesiology,” said Flynn. “Our ecclesiology is sacramental.”


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: 1tim47; deacons; marriage; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 12/15/2009 3:47:51 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; markomalley; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 12/15/2009 3:48:36 PM PST by NYer ("One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone" - Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

can you explain what this means in plain English?


3 posted on 12/15/2009 4:02:53 PM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc; Coleus; firebrand

never mind English, I doubdt they can explain it in latin..


4 posted on 12/15/2009 4:07:49 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
(1) It discusses the distinction of the diaconate from the priesthood, and the theology of the order of deacon.

(2) It says that, if a person leaves the Catholic church and subsequently contracts marriage in a non-Catholic ceremony, the church considers the marriage to be invalid.

5 posted on 12/15/2009 4:41:35 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; HarleyD; the_conscience; Dr. Eckleburg; BibChr
The reason for this allowance under the 1983 Code of Canon Law was to attempt to support the institution of marriage, even for Catholics who had renounced the Faith, Flynn said. Catholics who defect from the faith, or formally renounce it, must do so by writing a letter to their bishop stating their defection.
The only consequence of a defection prior to “Omnium in Mentem” was that the defector would subsequently be able to “get married validly without observing canonical form,” noted Flynn. This would mean that a defecting Catholic could validly be married in a civil ceremony, for example, without a dispensation.

This is incredible.. the church wants former Catholics to follow canon law regarding remarriage in a CIVIL ceremony... They say that former catholics are subject to canon law because they were baptized as an infant without their consent ??

Ohh please give me a break.. does the church need the money it makes doing annulments or something??

6 posted on 12/15/2009 4:48:07 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; LadyDoc
In plain English, so far as I can tell (only the Italian and Latin are up on the Vatican website so far):

Holy Orders


Canon 1008 used to say:

Can. 1008 By divine institution, the sacrament of orders establishes some among the Christian faithful as sacred ministers through an indelible character which marks them. They are consecrated and designated, each according to his grade, to nourish the people of God, fufilling in the person of Christ the Head the functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing.

Canon 1008 now says:

"By the Sacrament of Orders by divine institution some among the faithful, through the indelible character with which they are marked, consisting of sacred ministers, that is those who are consecrated and to serve, each in its degree, with new and unique way The people of God. "

In Italian, “Con il sacramento dell’ordine per divina istituzione alcuni tra i fedeli, mediante il carattere indelebile con il quale vengono segnati, sono costituiti ministri sacri; coloro cioè che sono consacrati e destinati a servire, ciascuno nel suo grado, con nuovo e peculiare titolo, il popolo di Dio”.

 

Canon 1009 says:

Can. 1009 §1. The orders are the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate.

§2. They are conferred by the imposition of hands and the consecratory prayer which the liturgical books prescribe for the individual grades.

There is now added onto it a third point:

§3. "Those who are made in the order of the episcopate or priesthood receive their mission and the ability to act in the person of Christ the Head, but the deacons are empowered to serve the people of God in the diaconate of the liturgy of the word and of charity" .

In Italian, “Coloro che sono costituiti nell’ordine dell’episcopato o del presbiterato ricevono la missione e la facoltà di agire nella persona di Cristo Capo, i diaconi invece vengono abilitati a servire il popolo di Dio nella diaconia della liturgia, della parola e della carità”.

Comment: this draws a clear distinction among the orders of Deacons, Presbyteriate, and Episcopate. Doctrinally, there is nothing new...but this sets the Diaconate as a different type of order than the other two.


Marriage Canons


Canon 1086 §1 used to say:

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.

It now says:

Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

Canon 1117 used to say:

Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

It now says:

Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

Canon 1124 used to say:

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

It now says:

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Comment: It removed the legal concept of formal defection from the Church from marriage qualifications. According to the text of the Motu Proprio, it was saying that the concept of a formal defection from the Church was difficult in practice to set up, as the concept itself was not a valid one from Canon Law. In addition, the concept in there could encourage one to go apostate if they were located in a area with few Catholics, while, on the other hand, it could make things more difficult to come back and bring the spouse back at the same time. My note: it sort of makes sense, as if a person has defected from the Church, that person is not going to follow Canon Law one way or the other, anyway.


Hopefully that makes it as clear as mud now.

7 posted on 12/15/2009 4:58:07 PM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Campion
There are lots of people around who were baptized as Catholics as babies but later became Protestants and married in a Protestant ceremony. Are they really proclaiming that they regard all of those marriages as invalid?

Sarah Palin's marriage, for example...

8 posted on 12/15/2009 4:59:12 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
There are lots of people around who were baptized as Catholics as babies but later became Protestants and married in a Protestant ceremony. Are they really proclaiming that they regard all of those marriages as invalid?

That's what it says.

9 posted on 12/15/2009 5:07:52 PM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

It speaks to the role Marriage plays within Natural Law. Just as the Church recognizes any baptism given in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the Church also claims a role over Marriage. As a result, the Church will speak to the validity or invalidity of ANY marriage. For example, if a Catholic leaves the Church, divorces, and then remarries in another denomination or sect, the Church states the marriage is invalid due to the divorced status of the individual.


10 posted on 12/15/2009 5:15:08 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus; markomalley

My reading would say that as long as Mr. Palin was baptized using “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit” it would be a valid marriage.


11 posted on 12/15/2009 5:16:43 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
There are lots of people around who were baptized as Catholics as babies but later became Protestants and married in a Protestant ceremony. Are they really proclaiming that they regard all of those marriages as invalid?

Going forward, yes.

As to whether it's retroactive, I'll have to defer on that one. (My guess is not.)

I doubt it would make any difference to Ms. Palin anyway, unless she got a divorce and wanted to marry a Catholic, in which case (if the law were retroactive), it would make it much easier for her.

12 posted on 12/15/2009 5:22:58 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

I think what is at issue is the status of the church performing the marriage (if the Palins were married in a church service rather than by a judge), regardless of Todd Palin’s baptism (I assume he was baptized). But they are saying the marriage is “prohibited” which isn’t quite the same as saying that it is invalid.


13 posted on 12/15/2009 5:24:26 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Yeah, reading the subsequent canons recognized the issue. The Church views membership as something that is not easily tossed-off, as a result, for its members it has oversight. But as I think someone else said, if they left the Church, they probably don’t care what the Church says after all.


14 posted on 12/15/2009 5:26:32 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

No. If they later on UN-defected, then they would have to regularize their marriage. Otherwise, what do they care that the church thinks their marriage is invalid?


15 posted on 12/15/2009 5:27:51 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
This is incredible.. the church wants former Catholics to follow canon law regarding remarriage in a CIVIL ceremony

Remarriage? Civil ceremony?

Catholics are required to "obey the Catholic form" in marriage for validity ("Catholic form" == a Catholic rite witnessed by a Catholic cleric), or get a "dispensation of form" from the bishop. The law previously exempted persons who had left the church from that requirement; now, it doesn't.

Ohh please give me a break.. does the church need the money it makes doing annulments or something??

If they do, they just made a big mistake.

You see, going forward, this means that a person who leaves the church, contracts marriage outside the church, then divorces, then wants to remarry to a Catholic, can get an annulment on the basis of "invalid form".

Which, compared to a normal annulment, is trivial, fast, and (I would expect) cheaper. (Faster I know for a fact.)

16 posted on 12/15/2009 5:28:53 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
But they are saying the marriage is "prohibited" which isn't quite the same as saying that it is invalid.

I'm pretty sure it is in this case.

("Prohibited" is slightly odd terminology, though.)

17 posted on 12/15/2009 5:31:39 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
My reading would say that as long as Mr. Palin was baptized using “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit” it would be a valid marriage.

It would be invalid due to a defect in form.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Bottom line is that it would have to be convalidated, in the event that she wanted to come back to the Church. This, of course, assumes that Sarah did not receive a dispensation from her local pastor or ordinary, per Canon 1118.

18 posted on 12/15/2009 5:46:18 PM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
The Church views membership as something that is not easily tossed-off

It's just as easy as saying, 'I quit'...

19 posted on 12/15/2009 5:53:41 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

But not to God. God really wants to hold onto His own and thus the Church wants to maintain that openness. I know you don’t believe that, but that is what the Church believes and why it wants to keep the channels of grace open for us.


20 posted on 12/15/2009 5:55:26 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I missed the last canon, but yeah, you are correct I think.


21 posted on 12/15/2009 5:56:05 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
does the church need the money it makes doing annulments or something??

LOL. Well, it doesn't need the money, but it's always nice to pad the coffers.

Funny how the papacy presumes it controls people's lives even after they've fled the interview, by the grace of God.

22 posted on 12/15/2009 6:31:06 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer; LadyDoc
**The first issue addressed by the Motu Propio is the role of the diaconate. **

What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Deacons and the Diaconate[Catholic-Orthodox Caucus]

23 posted on 12/15/2009 6:36:00 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Yes, and another one would be Glenn Beck — baptized as a Catholic, but now practicing the Mormon mindset.


24 posted on 12/15/2009 6:38:19 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

I don’t really know what to say to that except it’s pathetic.

I suppose it’s a way to pull the naive back into their cult.


25 posted on 12/15/2009 6:45:33 PM PST by the_conscience (I'm a bigot: Against Jihadists and those who support despotism of any kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Well, it doesn't need the money, but it's always nice to pad the coffers.

I'm not sure how you think something that makes it easier to get an annulment would make the church more money, but I guess in the upside-down world of "Rome is always wrong," it must make sense.

Somehow.

26 posted on 12/15/2009 6:59:52 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Campion

You get the idea that a lot of people have no clue just what an annulment involves. The money is the least of it.


27 posted on 12/15/2009 7:02:41 PM PST by Desdemona (True Christianity requires open hearts and open minds - not blind hatred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona

(Actually, you could have just stopped after “clue”. ;-))


28 posted on 12/15/2009 7:08:22 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona

I know from 1st hand experience annulments are not to be taken lightly. Still, I am VERY thankful to Gof for the decree of nullity I received.


29 posted on 12/15/2009 7:09:54 PM PST by TheStickman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: the_conscience
I suppose it’s a way to pull the naive back into their cult.

Actually, I think it's a way to keep marriage tribunals from having to reconstruct whether Joe was really a Lutheran when he married Sarah, or whether he was still a Catholic.

But, whatever floats yer boat.

30 posted on 12/15/2009 7:10:13 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
Another instance of the Catholic Church disparaging and overruling the individual conscience. You can't say you're not a Catholic if you ever were one. Well, you can say it, but it's not true, according to them.

Anyway, I think all that labeling stuff is passe and inane. It serves a very limited function.

Funny definition I heard tonight: Charismatic Catholicism = Pentecostalism with sacraments.

31 posted on 12/15/2009 8:35:55 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
They say that former catholics are subject to canon law because they were baptized as an infant without their consent ??

Most Catholics received several more Sacraments along the way, after their Baptisms, and the others were as older children or young adults, when they knew what was going on. The Church has always taught that civil marriages are invalid, because they are not Sacramental. I don't see anything new in this statement.

And, as I'm sure you probably well know, the Church doesn't do annulments for the money. Any fee charged for an annulment is for the administrative costs of the process.

32 posted on 12/15/2009 10:02:15 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

“The church doesn’t do annulments for the money”

This is true. But it provides a good item for more skewering of the Church by those who hold Catholicism in contempt (which gets tiresome and repetitve on these threads and is counter-productive to changing the minds of practicing Catholics).


33 posted on 12/15/2009 10:25:25 PM PST by Running On Empty ( The three sorriest words: "It's too late")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty
(which gets tiresome and repetitve on these threads and is counter-productive to changing the minds of practicing Catholics)

And we should be thankful, therefore, for that little cross.

No, I'm not there yet either.

34 posted on 12/16/2009 1:40:22 AM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
And, as I'm sure you probably well know, the Church doesn't do annulments for the money. Any fee charged for an annulment is for the administrative costs of the process.

Why do they do them? By what authority??

As for cost..of course they make money..the people often have too hire "lawyers "( through the church of course) to make their argument or to fight the proceedings

35 posted on 12/16/2009 3:58:47 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“the people often have too (sic) hire “lawyers”

Hmmm, this is true....simply because you say so?

“Few Americans hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they THINK is the Catholic Church”. —Bishop Fulton Sheen


36 posted on 12/16/2009 5:23:04 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Not to worry, Mark. I’m not afraid of crosses, big or small, for “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me”.

God bless.


37 posted on 12/16/2009 5:33:07 AM PST by Running On Empty ( The three sorriest words: "It's too late")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
StAthanasiustheGreat said: But not to God. God really wants to hold onto His own and thus the Church wants to maintain that openness. I know you don’t believe that, but that is what the Church believes and why it wants to keep the channels of grace open for us.

And this is the problem, the Roman Catholic Church teaching that it is the provider and distributor of the Grace of God.

38 posted on 12/16/2009 6:44:34 AM PST by fatboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fatboy

It is merely the avenue. It is built upon Jesus Christ’s commission to the Apostle Peter.


39 posted on 12/16/2009 6:54:09 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

The marriages are irregular. They can be regularized validated retroactively if the parties wish by returning to the Church and retracing their steps to have a valid marriage cermeony to make up for what was lacking in the form and minister of the first ceremony. Otherwise, the marriage remains invalid.


40 posted on 12/16/2009 8:50:09 AM PST by Heliand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Most Catholics received several more Sacraments along the way, after their Baptisms

About 3/4 of the baptized receive first communion, 2/3 are confirmed, and just 1/2 get married in the Church.

41 posted on 12/16/2009 8:55:55 AM PST by Heliand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Why do they do them? By what authority??

To ensure the flock of the faithful is in regular marriages and not committing adultery/bigamy/fornication, and because it is a Sacrament (Ephesians 5.32).

Authority - Matthew 16.16-18, 18.17-18, 1 Cor. 7.12-15, etc.

42 posted on 12/16/2009 9:06:30 AM PST by Heliand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Heliand

Does the Church tell people born to two Protestant parents, who were married in a Protestant church wedding, that they are illegitimate if one of their parents was baptized as a Catholic as a baby? Logically, they should, but most people don’t like to be called bastards.


43 posted on 12/16/2009 10:47:45 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
Hmmm, this is true....simply because you say so?

If one party opposes making their vows being made invalid, the annulment procedure and the defense of the marriage must be presented to the church...for this people need representatives that know the procedures and the church law

44 posted on 12/16/2009 10:49:13 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat; fatboy
It is merely the avenue. It is built upon Jesus Christ’s commission to the Apostle Peter.

So the church does not have a direct hand in the "distribution of graces??

BTW that "commission was given to all the apostles

45 posted on 12/16/2009 10:51:35 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
No. If they later on UN-defected, then they would have to regularize their marriage. Otherwise, what do they care that the church thinks their marriage is invalid?

If the couple NEVER seeks an annulment and they continue in the marriage, and there are "irregularities" are they living in a state of fornication??

46 posted on 12/16/2009 10:54:18 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

I think the right answer is,”Possibly.” I know some disagree with me but I tend to have the paradigm that if you want to KNOW your marriage is valid, you play by the rules. But one can’t be sure that one undertaken otherwise is invalid.

Of course the one who “defected” is probably in a state of mortal sin anyway, if only because he’s not going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.


47 posted on 12/16/2009 11:05:20 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

They are only bastards if the parents realize they must retroactively validate their marriage, but don’t do it.


48 posted on 12/16/2009 12:01:26 PM PST by Heliand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Heliand
To ensure the flock of the faithful is in regular marriages and not committing adultery/bigamy/fornication, and because it is a Sacrament (Ephesians 5.32)

I did not ask you is Peter is the rock, I asked where the authority to dissolve a marriage calling it "irregular" exists in scripture.

Where is the scriptural precedent to say that vows taken are not "regular"

Mark :10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Hbr 13:4 Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Nowhere does the bible say unless there are any vows that are "irregular" and can be declared so by the church..

It was not until the middle ages that the church claimed authority over marriage when it was an "economic unit" or one that secured treaties and kingdoms.
So then they assumed the ability to regulate it

So there is no biblical precedent for the church to make the determination that any marriage is invalid

49 posted on 12/16/2009 12:10:23 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
I think the right answer is,”Possibly.” I know some disagree with me but I tend to have the paradigm that if you want to KNOW your marriage is valid, you play by the rules. But one can’t be sure that one undertaken otherwise is invalid.

What are the rules????

50 posted on 12/16/2009 12:13:31 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

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