Skip to comments.The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]
Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation
There is also much i disagree with, but they supplement my other refs that show additional real or possible binding doctrines, and variance among Catholics as to what they all may be.
“Think any of them will get it?”
I don’t know. But the Pope agreed with me, but what does he know about Catholicism compared to those Catholics on this thread.
Not much based on what I've been reading here.
What would you suggest be done, considering the annulment was granted ten years after the divorce and Joan didn't oppose it?
Besides, it's not like Catholics have exactly cornered the market where frauds are concerned.
And if you had concrete examples of this you would have cited them.
And it only took ten years....
That money and fame will get you anything you want, but the service seems to be a little slow.
All an Annulment Tribunal can do is to determine the details at the time of the marriage and make a determination as to whether there were any circumstances that would have caused the marriage to be invalid. It does not have the ability to compel testimony or subpoena records. These things take time.
Peace be with you.
And though i am hesitant to utterly disallow any extreme circumstances as possibly allowing grounds for anulment, yet in the Bible, although marriage as a commitment and social contract was generally understood, once a wife was taken even foreign wives, or out lust, or even instead of the one contracted for, etc. and the marriage was consummated, then such were considered to be married, and in no place are consummated marriages annulled, meaning they did not exist. Even concubines were wives. (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3)
As regard the criteria for annulments:
Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].
Age. If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well. Each national episcopal conference has the authority to set a higher minimum age as a prohibitive impediment. Note that, in general, individual bishops do not have this authority (cf. CIC c. 1075 §2). In Canada, and also in New Zealand, this minimum age has been set to 18 years old for both parties. In England and Wales, this minimum age has been set to be in accordance with civil law (i.e., 16 years old for both parties). In Gambia, Liberia, and Sierre Leone, this minimum age has been set to 18 years old for the man and 16 years old for the woman. In the Philippines, this minimum has been set to 21 years old for the bridegroom, and 18 years old for the bride. In South Africa, and also in Switzerland, this minimum age has been set to be in accordance with civil law. In Nigeria, the episcopal conference has delegated the authority to set a higher prohibitive minimum age to the individual bishops. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has not enacted a higher prohibitive minimum age for marriage.
Physical capacity for consummation lacking . Per Canon 1084 §3 "Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage." Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See  for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed. The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica: In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.
Previous marriage . Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.
Crimen . One or both of the parties has brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).
Catholic Diocese of Arlington
What are some possible grounds for annulment?
Among the signs that might indicate reasons to investigate for an annulment are: marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment. In addition, there are youthful marriages; marriages of very short duration; marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse; deviant sexual practices; profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment; conditional consent to a marriage; fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent; serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage. The determination of the ground should be made after extensive consultation with the parish priest or deacons, and based upon the proofs that are available. http://www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds
Alsp see http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp
The annulment crisis in the Church
By Fr. Leonard Kennedy
Robert H. Vasoli, What God has joined together (Oxford University Press, 1998, 252 pages, hardcover, $40 Canadian).
The author gives several reasons for the incredible growth in American annulments;
1. There is advertising in church bulletins, Catholic newspapers, and even the secular press, that annulments are available, sometimes with a suggested guarantee that they will be granted. "Some invitations practically promise an annulment to all who apply. The promotional efforts . . . may evoke responses from . . . spouses who dream of greener marital pastures but would not seriously consider separation and divorce were annulment not presented as a convenient and acceptable alternative."
One brochure said: "Usually once a request for annulment is accepted, a favorable decision is given. However, a careful review is made before a request is accepted . . . . A ëfavorable' decision is synonymous with annulment; evidently upholding the validity of marriage is ëunfavorable.'"
2. Most petitions are presented to judges without proper screening. "No fewer than 66 of the 165 diocesan and archdiocesan tribunals . . . decided to go to trial with every petition presented."
3. A high percentage of cases that are tried end in a declaration of nullity. From 1984 to 1994 it was 97% for First Instance trials. All cases however have to have a second trial. The percentage of decisions overturned in the United States is 4/10 of 1%. "What the picture reveals is that mandatory review, and appeals leading to retrials at Second Instance, have done very little to tarnish America's reputation as the annulment capital of the universe."
4. Many matrimonial judges are not well qualified for their work, lacking a doctorate or a licentiate in canon law. Sometimes judges of the First Instance are also judges (on other cases) of the Second Instance, which is not good practice. Three judges are recommended for trials, but most often there is only one (which is allowed with permission).
5. "In practice . . . many if not most tribunal experts seldom conduct a direct, face-to-face examination of either spouse." "Cases have come to my attention where the expert . . . arrived at a diagnosis of defective consent solely by means of a telephone conversation with a tribunal judge . . . . In most judicial systems, attempts to introduce into evidence expert diagnosis of that nature would be laughed out of court."
6.Sometimes the Defender of the Bond does not have a canon law degree and his opinion can be easily overruled by a highly trained judge.
7.Respondents are usually not fully informed of all their options.
8.Rather than considering the detrimental effect on respect for the sacrament of marriage which is caused by the scandal of almost automatic annulment, and the cynicism produced in some of the parties to an annulment and in Catholics generally, those handling the annulments concentrate on sympathy for their clients, or often just for the one initiating the annulment.
9.Theologians argue that in certain papal documents, such as Gaudium et spes and Casti Connubii, the Church has changed the definition of marriage. This argument is fallacious.
10.Many judges think that, if a marriage is not an ideal one, it is not a valid marriage at all, and that therefore an annulment should be granted to any marriage that has broken up.
11.68% of annulments today are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. He quotes the statement of one matrimonial judge: "There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid."
Also see A Canadian Respondent's experience of success with the Annulment process
It is also noteworthy that while in principal that Rome considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment." , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that, according to some Roman apologetics.
In addition is the extreme views by of certain church father's on marriage, and problematic reasoning behind some of it, which is another topic.
All Christians, baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are members of the Body of Christ, which is the Church, as we are told by Paul in Colossians.
One’s baptism cannot be undone.
As for Catholics who are actually Protestants, there is a misconception by them and many Protestants, that just because one attends Mass and receives the Eucharist, one is Catholic.
But, that is wrong.
One receives because one is Catholic. As Justin Martyr said in his letter to Caesar circa 150AD,
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
He is telling us here that the Eucharist is for those who believe what “we” teach are true. If one is receiving the Eucharist, then they are not Catholic in there beliefs and lives, they are in fact, Protestant and should not be receiving the Eucharist.
****Thank you for your opinion, but while these are binding*, the number of binding doctrines is open to some interpretation, as The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm) *****
Those listed are binding doctrines, but there are many subsets and subtexts within them which flow from them.
For instance, Pope John Paul II, infallibly declared that the Church cannot ordain women. The question of women as priests has been around for a long time though some would like to think they are the first to foment dissension with the Church over it.
JPII did not declare anything new, it has always been the teaching of the Church that women are not to be ordained to the priesthood. This declaration was made and the reasons given are directly related to the Nature of Jesus.
Now the Nature of Jesus covers many, many topics, among them our own nature as humans.
The list is a synopsis and not an exhaustive point by point relating of what a Catholic is bound to believe.
To give details on each of them, and all the different topics they cover would be extremely time consuming.
Your longer list actually contains items which can be placed under the “umbrella” of one or another of m
The articles of faith of the Creed
The various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas
The doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace
The doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration
The foundation of the Church by the will of Christ
The doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff
All of these are directly related to the nature of God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Even as a kid, when going to Mass was something I had to do, even though I didn’t fully understand it or even believe it all, I KNEW that the readings were from the Bible.
When I came back to the Church after twenty years of agnosticism and indifference to God, Jesus, religion et al, I bought my first Bible as an adult. I remember so clearly as I read it thinking, “Oh, I remember this story.” In other words, it was all very familiar to me, as if I had heard it before and more than once.
Well, gee, I had, in Mass and in religion class.
What a ridiculous meme pushed by Protestants....that Catholics don’t read or know the Bible.
Should I have been pinged here out of courtesy?
Yes, there is absolutely no linkage between the divorce and annulment processes. Divorce is a civil matter decided upon by the civil courts. Annulment is a Church determination that the conditions necessary for a legitimate marriage were not present when the marriage took place, thereby nullifying the wedding. In all Catholic annulments, the default or starting position is that the marriage is legitimate. Unfortunately for all involved, annulment tribunals are not infallible or inerrant.
Peace be with you.
Ask and you shall receive.
And there are plenty more examples than this.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. 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."
Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."
And now since Vatican 2 that has all changed.
There are two antithetical paradigms in play on these threads that are argued over in the context of any Catholic versus Protestant discussion. These are individualism and communion.
Those who regard their individual interpretation of the Bible as the final authority are practitioners of individualism. While it is a desirable political philosophy individualism is contrary to the call to Christian unity.
On the other hand, when Catholics are in communion we accept the voice of the Church as the supreme authority, and therefore reject outright the principle of religious individualism. Attempted insults by non-Catholics that Catholics are not allowed to think for themselves are only an expression of an absence of Communion. Pray for them.
Peace be with you.
Only to the superficial and simple. The doctrines of the Church have been refined but not changed. Holding to the earlier edicts the Church proclaims that genesis of the salvation is from the Church and through the Church.
A good example for your case is your belief in Sola Scriptura. The Scripture you believe is all that is necessary for your Salvation is from and through the Church.
Peace be with you.
A distinction without a difference.
What a load of doublespeak.
Doublespeak is language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth, in effect a lie. I don't care what word is used for it calling me a liar is against the forum rules.
That short list was given by another and I was simply commenting that of the seven given MUST be believed dogmas, only two could be Scripurally proven and even the way they were worded, could hardly be considered enough upon which to base "salvific" truths. I am well aware that there are many more "dogmas" developed over the centuries that have become MUST be believed truths. I kinda doubt most Catholics even know what they all are.
“Your longer list actually contains items which can be placed under the umbrella of one or another of m”
That was never stated otherwise or made a point of contention, as the list serves to shows things Catholics can disagree on, including what is under the umbrella and how far.