Why not Communion for polygamists if we give it to divorced and remarried?: So Af Cardinal

Life Site News ^ | October 10, 2014 | Hilary White

[CTrent1564]

Mrs. Don-o

I understand, it depends how one uses the term “biblical” There are some, including many on here, who when they say “biblical” take it to mean correct or orthodox. Polygamy was described and accounted for in the Bible, particularly in the OT, but never part of God’s original plan, and clearly in light of Christ and his revelation, is not orthodox Christian doctrine.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Exactly.

[Biggirl]

There is a reason for that ruling, because of the common baptism done in the other Christian churches that the Catholic Church accepts as valid baptism.

[piusv]

NO, that has nothing to do with it otherwise things would have been treated the same way in 1917. Heretics and schismatics had a common baptism in 1917 as well.

Things changed in JPII’s 1983 Canon Law because it is yet another example of the false ecumenism of the Vatican II Church.

[Biggirl]

Was simply was explaining from an RCIA or “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults” perspective, that is all.

[WriteOn]

Assuming the validity of the first marriage.

[WriteOn]

What if they have repented?

[WriteOn]

“Perfect contrition. Sorrow for sin arising from perfect love. In perfect contrition the sinner detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God, who is supremely good and deserving of all human love. Its motive is founded on God’s own goodness and not merely his goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive, and not the intensity of the act, less still the feelings experienced, is what essentially constitutes perfect sorrow.”

All holiness is in the will.

[Mrs. Don-o]

We must assume the validity of the first marriage, unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. That’s what a Tribunal is for: to evaluate evidence. The default position is always to uphold the bond.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very true.

Not sure how that responds to mine at #19.

[WriteOn]

That is the law. but many things have been canon law. It changes slowly, but it changes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Some parts of Canon Law are "positive" law (it's the law because we wrote it that way: analogous to in the US everyone drives on the right, but in the UK on the left); other parts of Canon Law are based on truth, i.e. dogma (profaning the Eucharist isn't a sin just because it's against Canon Law; it's against Canon Law because it's a sin.)

The Church's default position is that a marriage vow is valid and binding unless proven in a court of law to have been defective ; that refers to a constitutive element of a sacrament --- Marriage vows are binding, as Jesus Himself taught --- therefore the Church always has to presume the vows are binding unless proven therwise.

Now, the grounds for Annulment may vary. That's the part that can change --- within limits.

For instance, right up until almost the modern period, marriages were arranged by parents, and children could be betrothed (promised) in marriage even as minors. That was never grounds for an annulment. It would be now, though, since psychological maturity is much more emphasized as determining the validity of a vow.

[WriteOn]

Yes. It is my thought. My thought. That the annulment process is fatally flawed and part of the reason for so many Catholic divorces (along with poor catechisms and living in a semi-pagan country.). First, the legalistic nature of the proceeding, second the attempt to judge a state of conscience many years after the fact, third the horrible wait for justice. These are serious flaws that need to be addressed.