Actually this page from a Diocesis in PA contains a pretty good explanation of what is canonical form and the decree of lack of form. It is a pretty good read: dioceseofscranton.org/about/diocesan-tribunal-test-page/lack-of-canonical-form-cases/Ok. Then what is the definition of valid form, in the sacrament of matrimony? And what constituted the defect? I have read more than one assertion on this.
I think we should take this over to the “Water Cooler” forum. I’m interested in the subject (and I KNOW you are), but it doesn’t belong in this thread.AFAIK, the point was never raised. It certainly wouldn’t have been, in the response to Henry’s Great Matter, the issue being not jurisdiction, but whether Hank’s marriage to Katherine was valid or not due to the assertion in his causa that the dispensation he received from Julius to marry Arthur’s widow was ultra vires. There was another, stronger point, which Wolsey urged on Henry, as to an undispensed, but diriment, impediment of the justice of public honesty, as a basis for a decree of nullity, but Henry didn’t try that approach.
Though the entire system of impediments/dispensation/decrees of nullity at the time was mind-bogglingly complex (and pointedly so, for the simultaneous management both the making and breaking of dynastic marriages for reasons of state, and the control by the Church of the sacrament of matrimony as a sacrament) in one sense it was much simpler. The issue of jurisdiction was less likely to arise.
Yeah, I agree, but I wander shamelessly.I think we should take this over to the “Water Cooler” forum. I’m interested in the subject (and I KNOW you are), but it doesn’t belong in this thread.
Bookmarked, will consume it. Thank you.Actually this page from a Diocesis in PA contains a pretty good explanation of what is canonical form and the decree of lack of form. It is a pretty good read: dioceseofscranton.org/about/diocesan-tribunal-test-page/lack-of-canonical-form-cases/
Probably I should have break it down instead of using sacraments as generic. Indeed my idea was not clear. If you notice I did say baptism is valid but the child is not catholic so I did not mean to say that the baptism itself is not valid if done under the trinitarian formula. What I meant was first communion,church. ages between two baptized Catholics fulfilling Sunday mass obligations, confirmation those are not valid and you cannot go there and get them done there thinking it is going to be validly recognized by the RCC.If you read the part I’ve put into red, you’ll see that it was not exactly what you said originally.
Sure it’s safe.Yeah, I agree, but I wander shamelessly.
I’ve never been to the water cooler. Is it safe?
Sub conditione?Sure it’s safe.
Come on over.
While we’re there, I’ll baptize you as a Catholic.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=961280
Nothing to fear, since you aren’t a witch.I’ve never been to the water cooler. Is it safe?
I have dipped a toe in the waters.Nothing to fear, since you aren’t a witch.