Are all baptized Catholics permanently bound by Canon Law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Birdmanman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don_Jackson said:
Simple Answer: NO

Nobody is bound by canon law. We are bound by God’s Law. If Christ were alive today the story of Moses and the bill of divorce might be a discussion about the churh and annullment!
Click to expand...
God’s law is the church’s law. It took God himself to overturn the law of Moses. And even then, Christ fulfilled the law, rather than abolish it. After his death and resurrection, Old Testament law was no longer applicable, because he established a new covenant with the Catholic Church.
 
1ke said:
This is not a case of jursidiction, but of form. I do not believe Ecclesia Supplet or Deus Providet apply here.

The application of radical sanation seems the proper course, or simple convalidation.
Click to expand...
Which are the elements of the form in the sacrament of marriage? If you try to include the blessing as form then it becomes matter of jurisdiction, it is only the consent than it is a void discussion. We also have to remember that St. Thomas said that the words of the blessing and the words of consed do not constitute the essence of the sacrament.

Just to be sure here I am still referring to the very extraordinary case. I completely agree with you in relation to the more ordinary cases. I also think that the case of sanation or convalidation is a very prudent approach just like the case of a conditional baptism.

Again I am not a Canon Lawyer and so I cannot really say what the details are about for extraordinary cases. I just approach the discussions from two different points the CCL and the sacramental theology and I posit that they should not contradict each other. However, I still might be wrong but the explanation must to address both points of view. I do not expect you to provide the explanation, it is just food for my own thoughts.
 
Cristiano said:
Which are the elements of the form in the sacrament of marriage? If you try to include the blessing as form then it becomes matter of jurisdiction, it is only the consent than it is a void discussion. We also have to remember that St. Thomas said that the words of the blessing and the words of consed do not constitute the essence of the sacrament.

Just to be sure here I am still referring to the very extraordinary case. I completely agree with you in relation to the more ordinary cases. I also think that the case of sanation or convalidation is a very prudent approach just like the case of a conditional baptism…
Click to expand...
The essential form is the exchanged of consent. This applies to Catholics married according to Catholic form, and to non-Catholics to which Catholic form does not apply.

Catholics are bound to the laws of the Catholic church by virtue of baptism. For Latin-rite Catholics under the current law, marriage must be witnessed by a priest or deacon and several other witnesses (among other requirements). In the Eastern rites, the law also requires the marriage to be blessed by a priest. Catholics must follow the canonical form unless dispensed by a lawful authority.

Failure to follow the canonical form impedes the exchange of consent, preventing the essential form from taking hold. Radical sanation removes this impediment, allowing an otherwise valid exchange of consent to become a valid marriage. A con-validation is a new exchange of consent following proper form. These are methods to correct a simple lack of canonical form.

I am not aware of any “exceptional circumstances” that would automatically dispense the requirements of form - even in the most remote corners of the Earth, it would generally be possible to write to a bishop or to the Vatican to receive a dispensation!
 
No they are not. If they are not practicing Catholics then they are not bound by Canon Law. But if they do return to the Church then the law will be applied to them.
 
ConstantineTG said:
They go to church and receive the Sacraments.
Click to expand...
According to the requirements of Canon Law or to their own individually set requirements? For example how often do they have to go to Church and how often do they have to receive the sacraments and which ones?
 
Cristiano said:
According to the requirements of Canon Law or to their own individually set requirements? For example how often do they have to go to Church and how often do they have to receive the sacraments and which ones?
Click to expand...
If you don’t care about your faith to live it then how does Canon Law matter?

Canon Law is there for the bishops to apply and for the individuals to judge themselves. It is not for Christians to judge other people.
 
ConstantineTG said:
If you don’t care about your faith to live it then how does Canon Law matter?

Canon Law is there for the bishops to apply and for the individuals to judge themselves. It is not for Christians to judge other people.
Click to expand...
You are the one that made a very specific statement based on a very definite condition and now you are not willing to elaborate on the definition and you pass the ball to the bishops. That tells me that either your answer does not make sense because you state that you do not have the capability of making a statement or that you are not really willing to look at the facts. How can people judge themselves if the do not have a metric to follow? By the way who is asking Christians to judge the salvation of anyone else?

From your posts I see that Canon law applies only to those that recognize and obey Canon law.
 
ConstantineTG said:
If you don’t care about your faith to live it then how does Canon Law matter?

Canon Law is there for the bishops to apply and for the individuals to judge themselves. It is not for Christians to judge other people.
Click to expand...
This idea gets lost in the discussion of rules and regulations. On the ground when we are dealing with flesh and blood, it is a pastoral or evangelization issue. How do we best to keep these people who go against the letter of the law in the fold, or bring them back to the fold? Many/most of them could not care less which canons they violate.
 
Cristiano said:
You are the one that made a very specific statement based on a very definite condition and now you are not willing to elaborate on the definition and you pass the ball to the bishops. That tells me that either your answer does not make sense because you state that you do not have the capability of making a statement or that you are not really willing to look at the facts. How can people judge themselves if the do not have a metric to follow? By the way who is asking Christians to judge the salvation of anyone else?

From your posts I see that Canon law applies only to those that recognize and obey Canon law.
Click to expand...
The law is not meant to be the rule of Christian life. Jesus is the way to live a Christian life. The law just facilitates that. The law is not the be-all, end-all of Christian faith. We can be good Christians without even knowing Canon Law ever exists. It is really just a product of the age of information that people like us even have access to Canon Law in the first place. It was never meant for us, it was always meant for bishops.
 
clem456 said:
This idea gets lost in the discussion of rules and regulations. On the ground when we are dealing with flesh and blood, it is a pastoral or evangelization issue. How do we best to keep these people who go against the letter of the law in the fold, or bring them back to the fold? Many/most of them could not care less which canons they violate.
Click to expand...
If we live our lives according to the Gospel, how would we even violate the law?
 
clem456 said:
Good question. I’m speaking in the context of the violations of Catholic canons being discussed.
Click to expand...
There are no Canons that are against the Gospel. So if we live according to the Gospel, why even worry about the Canons? Like I said, it was never meant to be something for the laity. I’ve been reading on Church history a lot lately and it is obvious that Canons were written for the bishops. But our sue-happy North American mentality today is making us want to be conscious of the law and be paranoid by it. Not a good way to live a Christian life. Remember, the law was made for man, not man for the law.
 
ConstantineTG said:
There are no Canons that are against the Gospel. So if we live according to the Gospel, why even worry about the Canons? Like I said, it was never meant to be something for the laity. I’ve been reading on Church history a lot lately and it is obvious that Canons were written for the bishops. But our sue-happy North American mentality today is making us want to be conscious of the law and be paranoid by it. Not a good way to live a Christian life. Remember, the law was made for man, not man for the law.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are some things, like driving through a red light, which is only bad because it was made a law. People could have just as easily said that green was going to be the colour that we all have to stop at. In which case driving through a green light would be wrong. It is wrong to claim that there is no need to be aware of laws or try to follow them.
 
ConstantineTG said:
There are no Canons that are against the Gospel. So if we live according to the Gospel, why even worry about the Canons? Like I said, it was never meant to be something for the laity. I’ve been reading on Church history a lot lately and it is obvious that Canons were written for the bishops. But our sue-happy North American mentality today is making us want to be conscious of the law and be paranoid by it. Not a good way to live a Christian life. Remember, the law was made for man, not man for the law.
Click to expand...
To elaborate a little further, how do Catholics practically apply Church teaching to those who either have rejected it, not heard it, or are living the Gospel in another Christian denomination. Should adherence to Church teaching become a source of division? My answer to that is no, whenever possible Church teaching should not be used to cause division or enduring resentments. The Catholic Church proposes, not imposes.
 
ConstantineTG said:
They go to church and receive the Sacraments.
Click to expand...
Hi ConstantineTG, thank you for taking part in this thread.

So it is impossible, in this definition of “practicing Catholic” for a practicing Catholic to remain in mortal sin while intending to go to Confession (more from fear of hell than love of God), and cease receiving the Eucharist at his or her mass attendances until his or her confession may be heard? I think we need to add nuance to this definition.

I am still convinced from what I have heard earlier in this thread:

**All persons baptized as Catholics, whether they are in constant mortal sin, excommunicated, apostate, or heretics, are always bound by Canon Law. **

A person who has been baptized Catholic but doubts their faith, ignores the Sacraments and Church teaching does not have a valid marriage in ordinary circumstances unless they follow proper Canonical form (which itself makes exceptions for extraordinary circumstances).
 
thewanderer said:
Yes, but there are some things, like driving through a red light, which is only bad because it was made a law. People could have just as easily said that green was going to be the colour that we all have to stop at. In which case driving through a green light would be wrong. It is wrong to claim that there is no need to be aware of laws or try to follow them.
Click to expand...
The larger point might be illustrated as follows: if your mother for instance, regularly rolls through stop signs, do you remind her once and forget about it, of do you keep on reminding her unti an intractable dispute develops which threatens the relationship, and maybe even briing her to feel as if she’s not part of the family,

Probably a poor analogy but it can be seen that evangelization and pastoral care can require a lot more than knowing your canons, whether you’re a priest or a parent with a child who doesn’t share your faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top