B
BlackFriar
Guest
You deny that the Church can rule on the validity of a 1st marriage and hence approve “Holy Matrimony” of a 2nd relationship?
- Status
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I am not really interested in your private, theologically uneducated lay views on the matter.
I am only interested in an accurate rendition of the Church’s views.
This you have failed in and mildly insulted those here with a valid Catholic marriage of my brother’s type.
Where do you get off on trying to tell readers here that you seem to know better than the Church?
I am only interested in an accurate rendition of the Church’s views.
This you have failed in and mildly insulted those here with a valid Catholic marriage of my brother’s type.
Where do you get off on trying to tell readers here that you seem to know better than the Church?
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
1.) I told you, when I say “Holy Matrimony” I mean Sacrament. The Sacrament of Christian marriage cannot happen between unbaptized. We recognize Matrimony by the witness of those who are present at the vows freely and consentually given to one another by two Baptized Christans without any lawful impediment.rcwitness:
I do know what the Church thinks of my brother’s marriage and I have no problem with that.
His vows can be called holy and its also called matrimony.
You believe otherwise.
The problem is not with the Church but with you who identify holiness and sacramentality as the same.
You also use the archaic expression “holy matrimony” but are unable to clearly define what you really mean. You also mistakenly apply the Pauline privilege to my brother’s potential right to remarry when Pauline privilege has nothing to do with the matter.
And you still maintain that identifying a valid marriage (ostensibly to deny marrying again) is a simple matter.
Yet you continue to tie yourself in knots here and are unable to answer reasonable questions…
So I think my point is made - that identifying “Holy Matrimony” is not easy at all my friend.
So if you want to continue asserting simplicity by all means clarify the questions I have asked you.
- How one recognises a “Holy Matrimony” such that one may never marry again.
- Find a Magisterial source that says my brother’s type of marriage is not holy.
- Why you think the Pauline privilege could have anything to do with my brother possibly remarrying again.
2.) Why would i? I have told you Holy Matrimony is a Christian term used to describe the Sacrament. You and your brother can use it, I don’t care.
3.) Petrine. Hopefully your brother never has to resort to such a thing.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Well you are slowly correcting your original statements into something acceptable to the Catholic Church.
But lets relook at what you originally said that was supposed to demonstrate how allegedly easy and simple it is to determine when someone cannot remarry…
This is erroneous, what you really should have said was “the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony” or just “the Sacrament of Marriage”. “Holy Matrimony” is an archaic expression, especially as marriages to unbelievers are widespread in the Church now where once they were very rare if not banned.
Holy Matrimony (with an unbeliever) can be dissolved under certain circumstances before the death of the unbelieving spouse.
You made two errors here. First it is up to a Tribunal to judge the objective situation not for a layman to universalise about an unknown subjective motive and call it abuse.
Second, you are completely mistaken in asserting the Pauline privilege applies to my Catholic brother.
As yet you are unable to own that to other readers here. It is the Petrine privilege. Not so simple is it?
Here you clearly asserted, again as if speaking for the Catholic Church, that my brother’s marriage is not holy because it is not a Sacramental marriage.
That is absurd. Even if you know little about theology of marriage you should know that the Bible itself says that marriages between a believer and an unbeliever is holy.
So to sum up, this is not the simple topic you asserted it was.
You tied yourself up in knots even with your very first “simple” assertions.
It has taken almost a dozen email exchanges to get you to realise this - and still you wont clearly own your mistakes.
Yes, everything is “simple” if we cannot admit our understanding of Catholic teaching is erroneous.
End of topic as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
I’m not sure you understand the significance of the real difference between a Believer to Believer in Jesus Marriage and a Believer to non-Believer.
One is a Sacrament, to which a couple has a Grace that upholds the most depth of the law, even the heart of the law, which is unto death. Either spouse is able to both hold and lift up one another by the strength of Christ. His grace is readily available in the Holy Sacraments.
To call a marriage that is divided over the Person who came in the flesh to fulfill sins against Marriage and also give it an everlasting power of hope.
But I also agree that your brother should love and Marry (through dispensation) a woman who he sees as seeking God and passionate towards, if he is unable to control those desires.
One is a Sacrament, to which a couple has a Grace that upholds the most depth of the law, even the heart of the law, which is unto death. Either spouse is able to both hold and lift up one another by the strength of Christ. His grace is readily available in the Holy Sacraments.
To call a marriage that is divided over the Person who came in the flesh to fulfill sins against Marriage and also give it an everlasting power of hope.
But I also agree that your brother should love and Marry (through dispensation) a woman who he sees as seeking God and passionate towards, if he is unable to control those desires.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
My brother’s wife is a Buddhist and does not seek God, but she does seek goodness and truth and toleration of differences and clean right living.
My brother has no trouble controlling his desires - he desires to marry a good person and she also.
Your views are best kept to yourself.
They don’t represent the Catholic Church,
I am not even sure they are rational.
God bless.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
As for the religion of Buddhism, here are some important things to know about the necessity to seek God, and respond to the Good News of His Son Jesus
From the CCC:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
From and article by Charles Aiken from here:Buddhism | Catholic Answers
**The fundamental tenets of Buddhism are marked by grave defects that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its inferiority to the religion of Jesus Christ. In the first place, the very foundation on which Buddhism rests—the doctrine of karma with its implied transmigrations—is gratuitous and false. This pretended law of nature, by which the myriads of gods, demons, men, and animals are but the transient forms of rational beings essentially the same, but forced to this diversity in consequence of varying degrees of merit and demerit in former lives, is a huge superstition in flat contradiction to the recognized laws of nature, and hence ignored by men of science. **
Hebrews 11
And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
John 14
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to theFather, but by me.
As for my comment about desire, this is my basis:
1 Corinthians 7
It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
This is a very uncharitable comment, which has no grounds. You are not a moderator who can dictate who can discuss their views. You are the only one using insults and offensive demands.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
It is only nonsense if you do not follow the argument.
It was said that the Catholic Church does not issue annulments simply on the grounds of “abuse” (mental/physical). This would then, by necessity, require that the victim remain haplessly subjugated to her/his abusive spouse.
What I suggest is that if the Church cannot annul a Sacramental Marriage on grounds of “abuse” then the victim can file for divorce–with the foreknowledge that she/he cannot just simply remarry another person… where’s the “nonsense?”
Yet, if what you say is true:
Maran atha!
Angel
It is only nonsense if you do not follow the argument.
It was said that the Catholic Church does not issue annulments simply on the grounds of “abuse” (mental/physical). This would then, by necessity, require that the victim remain haplessly subjugated to her/his abusive spouse.
What I suggest is that if the Church cannot annul a Sacramental Marriage on grounds of “abuse” then the victim can file for divorce–with the foreknowledge that she/he cannot just simply remarry another person… where’s the “nonsense?”
Yet, if what you say is true:
…then your argument is not with me but with the person who has made the claim that the Church does not annul Sacramental Marriage on grounds of “abuse.”
Maran atha!
Angel
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, RC!
What is interesting is that this is the same issue as with the Sacrament of Confession–people think that they are tricking the Church/Priest into giving them a clean bill of “health;” yet, they forget that Yahweh God does not go by outward appearances and that He cannot be fooled… so they actually are simply purchasing a “clean bill to hell.”
Maran atha!
Angel
What is interesting is that this is the same issue as with the Sacrament of Confession–people think that they are tricking the Church/Priest into giving them a clean bill of “health;” yet, they forget that Yahweh God does not go by outward appearances and that He cannot be fooled… so they actually are simply purchasing a “clean bill to hell.”
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…wait, how is “toleration of differences” and “clean right living” defined and understood?
Did you know that “Catholics” are espousing acceptance and promotion of homosexuality with “toleration of differences,” “mercy,” and “love?” Did you also know that “Catholics” are espousing rejection of Church’s Doctrine and embracing of social values as “right” and “just?”
Maran atha!
Angel
Did you know that “Catholics” are espousing acceptance and promotion of homosexuality with “toleration of differences,” “mercy,” and “love?” Did you also know that “Catholics” are espousing rejection of Church’s Doctrine and embracing of social values as “right” and “just?”
Maran atha!
Angel
L
lilypadrees
Guest
No one is “forced to commit adultery.” You either choose to engage in it or you choose to obey God.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
The problem may be you do not always understand the meaning of what you write. Cf. #255.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
" …whoever divorces his wife makes her commit adultery." (Jesus Christ)
J
jcrichton
Guest
No. I never claimed that the Church does not issue annulments on grounds of “abuse.”
Yet, you are welcomed to opinion about what you believe I said or say.
Maran atha!
Angel
Yet, you are welcomed to opinion about what you believe I said or say.
Maran atha!
Angel
B
BlackFriar
Guest
And thats the problem.
One too trivial now to engage further.
A
Annie
Guest
So if a husband divirces his wife because he wants to marry his secretary, and his actual wife never remarries, and she never dates, just lives a celibate life, she is somehow committing adultery?
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Annie!
The husband is in breach–if we were in them old times when a woman was worth… then he would be promoting her adultery as she would engage in a relationship with another man in order to survive or provide for her children.
Yet, in the scenario that you have presented, the woman is not culpable of anything–not only that but she has remained Faithful to God, as the widow who Received Jesus’ in the Temple:
Maran atha!
Angel
The husband is in breach–if we were in them old times when a woman was worth… then he would be promoting her adultery as she would engage in a relationship with another man in order to survive or provide for her children.
Yet, in the scenario that you have presented, the woman is not culpable of anything–not only that but she has remained Faithful to God, as the widow who Received Jesus’ in the Temple:
While Hannah was fully free to remarry she chose to Serve God in a chaste life and was granted Great Joy!
Maran atha!
Angel
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Take it up with Jesus, he said this not me.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Nope. If she doesn’t remarry while her ex is alive, she doesn’t commit adultery.
- Status