no annulment = mortal sin?

[BettyBoop416]

Yes. That is exactly the case.

There are probably a few non-Catholics who would take issue with your stance on this matter.

 

[Corki]

Where do you people get this. Where to start…all marriage is liturgy not all liturgy is marriage. Your citation does not support your “theory”. Refrain from teaching, please. FYI the consummation is the sine qua non of the sacrament…and yup it is liturgy, go figure.

You are inaccurate about almost everything else as well.

Sacramental Theology for beginners

Every Sacrament involves a natural part of the human condition
Baptism…Water
Eucharist…Bread and Wine
Confession…Acknowledge wrong
Confirmation…Adulthood
Marriage…Reproduction
Ordination…Service
Anointing of the Sick/Extreme Unction…Illness/death

The objective truths of all seven are the same in that the human condition becomes grace filled by and through the incarnation. Every bath is not a Baptism, but every baptism is a bath, and liturgy.

Please don’t lecture me. All of my information comes from the Catechism, Canon law and diocisan sources on marriage.

Confirmation…Adulthood

See, this tells me that you are not likely well versed in the Sacraments - at least not in the Catholic Church. The Sacrament of Confirmation has nothing to do with adulthood, it is the second of the Sacraments of initiation and is given validly to the baptized at any age, even infants.

As for marriage:

Catechism

1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ.120 In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up.121 It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but “one body” in Christ.122

1622 "Inasmuch as it is a sacramental action of sanctification, the liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid, worthy, and fruitful."123 It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage by receiving the sacrament of penance.

1623 **According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. **In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125

and further:

Catechism 1630 and 1631

1630 **The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality. **
1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

• Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

• The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

canon law

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 **For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage **between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

From the USCCB site “For your marriage”

The Church presumes that marriages are valid and lifelong; therefore, unless the ex-spouse has died, the Church requires the divorced Catholic to obtain a declaration of nullity before re-marrying. The tribunal process seeks to determine if something essential was missing from the couple’s relationship from the moment of consent, that is, the time of the wedding. If so, then the Church can declare that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day.

**The Catholic Church respects all marriages and presumes that they are valid. **Thus, for example, it considers the marriages of two Protestant, Jewish, or even nonbelieving persons to be binding for life. The Church requires a declaration of nullity to establish that an essential element was missing in that previous union preventing it from being a valid marriage.

 

[Corki]

An Anglican Ordination is Valid it is illicit. Oxford Movement 1870.

Some Anglican ordinations may be valid, for example, those that include Old Catholic bishops. But this is certainly not true of all Anglican ordinations.

Your citations are not relevant as they are off point. You really want to play, let us see.

You are saying, in sum and substance, that the RCC under the authority of a Code, presumed to be inerrant, tells the faithful to presume sin over goodness, knowledge over ignorance and free consent over cohersion in all cases. Is that correct? (yes or no only please)

In the alternative define proof, evidence and doubt. I assert that unless you are one of the petitioners anyone married before the age of 25 provides sufficient evidence of absence of intention. On this I have no doubt, and your cannon rest on the presence of same, if it is absent your citation is even less relevant than irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with sin or goodness. The presumption is that the marriage bond is valid until proven otherwise. During the process of investigation, it may well be proven that the couple did not have sufficient knowledge or the abilty to give full consent. However, that certainty cannot be made until after an investigation is concluded.

Are you asserting that any marriages contracted before the spouses are 25 is presumptively invalid? If so, please provide any Church documentation to support your claim.

To get you started, look at canon 1096. If spouses cannot properly form intent until age 25, why would the law reference puberty?

Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Greetings,

Please don’t give up! :angel1: Just let the annulment process proceed. I went through one, also during RCIA, and it was a very healing experience when it was granted. I understand your questions and fears, but hope you will just allow the process to continue. You’re in good hands, allowing the investigation to reveal whatever the truth is in your case.

The Church, in seeking the whole truth about a union, has many questions which you may not have considered, and which may in fact result in answers which favor the annulment. I found the process enlightening, truthful, and edifying. I faced my past squarely, answered the questions asked of me, and learned to be patient and trusting in the arms of the Church.

You and your family are beloved of God. So too, are former partners, regardless of the final decision on an annulment. My former partner died just last week. He was the father of our only child. I had remarried my Catholic husband, gone through the annulment several years ago during my year of RCIA. My (now -current) marriage was blessed by the Church on Holy Saturday that year, and ever since, Easter time reminds me so of God’s great grace and patience.

Yet knowing my daughter’s father was gravely ill, I called to say goodbye and our talk is something that I’m glad occurred. We are supporting his only living sister in prayers and in helping with arrangements.

I say all this to let you know that all parties involved in annulments are beloved of God, Who alone can hold both love and mercy in His Divine Heart at the same time. That is a difficult task for us, His children! This may be a time when “mercy kisses judgement,” so fear not. “Perfect love casts out all fear.”

RCIA is the best place to be for now, and I’m sure if you talk to your parish Priest, he can help you with any further questions and concerns about what to expect, and how to live peacefully in the present.

All blessings,
:heaven:Kathryn Ann

 

[BrJuniper]

Please don’t lecture me. All of my information comes from the Catechism, Canon law and diocisan sources on marriage.

See, this tells me that you are not likely well versed in the Sacraments - at least not in the Catholic Church. The Sacrament of Confirmation has nothing to do with adulthood, it is the second of the Sacraments of initiation and is given validly to the baptized at any age, even infants.

As for marriage:

Catechism

and further:

Catechism 1630 and 1631

canon law

From the USCCB site “For your marriage”

John Paul was Right, the Catechism should not have been published because the average reader lacked sufficient knowledge. I agree with him.

 

[Corki]

John Paul was Right, the Catechism should not have been published because the average reader lacked sufficient knowledge. I agree with him.

Please show us where the Catechism is wrong or being misinterpreted.

For that matter, since Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote the forward for the Catechism and frequently referred to it as a gift to the Church, please give a reference for the statement you are attributing to him.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, 3 requirements are necessary, for Mortal sin.

1857 : For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent”.

1858 : Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 : Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

NO ONE, except YOU and God knows the answers to the second and third requirements. NO ONE can determine the answer to your question, except YOU. YOU and God alone can determine that.

 

[BrJuniper]

According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, 3 requirements are necessary, for Mortal sin.

1857 : For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent”.

1858 : Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 : Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

NOONE, except YOU and God knows the answers to the second and third requirements. NOONE can determine the answer to your question, except YOU. YOU and God alone can determine that.

Don’t ya hate it when facts get in the way? There are those who teach, and have taught, moral theology who claim that the authority to classify particular acts as mortal resides with the Church. My understanding is that this 'classification of acts" is not the current Doctrine but I argued a Moral Theology Professor on the point in 1985 and he was appalled. I know the move to place the conditioned Doctrine as primary is fairly recent. There are exceptions though…but they involve priests and sins held bound by the Holy Father I think.

 

[neophyte]

Your citations are not relevant as they are off point. You really want to play, let us see.

You are saying, in sum and substance, that the RCC under the authority of a Code, presumed to be inerrant, tells the faithful to presume sin over goodness, knowledge over ignorance and free consent over cohersion in all cases. Is that correct? (yes or no only please)

In the alternative define proof, evidence and doubt. I assert that unless you are one of the petitioners anyone married before the age of 25 provides sufficient evidence of absence of intention. On this I have no doubt, and your cannon rest on the presence of same, if it is absent your citation is even less relevant than irrelevant.

This is incoherent.

The OP’s question has long been answered. The horse is dead.

 

[BrJuniper]

This is incoherent.

The OP’s question has long been answered. The horse is dead.

I’m sorry?

 

[Monica4316]

not easy to hear at all…

we have been attending mass for weeks and are certain this is the church Christ has founded…RCIA wont begin again until the fall and we’ve already begun the annulment process because it can take so long to complete…so no, i’m not “really” catholic yet…

thanks for the information…i have been reading and studying the catechism and other church documents and it certainly feels like trying to drink from a fire hose…

it just really hit me today, what would be required if our petitions are denied…

i am honestly feeling crushed and without hope. how can i keep from obsessing over the worst possible outcome for the next 12-24 months? hanging in this limbo of not knowing where i belong? of not being able to join Christ’s church?

:sad_bye:

yes it would be living in sin, since repentance involves leaving the sin. If a couple is not married in the eyes of the Church but living together and not as brother and sister - they’d be living in sin. They’d need to live celibate then. But - don’t presume that the annulment won’t necessarily be granted. Leave it to the Church and to God. I don’t know how annulments work and what the conditions are etc. They’ll be trying to determine if your first marriage was valid. But try to not worry because this will only make it harder for you as you are learning about the Church and coming closer to God. If it’s not granted, THEN you can deal with it… take it one day at a time we don’t know the future, we only have today to serve God. remember how Jesus said, we shouldn’t worry about the future because each day has worries of its own. Try to just follow Him and put His will first, love God and avoid sin, and surrender the rest to Him.

God bless!!

 

[1ke]

There are probably a few non-Catholics who would take issue with your stance on this matter.

Why?

 

[BrJuniper]

Please show us where the Catechism is wrong or being misinterpreted.

For that matter, since Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote the forward for the Catechism and frequently referred to it as a gift to the Church, please give a reference for the statement you are attributing to him.

First, who are US? Second, Where did I say anything about it being wrong? Third, I would have to look up the legal action and you can do that yourself. He tried to stop the publication in the US, and for good reason he knew it required understanding which many lack. It was intended as a reference for Bishops not high school religion classes.

 

[Corki]

First, who are US? .

Those of us reading and participating in this thread.

Second, Where did I say anything about it being wrong?

These kind of incomplete understandings are why I prefer to presume insufficient knowledge for free and full consent of the will.

Are you not saying here that the Catechism is incomplete?

Third, I would have to look up the legal action and you can do that yourself. He tried to stop the publication in the US, and for good reason he knew it required understanding which many lack. It was intended as a reference for Bishops not high school religion classes

I looked it up:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.** I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith **and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

If you have evidence of the contrary, it is up to you to produce it.

Br. Juniper,

I get the feeling from reading your posts in this thread and some others that you may not be part of what we usually identify as the Catholic Church. Are you perhaps affliliated with another liturgical group that uses the term “Catholic” but which finds authority outside the Church. I mean no offense, but some of the things you have said are so far off from what the Church teaches. Perhaps you can clarify.

 

[BrJuniper]

Those of us reading and participating in this thread.
e you not saying here that the Catechism is incomplete?

I looked it up:
If you have evidence of the contrary, it is up to you to produce it.

Br. Juniper,

I get the feeling from reading your posts in this thread and some others that you may not be part of what we usually identify as the Catholic Church. Are you perhaps affliliated with another liturgical group that uses the term “Catholic” but which finds authority outside the Church. I mean no offense, but some of the things you have said are so far off from what the Church teaches. Perhaps you can clarify.

We can all copy a forward. JPII through his nuncio sought to stop the publication. Does witness statement qualify as evidence in your NWO?

 

[Corki]

We can all copy a forward. JPII through his nuncio sought to stop the publication. Does witness statement qualify as evidence in your NWO?

I don’t know what you mean by “NWO”. However, I have posted a quote that shows that the Pope of blessed memory, supported the Catechism. You have claimed that he, to the contrary, did not and tried to block it’s publication. If you have some evidence to back up your claim, that would be a basis for discussion. However, it it fairly off-topic to this thread and you should start a new thread for that.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t know what you mean by “NWO”. However, I have posted a quote that shows that the Pope of blessed memory, supported the Catechism. You have claimed that he, to the contrary, did not and tried to block it’s publication. If you have some evidence to back up your claim, that would be a basis for discussion. However, it it fairly off-topic to this thread and you should start a new thread for that.

Does he mean ‘New World Order’?!

 

[BrJuniper]

I don’t know what you mean by “NWO”. However, I have posted a quote that shows that the Pope of blessed memory, supported the Catechism. You have claimed that he, to the contrary, did not and tried to block it’s publication. If you have some evidence to back up your claim, that would be a basis for discussion. However, it it fairly off-topic to this thread and you should start a new thread for that.

OK…now do not take this the wrong way but you have reworded my position to suit your paradigm, commonly called “straw man”. I did not say JPII did not approve the above referenced text, heck he ordered it gathered. What I wrote was he opposed its publication for wide spread general use on the grounds that the average Christian lacked sufficient education (knowledge) to use it correctly. Further, I wrote I agreed with him. He did try and was informed that there was no way to do it in the US. It was a concern for him because he saw the dangers, and I agree with him.

I asked you if a witness was proof, you did not respond. I asked what you consider evidence, you failed to respond. I do not know if this was public because, at the time I was privy to the “gossip” from Rome. I am willing to research it if you wish, but I am not willing to go on a fools errand if you plan on denying anything not in a councilular promulgation.