J
JRKH
Guest
I doubt that anyone would think that the teaching is the same.
However, I dare say that there are many things not taught today the same as in Apostolic times. Women’s headcoverings comes to mind.
James
- Status
However, I dare say that there are many things not taught today the same as in Apostolic times. Women’s headcoverings comes to mind.
James
D
dulcissima
Guest
You won’t find out whether or not your marriage is valid or invalid until you submit a petition of nullity to a tribunal. You can’t do that until you are divorced. So, you see, you have no guarantees when you divorce that you will ever be granted a declaration of nullity. I think that this is as it should be. That way you aren’t divorcing because you could receive a declaration of nullity. You are divorcing because the marriage has proven itself to be impossible.
B
bobzills
Guest
Yes. I do like this website. For example, it does give several reasons for marriage annulment as listed in the book Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Please see: marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html
Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Some of these reasons appear to me to be very light, and I seriously doubt that these reasons were used by the Church in Apostolic times. One of the marks of the Catholic Church is that it is apostolic. But, honestly, were there any annulments granted in apostolic times on the following grounds or Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one’s body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one’s parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert’s term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one’s spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one’s (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.
Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn’t want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner’s mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
Remember, this book, Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, is “Designed as a practical companion to the author’s previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.”
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html
B
bobzills
Guest
Yes. It seems like the tribunals are not really working in the correct sequence. They demand first that the couple get a divorce, then after that, they examine the case to see if an annulment is justified. Of course, in the great majority of cases, the annulment is given anyway, at least in the USA.
D
dulcissima
Guest
I’m also familar with the website. I studied it thoroughly when I completed my petition for a declaration of nullity as I wanted to be sure that I was seeking it for legitimate grounds.
BTW, you’ve already posted that. Is it sort of like spam when someone goes through and posts the same things repeatedly in a thread?
Woops, look like I’m saying the same thing again too.
B
bobzills
Guest
However, the Catholic Church has the mark of being apostolic. So the teachings on faith and morals should be the same as in the apostolic times?
B
bobzills
Guest
You asked me the question if I liked the website. I did refer to this before, but I did not raise the question as to whether or not these reasons were given in apostolic times. The Catholic Church has the mark of being apostolic, so this should be of concern.
D
dulcissima
Guest
The teachings are the same. Marriage is an institution handed down by God. No one has the authority to dissolve a valid marriage. This has not changed ever.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t come to deeper understandings of that same truth. The process of getting married has evolved over time, so it should be no surprise that we have revised the process of how we can determine the validity of a marriage.
Here is an interesting article for you:
This century has been a period of remarkable progress in church law and in ecclesiastical jurisprudence. Two great landmarks are the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the Code that replaced it in 1983. Which of the two Codes involved the greater scientific-academic effort? Probably the first. Which holds greater interest for us? Obviously the second. Are the two Codes interrelated, or do they stand in complete contrast? Certainly there are contrasts, and notable ones; this logically suggests many points for consideration and study. But there is also continuity in many aspects, precisely because in the great majority of cases the new ideas or formulations have their roots in the old. What holds good for understanding and interpreting the Second Vatican Council itself, applies here. If one dwells too onesidedly on the newness of the Council and its apparent rupture with what went before, without seeking links and points of continuity, its spirit and message may not be grasped in depth and its application may fail to achieve full effect.
cormacburke.or.ke/node/339
B
bobzills
Guest
I don’t think that the apostles taught that an annulment should be granted on the basis of the reasons which we have seen posted above and listed at
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html
So, on this issue, I don’t think that the teachings are the same today as they were in apostolic times.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
May I ask you, Bob, if the ‘list’ you gave is a comprehensive one which deals with every individual’s grounds, “soft psychological grounds” or otherwise --IOW, are all those THOUSANDS of illegitimate annulments granted ONLY on those ‘invalid’ or “non apostolic” grounds which you give?
Or are there ‘legitimate’ annulments granted on DIFFERENT, ‘acceptable’ grounds?
If there are (and I believe there are, else how would we have had those ‘good’ 9 ones in 1930). . .then why are THOSE grounds not listed comprehensively and given at least ‘equal’ weight as the ones you continually trot out?
And how do YOU personally ‘know’ that say ground A (refusing to go to a gym, or going too often) was the ground on which the annulment was granted ALONE with nothing else considered) which is what you really seem to be implying here, that because something is considered a POSSIBLE GROUND (i.e. in certain circumstances) it then becomes the ‘sole’ reason for that annulment to be granted. . .and even if that were the case in what could be argued was at best a ‘questionable’ decision IN ONE CASE, you have by NO MEANS made the case that those ‘thousands’ of annulments were given on equally weak or questionable grounds, have you?
Or are there ‘legitimate’ annulments granted on DIFFERENT, ‘acceptable’ grounds?
If there are (and I believe there are, else how would we have had those ‘good’ 9 ones in 1930). . .then why are THOSE grounds not listed comprehensively and given at least ‘equal’ weight as the ones you continually trot out?
And how do YOU personally ‘know’ that say ground A (refusing to go to a gym, or going too often) was the ground on which the annulment was granted ALONE with nothing else considered) which is what you really seem to be implying here, that because something is considered a POSSIBLE GROUND (i.e. in certain circumstances) it then becomes the ‘sole’ reason for that annulment to be granted. . .and even if that were the case in what could be argued was at best a ‘questionable’ decision IN ONE CASE, you have by NO MEANS made the case that those ‘thousands’ of annulments were given on equally weak or questionable grounds, have you?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, it is nearly the new year (rah).
So let me wish a blessed New Year to all on the forums (whether or not I happen to agree with them on any given issue
), and may Christ and His Blessed Mother watch over you all.
I may ‘argue’ over a point, but God forbid that I turn an argument into anything that might be construed as a lack of faith, hope, or love–I ask forgiveness if I have erred in any of those points at any time.
Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forevermore, alleluia.
So let me wish a blessed New Year to all on the forums (whether or not I happen to agree with them on any given issue
), and may Christ and His Blessed Mother watch over you all.I may ‘argue’ over a point, but God forbid that I turn an argument into anything that might be construed as a lack of faith, hope, or love–I ask forgiveness if I have erred in any of those points at any time.
Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forevermore, alleluia.
D
dulcissima
Guest
Looking at that link you post repeatedly…
It states that reasons for an annulment include:
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an “I don’t need anyone else” attitude.
Saving one’s salary in a personal account.
**Show me where in today’s code of canon law it says that.
** You are posting a lot of misinformation (over and over again).
The Church’s teaching remains consistent with the unchanging truth. Why are you on a campaign that tries to convince people that Church teaching is wrong, that tribunals have some hidden agenda of declaring null a valid marriage?
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
Ok, the website quotes a book by an organization with no official ties to the tribunals in the United States and no indication that the book is commonly used (or even that the listed reasons had passed muster in actual tribunal decisions). Since both the MarysAdvocates site and the organization selling the book make it clear that the bishops do not have any control over this group as an entity, please explain in your own words what exactly is your point, because it doesn’t seem top prove anything other than the fact that this particular group has some internal issues it needs to resolve about its publication list (though depending on the severity, a good many of the issues listed could very well establish an intent against establishing partnership when married). .
J
JRKH
Guest
And along with this comes Authority from Jesus.
The Church, utilizing her Legitimate Authority Granted by Jesus Himself to bind or loose, has granted these annulments. Do you accept the Church’s authority?
If you do then you must concede that the annulments granted by the duly empowered tribunals are, in fact, legitimate.
And that, my friend, is the question posed in the title of the thread.
If you do not accept the Authority of the Church in this then you really have no standing in this debate - since you reject an authority clearly granted the Church, and her duly appointed representatives, by Jesus Himself.
Peace
James
C
chevalier
Guest
In the States maybe, but that’s a local policy as far as I know. Tribunals existed before civil divorce and they still ruled about marriages. Actually, I even know of a case in a different country where the marriage was declared null by the ecclesiastic tribunal, but the civil court refused to grant divorce, or such cases where nullity proceedings were finished, but civil divorce ones were dragging on and on.
Once again I think the policy of examining marriages only after civil divorce makes it look like a nullity decree is a Catholic divorce. Calling it annulment, as if you could make a marriage null rather than merely declaring it so if it really is so, doesn’t help, either.
J
JRKH
Guest
You are right in that most uf us use the term “annulment” when we mean “decree of nullity”. I don’t really think that most people sense a difference in the intent though.
More of a difference in what is accepted in normal speach versus “Legaleze”.
James
C
chevalier
Guest
Actually, verdicts of nullity are not dissolutions. They merely state that a marriage was null from the beginning, therefore there’s no loosing here unless you mean the fact of not holding someone to an oath he attempted but didn’t successfully take. At any are, there’s no dissolution of marriage in a nullity decree. The only cases in which the Pope dissolves marriages are unconsummated marriages and matters of pauline or petrine privileges.
On principle yes, but tribunals are not infalible, in addition to the possibility of being deceived by lying parties or witnesses, falling victim to people’s decaying memories and other such human faults. The Church has the authority to establish (legitimately) tribunals to hear cases where appropriate, but this doesn’t mean that such verdicts are infallible. There’s no, “every tribunal is right in every case,” belief to be adhered to.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
As opposed to an unlimited number of annullments?
Btw, according to canon, there must be grounds for the divorce, i.e. adultery, and only the innocent may remarry, and only after a penance of usually a year. And there are other stipulations: under no circumstances may an adulterer remarry their “lover.” The Antiochean Archdiocese recently reiterated that a priest for a remarriage must first ascertain if the present proposed marriage is the result of an affair of the first.
Yes, there is abuse. But I know priests who have refused to marry couples (one saying "I’m a priest, not a witch doctor. Waving my hand is NOT going to make this legit (case was a “remarriage” of an affair), and things like the scandal above at the Knights of Columbus (btw. good for them!).
Since when?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
And in the meantime Hubby has remarried. Now what? What if Sheila delayed the appeal, and he remarried “in the church.” Then what?
- Status