Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Adults In Limbo  (Read 3632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33853
  • Reputation: +19908/-4226
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adults In Limbo
« Reply #105 on: September 24, 2022, 03:09:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." Encyclical On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863

    Correct.  Did you bother to actually read this?  He's speaking of eternal "punishments".  Infants in Limbo suffer no punishments.  That's the the entire theological premise of Limbo.

    Offline epiphany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3543
    • Reputation: +1090/-875
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #106 on: September 24, 2022, 03:10:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is this a joke? Epiphany, every time the subject of modern marriage annulments comes up, and anyone here says the new annulments granted since Vatican II on grounds (such as immaturity) that were never considered grounds before Vatican II must be rejected and people must not consider them valid, you always jump in and start defending the validity of those same fake annulments, and claim that everyone must accept them.

    I wasn't necessarily including you in my statement about indult-attendees. You seem to be pretty cagey about where you go to church, anyway, so I'll leave you out of this, but I was using the term as a clumsy way to speak collectively about the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo Church, which mostly comprises people who go to the indult. It is a disturbing trend to me to see that, while nearly all of them reject the new mass and sometimes the fake new sacraments and the errors of Vatican II, at the same time nearly all of them accept the modernist marriage annulments that are even more obviously absurd and anti-traditional than the Novus Ordo mass, and more clearly against everything the Church stood for before Vatican II.

    To take a high-profile example I've seen recently, I tend to follow Ann Barnhardt's blog, who I believe goes to the indult. She herself has condemned the modern "bullshit marriage annulments" (she has her own set of technical theological terms :laugh1:), she had a piece on her blog the other day about an FSSP priest who left the FSSP, to make a long story short, basically in protest over their closure of churches during the scamdemic and something else I can't recall now. My point is that Ann praised this man for being heterosɛҳuąƖ, and as proof of that she cited the fact that he has been married in the past and that marriage is now annulled, allowing him to become a priest. I thought this very strange, and looked around on the internet, and it turned out this man was married even had his marriage blessed by John Paul II himself (!!), and that same marriage is later annulled. How the "pope" can't perform a marriage correctly is a question I'll leave for others, but the point is that Ann liked this guy for standing up to the scamdemic, so she completely ignored the horrific scandal of him leaving his marriage through what she herself would call a "bullshit annulment" and ended up becoming a priest later on (invalidly ordained, but still a scandal). She accepted the scandal of the annulment out of wishful thinking, because she liked something else this guy was doing.
    Yeti,
    Off topic here, but only Rome has the authority to claim annulment of a marriage.  There are 1917 grounds for annulment.  Just because Rome considers both modern and 1917 grounds, does not make the 1917 grounds invalid.

    Furthermore, it is above my pay grade to determine whether an annulment was granted under 1917 or modern code.  Therefore, i have to accept all annulments as legit.

    It is an unfortunate truth, and I suspect Miss Barnhardt believes the same.


    Offline Yeti

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2280
    • Reputation: +1276/-374
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #107 on: September 24, 2022, 03:38:20 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Furthermore, it is above my pay grade to determine whether an annulment was granted under 1917 or modern code.  Therefore, i have to accept all annulments as legit.
     

    Okay, so you accept modern annulments as valid. Isn't that what I said in the beginning of this exchange, which you then denied? :facepalm:

    And here you say exactly the opposite earlier in this thread:

    Quote
    epiphany:

    While i do believe the 1917 code regarding annulments, which all Catholics are obliged to believe, i have never "defended the fake modern marriage annulments", fiercely or otherwise.

    Shame on you, epiphany, for your constant lying around here.

    Offline epiphany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3543
    • Reputation: +1090/-875
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #108 on: September 24, 2022, 03:47:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Okay, so you accept modern annulments as valid. Isn't that what I said in the beginning of this exchange, which you then denied? :facepalm:

    And here you say exactly the opposite earlier in this thread:

    Shame on you, epiphany, for your constant lying around here.
    No, I said I have to accept them because I have no authority to decide which are legit and which are not.  I have never defended  modern annulments.  There is no deceit at all.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #109 on: September 24, 2022, 03:50:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As for myself, I make a distinction ... between practice and principle.  I'll treat those who have an NO annulment as if it was legit (given that I am not privy to the details) ... except that I might question it if prudence suggests an opportunity.  I don't have any authority to impose my conscience on others.  Of course, that doesn't stop me from holding in principle that the vast majority of NO annulments are bogus  And yet, a friend told me something a number of years ago that gave me some pause to think.  He mentioned that the vast majority of those who get married in the NO do not believe in the permanence of marriage (go in with the attitude of, "I'll give it a try, and if it does't work I can always get divorced." or else go into it deliberately planning on limiting children).  That is probably true ... in which case they're just fornicators or adulterers (as the case may be).  But the GROUNDS for NO to grant annulments are borderline absurd.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #110 on: September 24, 2022, 03:53:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, I said I have to accept them because I have no authority to decide which are legit and which are not.  I have never defended  modern annulments.  There is no deceit at all.

    I accept them also ... in practice.  And yet you and I were arguing not about specific cases, but rather about the principles for legitimate annulments, and you were in fact promoting the bogus perspective of Conciliar annulments.  Earlier, you were citing Conciliar-era docuмents about the salvation of infants who die without Baptism.  It seems that you're perfectly happy with the Conciliar orientation ... it's right up your alley.

    So, what is it that has you rejecting the Conciliar Church anyway?  Or do you just like the Latin Mass?

    Offline Yeti

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2280
    • Reputation: +1276/-374
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #111 on: September 24, 2022, 04:04:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • He mentioned that the vast majority of those who get married in the NO do not believe in the permanence of marriage (go in with the attitude of, "I'll give it a try, and if it does't work I can always get divorced." or else go into it deliberately planning on limiting children).  That is probably true ... in which case they're just fornicators or adulterers (as the case may be).  But the GROUNDS for NO to grant annulments are borderline absurd.


    Both of those scenarios are specifically mentioned by pre-Vatican II theologians as not invalidating a marriage. I'd have to look it up. For the former, I read that not knowing or even rejecting the concept of marriage lasting until death does not invalidate the consent as long as the person believes marriage is a somewhat permanent union.

    The second idea really stumps me where it came from, but a lot of people in the new church seem to believe it, the conservatives, particularly. This is just a distortion of a somewhat related idea, that any restriction placed on the right for sex in marriage invalidates the matrimonial consent. Thus, if someone were to say, "I only give you the right to sex in this marriage if we are using contraception," that would invalidate the consent, but just to have the intention to use contraception -- even to intend not to have children at all, or to intend always to use contraception -- does not invalidate it unless the nature of the consent is distorted.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8007
    • Reputation: +4034/-848
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #112 on: September 25, 2022, 06:59:12 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I can't find the exact quote I'm thinking of now, but this should suffice for now.

    UPDATE: Ah, here we go.
    In your first link, epiphany incorrectly claims that "undisclosed abusive temper" is grounds for annulment under the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  He seems to like to interpret Church teaching to fit his beliefs.  Seems to be a pattern.

    The question is does epiphany have a conciliar annulment?
    How much longer Lord?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #113 on: September 25, 2022, 07:25:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Both of those scenarios are specifically mentioned by pre-Vatican II theologians as not invalidating a marriage. I'd have to look it up. For the former, I read that not knowing or even rejecting the concept of marriage lasting until death does not invalidate the consent as long as the person believes marriage is a somewhat permanent union.

    The second idea really stumps me where it came from, but a lot of people in the new church seem to believe it, the conservatives, particularly. This is just a distortion of a somewhat related idea, that any restriction placed on the right for sex in marriage invalidates the matrimonial consent. Thus, if someone were to say, "I only give you the right to sex in this marriage if we are using contraception," that would invalidate the consent, but just to have the intention to use contraception -- even to intend not to have children at all, or to intend always to use contraception -- does not invalidate it unless the nature of the consent is distorted.

    If you have citations, I’d like to see them, but I’ve heard these criteria even from Trad priests.

    Offline Yeti

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2280
    • Reputation: +1276/-374
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #114 on: September 25, 2022, 08:20:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • If you have citations, I’d like to see them, but I’ve heard these criteria even from Trad priests.
    I get this from The Administration of the Sacraments, by Fr. Nicholas Halligan, OP. Imprimatur: 1962. A fantastic resource for any questions anyone might have about the sacraments; I really can't recommend this book highly enough.

    For the first question, that the belief that marriage is dissoluble does not invalidate consent, here's what he says:


    Quote
    An error of mistake of law concerns the nature of essential object and properties of the matrimonial contract, as in the case of ignorance. Thus, a simple error regarding the unity or the indissolubility of the sacramental dignity of marriage, even though the motivating reason for entering into the contract, does not invalidate matrimonial consent. [...] To know a thing with all its properties and to will a thing differ; one can simply will a thing as it is in itself and not know very well its properties or be mistaken about them. Thus an error about the essential qualities of marriage does not necessarily invalidate it. The general intention to contract marriage as instituted by God prevails over the error. Although many consider marriage to be dissoluble and not sacramental, e.g., protestants, Jєωs, infidels, yet they normally will to contract marriage as it is. They probably would positively exclude these properties if they were later questioned about them, but they did not actually exclude them at the time consent was given.

    I have attached a scan of the page. The part I quoted is about a third of the way down; I'm sorry I don't know how to highlight an image like that (can anyone help me with this?)


    Offline Yeti

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2280
    • Reputation: +1276/-374
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #115 on: September 25, 2022, 08:33:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The issue of contraception is a little more complex, but here is the relevant part, from a couple of pages after the prior quote:



    Quote
    Matrimonial consent is valid only when the intention predominates to transfer (and not positively exclude) the perpetual and exclusive and continual right ot natural intercourse. A condition designed to exclude this transference perpetually or for a certain time or after a certain time (e.g. periodic continence or the non-use except for infertile days or the right only to onanistic relations) is contrary to the substance of marriage, vitiates the consent and invalidates the contract. If this right is transferred and the condition implies only the intention to abuse this transferred right, the contract is valid, as the sinful condition is not contrary to the substance of marriage.

    If a restriction made on marital intercourse is absolute, without any limit of time, i.e., the marital right and obligation would be perpetually abused, the presumption (in the external forum) is that the right itself, i.e., the order to the object of the contract, is excluded and thus no true marital consent and valid contract exists. This is especially true if a mutual pact has been made acceding to this condition. If the condition is not absolute but limited to a certain time when this marital abuse is intended, the presumption is that true, (although sinful) consent has been given and the marriage is presumed valid. This latter presumption considers that the right to the use was given but the fulfillment restricted. If the restriction is one of perpetual non-use (and not abuse), this is also against the substance of marriage if it implies that the conjugal right is not exchanged. However, such a condition of non-use is less clearly a vitiation of marital consent as is the condition of abuse. It is, moreover, not authoritatively determined nor generally agreed upon whether a condition of perpetual non-use or abstinence is in itself opposed to the substance of marriage. The condition may not be permitted, but a marriage so contracted must be presumed to be valid.



    So there's a bit more to this one, but the bottom line is that generally speaking such marriages must be presumed to be valid, as he sums up the whole thing.


    Offline praesul

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 24
    • Reputation: +18/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Adults In Limbo
    « Reply #116 on: October 07, 2022, 07:34:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • There shouldn't even be a Feeneyism Ghetto because "Feeneyism" is not a thing.
    I agree with this 100%
    "Adversity is the touchstone of friendship" ~ French Proverb

    '"Prefer nothing to the work of God"  ~ St. Benedict