Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Frankly, this link is absurd and I think it demonstrates the futility of this dialogue going further and your desperation not to admit you're wrong. The fact you quote Catholic practices here that are not part of your church is desperate.
I would argue that I take marriage seriously but I have no way to "ensure" that the parties take it seriously. Marriage preparation as I do it is not so much about the vows as it is about things like relationship expectations and styles, conflict resolution, and so on. The knowledge and skills that will actually equip that couple to live out their marriage.
Again, have you read the rites? I would argue that it would be exceptionally difficult for someone to participate in the rite, in full, and come away with the impression that their sincerity was not required in the process.
You did not say so directly but you did by stating that consent means sincerity and that is plainly not always true!
Why is it absurd? It demonstrates exactly what I've been saying. On this point, Catholics and Anglicans agree, and frankly, the Catholics put out better resources. So why shouldn't I use them?
Another attempt to obfuscate matters. The fact is that the bible clearly teaches we can fool ourselves into thinking we are sincere in our faith, in our sincerity, etc. If we can delude ourselves into thinking we have faith when we don't, and the effect is that we are not saved and we have to be sincere in confession, then it's pretty safe to conclude we are not forgiven not matter the reason for our insincerity. It's incumbent upon us to test our sincerity.
Not at all.
It's incumbent on us to test our sincerity, yes. But it's also possible for us to lack self understanding. That's very different from wilfully expressing repentance we don't mean, and I'm more prepared to think that God's grace will cover the former.
If we are consciously lying, sure. If it's more complex than that, if we're confused or deceived; it's not so much a matter of wiggle room as a matter of recognising that in fact we are never perfect. As we grow to understand better, we should be open to ever-deeper repentance.
Absurd because i) You're not Catholic and saying Anglican and Catholics are the same on this does not make it so. If it is so, then produce the Anglican evidence not Catholic ii) I see no reference to sincerity
No you mixed in all the words to try to make the point that you deny you're making.... consent and sincerity are the same!
If we earnestly want to know the truth, we will seek and find. Sure there are times we can simply "lack self understanding" but this cannot continue if we truly and sincerely seek a life in relationship with God. In such a relationship will the Holy Spirit allow us to continue without knowing we are insincere? "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."
I don't know where to find a good Anglican source on this online, so you might have to take my word for it that this is what I was taught.
That's where they talk about intent, and whether the party intends to live in accordance with the marriage commitment. For example, not intending to be faithful, or not intending to remain in the marriage until death, is the same sort of thing I'm talking about as not making a sincere commitment to the marriage.
No, again, that's not my point. My point was to draw an analogy between possible insincerity in consent in marriage, and possible insincerity in repentance in confession, and the way our rites handle both in similar ways.
That's not consent as I understand it.
Nope. That's not my position. My position is that it is extremely unlikely that anyone would go through a formal rite of reconciliation, and walk away believing themselves to have been forgiven by God, even after having been insincere in their expression of repentance.
Then in your understanding there is no such thing as reluctant consent else delusional consent. Interesting!
Reluctant consent? As in, I don't really want to do this but I choose to do it anyway for whatever reason? Sure, that's a thing. (Note: coercion is a different matter).
It does tell us that in the Romans 7 context/definition for LAW - he thinks that marriage is legal and this is presumably the case even if one is not married under the Roman empire.
He is not specifying exactly what they did - but he does tell us that it is a legal form and that adultery is determined by that form such that it is unlawful when one is married to then be joined to someone else. Which is certainly an idea that Jews and Christians would be familiar with based on the Ten Commandments that are also quoted from in Rom 7 and Rom 13.
You're absolutely right.
And there's that key word - "authority". At the end of all of this, at this point, I have to rest my thoughts that He will be the final determination of who was rightly oriented to Him in Spirit and truth, and who was not. Most of this denominational stuff seems like a side-show of men & presumed human authorities. Really, much of Christendom seems like a side-show.
Exactly. I even quoted some bits from the old BCP. The old BCP and also the 1928 revised version which is in Common Worship in further revised form and was used in the 2011 wedding of Prince William, implies a high risk of bad things happening at the Day of Judgement if either party is dishonest with the officiating priest or bishop. When the liturgy implies if you are insincere you will likely be consigned to the outer darkness, and also literally begins this phrase with “I require and charge you both, as ye shall answer at the dread day of judgement…”, being insincere does not seem to be presented as a viable option.*
