Post edited 6:47 pm – November 19, 2009 by saintstephen

In the Tribunal of any Diocese who study the cause for Annulment of what was presupposed to be the Sacrament of Marriage, there is assigned to the case file a person whose title is “Defender of the Bond”.

His or her task is to determine what evidence supports that when the couple made their vow to love each other “till death do us part” invoking the helps of Jesus Christ as mediator in all difficulties. The work of a Defender is rigorous and demanding of honesty and searching out the Spiritual effects of Truth as it applies to the integrity of the original vows exchanged on the Altar, before God, before Christ, before the Blessed Mother, before the Priest and before all other witnesses from family and friends.

This work of Defender of the Bond extends for all Catholic far beyond merely a Tribunal Marriage Study. Each and every time we receive Christ in His Body and Blood [in a state of grace] we bond with Christ in a extraordinarily unique way that is supernaturally beyond all human bonds. Of course we are all bonded to our family and friends and sometimes even our enemies although that bond of human suffering and endurance is often broken by lack of faith.

The bond with which we unite ourselves, body, heart, mind and soul with Jesus Christ is a bond which we should never dare to break as this is the only means to our Salvation. We should always and everywhere be ready and willing to break all material bonds on this earth to whatever substance prevents us from fully uniting in this Sacred Bond with Christ, even should that substance be flesh and blood of humanity which is obviously destroying our bond with Christ.

Sin is and always has been the primary cause of the broken bond with Christ and with His Father and with the Spirit and worse, as we sin, our very own sin causes us to unite with sinners of all other sorts as sin is not separable from sin. Any one sin we commit is fully united with all other sin and so the witness we give to others is fully motivated by our own particular state of sin or in the case of those who are in Truth, faithful to Jesus Christ and the Commands, this witness we give is fully motivated by our own particular state of grace.

Every Saint, Prophet, Priest or King that ever lived will testify that the Truth will never be a part of our vocabulary unless we testify from a state of grace which can only come from God through Christ through the Holy Spirit through the Ordination of the Priesthood to which we are all called and participate most readily with our Priests who minister our Sacraments. Without full Sacramental participation in the Divine Mystery of Christ, there is no witness that is credible.

Yes, through Christ Our Lord we all are Defenders of the Bond which is our Bond with Christ and with all other faithful. We must defend this bond with our very lives and always and everywhere, as Saint Paul says, “whether convenient or inconvenient”.

To Defend the Bond with Christ it is imperative that we do nothing to break that bond and if we should sin, do everything in our earthly power to re-establish that bond through the Sacrament of Holy Confession with Absolution and Amendment of purpose to never again…..break the Bond we have with Christ.

What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? As it is written: "For your sake we are being slain all the day; we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. New Testament Letters * Romans Chapter 8

Post edited 3:54 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 5:22 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said:

SS,
Thank you for all your posts, without you here this forum would be almost dead.

I only half believe what you say here. I consider that the bond between us and God can never be broken.

Noel, Our parish Priest Father Tim Yanta explained in homily at Mass this morning that when we sin, we separate ourselves from Christ which amounts to a broken bond. We of course are created by God and as such are not able to undo creation although through sin we can separated ourselves from the “bond” of Holy Communion as is testified by Saint Paul:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” New Testament Letters * 1 Corinthians Chapter 11

What you refer to in Baptism is that our Catholic identity can never be taken away from us even by excommunication although our bond with Christ in Holy Communion is taken away from us through excommunication. This is why the SSPX group finally confessed and were received into the fold of the Church. Even Father Martin Luther could have confessed and was given one year to do so and refused. He was refuted repeatedly by Robert Bellarmine (full name in Italian: Roberto Francesco Romolo Bellarmino) (4 October 1542, Montepulciano, Siena, Italy – 17 September 1621, Rome) was an Italian Jesuit and a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. He was one of the most important cardinals of the Catholic Reformation. He was canonized in 1930 and is a saint and a Doctor of the Church.

What Baptism does for all Catholic is to allow us perpetual access to the Sacraments so that even should we be excommunicated, we can still re-establish the bond with Christ through Reconciliation with the Church.

Insofar as politicians and all others who both practice and preach errors of Catholic Doctrine, as all Pope’s have declared that they create “scandal”. Especially when one is a member of a family, giving scandal to that family is obviously a blatant sign of breaking the bond of blood which binds us.

Scripturally, the Apostles also warn of the impending condemnation of any who preach a false doctrine and further, identify them with the antiChrist:

“Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist. Look to yourselves that you do not lose what we worked for but may receive a full recompense. Anyone who is so “progressive” as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.” The Catholic Letters * 2 John

Post edited 9:03 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 9:11 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 9:12 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 10:20 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 10:23 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 10:39 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said:

SS,
nothing you say is incorrect, in a sense the bond is broken, in another sense it is not. God’s love remains. Christ still loves us and came to call us – sinners.

A member of the family always remains one. My family may irritate and annoy me, but family is family. However even though a mother rejects her Child God will not reject us.

The Lord said to me again, “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.”
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ho 3:1.

Noel, The bond is broken in this way to use a created scenero: If a husband were unfaithful to his wife and took another lover, the bond with his wife would be broken even though she is still his wife. The wife would have to forgive her husband in order to return to the original bond they had.

In the same way we break the bond we have with Christ when we forsake him for sin. In order to regain the bond with Christ we need to renounce the sin we committed in Confession, receive Absolution. The Absolution regains the bond we had with Christ. He takes us back from sin just like the wife took back her unfaithful husband from the arms of his adulterous lover.

In either event a bond is broken and needs to be repaired. This is why I use the title to this thread, “Defender of the Bond” meaning that we intend to never break the bond in marriage or with Christ in Holy Communion.

The wife must decide to take her husband back and a Priest in the Confessional must decide to Absolve our sins. Absolution is not guaranteed as in the case of excommunication the Absolution is denied. A wife who will not forgive her husband adultery with another lover does not re-establish the bond.

This is why it is so important not to break the bond in the first place because every time we do, we run the risk of not receiving Absolution which is entirely up to the Priest in the Confessional. When we are Absolved, we should breath a sigh of relief because our bond with Christ hangs on the decision of the Priest to Absolve us or not as he acts in the person of Christ by his ordination and is not necessarily required to Absolve sins in all cases, especially obstinacy in sin.

In fact, Christ taught the Apostles that infidelity in marriage was a sin that did not require forgiveness, the bond of marriage can remain permanently broken. Also Christ said sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. This is one of the reasons why the Church does grant Annulments for cases of divorce among the main reason that the vow was faulty from the beginning of the courtship. This is also the reason the Church does excommunicate certain Catholic who sin against the Holy Spirit.

A. There are six sins that offend the Holy Spirit. These are:

(1) Despair,

“By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice – for the Lord is faithful to his promises – and to his mercy.” (C.C.C. # 2091)

(2) Presumption of God’s mercy,
“There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).” (C.C.C. # 2092)

(3) Impugning the known truth,
(Clarification: To “impugn” the known truth means to attack it by word or argument, to resist it, to contradict it, or even to oppose the known truth or to challenge it as false.)

(4) Envy the spiritual good of another,
(Clarification: Regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians states, “All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually as the Spirit chooses.” To envy the spiritual good of another is to question the Divine judgment of the Holy Spirit in His distribution of spiritual gifts. It is to be jealous of another person who has a gift different than one’s own gift. Through envy, one rejects the gift that he has received from the Holy Spirit, determining in his own mind that the gift he has received is not good enough for him and he wants someone else’s gift.)

(5) Obstinacy in sin,
(Clarification: To be “obstinate” means to resist the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, to be stubborn, to persist in sin, to be unyielding.)

(6) Final impenitence.
(Clarification: “Impenitence” means to be uncontrite, unrepentant, hardened, unconverted, to be without regret, shame or remorse.)

Post edited 3:10 pm – November 21, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:51 pm – November 21, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:40 pm – November 21, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 5:04 pm – November 21, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 5:12 pm – November 21, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said:

SS,
the bond of marriage is not broken by having an affair. A marriage is for life, till death us do part, for richer for poorer. The bond remains as long as both partners are alive.

Also in confession the priest does not forgive sins, God does. “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”.

So you see I half agree with you.

Noel, You are only partially right in saying a bond of marriage is not broken by having an affair. What breaks the bond is the refusal of the wronged spouse to grant forgiveness also the result of Church Canon proceedings in view of the “affair” should the wronged spouse per-sue court proceedings with her parish Priest. What happens when a spouse has sexual intercourse with a lover outside the bond of marriage is that they “break” the part about “till death do us part” and create a new agreement “till an affair with a secret lover do us part”Any Priest can discern the petition to the Church to begin a marriage study for annulment.

Apparently you are not connecting the dots to the OT historical record of King David’s adultery with Bethsheba the wife of Uriah and how his Kingdom fell thereafter and his own son tried to kill David and David’s wife was fuming mad and David’s son Solomon afterward had 900-some wives and concubines, all the result of David’s “affair” with Bethsheba whom he married after he sent Uriah to die in war and he was killed. Of course David repented yet God’s final judgment was that David would lose everything.

Read here the Tribunal or the Roman Rota:

The Rota’s main function is that of a third-instance appellate tribunal, ordinarily reviewing decisions of lower courts if the initial court (first instance) and the first appellate court (second instance) do not agree on the outcome of a case;[8] however, any party to an initial decision before a court of the Latin Church (and also some Eastern Churches) has the right to file a second-instance appeal directly to the Rota.[9] Dominating its case load are petitions seeking the issuance of a decree of nullity, although it has jurisdiction to hear any other type of judicial and non-administrative case in any area of canon law. In certain instances, the Rota has exclusive original jurisdiction, such as any contentious case in which a bishop of the Latin Church is a defendant.[10] If the case can still be appealed after a Rotal decision, the appeal goes to a different turnus, or panel, of the Rota.[citation needed]

Q. How could a marriage qualify for an annulment?
A. If any of the following conditions existed at the time of the wedding, it is possible that a marriage would qualify for an annulment:

* If the marriage ceremony was not legally acceptable to the Catholic Church (this affects only Catholics and Orthodox Christians)
* If either spouse was not free to marry
* If either spouse was not adequately prepared to understand, accept and fulfill God’s plan for married life as the Catholic Church teaches it
* If either spouse did not intend, from the beginning of marriage, to accept God’s plan for married life as taught by the Catholic Church (examples would be the refusal to have children, or to be faithful, or to marry for life.)

There are several reasons for divorce and anullment although one reason may be infidelity as is written here in the Gospels: “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. The Gospels * Matthew Chapter 5

The process of Annulment in the Tribunal or the Roman Rota both dissolve the marriage according to the Scripture [unless the marriage is unlawful] so your interpretation of marriage is lacking the fullness of Church teaching.

I already have met Catholic who have divorced and were granted Annulment from a spouse who was unfaithful by engaging another lover in the act of sexual intercourse which the Church does view as a complete and permanent betrayal of the marital vows if unrepented and Absolved.

Insofar as the Confessional is concerned the Priest acts in the person of Christ and I can prove to you that there is in fact a disparity between one Priest to the next in regard to what is and what is not forgiven. We are struggling with this very issue in my parish right now where our parish Priest avoids the Confessional and worse rejects penitents from the Confessional in dialog. Of course, God forgives our sins through Christ although any Priest can impede that forgiveness by refusing to remain himself in contrition and Confession. I don’t know if you are aware of this Noel, Priests must go to Confession also and when they don’t, the resultant effect on an entire parish is evident in the disappearance of the Sacrament of Confession which is happening in the USA on such a large scale that Pope John Paul II wrote an entire encyclical on the subject, investigated Seminaries all over the USA and demanded that Catholic education must be Catholic and further exhorted US Catholic Churches to pledge their allegiance to the Latin Church in Rome which is now happening in many US parishes usually at Confirmation. Our situation here is turning around but slowly and sporadically, we have a long way to go in order to remain in full communion with the Catholic Church under this Pontificate.

We have been forced to resolve our problem with Sacramental Confession by going to other parishes offering that Sacrament. We do realize that one of the early Pope decided the issue of a Priest in mortal sin and how he still validly consecrates the Eucharist although his personal sin does make his reception of Holy Communion a personal Sacrilege of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Sacrilege of the Priest also affects his ministry of the Sacrament of Confession and impedes it by his personal sin either venial or mortal according to Church Doctrine and the Catechism and the Canon of the Church.

As you have acknowledged yourself in the past we are a Church comprised of sinners and unfortunately those comprising the sinners can and are in fact sometimes Priests and even Bishops [Bishop Lefabre who was excommunicated along with others].

Post edited 9:24 pm – November 21, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said:

SS,
you seem to be saying that the Church gives divorces. I wonder. Annulment is a statement that there was no marriage, it does bot break a bond.

Noel, I apologize if I gave you that impression. When a parishioner desires to start the process of marriage study for the possible annulment, a civil divorce “must meaning required to” have already happened. The Church will not proceed with a marriage study unless the decree of divorce is presented to the parish Priest. The Priest then writes the official request to the Diocese Tribunal for marriage study then signs the request and mails it. In the meantime, the spouse who is requesting the marriage study is given witness forms to be completed by any person having first hand experience with the marriage of the two, then those forms go to the Tribunal also.

Next the Tribunal Assessor will send a letter to the other spouse giving him or her two weeks to respond whether he or she will participate willingly and if not then the Tribunal will proceed without him or her. The case is then assigned a file number and the process of gathering evidence and holding trial takes about a year. When the Tribunal reaches it’s judgment, the other spouse is asked if he wants the Tribunal to send the judgment to the second court for concurrence or does the other spouse want to request the decision be sent to the Roman Rota?

Once the second court of instance makes it’s judgment, the case is then closed and the decision of the courts are filed and copies sent to both spouses [or if Annuled, then the ex-spouses].

The decision of the Tribunal court for Annulment grants that the marriage is officially been recognized by the Church as defective from the beginning and the couple are free to marry whom they please in the Sacrament of Matrimony although usually both are required to first obtain council of the Church appointed Councils before requesting any Priest to prepare them for a new marriage.

With an Annulment the Sacramental bond of the marriage is determined as non existent and so there never was a Sacramental bond. Any physical bond which occurred is considered in the same manner the Church considers the physical bond of any other religion or non religious. The birth of children are not denied by the Church, they are the fact of a physical bond even though the Church does not consider their parents in a Sacramental bond of Marriage.

I think you may be confusing a physical bond with a Sacramental bond. Do you know what is the difference?

A physical bond is not considered Sacred unless bonded within a Sacramental bond with Christ.

Any other physical bond can even be considered sinful especially sexual before marriage in the Catholic faith, homosexual and sex with prostitutes. Physical bonds within other religions are considered natural bonds. These are explained here: Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART TWO
THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY

SECTION TWO
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER THREE
THE SACRAMENTS AT THE SERVICE OF COMMUNION

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

Post edited 8:46 pm – November 24, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 9:10 pm – November 24, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 9:12 pm – November 24, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

No…Noel is fully correct. The Sacramental Marriage Bond exists until death…period. One may break faith, but not the bond. An annunlment is a recognition by the Church that a true bond never existed.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, You are in error, a marital affair most definitely provides initial evidence that a true Sacramental bond never existed and any Catholic may proceed toward the grant of annulment based entirely on a single act of extramarital affair. Any extramarital affair absolutely breaks the physical bond immediately until there occurs complete and full Reconciliation. Unless the unfaithful one can prove without a doubt that the act of fornication or adultery was not preceded by a fault in the vow from the beginning, the Sacramental bond is broken impromtu.

What your supposition proposes is that reception of the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin does not break the Sacramental bond of the sinner with Christ which is absolutely in error as any reception of Christ in mortal sin is a Sacrilege and merits immediate condemnation unless repented and Confessed.

The act of committing fornication or adultery immediately is a mortal sin which makes any further relationship with the spouse as much a Sacrilege as reception of Holy Communion unless repented and Confessed and a full Reconciliation with the spouse offended is willing granted. The Sacramental bond is thus broken until repaired which may be never depending on the unwillingness of the wronged spouse to grant full pardon.

Any mortal sin breaks the Sacramental bond with Christ which also breaks the Sacred bond of Marriage as the Sanctity of the Marriage is entirely dependent on a Sacred bond with Christ. Breaking the bond with Christ also breaks the bond with a spouse whose Sacramental vows are broken.

Post edited 9:21 pm – November 24, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 9:26 pm – November 24, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 10:13 pm – November 24, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

It’s a full load of dung to suggest that I am proposing anything of the sort.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, I would say so, not even partially correct but completely in error, any man that would break the Sacramental bond with Christ and with his spouse may be at least temporarily a load full of dung, possibly permanently. As the Sacramental bond is most definitely broken that man will remain dung unless he is able to re-establish the Sacramental bond with the Eucharist in Reconciliation with a Priest and in Reconciliation with the offended spouse under the supervision of a Priest.

In fact, he may be considered even worse that a load of dung as Christ himself has testified, "Any man who leaves his wife forces her to commit adultery". So not only has the man committed mortal sin breaking the Sacramental bond with Christ, he has forced his wife to do the same which creates Sacrilege in both cases….a double dung.

Post edited 10:02 am – November 25, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 10:08 am – November 25, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 1:40 pm – November 25, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 1:52 pm – November 25, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said: I’m saying that it is clear fact that the Sacramental bond of marriage, once present, exists until death.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, You obviously hold a naive and over-simplistic view of the Sacrament of Marriage and make presumptions in argument. Scandal can and does strip the perpetual rights to that Sacrament for a time if not permanently.Scandal can also have a permanent effect on the reception of Sacrament of the Eucharist. Hidden within the affair that Noel refers to [especially in the context of fornication or adultery] resides the questionable and uncertain (non)validity of the bond, subject to Tribunal study and determination. This is also primary to certain presumptions Noel makes also without regard to the severity of damage done through that particular act of physical, psychical and moral betrayal of the wronged spouse.

Any scandal until fully addressed certainly demands a study of validity of the bond without presumption as there is evidence of condemnable mortal sin.

Furthermore your false pretense displays a great ignorance of the historical lessons of Scripture regarding the judgment of God in the adultery of King David which led to great personal suffering and the loss of most of his family.

Post edited 3:19 pm – November 25, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:25 pm – November 25, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said: Adultery does not break the bond.

Noel, To say adultery does not break the bond, to use an analogy is like putting the cart before the horse. It is in committing the act of adultery that a Catholic immediately draws into question the validity of the bond of Sacramental Marriage. This is why the Catholic Church established and gave authority to the Tribunal to study and determine the validity of the bond not only in the case of adultery also many other acts of betrayal in marriage and including other instances of mortal sin.

In many countries throughout the world, adultery is not only considered a betrayal, it is a crime deserving of the death penalty. At the time of Christ, adultery was considered by the Jews as deserving of death by stoning. Christ saved a woman[presumed Mary Magdalene] from stoning to death for the act of adultery.

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?"

They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.

And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more."

Post edited 12:35 am – November 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 12:37 am – November 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 12:49 am – November 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 12:55 am – November 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 1:56 am – November 26, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said:

ss

What is done in other countries is not the issue.

The question is can the bond of Catholic marriage be broken? Is the answer yes or no?

I read:
“That’s why we say that the sacrament of marriage is indissoluble.

And even Catholic annulment can’t dissolve a valid marriage!

Noel, I worked in our Diocese for 15 years as Stephens Minister. My assignments were to minister to parishioners experiencing Tribunal marriage study. I was also asked by the Priest assigned to supervise the Tribunal to witness to presentations of the process of Annulment. I represented several parishioners involved in adultery as the primary cause of divorce and Tribunal marriage study as well as the offended spouses. The process of marriage study more often than not exposed an invalid bond from the beginning in all cases of adultery that I ministered to. Annulment is a declaration of an invalid bond in marriage from the beginning, so the statement that Catholic annulment cant dissolve a valid marriage amounts to gibberish as the marriage is in fact invalid should it receive a declaration of annulment.

The possibility of an adulterous Catholic defending the validity of the bond in marriage is highly improbable in my experience and the Canon does grant the right to permanent separation even should the bond be found valid, in fact in the several cases I worked with the adulterer refused obstinately to return to the Sacramental bond as the physical bond in adultery kept the adulterer in the sinful relationship sometimes even producing children born in sin for many years, remaining in adultery. I know of two cases where adulterers remained in the sinful relationship for over 20 years, while the wronged spouse suffered that obstinacy heroically and silently not aware of the Tribunal authority to study the marriage for dissolution.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

I believe where you and I are not communicating is “who determines the validity of a marriage? No Catholic can determine the validity of his own marriage if challenged by a Tribunal marriage study. Any Catholic who doubts the validity of his or her marriage can petition the Tribunal to study the marriage through witnesses to make determination of validity..

Are you referring to validity of marriage solely as presumed in the mind of one spouse engaged in an act of adultery? Or are you trying to infer that someone else determines validity of bond. This I need to ask you to respond to in order to this aspect of the validity of the bond as your assertion does not make this distinction?