Posted on 01/26/2009 5:35:29 PM PST by Salvation
If neither you nor your wives were baptised, then none of your weddings were sacramental requiring annulment.
If, on the other hand, the marriages or the wives were Christian, then the Catholic Church requires that you treat the marriage with the respect that the Church teaches Christian marriage is due, even if you did not do so previously.
As to your last sentence, what if the Catholics just said, "No marriage undertaken before Baptism is a real marriage." In such a case your entry would automatically annul any prior marriages. Would that be better?
It's not just "the sanctity of marriage," it's what marriage IS. It is impossible (in our view) to have been truly married to someone still alive AND to be subsequently truly married to someone else (who is alive also.) One wife at a time, one husband at a time, AND he is your husband or she is your wife until death do you part. That is part of the esse of matrimony.
So we COULD say, well, those marriages you had when you were unbaptized weren't really marriages and aren't really binding. But it sounds like you (or the women involved) want to say that those marriages were real marriages and now these are two.
For us, that does not compute.
You didn’t really pay attention to what I wrote. I explicitly said (if you read the entire phrase) that Catholics are Christians.
I did the speeded-up version of that. I only got as far as calling the Lutherans to find out when their services were. Then I read Surprised By Truth, and the rest is history.
What about "thy Word I have hid in my heart, so that I may not sin against thee" (NASB: "Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You.")?
I am talking about someone who reads the DaVinci Code and then says "well, it could be true that Jesus ran away with Magdalen instead of dying on the cross..." and does not understand why that would incontrovertibly mean a rejection of Catholic belief.
Yes, this actually happened, and yes, the woman in question went to Catholic school and even a college run by and taught by nuns.
Maybe it is an outlier, and surely just an anecdote, but my original point stands: "If you are going to be a serious Catholic (taking canon law, etc. seriously), expect to be lonely".
“As to your last sentence, what if the Catholics just said, “No marriage undertaken before Baptism is a real marriage.” In such a case your entry would automatically annul any prior marriages. Would that be better?”
Well, yes, quite frankly, yes. It would make more sense.
Think about it.
I do understand what you are saying, but I am now at the risk of saying that my first marriage didn’t exist and my current wife’s first marriage didn’t exist, either. Children came from these unions, so therefore, do they now not exist?
That is the major issue.
Of course they exist, but if the marriages they came from, are not valid, after being annulled, where does that leave them?
On more thing to ponder........
I could walk into the Catholic Church, being a thief (or worse) and not have to contact the people I have stolen from (or worse) in the past and still be accepted as is.
Yet, if I come into the Catholic Church as a divorced and remarried man, I need to contact the previous spouse and ask them if they would agree to admit that it never really happened?
huh?
Sorry, I will not now or ever become Catholic.
I tried, it didn’t make sense.
There are other issues but this one just didn’t compute (as you say).
Alas. I was told that if I wanted to, I needed to have my first marriage and my wife's first marriage annulled.
Sorry, but both ladies would not agree, no way, no how.
Okay, I understand the sanctity of marriage arguement, but I came in unbaptised, unchurched, etc...
We both had children from our previous marriages, so we didn't want that to be “annulled”.
I was told that it would be okay, that they would not be considered “bastards” but it was a hard sell to talk them into annullments of our collective first marriages, as any Mother would understand. At the end of the day, I had to say “No, Thank You” to the Catholic Church.
So, I guess we both lived in sin and had to rectify that, but it is a bit complicated, no?
Now I am quite content in my non-denominational church that accepts the fact the I came in with sin, but accepts that we all sin.
Sorry, but I do think that we get there when we get there. We can't always turn back the hands of time.
While I will completely understand the Catholic Church's stance on the 7 sacraments, I also realize that we all reach out for the light whenever and wherever we may be.
Not being a “Christian” before, why would I be held to a “Catholic” standard before my arrival to the faith?
First, if both you and your former spouse were unbaptized at the beginning of the marriage, you were not married. If one of you were baptized during the marriage, then that one is bound by scripture, not the unbaptized one (for example, if your former spouse was baptized and you were not, she would not be at liberty to leave you, but you wouldn't be bound in any way...as you could not sacramentally be married in the first place. If you were baptized and she wasn't, then she could leave you but you couldn't leave her).
Man, all of those Catholic rules sure are tough to deal with.
'Cept one thing, those Catholic rules were written by a fella named Paul (formerly Saul), this guy from Turkey. You may have heard of him before.
1Cr 7:10 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband1Cr 7:11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)--and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
1Cr 7:12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1Cr 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.
1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
So if you're at a good, Bible-believing non-denominational church and they accept you, guess what? Either your church compromises on the Scriptures or, in the final analysis, you would have not had an issue in the Catholic Church either.
"But why don't they let the past be the past...can't do anything about it now, can I?"
They actually do it out of concern for your soul, not out of a bunch of bureaucracy (and this is something that is not often explained at all or explained well).
If you are a baptized Christian and in a second marriage, you are an adulterer. That's not my judgment on you, either (I don't care one way or the other), that's Scripture's judgment on you. Whether your current church teaches that or not, it is what it is.
If you are received into the Church, you will presumably want to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in communion. If you do so, while in a state of mortal sin (which, per scripture, you are), you have just received the Body and Blood sacrilegiously. That is not good for the state of one's soul, to put it mildly (In fact, St. Paul says Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27))
So you go to confession. But you leave that one out. Well, if you don't ask for forgiveness, God isn't going to grant forgiveness, and, in fact, you're really no better than Adam and Eve hiding from the Lord after they ate the fruit, are you?
Of course, you could live as brother and sister with your current wife, but how many people actually would do that? (If you did have a previous, valid marriage and then both you and your wife promised to do so [live as brother and sister], I bet that would be accepted, btw).
But the problem is that if you are received into the Church with a more-or-less permanent state of mortal sin on your soul already, you are assured of a life of either not being in full communion with the Church or living a lie, which eventually leads to having a reprobate heart (and you can do your own word search on reprobate if you want to see where that leads you).
So them wanting to help you clear up the marriage issue and even not allowing you to be received into the Church is, in fact, a grace -- even though I know it really doesn't feel like it when you're on the receiving end.
Bottom line: it's not a "Catholic" standard so much as a standard established by #1, Christ, and #2, St. Paul, which is validated in the Scriptures (as well as in the teachings of the Church).
(2) If I go to Christ and ask for forgiveness for being an adulterer, as a Christian, is there any other governing body that can say I can not be a member of their organization?
Well, frankly, yes.
The Catholic Church demands that I go to the diocese and pay for the privilege of doing so, twice, I my case.
Sorry, I think that if someone on this Earth can determine my worthiness,as to whether I am truly a sincere christian or not, them they themselves are not worthy of my time and trouble.
Again, think about it.
Don't take it so hard, I blew off the Baptist,too (but for a different reason).
I ask Christ only.
I answer to Christ only.
“them they themselves”
Sounds a bit redneck...
Guess I should of just said “ All y’all”
Like I said, I don't actually care so much. I just wanted you to understand that what happened to you was done out of concern for your soul, not out of concern for bureaucratic nuance...and also to assure you that the standards aren't something made up in a dark room in a former graveyard in Italy, but, rather a few hundred miles east of that point.
Since I've done that, my job is done.
I do apreciate your kind rendering of the Church’s beleifs. It seems that I have stirred up a bit of controversy here.
I admit that I have swung back in kind but I do not what you to take it personally.
Agreed, we are Christian.
Agreed, that I want to repent (daily) and live better (daily) as all Christians do.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Few hundred miles east... Well said.
Thanks
We are all reading out of the same book, we’re just a few words off here and there.
A lot more that we agree about than disagree about.
Having been a lifelong Episcopalian and a senior warden in Tennessee, I left the church over 6 years ago, when it left me.
Now living in the Philippines, I will obviously attend the Catholic church.
I do not, however, see a reason to actually become a Catholic.
If someone gives me a reason, I would consider it.
Non-sacramental doesn’t mean no relationship existed, just not the one the Church defines as marriage.
We have to agree on basic terms in order to be able to converse.
There’s a reason Church documents are written in Latin.
Converted from Aramiac and Hebrew (wink)
You need to formally convert if you wish to receive the Holy Communion or other sacraments if the Catholic Church.
You are, like everyone, welcome to visit Mass and pray, but you cannot receive Communion.
sacraments if -> sacraments of
And that’s a big reason why they made St. Jerome a saint.
As a failed Catholic, divorced, and married to a divorced Protestant, I am removed from participating in the Eucharist. Though I cannot participate in Communion, I am thankful to be in His presence. Knowing I am not worthy, I thank and praise the Lord for His Grace and Mercy, which are sufficient for me. He did not come to call the rightous, but sinners, like me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.