Divorce

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately I think I’ve accidentally hijacked this thread about divorce into a Mixed Marriage thread. I’ll bow out as far as discussing this issue further in this thread.

As you wish.

However, I leave it to the mods to discern whether conversations have drifted too far off topic.

I happen to veer off topic rather frequently, and make no apologies for it. I imagine while in discourse here that we are sitting in someone’s garden, sipping a cocktail and munching something deliciously unhealthy while discussing religion. In these types of scenarios discussions ALWAYS veer off into tributaries, often more interesting than the original.

Natural segues into other topics mimic real dialogue, IMHO.

 

[rainbow1]

Hello all…thanks for the prayers for my friend in need…continued prayers are needed really badly…and I am lucky to have been able to get internet connection tonight to see what all has been going on since I had to exit suddenly…
I am so surprised what has been going on here! So much arguing in only 1 1/2 days! I have to say that it makes me sad.

As far as mixed marriages… I am thinking that it probably depends on the two individuals that are considering getting married…and I think it would be very important for them to get priestly counsel, just like any two Catholics getting married.

Broad generalizations of groups of people are stereotypes, and stereotypes usually end up harming someone. It doesnt do any good to categorize people into good/bad black and white descriptions. If it is ok to say that Catholics should never marry non-Catholics, then I suppose we should say that skinny Catholics should not marry fat Catholics, and smart Catholics should not marry stupid Catholics, and Catholics should not marry anyone with long hair or big long noses or spikey hair or over the age of 50 etc… and we could go on and on about this because after all, we aren’t talking about anyone in particular…but you know what? We really are. We are directly affecting any non Catholic who might read this thread. We are affecting any non intelligent person, or any obese person, or people with congenital facial deformities…and thus we are also affecting all Catholics…because we are all God’s children … His precious children… Stereoptypes end up hurting everyone, including all the posters on this thread.
I ask that when we post on this thread that we keep in mind that lots of our brothers and sisters in Christ and even non Christians are reading this. These are real people reading these posts. Real people with real feelings. Relationships…ALL relationships, are sacred. Let’s allow the Holy Spirit to fill all our communications on this thread.

Please lets try to use “I” statements. “I” have found it helpful to be married to a Catholic with similar faith to mine because we could understand each other well… Or “I” as a Catholic have found it enriching to be married to a non-Catholic because we learned new things from one another and helped each other grow in ways new to each of us…

I would particularly like to thank Fr. NewEnglandPriest for following this thread and for giving your helpful (name removed by moderator)ut. We are so blessed to have you share your information and experience with us and we hope you continue to do so. What a blessing for us!!! Thank you for being willing to sacrifice so much to help us in our spiritual journeys.

I continue to try to understand people who have suffered divorce. I am curious why so many people leave the faith during such a traumatic time. I am asking people to continue to share their experiences and am hoping to find ways for all of us, divorced or not divorced , to minister better to our brothers and sisters in Christ who may be in need of help carrying their crosses. Our beautiful Church’s teachings have clearly been stated already. But what hasn’t been stated clearly is a good enough understanding of the many different ways in which our fellow Catholics who are divorced can best be ministered to. What are effective ways to help Catholics who are divorced to know they are still an important part of the Church? Let’s work together to grow in understanding.

 

[oneofmany]

Let’s look at this in another way. What would you say to your daughter if she said, “Would I have had an affair with a married man? Probably. I loved him. What else could I do? Be alone for the rest of my life?”

I would have never been in that position since I would have never considered dating a married man. My hubby had a civil divorce 3 years prior to meeting him. Now if all Catholics are to consider divorced people as still being married, then we aren’t going to date many people after the age of 30.

My choices were a Catholic man who was a confirmed bachelor or a divorced man who wanted to marry. I guess I could have kept dating the confirmed bachelor and worked on him to marry me but that kind of marriage is doomed to fail from the start. Instead, I chose my hubby who is a good man and came back into the church after I married him. It wasn’t a dead in on what I decided.

I said I lucked out in so far as his first marriage was out of the church since he left the church for awhile. Lucky me, but I feel for those who cannot get an annulment when they follow church teachings and try to do everything by the book.

My sister married a non-Catholic man and 50 years later they are still happily married. If she was set on not dating any man who was not Catholic they would have never dated. She did date a Catholic man but he turned out to be an alcoholic. Not all Catholics are great. She would have had a miserable life.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Now if all Catholics are to consider divorced people as still being married, then we aren’t going to date many people after the age of 30.

Well, the Church presumes Catholics married according to canonical form to be married until proven otherwise (annulment).

I said I lucked out in so far as his first marriage was out of the church since he left the church for awhile. Lucky me, but I feel for those who cannot get an annulment when they follow church teachings and try to do everything by the book.

In this case since he didn’t follow canonical form his civil marriage is considered invalid sacramentally by the Church. Thus the question “Would I have had an affair with a married man?” is not applicable…

 

[FCGeorge]

Just to make it clear: a divorced but not re-married person MAY receive the Eucharist, given that he/she is not in a state of mortal sin for another mortal sin, having confessed all mortal sins after divorcing.

Hello PRmerger,

I’m seeking to understand how people come to this conclusion.

Are you saying…

1. Divorce is NEVER a grave offense.

or… assuming you recognize that it is indeed a grave offense (although there are some exceptions when a civil divorce would not be a grave offense (CCC 2383))

1. Divorce is the one grave offense that you can commit and still receive the Eucharist.

or, are you saying…

1. During the instances when a civil divorce is a grave offense, you can commit this offense and confess it away without having a heart that is willing to right the wrong.

For example…

Let’s say that John and Carol are two baptized Christians who when they were married did indeed intend to be faithful to each other for life and be open to children. They believed the vows they spoke on their wedding day.

Four years later Carol is in a terrible car accident. John decides he does not want to be tied down to this woman who is now in a wheelchair. She was once a swimsuit model but now she is not. John abandons Carol and files for a civil divorce. Carol was not the perfect wife. She often burned the toast and didn’t always love John perfectly as Christ loves the Church. She occasionally fell short of that. But John was in no danger in continuing to live with Carol.

Now, are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that John is not committing a “grave offense” by abandoning Carol?

or

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that it is sin but John can simply confess the sin and have the blood of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ wipe it away even though John has a heart that is not willing to right the wrong?
(The old, "God, I am so sorry I *had to *divorce Carol. I would have been miserable my whole life. I would not have been able to have sex with her. I would have had to push that wheelchair around… I am sorry I *had to *do it.)

1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving,31 which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."32

If John is indeed “heartily sorry” for divorcing Carol then will he not seek to right that wrong? Will he not have a heart that remains open to righting that wrong? Or… will he give Carol 3 years, 3 months and 3 days to decide to accept him back. Then… John will determine that he has waited “long enough” and no longer needs to have a heart that is willing to right the wrong.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[EvelynEVF]

Rainbow,

I don’t think anybody is stereotyping non-Catholics. We don’t refrain from mixed marriages not because they are awful people who will drag us away from our faith, but because there are huge difference between our faiths.

Were I to hypothetically be in a position to date, and if I believed I were called to the vocation of marriage, I would work pretty hard at finding a Catholic before I considered dating nonCatholics. About as far afield as I would consider would be faithful Lutherans or Anglicans or Orthodox. Maybe a non-liturgical denomination if I met the person in RCIA or something and they were well on their way to becoming Catholic.

Why? Because I believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I have a particular devotion to the Precious Blood. Most of the Protestants I’ve met and was raised with, would have to believe that I was either idolatrous or deluded. Liturgical Protestants sometimes have an understanding of the Eucharist that comes closer to ours, but still isn’t valid.

How could I share my life and my heart with someone who couldn’t recognize my Jesus? And how could I risk falling in love with someone who didn’t, in the hopes of conversion, and then be stuck in such a hard place if they didn’t?

There are so many sad stories on here about people who weren’t so serious about their faith, entered a mixed marriage, and then reverted. Even the really great marriages can be strained by this, a rule change in the middle of the game.

So it’s no personal offense to non Catholics. It’s just that it’s such a serious issue.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Hello PRmerger,

I’m seeking to understand how people come to this conclusion.

Are you saying…

1. Divorce is NEVER a grave offense.

or… assuming you recognize that it is indeed a grave offense (although there are some exceptions when a civil divorce would not be a grave offense (CCC 2383))

1. Divorce is the one grave offense that you can commit and still receive the Eucharist.

or, are you saying…

1. During the instances when a civil divorce is a grave offense, you can commit this offense and confess it away without having a heart that is willing to right the wrong.

For example…

Let’s say that John and Carol are two baptized Christians who when they were married did indeed intend to be faithful to each other for life and be open to children. They believed the vows they spoke on their wedding day.

Four years later Carol is in a terrible car accident. John decides he does not want to be tied down to this woman who is now in a wheelchair. She was once a swimsuit model but now she is not. John abandons Carol and files for a civil divorce. Carol was not the perfect wife. She often burned the toast and didn’t always love John perfectly as Christ loves the Church. She occasionally fell short of that. But John was in no danger in continuing to live with Carol.

Now, are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that John is not committing a “grave offense” by abandoning Carol?

or

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that it is sin but John can simply confess the sin and have the blood of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ wipe it away even though John has a heart that is not willing to right the wrong?
(The old, "God, I am so sorry I *had to *divorce Carol. I would have been miserable my whole life. I would not have been able to have sex with her. I would have had to push that wheelchair around… I am sorry I *had to *do it.)

1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving,31 which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."32

If John is indeed “heartily sorry” for divorcing Carol then will he not seek to right that wrong? Will he not have a heart that remains open to righting that wrong? Or… will he give Carol 3 years, 3 months and 3 days to decide to accept him back. Then… John will determine that he has waited “long enough” and no longer needs to have a heart that is willing to right the wrong.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

There is a difference between grave offense and mortal sin. Grave offense is one of the three conditions for mortal sin. The two words are not interchangeable in the way you have been reading them. The way one must examine conscience and decide if a sin is mortal in this case is between them, God, and their Confessor and has nothing to do with any other member of the parish. Either way it is a sin that can be confessed and the person can receive.

Now there are some things that are objective such as divorce with remarriage without decree of nullity that will keep one from receiving the Eucharist.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Even in cases where the divorce is sinful, I am not at all convinced that repentant reconciliation necessarily involves putting the marriage back together. If a man abandons his wife, she may not want him back. Frankly, she might be unwise to take him back, since what made him leave may not be “fixed.” He may recognize his own deep weakness and realize that it would be better to remain divorced, but do his utmost to support her (I actually know a person who did/does this).

Personally I find some of your arguments hard to take, because while what you say makes sense, I am in the unenviable position of having divorced for very just causes (and I had the express permission of my Ordinary to do so). I do not discuss it except anonymously with identifying details changed, or with very close friends. My ex, on the other hand, is portraying himself as an unjustly abandoned spouse, which means I feel like I’m constantly skating around scandal by having public ministry in my parish. If you happen to be in my parish, you probably think I’m one of those unrepentant sinners who ought not to approach the Eucharist. So I feel for the other people out there who feel the anger and frustration of those who do not know the situation fully.

So that’s my caveat, if I sound like I’m taking what you’re saying personally. I have to work very hard not to, even though I know you’re not really talking about me.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Even in cases where the divorce is sinful, I am not at all convinced that repentant reconciliation necessarily involves putting the marriage back together. If a man abandons his wife, she may not want him back.

You make an excellent point here. IIRC, the 1917 code of canon law contained a provision for separation in cases of adultery, the innocent spouse was not obligated to resume martial life with the offending party. That didn’t mean they were free to remarry or anything, but the code did explicitly recognize the right of the innocent spouse not to reconcile (iirc, lol).

Personally I find some of your arguments hard to take, because while what you say makes sense, I am in the unenviable position of having divorced for very just causes (and I had the express permission of my Ordinary to do so). I do not discuss it except anonymously with identifying details changed, or with very close friends. My ex, on the other hand, is portraying himself as an unjustly abandoned spouse, which means I feel like I’m constantly skating around scandal by having public ministry in my parish. If you happen to be in my parish, you probably think I’m one of those unrepentant sinners who ought not to approach the Eucharist. So I feel for the other people out there who feel the anger and frustration of those who do not know the situation fully.

Another good point. There’s 2 sides to every story and anyone outside of it will never know which is why we’d all do good to remember the commandment of Jesus that we refrain from judgment of one another.

 

[PRmerger]

I would have never been in that position since I would have never considered dating a married man.

Fair enough.

But my question as posed to you earlier is based on your statement, “Would I have married my husband if he could not get an annulment? Probably.”

IOW, if you love someone, then the fact that he’s married isn’t a barrier to you. Remember, you stated you’d probably still marry him even “if he could not get an annulment.”

So expand that to your hypothetical daughter. Would you support her decision to be with a married man, if she really, really loves him?

My hubby had a civil divorce 3 years prior to meeting him. Now if all Catholics are to consider divorced people as still being married, then we aren’t going to date many people after the age of 30.

That’s a sad statistic, but I don’t see how that should influence the Church to say that dating divorced people is now acceptable because the demographics of available men has decreased.

Surely you’re not saying that this is a reason for the Church to amend Christ’s teaching on divorce and re-marriage, right??

 

[PRmerger]

Hello PRmerger,

I’m seeking to understand how people come to this conclusion.

Are you saying…

1. Divorce is NEVER a grave offense.

No, I haven’t said that at all.

1. Divorce is the one grave offense that you can commit and still receive the Eucharist.

No, I haven’t said that at all, either.

1. During the instances when a civil divorce is a grave offense, you can commit this offense and confess it away without having a heart that is willing to right the wrong.

No, I haven’t said that at all either.

Now, of course, any mortal sin that is committed may be completely, utterly, entirely FORGIVEN if one receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Right? You do agree with this, yes?

For example…

Let’s say that John and Carol are two baptized Christians who when they were married did indeed intend to be faithful to each other for life and be open to children. They believed the vows they spoke on their wedding day.

Four years later Carol is in a terrible car accident. John decides he does not want to be tied down to this woman who is now in a wheelchair. She was once a swimsuit model but now she is not. John abandons Carol and files for a civil divorce. Carol was not the perfect wife. She often burned the toast and didn’t always love John perfectly as Christ loves the Church. She occasionally fell short of that. But John was in no danger in continuing to live with Carol.

Now, are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that John is not committing a “grave offense” by abandoning Carol?

Nope.

or

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that it is sin but John can simply confess the sin and have the blood of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ wipe it away even though John has a heart that is not willing to right the wrong?

It appears that you are under the misapprehension that forgiveness in conferred in the Sacrament of Reconciliation if someone is not penitent.

If John is indeed “heartily sorry” for divorcing Carol then will he not seek to right that wrong?

I believe Evelyn answered this quite eloquently.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Here’s something else I just thought of wrt reconciling by restoring a marriage. When I did the research that led me to ask my pastor, as the representative of the bishop, for permission to leave and divorce, I learned (and I wish I could still cite it, sorry) that if the offended spouse takes the offender back, it is an indication to the Church that all past wrongs have been righted.

I never really considered moving back, but one of my friends who was no longer able to be supportive, did ask me to withdraw my petition for divorce, if xh would undo the specific action which made me take the step from separation to divorce (in my state there are legal protections available through divorce which are not necessarily there in a separation).

Civilly, I could have perhaps tried that, and then just filed again if xh repeated his action. But canonically, I felt that I would have been making a statement that all prior offenses had been not only forgiven, but resolved. As I explained to my friend, if peer pressure and morality had not stopped him the first time, why would it stop him a second time? I could not leave myself and my children vulnerable like that.

So even if a person wants to resume the marriage, they would need to be awfully sure of things, because the Church would see it as wiping the slate clean.

 

[Luvtosew]

Personally I find some of your arguments hard to take, because while what you say makes sense, I am in the unenviable position of having divorced for very just causes (and I had the express permission of my Ordinary to do so). I do not discuss it except anonymously with identifying details changed, or with very close friends. My ex, on the other hand, is portraying himself as an unjustly abandoned spouse, which means I feel like I’m constantly skating around scandal by having public ministry in my parish. If you happen to be in my parish, you probably think I’m one of those unrepentant sinners who ought not to approach the Eucharist. So I feel for the other people out there who feel the anger and frustration of those who do not know the situation fully.

So that’s my caveat, if I sound like I’m taking what you’re saying personally. I have to work very hard not to, even though I know you’re not really talking about me.

Well those other parishers should not be judging you, many of them probably shouldn’t be receiving either! We all know appearances are often misleading. Even the most perfect looking family may be broken at home. The rules of the Church are the rules of the Church, and a person needs to do what they have to do,

1. get divorced and pray for an annulment.
2. don’t get an annulment and live celibate
3. stay in the Church and don’t receive the host.
4. leave the Church and join another Christian Church.

 

[PRmerger]

1. leave the Church and join another Christian Church.

And this, I propose, is creating a god in one’s own image.

Logic dictates that if we are creatures and Jesus is GOD, then Jesus is going to command some things that don’t fit in with our own ideas.

If we are in a church that has all the same ideas/moralities/paradigms as our own, then it stands to reason that we have found a church modeled after the Almighty Self rather than the Almighty.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I think I know what you mean, but since you quoted me I do want to clarify:

1. get divorced and pray for an annulment.
2. don’t get an annulment and live celibate
3. stay in the Church and don’t receive the host.

This is only necessary for people who divorce and then remarry without the benefit of a declaration of nullity. Putting it in the list with #1 and #2 makes it sound like divorced people shouldn’t receive Eucharist. And people who divorce and remarry and can’t get the decree do have the option of living as brother and sister and receiving elsewhere to avoid giving scandal. Which I think technically may be living celibate, but won’t look like it to outsiders.

All of which has been mentioned in the thread before.

1. leave the Church and join another Christian Church.

God forbid

I’m not sure whether it’s been made clear or not, that whether a person thinks they were in a valid marriage or not, or whether the divorce was sinful or not, a Catholic is under no obligation to ask for an investigation of the marriage. #2 makes it sound like we all try, and if we don’t get it, we live celibate. Some people know they don’t want to remarry or enter religious life and don’t have any reason to petition.

 

[rainbow1]

Rainbow,

I don’t think anybody is stereotyping non-Catholics. We don’t refrain from mixed marriages not because they are awful people who will drag us away from our faith, but because there are huge difference between our faiths.

Were I to hypothetically be in a position to date, and if I believed I were called to the vocation of marriage, I would work pretty hard at finding a Catholic before I considered dating nonCatholics. About as far afield as I would consider would be faithful Lutherans or Anglicans or Orthodox. Maybe a non-liturgical denomination if I met the person in RCIA or something and they were well on their way to becoming Catholic.

Why? Because I believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I have a particular devotion to the Precious Blood. Most of the Protestants I’ve met and was raised with, would have to believe that I was either idolatrous or deluded. Liturgical Protestants sometimes have an understanding of the Eucharist that comes closer to ours, but still isn’t valid.

How could I share my life and my heart with someone who couldn’t recognize my Jesus? And how could I risk falling in love with someone who didn’t, in the hopes of conversion, and then be stuck in such a hard place if they didn’t?

There are so many sad stories on here about people who weren’t so serious about their faith, entered a mixed marriage, and then reverted. Even the really great marriages can be strained by this, a rule change in the middle of the game.

So it’s no personal offense to non Catholics. It’s just that it’s such a serious issue.

Actually there were numerous comments saying that the Church was against mixed marriages, which is not the case. If that statement were to be true, then it is stereotyping marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics, which also stereotypes non-Catholics.
I value looking at people as individuals. It is possible for a non-Catholic to understand finding the Presence of our Lord in other ways than the Eucharist, which also would lend perhaps a respect from that person towards a person with a love of the Eucharist. Nonetheless, it is very likely if I remarry, that I would marry another Catholic, partially because I spend most of my days around Catholics. However, it would be possible for me, to share a great love of our Lord with a non-Catholic. Interestingly enough, one of my dearest friends is Muslim…his love of God actually inspires me in my Christian walk. The fact that he stops in the middle of the day, sits in the driveway and prays, is truly inspiring. He is actually married to a devout Catholic who goes to mass every chance she can. Their respect for each other and mutual love of God inspires each of them in their journey towards God. There are many different marriages with different ways of approaching their spirituality. Some marriages are between young people who need to think of the formation of their children, some marriages are between people who are past child bearing…and some marriages are amongst the elderly. I have a 97 year old friend who is looking for a husband! We are all unique in that we approach relationships differently and have different needs. But I think it is very possible to have people with different faiths to actually help each other to grow spiritually…Sometimes differences help us to learn from one another and promotes growth rather than division…
I don’t have access to my book right now, but blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta encouraged Catholics not to try to convert our friends to Catholicism, but to try to help them become the best that they can in their own faith. Of course, marriage is a special type of friendship, and I am not in anyway recommending a person marry someone of polar opposite religious beliefs and hope to raise a healthy family.
I believe that lots of divorces happen due to a rigidity of thinking about how the spouse “should be” and disappointment in the spouse “not meeting the mark”…especially in spiritual issues. The fact is, even in marriages with the partners having the same religion, most marriage partners are in different spiritual stages…and in different places on the journey. Who knows why God allows this, but He does, and I am sure He has reason for it. Sometimes it becomes apparent further down the road.
Alot of people who read and post on this thread have varying opinions across the spectrum. Lets all leave room for another person to openly and honestly share their own and to be respectful of differences.

 

[PRmerger]

It is possible for a non-Catholic to understand finding the Presence of our Lord in other ways than the Eucharist,

Yes, of course.

And of course we should be respectful of other people’s opinions in religious dialogue.

However, all opinions are not created equally.

And if there’s a Christian who proclaims that the Eucharist is NOT the body/blood/soul and divinity of Christ, then he will naturally see what we do as IDOLATRY.

How do we meet in the middle then? Who compromises their truth?

 

[Luvtosew]

I think you all know I was talking about someone who wants to get remarried, but boy we have to nit pick on here. Its all very easy to understand.

PR whatever I do I will let God be my judge,

and also I don’t believe like many Catholics, that there there is no salvation outside of the CC (Off Topic but in a way you brought it up).

Create another God = the CC is God,

which I don’t hold to.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have access to my book right now, but blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta encouraged Catholics not to try to convert our friends to Catholicism, but to try to help them become the best that they can in their own faith.

I am quite skeptical of this. If you could provide the source, and cite it here, that would be helpful indeed.

I have read Mother Teresa say that we need to be faithful in small things, and not think that each and every time we are required to convert another…but that is quite different from saying that she did not encourage Catholic to attempt to convert and evangelize others to Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

IPR whatever I do I will let God be my judge,

Of course. And the ONLY reason you know that God is your judge is because, well…

the Catholic Church taught you this doctrine.

and also I don’t believe like many Catholics, that there there is no salvation outside of the CC (Off Topic but in a way you brought it up).

Then you’ll have to explain how you believe this yet believe (I presume) Jesus’ words in John 14:6.

IOW, the ONLY way anyone knows ANYTHING (that is, any truth) about Christ is because of the Catholic Church.

Thus, outside of the Catholic Church there is no knowledge of Christ, and thus no salvation.

Create another God = the CC is God,

Well, CC = the voice of God.

Unless you can offer another way that you know what God has revealed?

If a person says, “I believe that my dog is Jesus Christ incarnate!” how are you going to know if it’s true or not? What canon will you use to discern whether this is true or not?

Whether you realize it or not, the canon you use is that which the CC has proclaimed.