Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to preach at Henry and Meghan's Wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bishop Michael Curry preached very well at the wedding .

I was pleased that he brought Teilhard de Chardin into his sermon .
 
Man that’s a good question. I’m totally guessing at this point and would have to say that it would depend not so much on the tribunal’s decision, but if in reality Meghan’s first marriage was valid or not. The Catholic Church distinguishes between “sacramental” and “valid” marriages. So the Church teaches that even Non-Catholic can have valid marriages. If that is the case with Meghan’s first marriage then no matter what she remains married to her first husband until death do they part. So even if the Anglican annulment tribunal’s decision said her first marriage was invalid and therefore she is free to marry, but in reality she did have a valid first marriage she would still be committing the sin of adultery. BUT (and a big but!) her personal culpability would be diminished due to the fact she was acting under the advice of a church tribunal.
 
You’re right we don’t know for certain, and that is part of the problem. If you are going to have such a publicized marriage ceremony of two famous people then I feel the whole annulment process, if one was done, should have been declared so we avoid the sin of scandal. If you are going to have this huge publicized wedding then those details do matter since so many people are watching, but to be honest most people don’t care because most people don’t see the problem with divorce and remarrying.
 
It needed some inventiveness to reflect some of the bride’s background as well as some of the groom’s in the service, and such inventiveness doesn’t always work. Today it did, I thought. The bishop spoke well, as we expected. The gospel choir was splendid. And wasn’t the bride’s mother a picture of admirable composure?

Meanwhile, Windsor looked lovely under this wonderful sun.
 
It was a beautiful reflection on the source and the power of love. It was excellent. I’m going to have to watch it again.
 
He really reflected how Meghan and Harry wanted a break from tradition, I thought. Much more passionate than what there would have been had he not been chosen.

I loved the music, especially the cellist - only 19 years old! He has a bright future ahead of him. I’m so glad everything went smoothly, except for one slightly rogue horse during the procession around Windsor.
 
It is true that most people have no problem divorcing and remarrying. Neither is Catholic,but if Ms. Meghan’s marriage to Trevor is valid, and he is still alive, then that means technically she is still married to him. The Church recognizes even non Catholic marriages, as long as they are valid.
 
To be fair, my own gut instinct was similar to yours. I believe in Catholic teaching, too. I only commented because you declared it a sham marriage when we really have no way to know that for sure. I’m not keen on decrying people, even when we know their guilt, let alone when we don’t. I hope they resolved all issues before they conducted a church wedding. If you recall, Charles and Camilla were refused a church wedding so clearly there’s a difference here.
 
Last edited:
Sheku is just one of a whole family full of musical talent, and he is something very special.
 
themonk86 said:
say that it would depend not so much on the tribunal’s decision, but if in reality Meghan’s first marriage was valid or not.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply.

The part I am quoting according to Catholics would be the same thing. Unless they agree a Catholic (Annulment) tribunal can actually be wrong?

Regards
 
themonk86 said:
So even if the Anglican annulment tribunal’s decision said her first marriage was invalid and therefore she is free to marry, but in reality she did have a valid first marriage she would still be committing the sin of adultery.
Click to expand...
So this is my question. In Catholicism when a tribunal does wahtever it does, there is no question on this. "It is not valid ". Will Catholics accept this as a reason for her to remarry? So we have all this accusations against Protestants because of this. Then… will it be more acceptable if Protestants also have an annulment tribunal and declare it is … okay to marry again. Or what would be the reason to reject this?
 
The Protestant tribunal would have no authority regarding Christian marriages (where the parties are baptized). It is an interesting question in regards to two people who are not baptized.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
It was a beautiful reflection on the source and the power of love. It was excellent. I’m going to have to watch it again.
Click to expand...
@mrsdizzyd - they are rebroadcasting it on BBCAmerica as we speak. 🙂
 
Last edited:
themonk86 said:
Sorry, but someone has to say it. The whole wedding of Meghan Markle and Prince Henry is a public sham. She is already married so basically they are both committing adultery and making a mockery out of the sacrament of marriage.
Click to expand...
They Baptized her a couple weeks ago. Perhaps she was never Baptized and received the Church of England’s version of the Pauline privilege or Petrine privilege?

God Bless
 
exnihilo said:
The Protestant tribunal would have no authority regarding Christian marriages (where the parties are baptized). It is an interesting question in regards to two people who are not baptized.
Click to expand...
What Protestant tribunal? The Anglican Church doesn’t do annulment tribunals.

What does the marriage of someone who isn’t Catholic have to do with us?

From The Guardian:

Second time around

Draft requirements for divorcees seeking a Church of England wedding:

- Parish priest to make final decision

- At least two confidential interviews with couple

- Report on case to be sent to diocesan bishop for advice

- Couples should understand that divorce is a breach of God’s will

- Couples should be determined for new marriage to be lifelong

- Divorcee should be honest with self about the past; must forgive and repent

- Divorcee should have fully disclosed to new partner the background to divorce

- Children and spouse from previous marriage should be provided for

- “Reasonable” time should have elapsed between divorce and fresh marriage

- New marriage should not be likely to provoke “hostile public comment or scandal”

- Couple’s relationship should not have caused divorce

- Two strikes and you’re out: neither bride nor groom should have been divorced more than once

- Couple should show signs of “a developing Christian faith”

(This has nothing to do with Catholicism.)
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
40.png
Pup7:
What Protestant tribunal? The Anglican Church doesn’t do annulment tribunals.
Click to expand...
Even if it did it would have no authority.
Pup7 said:
What does the marriage of someone who isn’t Catholic have to do with us?
Click to expand...
Anyone baptized is joined if imperfectly to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Anglicans don’t care about that, and it has nothing to do with us in that regard in the least. It’s not our business regardless as we’re not here to do the judging.

I’m married to an Anglican, a British, baptized member of the C of E. They don’t care about that, and it has nothing to do with them.

Such a tribunal would have no authority to us. It would to them. They’re not Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Murder, e.g. abortion on demand, and homosexual activity are mortal sins for everyone. One doesn’t get a pass just because one belongs to an apostate “church” that condones the first and celebrates the second.

Curry’s officiating of this wedding shows just how far into the morass of evil those who invited him have fallen.
 
Last edited:
Of course it has authority to them, but that doesn’t mean it actually does have authority. The Anglican rejection of authority is why there is an Anglican church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top