Marriage to a CofE Divorcee

[jasinski]

I’ve reported your uncharitable posts to the moderator. Have a great life.

What a lovely, inviting and kind soul you are “telling on me” is such a catholic way of life

Are people just plain ignorant or dare I say it, not all that intelligent? To me, a redneck is not an offensive term and since people pointed out that to them, it was, I’ve not used it. I live in the UK. The term, I thought, was used to talk about people who worked hard, in the fields, having their neck exposed and as such, getting it red. I can’t see how it would be offensive but as some people think it was… again, I’ve not used it since.

Get over it

 

[Stylites]

What a lovely, inviting and kind soul you are “telling on me” is such a catholic way of life

Are people just plain ignorant or dare I say it, not all that intelligent? To me, a redneck is not an offensive term and since people pointed out that to them, it was, I’ve not used it. I live in the UK. The term, I thought, was used to talk about people who worked hard, in the fields, having their neck exposed and as such, getting it red. I can’t see how it would be offensive but as some people think it was… again, I’ve not used it since.

Get over it

I’ll let the moderator look over your posts. The ‘redneck’ comment of yours was just an example. You had also wished someone ‘luck’ getting into heaven who had only been charitable and helpful to you. When I got to your statements declaring that it would be easier to commit murder and be forgiven than it would be to get an annulment was the last I read of your sad and confusing comments. Seriously, I feel sorry for your girlfriend for many reasons, the least of all because of her past. Pick a fight with someone else elsewhere and have a great life!

 

[jasinski]

I’ll let the moderator look over your posts. The ‘redneck’ comment of yours was just an example. You had also wished someone ‘luck’ getting into heaven who had only been charitable and helpful to you. When I got to your statements declaring that it would be easier to commit murder and be forgiven than it would be to get an annulment was the last I read of your sad and confusing comments. Seriously, I feel sorry for your girlfriend for many reasons, the least of all because of her past. Pick a fight with someone else elsewhere and have a great life!

Wow, thanks. I wished them luck, surely this is a good thing?

I get it, you’re purposefully not answering the question as you have no answer.

Confusing only if you don’t understand logic. It’s true. If I murder someone right now, actually regret it and confess to God and the police, it would be easier than going through the pain on annulment over years. It’s how I feel and whether you think that’s right or not should be left in your locker because you’re noone to tell me what I think is right or not. I feel sorry for you, very sorry that you can judge so quickly and think you’re the better person. I’m not picking a fight, you are. A sign of a bad catholic.

Would Jesus be quoting scripture, putting me down, judging me like many of you have? I doubt it. He’d be positive, supportive and helpful.

 

[Becks]

Wow, thanks. I wished them luck, surely this is a good thing?

I get it, you’re purposefully not answering the question as you have no answer.

Confusing only if you don’t understand logic. It’s true. If I murder someone right now, actually regret it and confess to God and the police, it would be easier than going through the pain on annulment over years. It’s how I feel and whether you think that’s right or not should be left in your locker because you’re noone to tell me what I think is right or not. I feel sorry for you, very sorry that you can judge so quickly and think you’re the better person. I’m not picking a fight, you are. A sign of a bad catholic.

Would Jesus be quoting scripture, putting me down, judging me like many of you have? I doubt it. He’d be positive, supportive and helpful.

Actually, Jesus would probably say to you what he has already said (which has been quoted to you previously on this thread):

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
(Matthew 19:9)

 

[kage_ar]

Would Jesus be quoting scripture, putting me down, judging me like many of you have? I doubt it. He’d be positive, supportive and helpful.

Jesus very own words…

Matthew 19:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

 

[jasinski]

infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

With so many contradictions in the bible, what are we meant to believe?

God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28

Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

God didn’t join them, an officer of the law did so how can the church comment on something that it had no involvement in? So what did Jesus say was an unlawful marriage?

 

[kage_ar]

infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

I thought I smelled an evil Bible troll.

 

[SMHW]

Why do people repeat the same stuff without answering the question. Call it what you want, decorate it with whatever words and scripture you want but why does the church think it can get involved when it had nothing to do with it in the first place. Something not put together by the church should be allowed to be broken by people outside the church.

It would seem that you and the Catholic Church are operating on completely different premises.

You are evidently of the opinion that marriages are “put together” by various religious institutions and/or civil authorities. The Catholic Church believes that valid marriages are formed when two people (who are free to marry) exchange vows before an appropriate witness, and therefore God.

 

[jasinski]

I thought I smelled an evil Bible troll.

Why are you assuming? I’m a catholic and only found that website in relation to the stuff I was reading here. Stop judging. It’s sick.

If I didn’t “believe” and was worried, I wouldn’t have come here in the first place. I am struggling to effectively, “believe”, given so many contradictions and disgusting things that have been done in the name of God but I am trying.

SMHW; thanks. Polite and helpful unlike some of the people here in that case, why doesn’t the church accept divorce? Would it rather two families to suffer rather than for them to be happy?

…appropriate witness, and therefore God

I have trouble with this though. God wasn’t present. One wasn’t baptised and certainly had no belief in him.

 

[iluvmybabies]

Let’s for one moment, forget what has been said. I pray you can do that.

Rather than quoting pages of scripture and being negative, please can someone help?

I am struggling with the concept that a marriage where God was not present, where one party was of a religion that definitely did not believe in God, which was only valid via the legal system is seen as valid by the church considering they had nothing to do with it. Surely they should accept the same procedure in reverse in the form of a divorce? I can’t see how the church has a say in this at all. Obviously I don’t know the bible back to front like most of the world so hope this isn’t going to be used to mock me

Let’s say that God was present. How was he? Surely he’d be present for the divorce as well?

Remember that 80% of your country is Christian yet we have a 50% divorce rate. A majority of divorces are a result of irreconcilable differences, not adultery, which implies that most Christians are again practicing selective morality

Well hon, you are Catholic, right? Right…And she’s trying to convert, right? Right…Ok, Bare with me I too am learning about all this!! I was pretty much the most ignorant fool when it came to curch’s teachings thanks to my mother saying I was going to hell for everything!! So I look at it this way:

…Before there were churches-Catholic-Christian, etc there were marriages performed all the time…Back in the days, when Jesus was around, HE told everyone in his scriptures, his disciples, the people around Him, how He felt about marriage. He let them/us know that no matter where a couple is married, no matter how they are married, they are under the eyes of GOD considered a valid marriage…Remember before the church! Therefore the church has practiced and enforced Jesus’ law towards marriage and validates any marriage wether they are from religious marriage or non religious marriage…BUT the church has also allowed for the concept of INVALID marriages…therefore allowing people like myself whom married outside the church to have our marriages reviewed and even though divorced, make sure that the marriage was indeed INVALID, and thus granting an annulment or a defecto or to INVALIDATE the marriage this is done by a review of the tribunal…It may be a long process or a short one…Depending on the evidence at hand, and how quickly the information and the case is provided.

I didn’t waste any time getting myself to doing it. I too felt that way “I didnt marry by the church why should I?” BUT the point is that we learn from our mistakes/mishaps/screw ups. etc and just do the right thing. If the rule states or law states you must do this to live accordingly, then why not do it? I did it, it was kind of difficult because I had to relieve those terrible moments, but when I received the approval of the tribunal for my invalid marriage, I was thankful, it was worth it 100% and I wouldn’t change it for a moment!

So the faster she can get to the priest and contact the tribunal the better it will be for the 2 of you…It’s just for your own peace of mind and blessings…Don’t take it as a negative thing nor as a bad thing, on the contrary you will want to be in a relationship where you, yourself will not feel guilty later on for not following something that has been taught by Jesus Himself…Besides like I said the faster she gets started the faster you both will have a response!

GOD BLESS! And remember insults, and smart allecks are not necessary of good humility and love towards one another…Remember we are all brother’s and sister’s no matter how much information or truth bothers or hurts us, and no matter how bad someone makes us feel, we must make the best of things and smile because GOD loves you…Take care and good luck! GOD bless…

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

I’ve only skimmed the posts, but in case it is useful, I’ll post my “chain” analogy to marriage.

When two people get married, they become connected permanently. It is as though they have chained their ankles to each other with the strongest metal - one that can NOT be cut with even the strongest knife. This chain truly binds them together. The only thing that causes the chain to break is death.

The process of creating this bond is fairly simple. Any man and woman can do it, as long as they are getting married willingly, with honest intentions, and with the willingness to accept the natural fruits of their union, children. This happens no matter what the religion of the person. Whether or not they believe in God, or understand the nature of this eternal bond, has no bearing on the reality that God does exist, and this chain connects the husband and wife who have vowed to be married. God has bound Catholics by an additional requirement. In order for a Catholic to create this eternal union, in addition to the above three requirements, they also need to follow the marriage laws of the Church. This is because Jesus gave the power to the Church to make such rules. Marriage itself existed from the beginning of humanity, long before the Church ever created the additional requirements for Catholics. So for all non-Catholics, this “marriage chain” still bonds husbands and wives.

Divorce does not cut this chain. In my analogy, divorce is like the two people chained together, but facing away from each other. They may not want to be connected, but their desire, and even a legal document from the government, is not enough to cut that chain. So if one of these people attempts to get married again, they won’t be able to. Sure, they can get a legal document. But they will still be permanently bonded to the first spouse, and not at all connected to the second one.

Annulment comes in here - when the couple first gets married, if one of the requirements is not met (willingly, honest intentions, and open to children, and for Catholics, following the marriage laws of the Church), then as much as the couple thought they were binding themselves to each other, they really didn’t. There never was a chain. Their marriage, though legal in the eyes of the government, was never present in the highest reality, which is spiritual. No chain, no true bond, no marriage ever. An annulment is simply a formal recognition of that fact. An annulment doesn’t make the marriage not exist. The marriage never existed. The annulment process just allows the couple do discover whether or not their marriage ever truly existed. Without that process, even if you suspect it to be true, you can’t be certain. So an annulment is required so that the “2nd” marriage doesn’t turn out to be just pretend - it is really just protecting couples from attempting to bind themselves to people when they are already chained eternally to another.

Hope that wasn’t too weird of an explanation. It works for me.

 

[jasinski]

I really appreciate the analogy (it’s nice to see that there are some nice catholics out there!) and it goes some way to helping but I still don’t see why the church has a say in it when they did nothing to get the marriage sorted

I don’t understand why “in the eyes of god” that the marriage is vaid considering it had nothing to do with him or the church

That’s what I am struggling with

 

[kage_ar]

I don’t understand why “in the eyes of god” that the marriage is vaid considering it had nothing to do with him or the church

That’s what I am struggling with

The assumption is to validity. The Church Tribunal is the only group on the planet that can determine validitiy.

 

[Thomas63116]

I still don’t see why the church has a say in it when they did nothing to get the marriage sorted

I don’t understand why “in the eyes of god” that the marriage is vaid considering it had nothing to do with him or the church

That’s what I am struggling with

First, we don’t KNOW definitively whether that marriage was valid. There very well could have been circumstances that would have made it invalid.

However, the Catholic Church takes the position that when a wedding has taken place, we must assume the marriage is valid unless a competent marriage tribunal has investigated it and found it to be invalid. Because marriage is an institution that is broader than just the Catholic Church, this presumption of validity applies whether or not the parties involved were Catholic.

Catholic laws concerning marriage are very complex, and there are a number of factors that would have to be investigated and considered. The best person to help you sort all of this out is your priest. You have said you are meeting with him on Friday.

One of your recent posts mentioned that the now-divorced husband of the woman you want to marry was never baptized. That would be a relevant fact to discuss with the priest.

 

[iluvmybabies]

I really appreciate the analogy (it’s nice to see that there are some nice catholics out there!) and it goes some way to helping but I still don’t see why the church has a say in it when they did nothing to get the marriage sorted

I don’t understand why “in the eyes of god” that the marriage is vaid considering it had nothing to do with him or the church

That’s what I am struggling with

Like I have said before and many have posted on here hon, it’s because Jesus, Himself, said it was so! Because marriages have been going on before Jesus’ was around and even then people got married even without a priest, but the entire process was a valid marriage through GOD, not just through man! AND Jesus validated this, He specifically said that, it doesn’t matter whom puts a marriage together, it’s valid in the eyes of the FATHER, and unless found INVALID with the permission given to the church in later times, through a tribunal, the marriage is valid through the Eyes of GOD no matter what…So therefore a tribunal needs to get involved in all marriages when it comes to a Catholic getting married to another person of same or nonreligion because it’s the law that Jesus passed on to the church and only can a tribunal decide wether the marriage is valid or invalid allowing the married person the permission to date freely and remarry and the person whom is not married to date this person without committing adultery.

Technically even when the marriage is done civilly I remember the judge said to my exhusband and myself “Till death do you part!” Which was kind of interesting since it wasn’t done by a priest! LOL So that’s the whole concept of marriage a unity between 2 to become 1 till death do them part…If you are divorced that doesn’t mean you are dead or your partner is dead?! Does it? SO the only way to be “free” from the whole vow of eternity is to seek tribunal counseling and help…

Like I said hon, it’s the rules and they must be followed. I did it and the more time you waste the longer it will be…So now it’s not about arguing but accepting what is required of you by the church through Jesus himself to follow in the rules and laws appointed and do it! you will feel a whole lot better once it’s done and over with…Hopefully with the positive note that she will be approved for annullment…

 

[Tosk]

Really this is just a case of the Church taking people at their word. It isn’t as if the Church is imposing anything on anyone; they are just insisting that people live up to a promise that they freely gave even when it isn’t easy or convenient. Marriage being for life shouldn’t really come as any surprise to anyone considering it is right there in the vows you take.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

I really appreciate the analogy (it’s nice to see that there are some nice catholics out there!) and it goes some way to helping but I still don’t see why the church has a say in it when they did nothing to get the marriage sorted

I don’t understand why “in the eyes of god” that the marriage is valid considering it had nothing to do with him or the church

That’s what I am struggling with

I see it this way. The government can make a law that says that bicycles are human. Unlikely, but it is possible that people could get together and vote to approve a document that said that. It doesn’t make it true though. “In the eyes of the law” a bicycle would be human. But objectively, in TRUTH, and even “in the eyes of God,” a bicycle is not, and never will be human. The Catholic Church has no control over what sorts of things are humans or not - a bicycle can not be human because of it’s very nature. It has nothing to do with religion. But God sees everything the way it truly is, so I can trust that even if the givernment goes off the deep end, if we look at things “in the eyes of God” we will see the truth. And Catholics look to the Church to help us understand truth.

In the same way, when a couple is married, it is an objectively true reality. Regardless of a legal document or the feelings of the couple, the eternal bond of marriage is an objective truth. The Catholic Church didn’t make it so, but the Church explains it to us. So when people say “in the eyes of God, you are/aren’t married,” they mean that the state of your marriage is a matter of objective truth (which God sees accurately because He’s God), not a matter of legal documents or feelings.

Oops, there I go with another weird analogy.

Oh, and the Church has a say, not because they created marriage (which they didn’t), but because they represent God, who DID create marriage. So the Church has a responsibility to guide Christians in leading holy lives, and marriage/sexuallity is a huge part of that for many people. Naturally, non-Catholics won’t care to listen to the Church, but following the teachings/laws of the Church is a requirement for Catholics.

 

[dixieagle]

I really appreciate the analogy (it’s nice to see that there are some nice catholics out there!) and it goes some way to helping but I still don’t see why the church has a say in it when they did nothing to get the marriage sorted

I don’t understand why “in the eyes of god” that the marriage is vaid considering it had nothing to do with him or the church

That’s what I am struggling with

OK…a simple way to put it is that the Catholic Church respects, and assumes, the validity of, a lawfully contracted marriage, even between non-Catholics. Not everyone is Catholic, and those who are not can’t be expected to contract a sacramental, Catholic marriage. It is a sign of the high esteem in which the Church holds the institution of marriage as the foundation of the family and society, whether a Catholic marriage or not.

As other posters point out, the Church view is that it is the members of the couple who actually marry each other; the state has the right to require a license, witness, etc. to make things legal, but the marriage bond is created by the two people involved. In effect, there are two “contracts” made…the marriage bond between the couple, and the legal, state-sanctioned one. So, even when a civil divorce is granted, the couple’s marriage is still considered valid by the Church. Should one of the spouses wish to contract a new marriage in the Catholic Church, that first marriage must be examined to determine its validity.

The Church is not against separation and divorce in cases where abuse, etc., exists. In fact, a civil divorce is required before the Tribunal process can begin. I guess you could say it is a case of “render unto Caesar things that are Caesar’s, and to God things that are God’s.”

So, the bottom line is that it matters not whether your fianceé’s first marriage was Catholic or not; if you are a committed Catholic, you need to urge her to get the ball rolling and see if there existed some defect in that marriage, AT THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE. That’s really all I can tell you.

 

[jasinski]

To everyone that has been helpful and understanding, may god bless you