Marriage to a CofE Divorcee

[sanctamaria17]

You asked for Church teaching, you got it. No post was disrespectful, they were just telling it like it is. If Christianity were meant to be easy, Jesus wouldn’t have died on the cross.

You may not see her as married, but the Church does and if you want to get married in the Church, you can’t marry someone the Church considers married. As for falling in love, well, feelings are finicky and in the end, you make the choice to love someone and to spend the rest of your lives together. You can choose who you date, who you marry and raise a family with. Feelings are part of it but they are not the only part. Nor should they be.

Yes, redneck is offensive. I say this as a liberal from the NYC area. My mother’s family’s from the Midwest and I don’t take insults toward my mother. Just like I hate it when relatives use words like “Guido” or “guinea” in relation to Italian Americans simply because I am one. Slurs based on culture, region or nationality are uncharitable.

 

[agapewolf]

Phew, as I don’t consider her married, this is ok So basically I can’t fall in love with someone based on their life before I met them? That’s just plain sick.

As the church had no say in her marriage, no part to play, it should have no say in her divorce and it should not recognise the marriage, no matter what scripture you manage to dig up.

With all due respect (and I fully appreciate the tone of your post), it’s not logical in the slightest. The law binded them and the law seperated them. Not God… the law of the land.

Adam and Eve was a story.

It’s sick? Again, you are not making sense. It doesn’t matter whether you consider her married or not. The Catholic church, recognizes that marriages exist outside of the church. What is so sick about that?

Loving someone is a decision, not a feeling. It is very unwise to date let alone pursue a serious relationship with someone who is still considered married.

 

[jasinski]

I think I might be starting to smell a troll…

At the very least, the OP really didn’t want an honest answer to his question.

I’m still interested in his meeting with “two popes”, though.

No, I did want one but not one where it belittled me or my loved one which it seemingly did. A man of the cloth is gentle with his words yet keyboard warriors behind their computer monitors to put on the “houlier than thou” act

Still interested? Why? I met two popes, plenty of people do. When speaking with them, they didn’t quote scripture or were harsh, they spoke gently and with understanding which is lacking here it seems.

You asked for Church teaching, you got it. No post was disrespectful, they were just telling it like it is. If Christianity were meant to be easy, Jesus wouldn’t have died on the cross.

You may not see her as married, but the Church does and if you want to get married in the Church, you can’t marry someone the Church considers married. As for falling in love, well, feelings are finicky and in the end, you make the choice to love someone and to spend the rest of your lives together. You can choose who you date, who you marry and raise a family with. Feelings are part of it but they are not the only part. Nor should they be.

Yes, redneck is offensive. I say this as a liberal from the NYC area. My mother’s family’s from the Midwest and I don’t take insults toward my mother. Just like I hate it when relatives use words like “Guido” or “guinea” in relation to Italian Americans simply because I am one. Slurs based on culture, region or nationality are uncharitable.

Posts were disrespectful in the same way you think “Redneck” is and I don’t (because it isn’t) I see her as not married as the church did not marry them and they were divorced by the same power that put them together.

It’s sick? Again, you are not making sense. It doesn’t matter whether you consider her married or not. The Catholic church, recognizes that marriages exist outside of the church. What is so sick about that?

Loving someone is a decision, not a feeling. It is very unwise to date let alone pursue a serious relationship with someone who is still considered married.

I am but because you don’t agree with it it’s sick because they had no involvement in it and yet are quick to judge on it (like many of you are) Loving someone is a feeling for sure; suggesting it is not is sick. Sick sick sick.

Why are so many of you seemingly hostile towards my views and posts on an internet forum? I can only presume a lot of you are lonely, have not found love or simply enjoy telling people where they are going wrong in life. Some posts here have indeed quotred scripture and told me the church’s teachings but in a nice way, an understanding way.

 

[jasinski]

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

 

[flyingfish]

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

I don’t understand this either to be honest. Only the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have valid Sacraments.

So how can a marriage anywhere other than the Catholic or the Orthodox Church be a valid sacramental marriage?

If a Baptist minister started hearing confessions or consecrating hosts we wouldn’t think they were valid sacraments, what makes marriage different?

 

[sanctamaria17]

Spouses are the ministers of marriage. Natural marriages, whether between Catholics in the Church (or one Catholic, one non-Catholic), Protestants in Protestant ceremonies or civil weddings, etc are all considered valid. For it to be a sacrament, the spouses have to be baptized. The priest is just a witness, to make sure the vows are in line with Church teaching.

It’s the same with baptism. Baptism and marriage are the sacraments Protestants don’t have to do over if they want to enter the Catholic Church, provided they have a Trinitarian understanding of God. The intent and form just have to be correct. But yes, it means that divorced Protestants, whether married civilly or through an ecclesiastical body, have to go through the annulment process to determine that a valid, sacramental marriage never took place, should they desire to marry in the Church.

And redneck is offensive if people on this board perceive it as such.

 

[jasinski]

Spouses are the ministers of marriage. Natural marriages, whether between Catholics in the Church (or one Catholic, one non-Catholic), Protestants in Protestant ceremonies or civil weddings, etc are all considered valid. For it to be a sacrament, the spouses have to be baptized. The priest is just a witness, to make sure the vows are in line with Church teaching. What about a marriage between CofE and a Pagan, CofE and a satanist etc?

It’s the same with baptism. Baptism and marriage are the sacraments Protestants don’t have to do over if they want to enter the Catholic Church, provided they have a Trinitarian understanding of God. The intent and form just have to be correct. But yes, it means that divorced Protestants, whether married civilly or through an ecclesiastical body, have to go through the annulment process to determine that a valid, sacramental marriage never took place, should they desire to marry in the Church.

So if one of them was not baptised, this wouldn’t make the marriage valid? I still can’t understand why a divorce is not enough. Surely if two people can be united by one another, they can be seperated by one another?

And redneck is offensive if people on this board perceive it as such.

Well I don’t so that must make it a neutral term.

 

[flyingfish]

Spouses are the ministers of marriage. Natural marriages, whether between Catholics in the Church (or one Catholic, one non-Catholic), Protestants in Protestant ceremonies or civil weddings, etc are all considered valid. For it to be a sacrament, the spouses have to be baptized. The priest is just a witness, to make sure the vows are in line with Church teaching.

It’s the same with baptism. Baptism and marriage are the sacraments Protestants don’t have to do over if they want to enter the Catholic Church, provided they have a Trinitarian understanding of God. The intent and form just have to be correct. But yes, it means that divorced Protestants, whether married civilly or through an ecclesiastical body, have to go through the annulment process to determine that a valid, sacramental marriage never took place, should they desire to marry in the Church.

And redneck is offensive if people on this board perceive it as such.

But as I understand it, if a Catholic marries anywhere other than the Church the marriage is invalid by default?

How does this work if the sacrament is conferred by the man and woman?

 

[sanctamaria17]

Because if you’re Catholic, you have to do it through the Church, or with permission of the Bishop, to make sure that at the very least, you intend to follow the Catholic teachings of marriage. Non-Catholics, however are not bound to Catholic statutes, and thus can have a valid marriage (not sacramental) if not baptized. Protestants can have a sacramental marriage outside any church, because their own church may see it differently, but if their intent was to unite themselves to God and each other for the founding of a family and openness to children, their intent is still valid. And if they are baptized, it is a sacramental marriage. However, if they get divorced and want to remarry a Catholic in the Church, they are subject to the teachings on marriage, if only for the reason that their future spouse is.

The deacon, priest or bishop just needs to make sure that their intent is not to disobey the Church. A Catholic may receive permission by the bishop to marry in a different ceremony but it’s necessary to ensure that the Catholic party or parties still comply with their obligations as practicing Catholics.

Just like anyone can do Baptism in an emergency. But in normal circumstances, the priest does it, in order to make sure the intent and words are there.

And, OP, when using a term to refer to others, if they perceive it as offensive, it doesn’t make it a neutral term if you don’t. That just makes it disrespectful. Just like some non-Italians in my family may be fine with using words like “guinea” or “Guido” to refer to Italian American customs or stereotypes but, as an Italian-American, I find it offensive and would ask that those words not be used in my presence. You may not agree with people but that doesn’t mean you disrespect them. And yes, in the US, it is offensive. Don’t use it.

 

[jasinski]

Non-Catholics, however are not bound to Catholic statutes, and thus can have a valid marriage (not sacramental) if not baptized. Protestants can have a sacramental marriage outside any church, because their own church may see it differently, but if their intent was to unite themselves to God and each other for the founding of a family and openness to children, their intent is still valid. And if they are baptized, it is a sacramental marriage

Ok so if it’s valid and not sacramental then why isn’t a divorce valid. What is one was CofE and the other was something else and wasn’t actually baptised?

 

[sanctamaria17]

Because marriage is for life. Christ even said that in the New Testament. Catholics still recognize marriage as valid, even if it doesn’t come with sacramental grace. But if it is, which, in the case of a Protestant, even if he/she married civilly, it is, then, if they want to get married in the Catholic Church, they have to go through the annulment process, because, in Catholic eyes, divorce is never recognized except by civil law and, barring an issue that needs examination, they are still married.

 

[jasinski]

Because marriage is for life. Christ even said that in the New Testament. Catholics still recognize marriage as valid, even if it doesn’t come with sacramental grace. But if it is, which, in the case of a Protestant, even if he/she married civilly, it is, then, if they want to get married in the Catholic Church, they have to go through the annulment process, because, in Catholic eyes, divorce is never recognized except by civil law and, barring an issue that needs examination, they are still married.

It can’t be for life if anulment is present and even divorce. A lot of things were said in the bible that are vicious or contradicts what was said, often within the same passage!!!

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath... he shall do     according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

…
But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven… nor by earth.

In a book that is full of hate (and love) and contradictions, what do we accept to be truth? The church has changed its views on a lot of things over the years.

Why do they recognise it as valid when it’s done been done by God or by the church? How can the church cast verdict on something it had no role in? God or the church was not present when they were married.

So the church accepts marriage in a legal way but not seperation in a legal way. That’s not logical.

---

This is my main point, how can the church see the marriage as valid when it had nothing to do with it in the first place? it’s actually easier for me to kill the person and seek forgiveness than to go through annulment

 

[agapewolf]

No, I did want one but not one where it belittled me or my loved one which it seemingly did. A man of the cloth is gentle with his words yet keyboard warriors behind their computer monitors to put on the “houlier than thou” act

Still interested? Why? I met two popes, plenty of people do. When speaking with them, they didn’t quote scripture or were harsh, they spoke gently and with understanding which is lacking here it seems.

Posts were disrespectful in the same way you think “Redneck” is and I don’t (because it isn’t) I see her as not married as the church did not marry them and they were divorced by the same power that put them together.

I am but because you don’t agree with it it’s sick because they had no involvement in it and yet are quick to judge on it (like many of you are) Loving someone is a feeling for sure; suggesting it is not is sick. Sick sick sick.

Why are so many of you seemingly hostile towards my views and posts on an internet forum? I can only presume a lot of you are lonely, have not found love or simply enjoy telling people where they are going wrong in life. Some posts here have indeed quotred scripture and told me the church’s teachings but in a nice way, an understanding way.

Love is most certainly not a feeling. Feelings can be nice effects of love, but love is a decision. Christ did not feel like dying on the cross, he made a decision to love. That is how Husbands should love their wives. Eph 5. This is church teaching, it is in the catechism. Suggesting it is a feeling is the part that is sick. If it is just a feeling, then when one doesn’t “Feel” in love anymore, then it would be ok to divorce. This is not church teaching.

Yes, the way you put out “redneck” was meant to be an insult, otherwise, why would it be said in such a way. It did not make any sense anyway.

 

[jasinski]

Love is most certainly not a feeling. Feelings can be nice effects of love, but love is a decision. Christ did not feel like dying on the cross, he made a decision to love. That is how Husbands should love their wives. Eph 5. This is church teaching, it is in the catechism. Suggesting it is a feeling is the part that is sick. If it is just a feeling, then when one doesn’t “Feel” in love anymore, then it would be ok to divorce. This is not church teaching.

Yes, the way you put out “redneck” was meant to be an insult, otherwise, why would it be said in such a way. It did not make any sense anyway.

Oh give it up, love is a feeling whether you like it or not. Things like this make me sick. No, you suggesting that it is not a feeling is sick. Sick sick sick. Love is a feeling, feeling is an emotion. The meaning of love is a passionate or strong affection for someone or something. It is also a noun, not a verb. However, love can be an action too. But, we must show love before it becomes an action.

Anyway… moving on to the topic at hand

The way I put out “redneck” was not meant as an insult. Please stop assuming stuff. Sick.

 

[agapewolf]

Anyway… moving on to the topic at hand
.

This makes no sense. Showing love is an action. CHrist dying on the cross is an action…a decision. It is not an emotion. This is church teaching.

Saying its “sick” without anything else does not prove your point, all it proves is that you really have no comprehension of what its all about.

We all have been backing up our points here with church teaching- catechism and scripture. Its not what you want to hear, but its the truth.

Lashing out by calling someone a “redneck” doesn’t make sense, then saying its not an insult is just plain obtuse.

 

[jasinski]

This makes no sense. Showing love is an action. CHrist dying on the cross is an action…a decision. It is not an emotion. This is church teaching.

Saying its “sick” without anything else does not prove your point, all it proves is that you really have no comprehension of what its all about.

We all have been backing up our points here with church teaching- catechism and scripture. Its not what you want to hear, but its the truth.

Lashing out by calling someone a “redneck” doesn’t make sense, then saying its not an insult is just plain obtuse.

It does make sense. Showing anything is an action so that point is null. Showing an emotion is an action.

It proves my point perfectly well I have perfect comprehension of reality

Lashing out? You reading the same thread?!? Obtuse?!? Ha ha ha, no.

Seriously though, back on track please

 

[kage_ar]

Marriage that is recognized by the law of the land between two unbaptized or unbaptized people who are free to marry and have no impedements is presumed valid. It is called NATURAL MARRIAGE.

The term “annulment” is a misleading term. What happens is that Holy Mother Church reviews a marriage, a natural or a sacramental marriage, to see if that marriage was valid at the hour it took place. Should the investigation prove that wedding did not produce a valid marriage, the Tribunal issues a “Decree of Nullity” - this means that marriage was null. Some people have twisted this into calling it “an annulment” and that errant term has stuck.

If a simple redneck can understand this concept, perhaps you can do some study and understand it as well?

 

[iluvmybabies]

She does not have to have any contact with her ex. She simply gives the “last known address” she has to the tribunal. That’s all. They will contact him. And, he does not have to participate. The process can move forward without him.

This is good!

I know I should be thinking positive but we’ve been let down so far so not sure how much longer it can continue.

The time table will vary from diocese to diocese and case to case.

iluvmybabies case is different than yours. She is a Catholic who was married outside the Church. She had what is called a “lack of form” nullity case. Your fiancee is a non-Catholic therefore had no requirement to be married in Catholic form. Her case would be based on other grounds and would be a lengthier case. Therefore, you cannot compare your situation to iluvmybabies.

Sorry for the confusion to the OP, I guess I am just hopeful her annullment process goes quickly and resolved as mine was…

 

[jasinski]

Marriage that is recognized by the law of the land between two unbaptized or unbaptized people who are free to marry and have no impedements is presumed valid. It is called NATURAL MARRIAGE.

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.

If a simple redneck can understand this concept, perhaps you can do some study and understand it as well?

Such a nice catholic be careful, that term is offensive don’t you know

 

[Stylites]

Ok, sure

Anyone here not from the redneck part of the USA?

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