Non-Catholic attended a wedding of a divorced Catholic?

[PRmerger]

Mormon baptism
Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

Thanks.

You guys are not any worse or better than another Christian who gets divorced.

This is true. But I don’t think any Catholic here has claimed that she is better than any other Christian. Have you seen someone say this on this thread?

Its sin. Other churches just do not have a process to “take it back”. If they did, they would be fooling themselves as well. God does not allow divorce. God does not have a do over in regard to marriage.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Rightly!

 

[PRmerger]

Okay,but do Mormons baptize with water? If I am correct,they do not.

I just did some research on Mormon baptism and found this:

Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized…

Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

 

[Publisher]

Question from the Peanut Gallery.

Why are Mormon baptisms not considered valid when they do use a trinitarian formula even though their beliefs in the Trinity differ…YET a “non-Christian” can baptize “in an emergency” as long as they use the correct formula…even though they may or may not even believe in God nor have a “correct” view of the Trinity?

 

[Rightlydivide]

What you are saying here is really illogical.

Look at the following example:-

Let us say it looks like Person X killed Person Y to everyone.
But in the eyes of God, Person X has not committed any sin and it is in-fact someone else that killed Person Y.
Do you think Person X has not sinned JUST BECAUSE it appears like he killed Person Y to everyone?

That is exactly the same case with marriage and annulments. Just because EVERYONE thought there was a marriage DOES NOT make it a sacramental marriage if the requirements were never met. Annulments basically check if these requirements were fulfilled and if not, an annulment is granted.

So I am afraid this is not that complicated for someone to understand but you are making a big fuss out of it to advance your personal agenda.

God Bless

Okay I get it. The process before the marriage to make sure it is a proper sacramental marriage DOES NOT work. You really cannot be certain.
HOWEVER, the process afterwards to make sure it was or was not a proper sacramental marriage DOES work. The Church is far more certain disolving marriages than actually marrying people.
Couldn’t you save yourself a lot of trouble by making sure that the requirements were met previously?
Oh wait, you cannot really do that because people might lie, be dishonest, or not fully understand it.
But afterwards those same problems, which could lead to a marriage incorrectly being considered not a real sacramental marriage are not problems.

…
Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[PRmerger]

The process before the marriage to make sure it is a proper sacramental marriage DOES NOT work.

Can you please elaborate, Rightly? To what “process” are you referring that we “make sure it is a proper sacramental marriage”?

The Church is far more certain disolving marriages than actually marrying people.

Not sure why you would say this. The Church presumes that all marriages are valid, unless provided evidence to the contrary.

Thus, it would seem that the Church is far more certain that marriages are *valid *than they are that they are not valid.

 

[PRmerger]

Question from the Peanut Gallery.

Why are Mormon baptisms not considered valid when they do use a trinitarian formula even though their beliefs in the Trinity differ…

Well, because their belief in the Trinity does differ. It’s a monumental distinction.

From the website I cited above: “Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism.”

YET a “non-Christian” can baptize “in an emergency” as long as they use the correct formula…even though they may or may not even believe in God nor have a “correct” view of the Trinity?

If they intend to confer baptism on the recipient, who intends to repent and accept the Christian faith, then what faith the baptizer is is of no import. It is the faith of the recipient that is required for it to be a valid baptism.

And, going back to Mormon baptisms, it seems that the faith of the Mormon recipient is quite different from the faith of Christians receiving baptism.

 

[Publisher]

Well, because their belief in the Trinity does differ. It’s a monumental distinction.

From the website I cited above: “Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism.”

If they intend to confer baptism on the recipient, who intends to repent and accept the Christian faith, then what faith the baptizer is is of no import. It is the faith of the recipient that is required for it to be a valid baptism.

And, going back to Mormon baptisms, it seems that the faith of the Mormon recipient is quite different from the faith of Christians receiving baptism.

I must be dense…I fail to see the difference between the two baptisms…both are intended to be “for the remission of sins”…a fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise isn’t even part of the equation at this point I would think…but I’m dense about a great many things pertaining to ritual.

 

[Miriam1947]

I must be dense…I fail to see the difference between the two baptisms…both are intended to be “for the remission of sins”…a fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise isn’t even part of the equation at this point I would think…but I’m dense about a great many things pertaining to ritual.

Since Quakers don’t believe in baptism by water, I can understand your conundrum.

 

[ddarko]

Okay I get it. The process before the marriage to make sure it is a proper sacramental marriage DOES NOT work. You really cannot be certain.
HOWEVER, the process afterwards to make sure it was or was not a proper sacramental marriage DOES work. The Church is far more certain disolving marriages than actually marrying people.
Couldn’t you save yourself a lot of trouble by making sure that the requirements were met previously?
Oh wait, you cannot really do that because people might lie, be dishonest, or not fully understand it.
But afterwards those same problems, which could lead to a marriage incorrectly being considered not a real sacramental marriage are not problems.

…
Thanks for clearing that up.

It’s on the couple’s part to consider and discern the call to marriage. The church can help, but it can’t DECIDE for them.

If there are clear impediments, the church refuses to marry them. But there are cases where a priest might have still married a couple when there were known impediments due to sympathy etc.

Think about a case where a priest gets forced to marry a couple where one spouse is being forced to marry against her will. In such a case, the marriage is not valid and the priest might not have even known that the spouse was forced. That’s a good case for an annulment.

What has happened today in North America unfortunately is that it being used as a way to get a divorce. That is just abuse on the part of these people and nothing wrong with Catholic teaching.

God Bless

 

[Zooey]

Do you understand the perspective, whether you agree or not, of an outsider? He was married. The state, the church, everyone said they were married. Then…they were not.
I understand there was a distinction and a determination made by the church in order to be annuled.
The state recognized the marriage. So then…they were not. The key PR states is sacramental. But that is a Catholic distinction.** Not one that anyone else would recognize.** Should we? Should we recognize your sacramental distinction when you do not recognize our religious distinctions?

Well, little United Methodist Zooey over here, in the Amen Corner recognizes the sacramental distinction. Some people would have trouble consenting to a hand of bridge; they can scarcely enter into a Christian marriage with full consent & understanding.
Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one case where a non-Catholic Christian denomination went out of its way to insure a sacramental marriage between two of its members, one of whom was legally married to & divorced from a mentally ill (& homicidal) mate, & who served many years as a member of the ordained clergy of said church with his (legally) second and (sacramentally) only wife at his side.
I also happen to have overheard (as a young woman) my own mother give a deposition to a Catholic nun who represented the diocesen [whatever–tribunal?] in the annullment proceedings for a former student of my mom’s who had entered into a civil marriage with a woman with about as much comprehension as my cat. The annullment was granted, & he is married to his Catholic bride for decades now.
So there are 2 cases where there was a wedding, but there was no [Christian] marriage, even though there was a natural/legal/civiil marriage.

But you don’t go around “assuming” that people are not married; you presume that a marriage exists–until proof is given to the contrary.

My 2 cents & a dollar will buy you a sweet tea at McDonald’s.
But there it is.

 

[Zooey]

I must be dense…I fail to see the difference between the two baptisms…both are intended to be “for the remission of sins”…a fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise isn’t even part of the equation at this point I would think…but I’m dense about a great many things pertaining to ritual.

I don;t think you’re dense at all. Its a matter of the theology that stands behind the baptism.
The LDS Church practices a form of baptism which uses the same words as Christian baptism. However, since the Mormons believe in a different trinity than the Christian Trinity, the effect is not the same.
Mormon baptism is symbolic. Christian baptism is sacramental. It’s a whole other thing.
We have, by the bye, a former Friend at my local UMC Church. She was born & raised Quaker, but then after her marriage & moving to this area (65 years ago!!), she wanted a church home for her family, to raise them in Christian faith. She chose the Methodists. So I do enjoy talking with you; it seems quite familiar to me.

 

[Publisher]

I don;t think you’re dense at all. Its a matter of the theology that stands behind the baptism.
The LDS Church practices a form of baptism which uses the same words as Christian baptism. However, since the Mormons believe in a different trinity than the Christian Trinity, the effect is not the same.
Mormon baptism is symbolic. Christian baptism is sacramental. It’s a whole other thing.
We have, by the bye, a former Friend at my local UMC Church. She was born & raised Quaker, but then after her marriage & moving to this area (65 years ago!!), she wanted a church home for her family, to raise them in Christian faith. She chose the Methodists. So I do enjoy talking with you; it seems quite familiar to me.

I don’t think Mormons would agree with you that water baptism is “symbolic”…Mormon baptism is much closer to Catholic baptism in what it accomplishes as both hold “regenerative” stands than the nominal evangelical…which definitely is “symbolic”…yet baptism from evangelical commities are accepted.

The “same words are used as Christian baptism”…but they believe in the Trinity differntly to me is no different than the “same words used as Christian baptism” if an atheist or a different faith tradition used them…usually those of differing faith traditions do not accept every “jot” and “tittle” which theologians would ascribe when explaing the Trinity…I doubt the “believer in the pews” as well as the person being baptized 'in an emergency" would understand all the nuances of differences if they were to baptize someone in “an emergency”…

You are right that the Quaker understanding has to do with the theological beliefs one holds about God…the Quaker understanding of God and His nature and the work of Christ also is the reason Friends do not practice rituals which “dispense grace”.

 

[PRmerger]

I must be dense…I fail to see the difference between the two baptisms…both are intended to be “for the remission of sins”…a fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise isn’t even part of the equation at this point I would think…but I’m dense about a great many things pertaining to ritual.

Oh, but it is, Publisher.

Each and every time a Catholic says Amen! to receiving the Eucharist–even through that one little word–we are making a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

Each and every time a Catholic genuflects before entering a pew–no words, even!–we are making a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

Each and every time we make the sign of the cross–again, not even words!–we are making a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

And so, yes, when we are baptized it is indeed a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

 

[PRmerger]

Think about a case where a priest gets forced to marry a couple where one spouse is being forced to marry against her will. In such a case, the marriage is not valid and the priest might not have even known that the spouse was forced. That’s a good case for an annulment.

Indeed. Our good friend, a Catholic deacon, gently and kindly told a young couple that he had counseled in pre-cana classes, “Sadly, I cannot officiate at your wedding ceremony, as I do not believe that the 2 of you should be married.” They left, went to the priest at the next parish over, got married…

and divorced a few years later.

 

[Publisher]

Oh, but it is, Publisher.

Each and every time a Catholic says Amen! to receiving the Eucharist–even through that one little word–we are making a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

Each and every time a Catholic genuflects before entering a pew–no words, even!–we are making a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

Each and every time we make the sign of the cross–again, not even words!–we are making a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

And so, yes, when we are baptized it is indeed a “fully stated faith and doctrinal treatise about our beliefs.”

But we aren’t discussing what a Catholic believes when he says “amen”…we’re discussing what an athiest or ??? believes and understands when they say the required ritual words over someone they are baptizing “in an emergency”.

I doubt that each and every Catholic fully has a formed theological understanding when they say “amen” or makes the sign of the cross…the church magisterium may have a fully stated faith and doctrine…but they too are not baptizing the person…we are not discussing what a priest might believe when baptizing.

How much must someone undertand and believe before a baptism has it’s effect?

 

[GaryTaylor]

But we aren’t discussing what a Catholic believes when he says “amen”…we’re discussing what an athiest or ??? believes and understands when they say the required ritual words over someone they are baptizing “in an emergency”.

Thus a clash between different moral models. So what you are saying is the CC is being used as the baseline. Others found a different understand as a truth? Sounds similar to what Rightlydivide was stating also.

Peace