Please help with marriage question

[hoping4more]

Seems pretty ridiculous and a lack of love and compassion on your wife’s part to not fill out a form for her husband’s happiness and him to pursue his true beliefs.

I think this is unreasonable of her.

 

[acanonlawyer]

We are experts in resolving Catholic marriages. You are free to live as a Catholic and raise your daughter as such. But you cannot participate in Holy Eucharist until you get a special validation of your marriage by Vatican.

Fascinating. What, precisely, do you mean by “experts” and “resolving Catholic marriages”? What, precisely, do you mean by “a special validation”?

Dan

 

[MNCatholic76]

Perhaps…

But its also being ridiculous and un-christian of you to be judgmental of someone…judge not, lest he be judged

 

[hoping4more]

Dude, this is your thread. You are asking us what you should do.

What should I do?

As plainly as I can say this; you should revisit the question of seeking an annulment by your wife for her former marriage. This seems reasonable, given what you have told us.

Honestly, your about face is so odd, are you the wife with his login credentials???

 

[Irishmom2]

So, you are willing to just say I quit, without ever speaking to your pastor, because of what some anonymous people on a website said, who may or may not be giving you correct information?

Op, your faith matters enough to you to baptize your daughter. Speak to your priest about your options.
No one here can give you a real answer.

 

[joeybaggz]

But two Protestants are quite capable meeting all of all of these requirements.

Capable, yes. In actuality, how many protestants (and nominal Catholics for that matter) will say yea, yea, yea, to all the talk of those qualities you cite, when all they really want to do is get to the honeymoon and that’s about it, The things will work out and if they don’t hey, we’ll go our separate ways. Phemie, you have a lot of faith in the goodness of those for whom “religion/faith/belief” is just something that really doesn’t apply to them but will tell you what you want to hear. I’m a little more jaded I guess.
Jesus said that man cannot divide what God has joined together. Just because a marriage is “valid” doesn’t mean God has joined anything together. And I think the church needs to consider that a priority over whether something is technically, “valid.”

 

[TheLittleLady]

. Just because a marriage is “valid” doesn’t mean God has joined anything together.

That is pretty much exactly what “valid” means.

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

. Just because a marriage is “valid” doesn’t mean God has joined anything together.

That is pretty much exactly what “valid” means.

Getting circular here;;; then valid does mean sacramental. Others keep telling me it doesn’t.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Sacramental means a valid marriage where both parties have been baptized.

A Natural Marriage is a valid marriage where one or neither has been baptized.

Both may be perfectly valid in the eyes of God and His Church.

 

[joeybaggz]

Sacramental means a valid marriage where both parties have been baptized.

A Natural Marriage is a valid marriage where one or neither has been baptized.

Both may be perfectly valid in the eyes of God and His Church.

Okay, so explain to me how a marriage between two protestants whose faith community of choice baptizes in the Trinitarian form, yet considers marriage only an ordinance and not a sacrament, is a sacrament? Many protestant denominations, especially the evangelical and Pentecostal sects, baptize in the T form, and deny as a matter of their “faith” that marriage is a sacrament, but merely an ordinance. In this case, one is saying that a marriage between two Pentecostals is a sacrament, even though they deny the concept?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because God makes sacraments, not people.

 

[joeybaggz]

Well if that is true, why did Christ give man the ability to override that which God has made?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because we have free will.

 

[joeybaggz]

So man has the freedom to decide that a valid marriage that is sacrament made by God Himself, isn’t valid? That God made a mistake? And those who deny that marriage is only a human ordinance and not a sacrament made by God Himself, are correctly using their free will?

 

[on_the_hill]

I think you’re overreacting.
If a Catholic forum exists solely as a place where questions are answered with unanimity in strict interpretations, then why not simply convert the forum to a search index of the catechism?

 

[Phemie]

So man has the freedom to decide that a valid marriage that is sacrament made by God Himself, isn’t valid? That God made a mistake? And those who deny that marriage is only a human ordinance and not a sacrament made by God Himself, are correctly using their free will?

I’m not sure that I follow what you’re saying.

From the onset the Church presumes that all marriages are valid, except those of Catholics and Orthodox who did not marry according to their Churches’ rules.

That presumption is that those who exchanged vows had no impediments, gave full consent, and intended to be faithful, have children if God so provided, and be married until one of the two died. That presumption means also that if both the bride and groom are validly baptized their marriage is a sacrament. That it’s a sacrament doesn’t depend on whether the bride and groom believe it’s a sacrament, it depends only them both having received a valid Baptism.

Now if the marriage breaks down and one or both parties petitions for a decree of nullity the Church will examine the facts as they were at the time of the wedding. Was there, in fact, an impediment such as a previous marriage with a still living spouse? Did they both give full consent? Was one or both parties not intending to be faithful? Was there an agreement that if things didn’t work out they would divorce? Had they permanently excluded children from their marriage from the start?

A “yes” to any one of the above questions means that the marriage lacked one of the necessary elements for validity. Man is not saying that a valid marriage isn’t valid, the Church is saying, “When you got married there was something missing that was necessary to make it valid. Therefore you have never been in a valid marriage. Since it’s not valid, even if you are baptized, your marriage was never a sacrament.”

 

[Vico]

TheLittleLady:

joeybaggz:

. Just because a marriage is “valid” doesn’t mean God has joined anything together.

That is pretty much exactly what “valid” means.

Getting circular here;;; then valid does mean sacramental. Others keep telling me it doesn’t.

Valid means that there are no impediments that cannot be dispensed with, and that the covenant is correct: exclusive, livelong, and granting conjugal relations suitable for production of children (sterile or not). Sacramental is only between the baptized, else it is called a natural marriage. It is possible that a natural marriage or a non-consummated sacramental marriage can be dissolved.

 

[joeybaggz]

I’m not sure that I follow what you’re saying.

Valid means that there are no impediments that cannot be dispensed with, and that the covenant is correct: exclusive, livelong, and granting conjugal relations suitable for production of children (sterile or not). Sacramental is only between the baptized, else it is called a natural marriage. It is possible that a natural marriage or a non-consummated sacramental marriage can be dissolved.

Okay; one I understand the nullity process. I assisted in the process in my parish years ago.
And I understand the concept of sacramental vs. natural and valid marriage.
My question, or maybe better, problem, with a previous poster was a circular discussion about how can a marriage be both valid and sacramental between two parties whose faith choice/denomination baptizes in the Trinitarian form yet denies that marriage is a sacrament and is considered an ordinance only. What that poster, and you by extension, are saying is that God considers marriage valid and sacramental even when those involved do not believe it to be. In most protestant denoms, there is no concept of sacrament, yet those arguing for validity, opine that just because someone utters the words, "what God has joined together, no man my put asunder, the marriage is a sacrament, thus it can no be “annulled” and subsequent parties must live as brother and sister.
The end game of my argument is that I think Pope Francis and his position about “irregular” situations and thus permission to access the sacraments is spot on given this inanity about “valid” marriages.

 

[joeybaggz]

And certainly I welcome your response, however, I won’t comment further because I think this discussion has hijacked the thread and really has very little if anything to do with the OP’s request.
Shalom

 

[Vico]

…
… how can a marriage be both valid and sacramental between two parties whose faith choice/denomination baptizes in the Trinitarian form yet denies that marriage is a sacrament and is considered an ordinance only.

What that poster, and you by extension, are saying is that God considers marriage valid and sacramental even when those involved do not believe it to be. In most protestant denoms, there is no concept of sacrament, yet those arguing for validity, opine that just because someone utters the words, "what God has joined together, no man my put asunder, the marriage is a sacrament, thus it can no be “annulled” and subsequent parties must live as brother and sister.

The end game of my argument is that I think Pope Francis and his position about “irregular” situations and thus permission to access the sacraments is spot on given this inanity about “valid” marriages.

No, sacrament or ordinance it is the proper covenant celebrated with witnesses, per their approved form, between the two, both baptized, that makes it valid.

Don’t know what you are referring to from H.H. Pope Francis.