T
Thorns
Guest
If the couple is Catholic, theyre required to follow Catholic form.
For non Catholics, the Church recognizes those marriages between one man and one woman to be Natural Marriages.
Thats my understanding.
- Status
For non Catholics, the Church recognizes those marriages between one man and one woman to be Natural Marriages.
Thats my understanding.
H
holy_face
Guest
The church will recognize if it was a Christian marriage regardless of denomination, otherwise it’s not valid. I learned this because I came into the Church through RCIA. If it was not a Christian marriage you were required to have a Catholic marriage ceremony, you were not considered to be properly married.
D
davidv
Guest
This is not true. the Catholic Church presumes all marriages are valid unless proven to be invalid. This means that pagans and atheists and protestants and the unchurched can, an do, enter into valid marriages.
Are you confusing “valid” with “sacramental”?
H
holy_face
Guest
yes I was confusing it with sacramental, my mistake.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Oh brother.
What are the differences? I was married in the Church, but in light of this, what does it mean?
Mark121359
Well-known member
Tigg, holy face, I agree with you both! Cardinals and Bishops can fall into error. This past week, Cardinal Raymond Burke hinted at this in an interview on EWTN’S The World Over. Go to the 9:45 mark of the interview. The host, Raymond Arroyo asked him about how some bishops are suggesting altering how the Church deals with remarried Catholics and their admission to the Sacraments. The Cardinal mentions how this is creating “disillusionment” among Catholics. And he says this “flawed” movement for change is strong amongst Cardinals and Bishops. Cardinal Burke goes on about this for over seven minutes and it’s quite alarming. He hints that the upcoming Synod will have “very strong debate” about this. And you can tell that this Synod is of great concern for Cardinal Burke…and so this concerns me as well. The point is, is that bishops do in fact stray from Church teachings. Secularist thinking can, and has crept into our Church…no doubt about it.
youtube.com/watch?v=hQTiup-Eeaw&list=PL0B89A05F9F6D3E47
Peace, Mark
H
holy_face
Guest
Yes and I say all of this as someone who does not agree with all of the Church’s positions
I don’t believe in the teachings about divorce for example, if your wife or husband commits adultery I don’t see how anyone could stay in that situation. And if you do decide to leave, you are forced to live in celibacy the rest of your life, that is really some cold stuff right there. I don’t understand it and never will.
But I am in no position to challenge the Churches position of this so it stands. I just hope I am not faced with this situation because it would be difficult trial of faith for me. I would certainly leave the marriage and the trial would begin at that point.
I don’t believe in the teachings about divorce for example, if your wife or husband commits adultery I don’t see how anyone could stay in that situation. And if you do decide to leave, you are forced to live in celibacy the rest of your life, that is really some cold stuff right there. I don’t understand it and never will.
But I am in no position to challenge the Churches position of this so it stands. I just hope I am not faced with this situation because it would be difficult trial of faith for me. I would certainly leave the marriage and the trial would begin at that point.
T
Thorns
Guest
“For better or for worse.” What you describe is for worse and if you agree to those terms and vow to keep them, then you must be committed. Thats what commitment is; sticking with it even when it’s uncomfortable.
As for faith changing upon such a trial… Orgasms and sex arent essential. Life would go back to being how it was before marriage: no sex. Is that such a big deal?
D
Dulcinea2721
Guest
Take up your cross and follow me.
At times those trial, within or without the context of marriage are what are required to bring you closer to Christ.
T
TheAdvocate
Guest
^ This
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Right, but you wouldn’t condone staying married to someone who is physically or emotionally abusive. A wife leaves her husband because he beats her, and the consequences should not be that she’s not allowed to receive the Eucharist.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
As someone whose married life is essentially without sexual intercourse, I say yes, it can be a big deal.
H
holy_face
Guest
That is pretty harsh, if it is not due to a medical problem or something then this is essentially the same thing as adultery, the conditions of marriage are not being met.
I highly recommend this website, they are on the cutting edge of mending relationships because they address the underlying causes of broken marriages.
marriedmansexlife.vanillaforums.com/
It is not Christian specific and it can be a bit vulgar at times, but it does not pull any punches and gets straight to the issues of why women cheat or withhold sex in marriage. It helps you develop a plan to fix the issues.
Most of the time when a woman has an affair or withholds sex the relationship has essentially ended. It means that she has lost attraction to her husband and he lost status in her eyes. They have become attracted to a more high status alpha male. Women are mostly unaware of this phenomenon in themselves, they are often confused to why they have these specific feelings. But this has been observed so many times by so many people that it is really not very deniable.
A man who has an affair can quite possibly still love his wife and still find her very attractive, but a woman who cheats has essentially already left the relationship. This is why I say that I would not deal with it well if it happened to me, and I would end the marriage. It can be repaired but it is so damaged at that point that I don’t think I would be interested in continuing.
Just a lack of sex is a better situation and can possibly be fixed.
I know that adultery is hurtful to both men and women, there is feelings of betrayal, distrust, fear of abandonment, humiliation, and anger. But it goes in further for men, he has essentially been cuckolded. A woman in an affair has usually chosen another man who is of higher status than her husband. Either more money, power or simply more masculine in some way.
The husband is lowered in the socially hierarchy and he can’t even be sure if his children are his own. His headship in the family is gone and he has been emasculated.
This is why it is so hard to deal with the Church’s teaching, basically if you divorce and adulterous wife you have to live your life as an emasculated eunuch while you wife gets the house, children, much of the assets, and continues to have her sexual relationships at will. She also gets comfort that you will never get to marry again and will continue to be able to hold that power over him.
In ancient times there was much much less divorce an adultery so these things did not become as much of an issue, there was shame in society for people who acted like this. The woman did not have the social power to jump from relationship to relationship or the favorable divorce laws to control the finances as well.
In modern times with a divorce rate of 50%, rampant free sex and adultery, feminism, hookup culture and no fault divorce, this Church teaching essentially helps fortify the destruction of men, in modern times without the social stigma of adultery/divorce it facilitates the removal of a man’s Christian headship in his family.
The only real power men have in relationships is his ability to or threaten to leave and find a new mate. With this power removed by the Church a man essentially lives his life under the thumb of his wife. Even if he divorces, becoming a eunuch is very large step down in the socially hierarchy and his wife is essentially emboldened because she is never threatened by another women.
T
Tigg
Guest
This is a fallacy. She would not be banned from the Eucharist unless and only if she re-married.
T
Tigg
Guest
Mark, thank you for posting this - it is a great find and needs to be circulated.
Through all the unrest being created by this subject and others, the Lord made provision for us in a supernatural gift called sensus fidei in which once we understand and assent to certain fundamental truths, we will hold fast and defend the faith (sensus fidelium).
Regarding the upcoming Synod and the comments we have been hearing from some, we are being unsettled. I believe it important that we remember the sense of the faithful has always historically been taught to mean that certain truths will be “sensed” and recognized by the whole body; both the Magisterium and the laity, and this was upheld in V 2’s Lumen Gentium (per quote in my previous post.) So no matter how many may suggest that teaching will change, nor how ardently the dissenters are hoping for it, God’s faithful who hold the truth in their hearts will not be misled because they will discern what is false teaching. The Lord has provided a large contingent of faithful bishops and we know by the current debate among them all that something is askew; otherwise they would be speaking with a united voice against secularist thinking to uphold the faith which never changes nor allows for contrary propositions. The Church as we have always known it is indefectible; this is Catholic doctrine.
For those who believe in Church approved private revelation:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
O.k., a woman leaves an abusive relationship via divorce. She cannot remarry and remain in full Communion with the Church. Therefore, she had her life wrecked physically, emotionally, then spiritually.
H
holy_face
Guest
I am wondering about whether the divorce and no remarry policies of the Church were ever claimed to be infallible teachings because the Orthodox do not have such strict policies and they shared the same doctrines as the Catholic Church for many centuries.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Thank you for pointing out exactly what the pope said.
D
Dulcinea2721
Guest
It surprises me that you equate being in full communion with the Church and therefore Christ to spiritual wreckage
As a person in a difficult marriage with a spouse who became mentally and emotionally ill. Should our marriage end, I would embrace celibacy. but that is just me.
O
Origen52
Guest
But that is not what holy face said, the statement was:
If for some reason the **Pope declared infallibly **that gay marriage was permissible it would be a clear sign that the Church was not legitimate and I would immediately start looking for a new denomination, probably Orthodox. I would have to due to the logic I just presented. The Church would have undermined its own authority and authenticity.
This is not disagreeing with some bishops, it’s refusing to accept a church dogma. To doubt the dogma of infallibility is to lack belief in the truth of the church. So, holy face is not in full union with the church now. One cannot say I believe a dogma until it’s inconvenient, dogmas are definitive teachings, they are true and unchangeable. So, perhaps the search for a new denomination should begin now:shrug:
- Status