Protestant marriages, Catholic marriages?

[happilycatholic]

Yes, they do. It isn’t a sacramental marriage if they are not baptized. It seems to me this discussion has very much overlooked parts of Catholic understanding of marriage, which also includes natural marriage.

People really were married before Christianity came along!

Bluegoat:

You are definitely right!

However, IMHO, the answer is not that cut and dry. If it were, then all marriages performed in a wedding ceremony would be valid and no one would receive an annulment under any circumstance. It is the invalidity that allows the Church to grant the Decree of Nullity.

I apologize for the confusion in my statement. What I said was it would be the best example of an invalid marriage one could have. I probably should have made myself clearer.

The Church, at its descretion under the authority of the Holy Spirit could refuse the couple, but that’s not likely. The Church would discern, assuming they are now both catholic, whether the Pauline Priviledge would be an option for them or some other option. These things are very complicated and not readily discernable by laity.

That is precisely why I stated earlier that the apologists on CAF are better sources for answers to these types of questions. And even they probably won’t have a complete enought scenario to form an opinion in a specific case.

The atheist couple may indeed have a “natural” marriage but not necessarily a valid marriage. I believe what the correct position would be is that the Church considers all marriages valid on their face.

I think we are probably confusing the issue more than clarifying it. Even those within the Church who don’t have direct experience with annulment and those processes that go along with discerning whether a couple is free to marry in the Church don’t have a crystal clear understanding of the matter.

There are other ways of allowing a person to marry in the Church. There is “lack of form” and Pauline and Petrine Privilege and like my situation, by Favor of the Faith.

So this is a very complicated matter that really can’t be fully answered here.

Blessings,

HC

 

[Reuben_J]

There were no sacraments before Christ instituted them. If sacramental marriage was the only kind, all marriages before Christianity would be “invalid” or just shacking up.

There was no Christianity then also. Valid marriages then were marriages that were accepted by the law of those era.

As far as Catholic is concerned valid marriages are marriages that Catholic consider valid and in which case no anullment can be granted. Marriage of couples married outside the Catholic Church need to be blessed by the Church once they decide to be baptized (if they were not Christians then) in order that their marriage is considered valid by the Church. It is important to note that divorce is never allowed and no anullment can be granted for valid marriages for Catholics.

There are many kinds of marriages but not all are Catholic marriages. So I still cannot see why non-Catholic marriages are relevant to this discussion as automatically they can fall under the category of invalid marriages as far as Catholic is concerned. Of course it does not mean that such marriages will be anulled once the couple become Catholics as there are complicated factors and many times judged on individual merit as to whether anullment can be granted or not.

The principle is marriages need to be worked out, no divorce allowed and anullment is always the last resort but only if no marriage is established in the first place as discerned and assessed by long tribunal process.

God bless.

 

[Bluegoat]

There was no Christianity then also. Valid marriages then were marriages that were accepted by the law of those era.

As far as Catholic is concerned valid marriages are marriages that Catholic consider valid and in which case no anullment can be granted. Marriage of couples married outside the Catholic Church need to be blessed by the Church once they decide to be baptized (if they were not Christians then) in order that their marriage is considered valid by the Church. It is important to note that divorce is never allowed and no anullment can be granted for valid marriages for Catholics.

There are many kinds of marriages but not all are Catholic marriages. So I still cannot see why non-Catholic marriages are relevant to this discussion as automatically they can fall under the category of invalid marriages as far as Catholic is concerned. Of course it does not mean that such marriages will be anulled once the couple become Catholics as there are complicated factors and many times judged on individual merit as to whether anullment can be granted or not.

The principle is marriages need to be worked out, no divorce allowed and anullment is always the last resort but only if no marriage is established in the first place as discerned and assessed by long tribunal process.

God bless.

If I am understanding what you are trying to say, that is not correct.

According to Catholic understanding of marriage, any two baptized people who marry validly have a sacramental marriage. In the case where one or both is a Catholic, they must be married according to the proper form or have a dispensation, and all the other requirements for a valid marriage must of course be met. It cannot, if valid, be dissolved (except perhaps for non-consummation, but I think that is complicated?)

If two non-baptized people, or one who is Christian and one who isn’t marry, if they marry validly, have what is called a natural marriage. The requirements for validity are the same kinds of things as for sacramental marriages - without those is may be annulled like any sacramental marriage. However, a valid natural marriage may also be dissolved under certain circumstances - using the Petrine or Pauline privileges, (I am not sure if there are others.) This is NOT an annulment, though I notice they are careful not to use the language of divorce. If a couple naturally married gets baptized, the marriage becomes a sacramental marriage.

The CC recognizes both of these as “real”.

 

[happilycatholic]

There was no Christianity then also. Valid marriages then were marriages that were accepted by the law of those era.

As far as Catholic is concerned valid marriages are marriages that Catholic consider valid and in which case no anullment can be granted. Marriage of couples married outside the Catholic Church need to be blessed by the Church once they decide to be baptized (if they were not Christians then) in order that their marriage is considered valid by the Church. It is important to note that divorce is never allowed and no anullment can be granted for valid marriages for Catholics.

There are many kinds of marriages but not all are Catholic marriages. So I still cannot see why non-Catholic marriages are relevant to this discussion as automatically they can fall under the category of invalid marriages as far as Catholic is concerned. Of course it does not mean that such marriages will be anulled once the couple become Catholics as there are complicated factors and many times judged on individual merit as to whether anullment can be granted or not.

The principle is marriages need to be worked out, no divorce allowed and anullment is always the last resort but only if no marriage is established in the first place as discerned and assessed by long tribunal process.

God bless.

Yay!



HC

 

[rinnie]

So I think that pretty much shows the Catholic point of marriage and how we feel about marriage. What God has joined together it is joined together until death.

If you do indeed have a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church and God you are married until the end.

But many Protestant Church’s do not stay bound to this sacrament. And what my whole point was how do they explain this to the People of the Church. You have heard that the RCC has to find evidence that it was never a marriage in the first place. If it is, they cannot be remarried in the RCC.

But in many protestant Church’s you may. So what I really wanted to know is how does the Preacher marry one after another and feel this is according to God’s plan?

 

[Bluegoat]

So I think that pretty much shows the Catholic point of marriage and how we feel about marriage. What God has joined together it is joined together until death.

If you do indeed have a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church and God you are married until the end.

But many Protestant Church’s do not stay bound to this sacrament. And what my whole point was how do they explain this to the People of the Church. You have heard that the RCC has to find evidence that it was never a marriage in the first place. If it is, they cannot be remarried in the RCC.

But in many protestant Church’s you may. So what I really wanted to know is how does the Preacher marry one after another and feel this is according to God’s plan?

Well, they don’t have a sacramental understanding of marriage in most cases. This is quite important in understanding the different treatment. In the case of a Catholic, it would be like dissolving a baptism - not possible. But that doesn’t apply in the same way if what happens isn’t understood sacramentally.

They also probably think that since Jesus specifically said there are cases when divorce is allowable, that there are cases where divorce is allowable. (In fact, they may say that is why it CAN’T be a sacrament.)

They don’t actually do a lot of third or fourth marriages in many churches. And even second ones probably involve consultation with the minister.

In many cases, the reason for the divorce was the same kind of thing that would lead to an annulment in the Catholic Church. They just call it a divorce instead - the substance is the same.

And of course they are not all Protestants, the Orthodox Church also allows divorce and remarriage.

 

[4Squarebaby]

So I think that pretty much shows the Catholic point of marriage and how we feel about marriage. What God has joined together it is joined together until death.

If you do indeed have a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church and God you are married until the end.

But many Protestant Church’s do not stay bound to this sacrament. And what my whole point was how do they explain this to the People of the Church. You have heard that the RCC has to find evidence that it was never a marriage in the first place. If it is, they cannot be remarried in the RCC.

But in many protestant Church’s you may. So what I really wanted to know is how does the Preacher marry one after another and feel this is according to God’s plan?

I would say that Protestant preachers don’t fill the role of God’s Sergeant at Arms. People do not confess to the Preacher, they go directly to God. As a church we don’t service the perfect but attempt to make people better. The Church does not grant a divorce, people seek it. Sure it is out of God’s will but it is the free choice of people. But once that decision is made is it then the church role to cut the people off forever or give the second class church citizenship by refusing to share communion with them?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Well, [SIGN]they don’t have a sacramental understanding of marriage in most cases. This is quite important in understanding [/SIGN]the different treatment. In the case of a Catholic, it would be like dissolving a baptism - not possible. But that doesn’t apply in the same way if what happens isn’t understood sacramentally.

They also probably think that since Jesus specifically said there are cases when divorce is allowable, that there are cases where divorce is allowable. (In fact, they may say that is why it CAN’T be a sacrament.)

They don’t actually do a lot of third or fourth marriages in many churches. And even second ones probably involve consultation with the minister.

In many cases, the reason for the divorce was the same kind of thing that would lead to an annulment in the Catholic Church. They just call it a divorce instead - the substance is the same.

And of course they are not all Protestants, the Orthodox Church also allows divorce and remarriage.

I think that this is probally one of the first truths we have hit on. They must not see it as a sacrament the way we do.

But I must disagree with you on the divorce issue. I do not agree that it is the same as annulment. Because in a divorce a marriage did exist. Protestants in order to get a divorce through the church do not have to prove that it was not a valid marriage.

That is the point that you are either refusing to understand or cannot understand. IF in the RCC you can not prove grounds for annulment you are still married in the eyes of the church. No matter what the law says. Sure you can be granted a divorce through the law for legal reasons, but in order to be in good standing with the Church you must live alone until the spouse dies. Would you not see a big difference here?

 

[Reuben_J]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I think that this is probally one of the first truths we have hit on. They must not see it as a sacrament the way we do.

But I must disagree with you on the divorce issue. I do not agree that it is the same as annulment. Because in a divorce a marriage did exist. Protestants in order to get a divorce through the church do not have to prove that it was not a valid marriage.

That is the point that you are either refusing to understand or cannot understand. IF in the RCC you can not prove grounds for annulment you are still married in the eyes of the church. No matter what the law says. Sure you can be granted a divorce through the law for legal reasons, but in order to be in good standing with the Church you must live alone until the spouse dies. Would you not see a big difference here?

Point made and the thread has achieved its purpose.

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I think that this is probally one of the first truths we have hit on. They must not see it as a sacrament the way we do.

But I must disagree with you on the divorce issue. I do not agree that it is the same as annulment. Because in a divorce a marriage did exist. Protestants in order to get a divorce through the church do not have to prove that it was not a valid marriage.

That is the point that you are either refusing to understand or cannot understand. IF in the RCC you can not prove grounds for annulment you are still married in the eyes of the church. No matter what the law says. Sure you can be granted a divorce through the law for legal reasons, but in order to be in good standing with the Church you must live alone until the spouse dies. Would you not see a big difference here?

No, no I’m not. I understand what the difference between an annulment and a divorce is.

What I am saying is that some Protestants would only allow the SAME REASONS for saying that people are not married. Both are essentially saying the marriage was never valid. The difference is in the process for determining that. THe fact that they just call it divorce isn’t really important - they could call it late for dinner but they would still be describing the same thing.

In Catholicism, the currant method for determining whether a marriage is valid has not always been what was used. In itself, it is not integral to the annulment process - it could be done any number of ways. The important thing is that it is the authority of the CC that makes the determination. In some cases in the past, people applied to the Bishop, or even the Pope. It hasn’t always used the same mechanism.

Protestant groups that think this way about marriage don’t have the same administrative bureaucracy for determining which marriages were valid and which were not. Some allow members to get a civil divorce and they then need to seek the permission of the appropriate authority to remarry - maybe the Bishop, or the minister, or a counsel of elders. Those people decide on the merits of the case whether remarriage is allowed. It’s very similar to what happens in a Catholic Church decision.

In other cases, the group may not allow even a civil divorce without permission from the appropriate authority.

In most groups, what you will see is that the minister or priest and the couple will get together to discern the right course of action, through prayer, etc. So, they are looking to the authority of God, with help from an experienced guide. Why they would do it this way makes sense when you consider the Protestant emphasis on a direct relationship with God.

And in some cases the minister may leave it totally up to the couple, unless they ask for help. In my experience, this is not usually the recommended course even in places where it is what happens.

Of course in all cases, if the people who want to be married are dishonest to the authorities or themselves, a mistake may be made which they are culpable for. But this is also true in the Catholic annulment process - if people lie or give misleading evidence to the tribunal, which does at times happen, a mistaken decision can easily be made.

In any church I have ever seen, the rule is that if you cannot be married according to their rules, you are supposed to stay single. Of course there is no attempt to force that on non-members, and some groups are very lax in practicing it. But I know as many Catholics in the same position.

 

[Bluegoat]

Here is a nice little article about marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the Orthodox Church, if anyone is interested.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

No, no I’m not. I understand what the difference between an annulment and a divorce is.

What I am saying is that some Protestants would only allow the SAME REASONS for saying that people are not married. Both are essentially saying the marriage was never valid. The difference is in the process for determining that. THe fact that they just call it divorce isn’t really important - they could call it late for dinner but they would still be describing the same thing.

In Catholicism, the currant method for determining whether a marriage is valid has not always been what was used. In itself, it is not integral to the annulment process - it could be done any number of ways. The important thing is that it is the authority of the CC that makes the determination. In some cases in the past, people applied to the Bishop, or even the Pope. It hasn’t always used the same mechanism.

Protestant groups that think this way about marriage don’t have the same administrative bureaucracy for determining which marriages were valid and which were not. Some allow members to get a civil divorce and they then need to seek the permission of the appropriate authority to remarry - maybe the Bishop, or the minister, or a counsel of elders. Those people decide on the merits of the case whether remarriage is allowed. It’s very similar to what happens in a Catholic Church decision.

In other cases, the group may not allow even a civil divorce without permission from the appropriate authority.

In most groups, what you will see is that the minister or priest and the couple will get together to discern the right course of action, through prayer, etc. So, they are looking to the authority of God, with help from an experienced guide. Why they would do it this way makes sense when you consider the Protestant emphasis on a direct relationship with God.

And in some cases the minister may leave it totally up to the couple, unless they ask for help. In my experience, this is not usually the recommended course even in places where it is what happens.

[SIGN]Of course in all cases, if the people who want to be married are dishonest to the authorities or themselves, a mistake may be made which they are culpable [/SIGN]for. But this is also true in the Catholic annulment process - if people lie or give misleading evidence to the tribunal, which does at times happen, a mistaken decision can easily be made.

In any church I have ever seen, the rule is that if you cannot be married according to their rules, you are supposed to stay single. Of course there is no attempt to force that on non-members, and some groups are very lax in practicing it. But I know as many Catholics in the same position.

I understand what you are saying now, And yes I can say I can agree with this. But to make sure I am understanding you correctly some Protestant Church’s do have annulments per say but just don’t call it that?

So then there are Protestant Church’s that like CC will not accept the divorce lets say in the eyes of the CHurch and also feel they are still married in the eyes of God, and according to the Church feel they are still married also?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a nice little article about marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the Orthodox Church, if anyone is interested.

The interesting thing about the Orthodox approach is that they were practicing it long before the Great Schism, so it must also be acceptable from the point of view of Catholic discipline.

 

[rinnie]

May I also add, which is what we were kinda talking about, People must remember rather a person is Catholic or Protestant they can lie. Its like you said on their shoulder though because they will face God with it.

But the point I am trying to make also is I agree many annulments have been granted because of lies. But you can’t blame the Bishop for that either. You know what I mean? THere are certain reasons the CHurch can say that no marriage according to the law of God took place. But if it indeed did, only the 2 people really know in their hearts for only God knows a heart.

So what I am saying if an annulment was granted by the Church under a persons lies, Was it really? See what I mean. God knows.

And why a person would go to the trouble is beyond my level of understanding. I mean who cares what PEOPLE think. Its God who counts.

 

[ChosenAndCalled]

Bit of a tangent here, but this is an issue that brings me great sorrow. I am a reformed believer and my wife is Catholic. She converted two years ago. Prior to that, we had been married for over twenty years. Since we’re both very committed to our faiths and believe in the core principles of our teachings, there has been a lot of difficulty in our family with her decision.

We’re not getting divorced; neither one of us wants it, would seek it, or considers it something that’s even acceptable to entertain as a thought. My concern is purely in the now unequal-nature of our vows.

We were married twenty six years ago, both 18 at the time, and six months later we had our first child. No one pressured us to marry, it was our decision. We’ve gone on to have eight natural children (one died at 5 months of age), one adopted child with two more in the process. Our marriage was once a fairy tale type, but the last few years have been very, very hard on us. Her path to conversion was not sweetness and light.

When my wife left the church to join the Catholic Church, my pastor told me in no uncertain terms that I was not allowed to divorce her for this action. He told me it would lead to my being de-frocked and removed from my congregation. It was a strange thing for him to say, I’d never mentioned it or considered it, but he wanted to be certain I understood church teaching on this. In the eyes of my church, I would be committing a terrible sin, something the body could not accept. It was so important that he had to verbalize it to be sure I knew.

I also know that the Catholic church considers us to be in a valid, sacramental marriage. We were both baptized at the time and married by a licensed minister in the name of God.

My own struggles are with the belief that my wife could obtain an annulment if she desired. Again, not that she does, or will. She is not looking for divorce; we’re simply talking about my discomfort with the views of marriage that I see displayed. The circumstances of our marriage can easily be used to demonstrate she (or I) was not in the proper frame of mind to enter into the covenant willingly. A teenage pregnancy is a very stressful situation and one could easily surmise pressure, especially 26 years ago.

I know this is speculation, but it takes away much peace from me. My church teaches that our marriage is in dissolvable (unless one of us begins to enter a life of adultery), while hers gives the same message, but – with plenty of case-history to show her that she would have an excellent case for annulment if she want to pursue it. Of course, the Catholic church would not, does not, tell her that she has grounds – our marriage is valid. I’m just saying that case history would give her an indication of a probability of success if she divorced me and proceeded with annulment. My church would remove me from the rolls and consider me apostate.

So, it is not the current view of my marriage in the eyes of the Catholic church that bothers me, it’s the unspoken knowledge of what could be that I hate. Perhaps it’s irrational, I understand that, but it bothers me. Either we’re married or we’re not. This state of “currently viewed as valid, but has the potential to be seen otherwise in different circumstances” is discomforting.

In this case, my church appears to have a stronger history of backing marriage. Even if I sought it, I would be denied, sanctioned and cut off from the visible Body of Christ. Her church also says she is in a valid marriage, but has a history of finding that a valid marriage never existed if one party divorces and applies for a decree of annulment.

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I understand what you are saying now, And yes I can say I can agree with this. But to make sure I am understanding you correctly some Protestant Church’s do have annulments per say but just don’t call it that?

So then there are Protestant Church’s that like CC will not accept the divorce lets say in the eyes of the CHurch and also feel they are still married in the eyes of God, and according to the Church feel they are still married also?

Yes. In some cases the idea is that marriage is for life, and a civil divorce is a legal state. But remarriage in the church is not allowed unless the reasons for the divorce are approved, (by whomever) and the allowed reasons are substantially the same as those allowed for annulment.

I would say this is not the most common POV. And sometimes it is not as explicitly set out - it is the practice that shows the understanding.

Two ideas are much more common in Protestant groups.

One is very similar to the approach of the Orthodox described in the link I gave. There are a few conditions under which the nature of the marriage can actually be destroyed after the marriage. Divorce under such circumstances may be allowed. In such cases, remarriage may happen, depending on the decision of the authorities. The main difference between the Orthodox and Protestants who believe this is to what extent they see marriage as a Sacrament.

Another POV taken by some very conservative Protestants is that no divorce, legal or otherwise is possible. I knew an Mennonite woman, for example, who was separated from a very abusive husband. Under Catholic rules, I am pretty sure she would have been given an annulment, as he had been abusive and unfaithful since the very start of the marriage.

Her church did not allow her to legally divorce him, or spiritually divorce him either. They assisted her in moving, finding living arrangements and employment, and getting all the legal stuff, like barring him from the kids or legal obligations she might have to him for taxes, debt, etc. But no divorce.

 

[rinnie]

IMO and for what its worth?

But here is what I am hearing from you. You and your wife got married because she was with child. Okay but you still wanted to get married, and loved eachother and accepted marriage in the eyes of God and kept that promise you made to God.

BUt where would the grounds for annulment be here anyway. Do you see what I mean? Being pregnant alone is not enough. You shot that reason for annulment out by saying it was not the reason you got married.

Are you saying because you wife is Catholic you cannot see how the marriage could go on or what? Could you explain better what you are saying. Thanks

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes. In some cases the idea is that marriage is for life, and a civil divorce is a legal state. But remarriage in the church is not allowed unless the reasons for the divorce are approved, (by whomever) and the allowed reasons are substantially the same as those allowed for annulment.

I would say this is not the most common POV. And sometimes it is not as explicitly set out - it is the practice that shows the understanding.

Two ideas are much more common in Protestant groups.

One is very similar to the approach of the Orthodox described in the link I gave. There are a few conditions under which the nature of the marriage can actually be destroyed after the marriage. Divorce under such circumstances may be allowed. In such cases, remarriage may happen, depending on the decision of the authorities. The main difference between the Orthodox and Protestants who believe this is to what extent they see marriage as a Sacrament.

Another POV taken by some very conservative Protestants is that no divorce, legal or otherwise is possible. I knew an Mennonite woman, for example, who was separated from a very abusive husband. [SIGN]Under Catholic rules, I am pretty sure she would have been given an annulment, as he had been abusive and unfaithful since the very start of the marriage.[/SIGN]
Her church did not allow her to legally divorce him, or spiritually divorce him either. They assisted her in moving, finding living arrangements and employment, and getting all the legal stuff, like barring him from the kids or legal obligations she might have to him for taxes, debt, etc. But no divorce.

Yes I agree with you here. I guess my question to the Mennonite Preacher is what Part of to Love honor cherish does beating the heck out of them and cheating come in? Like you said they never had a marriage at all. For God explained to us what a marriage is.

How they could ever agree that this could be considered a Sacrament in the eyes of God is beyond me.

 

[Bluegoat]

May I also add, which is what we were kinda talking about, People must remember rather a person is Catholic or Protestant they can lie. Its like you said on their shoulder though because they will face God with it.

But the point I am trying to make also is I agree many annulments have been granted because of lies. But you can’t blame the Bishop for that either. You know what I mean? THere are certain reasons the CHurch can say that no marriage according to the law of God took place. But if it indeed did, only the 2 people really know in their hearts for only God knows a heart.

So what I am saying if an annulment was granted by the Church under a persons lies, Was it really? See what I mean. God knows.

And why a person would go to the trouble is beyond my level of understanding. I mean who cares what PEOPLE think. Its God who counts.

I agree it doesn’t seem very sensible. Lying to God seems like rather a lost cause.

But here is what I sometimes think happens. I have met a few people who seemed to think that if they could find the “evidence” to support the annulment, than it is ok to present it. So if the case had to do with their own mental state, say they were young and pregnant and really didn’t know what they were getting into, then it would be ok to give that reasoning. Even if later on, all that was somehow reconciled or grew in understanding.

I think this sometimes comes from the language used, from the complicated ideas around annulment that people don’t understand, and even by those in authority who talk about building a case rather than seeking truth.

 

[ChosenAndCalled]

IMO and for what its worth?

But here is what I am hearing from you. You and your wife got married because she was with child. Okay but you still wanted to get married, and loved eachother and accepted marriage in the eyes of God and kept that promise you made to God.

BUt where would the grounds for annulment be here anyway. Do you see what I mean? Being pregnant alone is not enough. You shot that reason for annulment out by saying it was not the reason you got married.

Are you saying because you wife is Catholic you cannot see how the marriage could go on or what? Could you explain better what you are saying. Thanks

Here’s my line of thinking:

If my wife decided that she no longer wished to me married to me (again, something I do not believe she would ever entertain) she could divorce me and apply to have the marriage annulled. She would have to then state that she felt pressured to get married because of the baby. Now, she would not say that right now, but really, in that situation, who is to say there wasn’t pressure? Our families were upset, angry and not very supportive at the time. She had no one else, it’s not out of the realm of believability for her to claim that she felt pressured. Who’s going to really question that? The circumstances appear to give her a reason to believe such a claim would stand.

Not that she would be lying, just re-thinking how she felt at the time and discovering things she had either forgotten or repressed. Rationalization is one of mankind’s chief abilities.