Protestant marriages, Catholic marriages?

[rinnie]

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.

[SIGN]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.

[/SIGN]

What I do not understand where did you get the idea that the RCC would grant you an annulment either? Thats where you lost me.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Because no longer wishing to be married to someone is not grounds for annulment in the RCC. But she wasn’t pressured and you both admitted it. Thats where I explained (whats the point). Do you see what I mean. If she is a true Catholic and has the true faith she would never go to a Priest or Bishop and lie. And even if she did what good would it do her. God knows. See what I mean?

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

Something that strikes me, is that I have been told several times that even if there were impediments at the beginning of a marriage that might be grounds for annulment, if those are sincerely reconciled, the marriage actually becomes sacramental.

So if a husband secretly hides his alcoholism when he marries, that would not be meeting the requirements for marriage - it would not be married. But if he and his wife later work through the problem and somehow resolve it - then the grace of the sacrament enters the picture and they become validly married. Much as if they were married and later baptized, the marriage would become sacramental.

It seems to me that might apply in your case, even if your wife really did feel pressured at the time.

This is one thing that has actually bothered me about annulments - most Catholics don’t actually seem to understand this aspect, and in many cases it would be difficult for an annulment tribunal to know about it or have evidence about it - especially if the people involved don’t point it out. So I wonder if it sometimes gets over-looked.

But CAC,

Does your Church recognize any reason that a marriage could be “invalid”. Bigamy, for example?

And I have to say, if your wife did divorce you, and you continued to assume you are married and live that way, it seems very unjust to me that your church would excommunicate you on that basis. What can their rational for that possibly be? Would they excommunicate you if she turned out to be a murderer?

 

[Bluegoat]

Because no longer wishing to be married to someone is not grounds for annulment in the RCC. But she wasn’t pressured and you both admitted it. Thats where I explained (whats the point). Do you see what I mean. If she is a true Catholic and has the true faith she would never go to a Priest or Bishop and lie. And even if she did what good would it do her. God knows. See what I mean?

But it could be that she wouldn’t be lying. Maybe she did feel that way and never admitted it to anyone else. Or maybe she realizes now, with more experience, that her actions did spring from a sense of social pressure that at the time she took for granted.

But to her husband’s church, even those would not be good reasons.

 

[ChosenAndCalled]

But it could be that she wouldn’t be lying. Maybe she did feel that way and never admitted it to anyone else. Or maybe she realizes now, with more experience, that her actions did spring from a sense of social pressure that at the time she took for granted.

But to her husband’s church, even those would not be good reasons.

Yes, exactly!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Something that strikes me, is that I have been told several times that even if there were impediments at the beginning of a marriage that might be grounds for annulment, if those are sincerely reconciled, the marriage actually becomes sacramental.

So if a husband secretly hides his alcoholism when he marries, that would not be meeting the requirements for marriage - it would not be married. But if he and his wife later work through the problem and somehow resolve it - then the grace of the sacrament enters the picture and they become validly married. Much as if they were married and later baptized, the marriage would become sacramental.

It seems to me that might apply in your case, even if your wife really did feel pressured at the time.

This is one thing that has actually bothered me about annulments - most Catholics don’t actually seem to understand this aspect, and in many cases it would be difficult for an annulment tribunal to know about it or have evidence about it - especially if the people involved don’t point it out. So I wonder if it sometimes gets over-looked.

But CAC,

Does your Church recognize any reason that a marriage could be “invalid”. Bigamy, for example?

[SIGN]And I have to say, if your wife did divorce you, and you continued to assume you are married and live that way, it seems very unjust to me that your church would excommunicate you on that basis[/SIGN]. What can their rational for that possibly be? Would they excommunicate you if she turned out to be a murderer?

I have to say I am with you on this one. It would be the same thing if my husband said hey its over and I am out. And if I tell the Church he wants out. If we do not have grounds for an annulment he can divorce me through the eyes of the law. I nor the Church can stop him. But I will still have to honor my vows. If the church says I am married in the eyes of God I am. So as long as I keep my vow and do not marry another why should I be withheld the Body Of Christ. I kept my Promise to God. What did I do wrong?

If we agree that we were married in the eyes of God its valid. No Church can change what God joined together. I mean he can go to a Protestant Church and get remarried but how can that be valid. Thats really my question I guess?

But as I am seeing, and I thankyou for the info. I am learning not all Protestant Church’s would honor that marriage. ANd that is something I did not know.

Now here is the big question now. What Protestant Church would let him, and what would not?

 

[rinnie]

And to make matters worse. And really this is the main question I have for starting this thread.

There is this customer of mine, she is Protestant and was married in the same Protestant Church 3 times. Now I do not know what Protestant Dem. But she was married by the same church 3 times. Now she is married and living with another guy as we speak, but still walks into that church and receives the Body of Christ. How can that be?

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

This is pretty silly but I understand your fear but that’s because you are not Catholic and do not understand how anullment works. It is as if the Church will jump at anullment everytime as long as the marriage is not valid in the eyes of the Church. Well, that is exactly **the opposite **of the spirit of anullment. If you appreciate that the Church does not allow divorce why would you think anullment is any easier to obtain?

As pointed by rinnie, you already made a case for non-anullment by saying that having the baby was not the reason for both of you to get married. In other word, you seemed to understand about marriage at such a young age and you continue to want to keep that marriage now. So why would the church want to grant you anullment when you want the marriage so much? You see how silly it can get? Well, on the surface as told by you, you have nothing to fear that the Church will annul your marriage. Cheer up young man.

God bless you.

 

[Publisher]

And to make matters worse. And really this is the main question I have for starting this thread.

There is this customer of mine, she is Protestant and was married in the same Protestant Church 3 times. Now I do not know what Protestant Dem. But she was married by the same church 3 times. Now she is married and living with another guy as we speak, but still walks into that church and receives the Body of Christ. How can that be?

Are you saying there are NO Catholics who recieve communion “unworthily” and that they are prevented from entering any parish and receiving the eucharist?

 

[rinnie]

This is pretty silly but I understand your fear but that’s because you are not Catholic and do not understand how anullment works. It is as if the Church will jump at anullment everytime as long as the marriage is not valid in the eyes of the Church. Well, that is exactly **the opposite **of the spirit of anullment. If you appreciate that the Church does not allow divorce why would you think anullment is any easier to obtain?

As pointed by rinnie, you already made a case for non-anullment by saying that having the baby was not the reason for both of you to get married. In other word, you seemed to understand about marriage at such a young age and you continue to want to keep that marriage now. So why would the church want to grant you anullment when you want the marriage so much? You see how silly it can get? Well, on the surface as told by you, you have nothing to fear that the Church will annul your marriage. Cheer up young man.

God bless you.

 

[Bluegoat]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Now here is the big question now. What Protestant Church would let him, and what would not?

Most of the main Protestant churches have similar ideas to the Orthodox position. They may be more or less strictly applied.

As for the very conservative groups that allow no divorce, many of them are Anabaptist or influenced by them, or some are Restorationist. They are often non-denominational groups.

Now, your question is actually rather difficult, because I think a lot of groups that did operate that way have become more liberal. It would also be most likely to occur now among Anabaptists, though I think some Calvinists have also operated that way too.

In fact - history makes it much more complicated. My church for example, didn’t allow divorce at all at one time, and then only for what would be considered annulments in the Catholic Church. (Despite what silly people will tell you about Henry the Eighth, he did not get a divorce). It is only more recently that divorce under certian circumstances was allowed, and even more recently and in the West that it seems to be practiced widly and despite what is supposed to happen.

I think what would be fair to say is that many groups are in a process of discerning what marriage is really about. Until recently in the RC church, for example, it would not be possible to receive an annulment for many psychological issues that are seen as good reason now. THere have been large changes in what constitutes a good reason for annulment.It is more of a process often for Protestant groups, because their is not a central authority to direct things - discernment takes longer.

 

[rinnie]

Are you saying there are NO Catholics who recieve communion “unworthily” and that they are prevented from entering any parish and receiving the eucharist?

It is not my place or my right to judge any Catholic Publisher. But I am saying that If a RC goes up to that Priest and takes communion and knows they are unworthy they do not have worry about the Parish judging them. God already did. They condemn themselves.

Said at every mass in the RCC is this before the Eucharist.

Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Said out loud by all, and at every single mass.

If you are in the state of Mortal Sin you may not receive the Eucharist. That is why you must confess your sins before. The sacrament of Confession is for that.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

Yes, I do think it is interesting. And we rarely see it discussed, unlike the deficiencies of the protestant outlook.

What do the Eastern Catholic groups do I wonder?

 

[rinnie]

Chosen and Called, Also if I may add. The RCC would never ask you wife to leave you just because you are not called to the faith as she is. Even if you would refuse to accept the teaching’s of the Church she can still be Catholic and you do not have to be.

The Church would still consider that marriage to be a Sacrament. (Although I am not sure if she would have to be re-married in the CHurch even though you wouldn’t or not I am not sure). There are many mixed marriages you know. My Husband was a very faithful protestant as I was Catholic. We were married in the Church but he was not married Catholic. But after he chose to turn then he was. But we did not have to remarry since we were already married in the Church.

Does anyone know what would happen there. If she wasn’t married Catholic and then turned what would happen? Especially if he was against our faith?

 

[Publisher]

It is not my place or my right to judge any Catholic Publisher. But I am saying that If a RC goes up to that Priest and takes communion and knows they are unworthy they do not have worry about the Parish judging them. God already did. They condemn themselves.

Said at every mass in the RCC is this before the Eucharist.

Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Said out loud by all, and at every single mass.

If you are in the state of Mortal Sin you may not receive the Eucharist. That is why you must confess your sins before. The sacrament of Confession is for that.

Understood…but are there people appointed to keep erring Catholics from receiveing communion? As stated earlier…among many if not most Protestants, it is the individuals responsibility to insure their right standing before God…some communities do refuse erring members the ordinances…I understand that it is not the repsonsibility of any given member to “monitor” who goes forward and who does not in the Catholic church…why would it be different in a Protestant chruch? If the woman married three times wished to continue in fellowship with the church…even though in “sin”…should she be formally refused by “someone” using force to keep her from taking communion if she chose to go against church disipline and continued to receive communion?

You provided an instance where the woman STILL took communion even though in “sin”…does that not happen among Catholic congregations? If so…I ask the questions you posed…“How can that be?”

 

[Bluegoat]

Understood…but are there people appointed to keep erring Catholics from receiveing communion? As stated earlier…among many if not most Protestants, it is the individuals responsibility to insure their right standing before God…some communities do refuse erring members the ordinances…I understand that it is not the repsonsibility of any given member to “monitor” who goes forward and who does not in the Catholic church…why would it be different in a Protestant chruch? If the woman married three times wished to continue in fellowship with the church…even though in “sin”…should she be formally refused by “someone” using force to keep her from taking communion if she chose to go against church disipline and continued to receive communion?

You provided an instance where the woman STILL took communion even though in “sin”…does that not happen among Catholic congregations? If so…I ask the questions you posed…“How can that be?”

Yes, this is pretty much what it comes down to. Although in some Protestant communities sin and reconciliation can be very strict - even including public confession and penance - in most there is a lot of responsibility left to the individual to ensure he or she is right with God and the teachings of the church. Even in a case where a minister might approach the individual, the final call may well be left to the individual. So the woman who was married so many times may well have been counseled by the pastor, who may not have been totally satisfied. But the final call was hers, and she will bear the consequences, whatever they are, if she is not honest and forthright with herself and God.

Most Protestants are actually quite big on confession of sins, even though they do not always practice private confession to a priest. Private confession to God, however, is strongly emphasised. And a lot have a congregational confession during their service before the Eucharist, if they have a communion service.

In my church we have two prayers before we partake of the Eucharist (and one can confess to a priest as well if it is desired.)

The Confession:

ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men: We acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we from time to time most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings. Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

and then directly after the Consecration and before partaking, the Prayer of Humble Access:

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, Trusting in our own righteousness, But in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy So much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, Whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, So to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, And to drink his Blood, That our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, And our souls washed through his most precious Blood, And that we may evermore dwell in him, And he in us. Amen.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Understood…[SIGN]but are there people [/SIGN]appointed to keep erring Catholics from receiveing communion? As stated earlier…among many if not most Protestants, it is the individuals responsibility to insure their right standing before God…some communities do refuse erring members the ordinances…I understand that it is not the repsonsibility of any given member to “monitor” who goes forward and who does not in the Catholic church…why would it be different in a Protestant chruch? If the woman married three times wished to continue in fellowship with the church…even though in “sin”…should she be formally refused by “someone” using force to keep her from taking communion if she chose to go against church disipline and continued to receive communion?

You provided an instance where the woman STILL took communion even though in “sin”…does that not happen among Catholic congregations? If so…I ask the questions you posed…“How can that be?”

If you are asking me if the Priest preaches that we must not be in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion then yes. But the Priest can only teach the word of God. And I do agree that if a person is in a state of mortal sin they should not get communion.

I do not understand this using force to stop someone from receiving communion as you said. The only thing that I have seen is sometimes at a Catholic Wedding Father will say that if someone is not Catholic they cannot partake in the Eucharist. BUt I do not consider that force. That is just teaching imo.

But if a person goes to up for communion it would be assumed that he is either without mortal sin, or is Catholic and has been welcomed into the faith. The church has a duty to teach the truth before it can distribute the Eucharist. So in order for a person to understand the faith they must be taught it do you not agree?

 

[rinnie]

Also publisher, any person Catholic or non may attend Mass. Rather in sin, or not. Church is for sinners anyway would you not agree. Which is why I don’t miss a sunday

But my point is all are welcome to the Mass, but cannot partake in the Eucharist if they are in mortal sin, or not Catholic. But the CHurch can help them through confession and RCIA to mend that problem. BUt if a person is living lets say in sin, they can still attend Mass but not communion. Is that what you are asking me?

 

[Bluegoat]

Also publisher, any person Catholic or non may attend Mass. Rather in sin, or not. Church is for sinners anyway would you not agree. Which is why I don’t miss a sunday

But my point is all are welcome to the Mass, but cannot partake in the Eucharist if they are in mortal sin, or not Catholic. But the CHurch can help them through confession and RCIA to mend that problem. BUt if a person is living lets say in sin, they can still attend Mass but not communion. Is that what you are asking me?

I think he is saying that it is the same fr Protestants as Catholics. If a person knows the teaching and ignores it, there is no one to “force” them to behave properly, or to stop them from receiving the Eucharist.

 

[Publisher]

Also publisher, any person Catholic or non may attend Mass. Rather in sin, or not. Church is for sinners anyway would you not agree. Which is why I don’t miss a sunday

But my point is all are welcome to the Mass, but cannot partake in the Eucharist if they are in mortal sin, or not Catholic. But the CHurch can help them through confession and RCIA to mend that problem. BUt if a person is living lets say in sin, they can still attend Mass but not communion. Is that what you are asking me?

No, is there someone stationed preventing those in mortal sin from taking communion? Are there Catholics who attend mass living in mortal sin who receive communion? If so…“How can this be?” to use your words about a Protestant living in sin with her third or fourth husband and receiving communion…I dare say this is not a “Catholic” or “Protestant” issue…and there are members of both traditions who do so.

Your question of “How can this be?” just struck me as though such a thing was peculiar to only Protestants and that it didn’t occur among Catholics…that is where I was going with my questions.