Question about baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter dje101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dje101

Guest
I have a friend who is not baptized. She had been divorced and remarried. She went through RCIA, and I guess was told that she needed to get an annulment. She didn’t get one, and was denied baptism and therefore, acceptance into the Church. Can someone please explain why someone would be denied baptism?

Thanks,

God bless!
 
Not denied, delayed.

One cannot receive the sacraments if one is objectively in a state of grave sin and unwilling to reject the sinful life.

How can one who is in an invalid marriage truthfully profess their baptismal vows when they have refused to correct their situation? They cannot.

Part of the RCIA process, in the first century and today, was ensuring that the catechumen was truly changing their life and embracing Christ and his Church.

Until she either receives a decree of nullity and convalidates her current marriage, receives a dissolution of the bond for her first marriage, or ceases relations with her current civil spouse she cannot make a profession of faith and receive the sacraments.

Pray for her. Suggest she speak to her priest regarding beginning the process of examining her prior marriage for nullity or dissolution of the bond.
 
I have a friend who is not baptized. She had been divorced and remarried.
If she has not been baptized, then her first marriage was not sacramental because only a baptized person can receive the Sacraments. Therefore, she does NOT need an annulment. Someone should remind the priest to re-read the marriage section in the Catechism, implying of course by the OP that the priest is ignorant of this teaching.
 
If she has not been baptized, then her first marriage was not sacramental because only a baptized person can receive the Sacraments. Therefore, she does NOT need an annulment.
This is NOT accurate.

You are correct that the first marriage was not a sacrament, because she is unbaptized. That does not mean, however, that it was not VALID. A natural marriage between the unbaptized is a valid marriage. You are incorrect regarding freedom to marry another person.

Yes, the person does have an impediment of prior bond and cannot contract a new marriage unless the first marriage is found to be invalid, or the natural bond is dissolved by the Pauline or Petrine Privilege.

See the chart linked here:

diocs.org/Portals/1/Documents/Tribunal/Decision_matrix.pdf
Someone should remind the priest to re-read the marriage section in the Catechism, implying of course by the OP that the priest is ignorant of this teaching.
Uh, it’s not the priest who is incorrect here.

You have confused validity and sacramentality. They are not the same thing.
 
1ke is right. The marriage is presumed valid until either found invalid through Tribunal or dissolved by Pauline/Petrine Privelege.
 
Alex, the marriage of two Jews, two Muslims, or even between a Jew and Catholic is still a valid marriage.

What it lacks is the Sacramental Grace that is found in the marriage of two Baptized persons.

The Sacramental Grace of any form is a Sanctifing Grace, that brings one closer to God and is a means to salvation. This is present in a Christian marriage, but that not specifically what binds a marriage.

You can see that when Christ was talking to unbaptized Jews about the wrongs of divorce. He was certainly not stating that their marriages were all false (least off all the marriage of His own Earthly parents).

In fact, He was stating just the opposite. That those marriages, yes the non-Sacramental marriages all around him, were sacred to God and binding to both parties.

That is why the Church recognizes non Sacramental marriages as binding, and thus an annulment is required in cases of divorce and remarriage.
 
Just to add a note: If the unbaptized party [or parties] later receive baptism, the marriage automatically becomes sacramental at the time of the baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top