The Royal Wedding - Dress & Veil - Hypocrisy

  • Thread starter Thread starter SusanneT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anicette said:
In catholic liturgy, white is the symbol to death and the born again in Christ.
Click to expand...
White is certainly appropriate for someone who was baptized a few weeks before the wedding.
It is appropriate as well for anyone who has received the sacrament of reconciliation after their last grave sin.
These people are examples of the purity that we have been given by Jesus dying on the cross.

I am appalled at the notion that clothing colors are used to promote gossip. Every baptized person has been given the white garment that signifies being joined with Christ. If that is reflected in their clothing, it should be appreciated and praised.

I should have paid attention when I saw this thread was labeled as hypocrisy. It was enough to put me off for a few days, but then I went and read it.
 
True, it is not a Catholic marriage.

But the Church does recognize marriages, as long as they are valid. So the issue is, if Meghan’s marriage to Trevor is valid, then it is valid. If it’s valid, then we have to respect their marriage. Which means that this royal one isn’t.

Not a canon lawyer by any chance, so I don’t know. All I’m saying is that supposedly faithful Catholics getting all excited about this ‘royal wedding’ is disappointing.

For me, it’s not so much about the color of the wedding dress as it is the validity. But then again, I’m NOT a canon lawyer, and they are not Catholics, nor are they practicing Anglicans at that.

It’s just that up to now, many practicing Catholics still don’t seem to understand what ‘til death do us part’ mean. It’s just divorce when things don’t work out, and find someone to remarry, easy peasy.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t know that. I haven’t watched in years. I’m happy for her.
 
fin said:
But the Church does recognize marriages, as long as they are valid. So the issue is, if Meghan’s marriage to Trevor is valid, then it is valid. If it’s valid, then we have to respect their marriage. Which means that this royal one isn’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you intended to say the the last sentence with finality or not but we don’t know. As TheLittleLady posited upthread:
What happened wast he CoE version of the Peterine Privilege. The Catholic Church allows the same, for an unbaptized person’s former marriage to be dissolved in order for baptism/marriage to a baptized Christian.
Click to expand...
Even 1ke had a note in the signature line on the old forum that what she discussed about annulments was for the Latin church only, not Orthodox.
fin said:
nor are they practicing Anglicans at that.
Click to expand...
This also caught my attention. How do you know this?
 
The doctrine that a valid natural marriage may be dissolved in “favor of the Faith” by baptism and marrying a baptized Christian is as old as the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top