Traditions of Man - Divorce and Remarriage

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

Have babies been Baptised by parents who respond to raise them in the faith, that they believe in God etc…etc… What if one of them, or both of them are not sincere? Or they do not have good faith? That they have no intent of raising the Child Catholic let alone living a Catholic life themselves…only doing it to appease family or because that is “just what is done”.

Baptism actually changes the soul and it was never taught in the early Church that one must make a “decision for Christ” to be baptised. So, an infant’s soul is permanently altered by the baptismal waters and can not later be negated. The gift of Salvation can be rejected after baptism but it does not invalidate the Sacrament; meaning one is not capable of putting back the original sin on the soul.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

Christ elevates matrimony to a Sacrament. Is it even a Sacrament in your church?

No it is not. But would you be OK with other Non-Catholic denominations practicing annullments?

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

Baptism actually changes the soul and it was never taught in the early Church that one must make a “decision for Christ” to be baptised. So, an infant’s soul is permanently altered by the baptismal waters and can not later be negated. The gift of Salvation can be rejected after baptism but it does not invalidate the Sacrament; meaning one is not capable of putting back the original sin on the soul.

Yes but then why all the questions that the parents must answer/confirm in the affirmative as to raising them Catholic, as too them believeing in GOD etc…etc…

Just skip all that and get to the water pouring.

What about the other sacraments. What if a person is never repentant in each confession. Shouldn’t there be a tribuanl to determine that a confession was valid to ensure the sacrement is valid? The same with communion and confirmation.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

Baptism actually changes the soul and it was never taught in the early Church that one must make a “decision for Christ” to be baptised. So, an infant’s soul is permanently altered by the baptismal waters and can not later be negated. The gift of Salvation can be rejected after baptism but it does not invalidate the Sacrament; meaning one is not capable of putting back the original sin on the soul.

What about Repent and be Baptised? John the Baptist preached repentance abd had the Baptism of repentance.

Baptism, as far as I read in the bible, comes after on accepting Jesus sacrifice.

ANyway, I look forward to the other sacrements and why no tribunal.

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

No it is not. But would you be OK with other Non-Catholic denominations practicing annullments?

Would the marriage be valid in the eyes of God? I know that civil marriages are not.

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

What if a person is never repentant in each confession. Shouldn’t there be a tribuanl to determine that a confession was valid to ensure the sacrement is valid? The same with communion and confirmation.

If a person is not repentant in each confession then they are risking their salvation by leaving the stain of sin. The sacraments of penance is between the person and God and they bring judgment on their souls. You are still not understanding the distinction about matrimony. That is a vow between two people. Maybe someone else can clarify this for you because I can see that you are not understanding the significance of this and I am not doing a good job of explaining.

 

[LittleDeb]

malachi_a_serva:

Hello LittleDeb, (and for all readers…if my responses seem abrupt …just because I am tired…sorry).

What about:

what if that persone is not “sincere” in the intent and has “no good faith” in truly accepting what they are? Then they are invalid anf the person will be going to Hell.

My question, why is the Catholic Church not concerned to ensure other sacrements are valid? But just the marriage sacrement? Too me it appears because ones eternal state is not the item of concern, just a earthly, happy life.

Have babies been Baptised by parents who respond to raise them in the faith, that they believe in God etc…etc… What if one of them, or both of them are not sincere? Or they do not have good faith? That they have no intent of raising the Child Catholic let alone living a Catholic life themselves…only doing it to appease family or because that is “just what is done”.

The same for communion por confession. What if the child ids only doing it because his parents are making him…he is too scared not too, HE does not want to…take communion, have confession, get confirmed…etc…only doing it because his parents are making him. No good faith, no genuine sincerity. Result = invalid sacrament.

Why is the church not concerned about htes and have a tribunial to determine the sacraments are valid. i.e. by questioning, investigating, talking to family, friend etc…just like it does for an annullment.

This could get severely off topic but I will try to answer it since I asked a similar question when I was “not happy with the Church.”

The question you are asking centers around authority. I don’t want to get into a debate about authority, I will just try to answer your question. All other Sacraments are ministered by those who hold the office of Holy Orders. This is not a statement on their personal holiness or unholiness, just like a marriage tribunal is not investigating holiness of the couple involved. They are priests or deacons. By their very office they have the authority to confer valid Sacraments.

A couple entering marriage must have authority to minister the Sacrament. If they lack consent, maturity, etc. and so on, they cannot administer Marriage. Some people have authority who do not even know they have authority and therefore administer valid marriages (ex: Aborigines ‘down under’ can have valid marriages even without “believing.”) Some people think they have authority but in fact don’t so they administer invalid marriages. (ex: the earlier post about the man who was already married and claiming Catholicism.)

If a person was found to be “playing priest” (highly unlikely) all of the Sacraments he performed would be redone conditionally to insure their validity.

I hope that helps a little.

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

What about Repent and be Baptised? John the Baptist preached repentance abd had the Baptism of repentance.

Baptism, as far as I read in the bible, comes after on accepting Jesus sacrifice.

ANyway, I look forward to the other sacrements and why no tribunal.

In the bible we see whole households being baptised. That includes infants. This whole idea of “accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior” and then being baptised is not biblical. That is a whole other thread though. You might like to do a search and find one where it has already been discussed.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Thanks for all your repsonses…me off to bed. (1 AM here)

Thanks again, God Bless and be safe.

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

Thanks for all your repsonses…me off to bed. (1 AM here)

Thanks again, God Bless and be safe.

Goodnight. See you tomorrow?

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Hello Eden, sorry this one seems to be beaten to death…

but, …what if the tribunal determines that there was NO sacrament of marriage and the people remarry…but the tribunal was wrong? This would make the remarried individuals in a state of mortal sin…committing adultary.

As I understand it only the Pope in matters of faith and morals speaking from office is deemed infallible…what about the tribunal making a mistaking in granting an annulment when a perfectly valid sacramental marriage took place?

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

Hello Eden, sorry this one seems to be beaten to death…

but, …what if the tribunal determines that there was NO sacrament of marriage and the people remarry…but the tribunal was wrong? This would make the remarried individuals in a state of mortal sin…committing adultary.

As I understand it only the Pope in matters of faith and morals speaking from office is deemed infallible…what about the tribunal making a mistaking in granting an annulment when a perfectly valid sacramental marriage took place?

I wish I could say that I know all of the ins and outs of the teachings on annulments, but I don’t. That would be a great question for “Ask the Apologist” though. I would encourage you to ask as I would like to see the answer myself.

Did you get a chance to ask your minister yet if your church allows remarriage after divorce?

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Eden:

I wish I could say that I know all of the ins and outs of the teachings on annulments, but I don’t. That would be a great question for “Ask the Apologist” though. I would encourage you to ask as I would like to see the answer myself.

Did you get a chance to ask your minister yet if your church allows remarriage after divorce?

Will do. From what I have been observing,…your the one with all the answers. (aside from me …haha).

 

[Eden]

malachi_a_serva:

Will do. From what I have been observing,…your the one with all the answers. (aside from me …haha).

Let me know if/when you get a response. I might forget to check that forum.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

I submitted my question, it did not appear (as per rules), I shall post a link if it does.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

malachi_a_serva:

Sorry to hear of your experience. I guess my point being…it is only “invalide” because the church says those “things” make it “not valid”. But in reality, you were ther, your spouse was there…etc…etc…it happened. But I understand the “rational” behind it. It still means you were married before. Althought The Church says your first one was not valid. Everyone that attended, would they say one didn’t happen?

Marriage is a sacrament. There is only a sacrament if it is performed in the Church. A judge cannot make a marriage sacramental. In fact, it was only until very recently that divorce and remarriage were put into the hands of the magistrates and taken out of the hands of the Church. BTW, you mentioned that Moses allowed remarriage. He did because the Jews’ hearts were hardened, but when Jesus came He said ‘let no man take apart what God has joined together’. Therefore, if there has been a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church, there would be no possible way for any living person to tear apart those two people. Now, they can live separately, and if there are circumstances in which they should live separately then that’s probably what their priest would recommend to them. However, it does not change the fact that marriage is a sacrament and can only happen once in lifetime. Please show us from the New Testament how divorce and remarriage is possible. There are definitely certain circumstances that would not make a marriage sacramental, and you were described some above. You also continue to argue from a secular perspective, and not from a Biblical basis.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

malachi_a_serva:

but, …what if the tribunal determines that there was NO sacrament of marriage and the people remarry…but the tribunal was wrong? This would make the remarried individuals in a state of mortal sin…committing adultary.

malachi, no, it wouldn’t. You do not have a proper understanding of mortal sin. For a mortal sin to occure there must be 3 met:

• its subject must be ‘grave matter’;
• it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
• it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

I also suggest checking out the great article in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia for the various forms of “infallibility of the Church”.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

God bless!

Another excellent article on divorce & remarriage from the Early Church Fathers… staycatholic.com/ecf_divorce_and_remarriage.htm.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Semper Fi:

malachi, no, it wouldn’t. You do not have a proper understanding of mortal sin. For a mortal sin to occure there must be 3 met:

• its subject must be ‘grave matter’;
• it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
• it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

Yes good point, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is adultary in God’s eyes, just not a mortal sin because the participants do not have full knowledge of it.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Someone may have already said this, but plain and simply, divorce and remarriage is actually polygymy in successions.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

malachi_a_serva:

Hello Eden, sorry this one seems to be beaten to death…

but, …what if the tribunal determines that there was NO sacrament of marriage and the people remarry…but the tribunal was wrong? This would make the remarried individuals in a state of mortal sin…committing adultary.

As I understand it only the Pope in matters of faith and morals speaking from office is deemed infallible…what about the tribunal making a mistaking in granting an annulment when a perfectly valid sacramental marriage took place?

This one is easy, the only way the Church can make a mistake in the annulement process is if the one or two parties involved misled the Church to think the marriage was void. In doing this the new marriage would be vain and they would be living in sin. If the facts are correct and it allows for an anulement than no mistake can be made.

My grandmother wanted to join the Catholic Church her marriage to her first husband would have been anulled because he was a Jew, but her current marriage to my grandfather could not be annuled because his previous marriage was legit because he was married in an Anglican church.

The reason why the Church stands so strong againts divorce is because they cant change the law of God, and how can a new married couple repent of their sin of adultry if they choose to marry and live out their lives together, every day they continue in adultry with no repent of their sins.

The Church which has authority given by Christ has an anulement process to ensure which marriages were and were not vaild.

Eden can correct me if I am wrong but