What does Divorce do to the Sacrament of Marriage?

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

My ex-wife wanted to drown our children to return them to their maker in the kingdom of heaven. Crazy??! Hell yes. Divorce was the only option and may have saved their lives.

While married (even if separated), you cannot have sole custody of children. I am still incredibly close with her parents and siblings. They all stayed at my house on Easter weekend. My ex, at this point, has not walked outside in years and has not called or written our very young children in nearly half a decade.

But, in this country, you cannot force involuntary commitment unless they’re an imminent risk to themselves or others. Even then, you cannot force medication. She was deemed legally incompetent. What does a marriage have when the kids are at risk of being killed, she believes she’s pregnant with the next coming of Jesus, married to a famous actor or the like…?

Divorce can sometimes be not just the best option, but the only option

 

[Gorgias]

The Sacrament of Marriage is as indelible as the Sacrament of the Priesthood and Baptism.

Actually, no. Marriage only persists “till death do us part” – that is, until the death of one of the spouses.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Here is the basis underlying the rule of Marriage between the Church and the State:

*Church annuls - Meaning, carefully observes that the Sacrament of Marriage did not take place.

*The State renders Divorce as the legal parting between the man and woman (thus, contractual.)

If the Church annuls, and the man and woman are therefore obliged by the State (as Civil Law) to simply transcribe what went over in Annulment. Then, that’s one thing. And that is not consequential to the Sacrament that did not take place.

However, if there is no Annulment (meaning the Sacrament did take place.) Then, the man and woman can Divorce for Legal Reasons (i.e. in case one or the other endangers the other, or children.) But that’s a slippery slope. Because, the Divorce does not separate the Sacramental Union. Most believe that Divorce means they can re-marry. However, the Church (when in the case of the Sacrament being valid and in place), says they cannot Divorce each other. Or, if they do Divorce and re-marry (meaning, carrying on marital relations with someone else - whether re-married or not.) That union is illicit. And, adulterous.

It isn’t a matter of applying for Annulment. The matter is after careful scrutiny and attention in Prayer, and Wisdom, the Church can clearly see the Sacrament did not take place. But again, that’s not very common for many Catholics who want to Divorce.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

#1
Actually, “no.” You are trying to define the Marital Union on human terms. Or as Jesus said to Saint Peter, “You think as men do.”

You are placing down the Sacrament to a contractual enterprise: “til death do us part.”

Here’s the caveat. When your spouse dies in the State of Grace? is that person alive or dead? For if you and I believe in the Communion of Saints, the Transfiguration took place and happened, and worship the God of the Living. Then, you really cannot say death do you part.

It’s the wrong view of death. Because, the person who dies in the State of Grace is not dead, but has risen in the State of Grace.

Their bodies, like Christ’s, though lays in the burial. Is waiting for their Resurrection through Him. Thus, as Christ’s body though seemed Dead, He was still alive. His body gave way to death, but His very being did not relent and give onto Death. He conquered Death. Remember, though the flesh is weak, the spirit is willing (as He said.)

Thus, your spouse is alive in the Sacraments, though the sleeping chambers of Death.

Your spouse is fully united into Christ. Meaning, no chance to go back now. The person does not reject Him, fully. And there is no room for sin anymore. The spouse is then totally united. Like a marriage. In fact, they are married to Christ’s body fully. The Consummation between the soul and Christ Himself. But again, this is not on the terms of man. This is the terms of God, His Covenant.

Even if someone did not get married, and was single in their life. They are still receiving Marital Discourse (again not we’re prone to put and place it here on earth.) They are received in Martial Discourse into Christ’s Body, fully. This marriage is what you see in Revelation. And, what Christ said to Our Lady in the Wedding Feast at Cana, “It is not my time yet.”

The marriage of humanity (man) unites himself fully to God, through the Holy Spirit in Christ’s Sacrifice (the Slain Lamb.) Thus, in union. One flesh, one body, one baptism. Therefore even a single person receives the Sacramental Communion and Embrace of Christ in love. As in the Marital Feast at Cana as Christ said of His Passion. To be received and united perfectly.

Therefore, the Sacrament of Marriage is still in place. It is in the lesser order for which a man and woman become united. This is a demonstration of Christ’s ultimate Sacrifice and love. And what it is to take place at our death. And, the higher order of the Sacrament takes place with Christ in ultimate union. The Body is elevated.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

#2
The soul here on earth works in cooperation in God’s will “be fruitful and multiply” in bearing, bringing, and raising children into life. The espoused Priest (and even Deacons) Baptize. Thus, all are married to Christ (in a sense.) Because, all are made in one Consummated Union. The Sacrament of Marriage here on earth is for cooperation to God to demonstrate faithfulness, love, and fidelity to children who come into existence. Wherefore, the lesser union brings forth children to the higher call of that union through their Baptism.

Man (this means men and women) work as a midway point. Their work like the Laborers. And the Priests, like the Gatherers in the Lord’s Vineyard.

Man then works as a bridge in the Sacrament of Marriage to lend all lives to Christ. And thereby, lifting them up to Him, does it demonstrate from the firm purpose of Matrimony.

Baptism generally happens through Martial Union. And even if someone is Baptized (not as an infant by their parents.) The fact that they are being Baptized is placing the child in Martial Union in Christ’s love, mystery, and Passion. Which means, (again not how we downgrade marriage) at the higher order, the child is united to Him.

Afterall, the entire Sacrament of the Priesthood, Baptism, First Communion, Marriage, Anointing of the Sick, and Confirmation. All come from the Sacrament of Marriage: As the Angel said to Saint Joseph: “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.”

Thus, again, in light of Saint Joseph and Our Lady’s chaste marriage, it is arranged at that point for a higher purpose and order.

Therefore, the Sacrament of Marriage took place in union with Christ, as God forsaw and planned it so. As Christ said of divorce: “it wasn’t so in the beginning.”

Marriage remains.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

To legally be separated is the act of Divorce. And I imagine, in order for you to safely keep your children safe, you had to follow the legal terms of marriage. This is the way the state weighs and provisions the burden of marriage. In other words, if you take your children away from your spouse who will endanger them. Then, especially if she uses also those Legal terms by law. You have no choice but to abide by the Law, in filing for a Divorce. Which is what it happened to be in your case. It was because the Law requires you to. Which your only choice was for your child’s safety against the fault of Legal protagonism that your wife would had used to keep your children.

However, the Sacrament of Marriage (unless you have found this Sacrament did not take place - granted Annulment.) Which I do not know.

If your wife and you had fulfilled the Sacrament of Marriage. And the Church cannot say the Sacrament never took place. Then, you have to live a chaste life. You cannot re-marry. And, you cannot have marital relations with anyone.

But again, that is if there is no Annulment. You should ask your priest to help you investigate if Annulment is the case in your marriage.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Your placing the Sacrament of Marriage outside of the Sacrament as a whole. In fact, the Sacrament of Marriage is the unity binding all the Sacraments. Even the Sacrament of Apostleship comes from the Sacrament of Marriage.

Christ’s birth stemmed from Marriage (Chaste Spouse of Mary, Saint Joseph.) The unity of the family, on the whole.

Not one of the Apostle’s (and all Saints, and all faithful through history) have come about most of the time outside of some manner of marriage (either Sacramental, or just ordinary.)

The fact is even when people do not necessarily follow a precept for marriage. When they have a child, they have become one flesh, one body. Which is how the child exists.

Thus, the unity and bind of all Sacraments is Marriage (one flesh.) For the Priesthood, for Baptism, for Confirmation, for First Communion, for Anointing of the Sick, for Marriage, All are incumbent of one man and one woman bearing children on earth.

In truth, you are trying to say I’ve used the term incorrectly. But, I think you incorrectly asserting your view, on what I mean by that term. Indelible, if I’m not mistaken, means it cannot be removed.

The fact that all man is Consummated to Christ, through His Death and Passion on the Cross, but elevated to Eternal life through His Resurrection. Means, the Sacrament of Marriage (which binds all others) is existent forever (as in the Order of Melchizedek.)

You would therefore see that the Sacrament of Marriage (Covenant and Communion.) Is still there. It never faded. Thus, never removed. Because, as at the Wedding Feast at Cana did Christ describe (or at least hinted) to Our Lady, when told about them running out of wine, “It is not my time yet.” Which was His Passion leading to His Resurrection.

Thus, it is an indelible mark on the soul of the Wedding Feast of the Bride and the Bridegroom upon Death. Everyone will be married to Christ either way, upon their Death. And even when you are Baptized, you are espoused to Him through the Holy Spirit and Water.

That’s what Marriage underlines in the Church. Thus, it is indelible.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Not sure, can you show Catechism on that?

 

[TheLittleLady]

No, because this is a matter of Canon Law.

This Diocese has a nice explanation:

https://www.cathdal.org/The_Catholic_Church_and_Marriage

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

After pages of paper work and several requests for $$$ from my diocese, decree of nullity is in hand…

The tribunal process was lengthy and used evidence that, in my case, arose 15 years after the fact to justify that grounds existed at the time of the wedding ceremony to offer a decree of nullity. (Basically, ex-wife said things in a mentally ill state of mind about her past).

I explained that I will always honor her and love her. That continues to be true. It begs the question of what responsibility I have to her if/as she outlives her legal guardian. I don’t want her care to fall on the backs of our children, and would do anything to help her get better, but refuse to do anything that encourages her to remain sick. I’m not willing to be a codependent in her lack of willingness to develop a level of self awareness and seek help.

I don’t honestly know how even to refer to her in polite conversation? My former wife that actually never was?!

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, “no.” You are trying to define the Marital Union on human terms. Or as Jesus said to Saint Peter, “You think as men do.”

You are placing down the Sacrament to a contractual enterprise: “til death do us part.”

You’ll have to take this up with Jesus, then. He disagrees with you:

Mark 12:20-25:

[Some Sadducees said to Jesus:] "there were seven brothers. The first married a woman and died, leaving no descendants.

So the second married her and died, leaving no descendants, and the third likewise.

And the seven left no descendants. Last of all the woman also died.

At the resurrection [when they arise] whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her.”

Jesus said to them, “Are you not misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven."

It’s not I who say that marriage is “till death do us part” – it’s Jesus Himself.

When your spouse dies in the State of Grace? is that person alive or dead? For if you and I believe in the Communion of Saints, the Transfiguration took place and happened, and worship the God of the Living. Then, you really cannot say death do you part.

OK… if you won’t believe Jesus, then try St Paul on for size:

Romans 7:2-3

a married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband.
Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.

So, I’m thinking you’d agree that St Paul was pretty well-versed in Christian belief. If he argues that physical death brings to an end the marital relationship, I’m thinking you’d have to agree that it’s true.

Therefore, the Sacrament of Marriage is still in place.

It really isn’t. Read your New Testament a bit more closely…

I don’t honestly know how even to refer to her in polite conversation? My former wife that actually never was?!

She was your wife, from the perspective of civil law. No harm referring to her respectfully, in that context…

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Will pray for you, wife, children, and family. That’s a large Cross to carry.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

Thanks! Not dissimilar from a widower with children. Life is what we make of it. One thing I’ve learned: Everyone has something,

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

#1

Mark 12:20-25:

Is Christ’s Marriage to the whole Church? Or to one individual? Genuine question. And, with an answer. Because I ask in the rhetorical.

The Church is Married to Christ. Or, worthwhile, to say as Mary was betrothed to Saint Joseph. The Church is Consummated to Christ at the end of the age.

That being said, the state of Her union in the lesser Order of Matrimony (as each individual who shares in the Sacrament of Marriage.) They proceed to share in the lesser Order of the Sacrament.

Thus, each soul is Married to Christ.

Now, the specific Sacrament of Marriage that is incumbent upon a man and woman who become One Flesh. Are united to Christ in this specific instance. Meaning, the two become one, but in the Church. Not apart and outside the Church. Thereby living in Communion in Christ through the Sacrament of Matrimony. In a way they never had. Because, well, the Consummation of that Marriage begets children (most commonly, and yes what it is for.)

Now, when one of the spouses die, they are Married to Christ, through the Church. They are, at Death, Consummated to Christ.

Thus, the Sacrament of Marriage still is in tact, as each one of us who is Baptized, is already united to Christ’s Body. Baby’s have Baptism gowns. And Girls are generally dressed in a vale (like a wedding dress), and Boys generally used to wear a shirt and tie. At least, in the past, the Sacraments denoted Marriage taking place.

The specific Instance of Sacrament of Marriage between the man and the woman was fulfilled. One dying to the other, so-so-speak “til death do us part.” But remember, when Christ said regarding Divorce, “It wasn’t so in the beginning.” That would mean in the Garden. And that also means there was no Death. Which thus Death would not part them.

But, as I said with the Blessed Sacrament. Christ gives Eternal Life. That would mean the person whose body dies, is actually not Dead in their soul. They are in the Body of Christ. Thus, you could not say that Death does them part. But it’s the physical death.

How then, can the Sacrament of Marriage cease if the person is actually still alive in the Blessed Sacrament (in the Body of Christ)? Or, is the Sacrament of Marriage merely a human Sacrament? Which means, it’s dependent on the physical domain only?

I’d have to disagree. Because, Christ though suffered death, was buried, and rose from the Dead on the Third Day. Thus, the Resurrection. He did not cease. His Marriage to One Sacrament, to One Church did not cease either. You therefore use Mark’s Gospel passage to undermine the fact that Christ died and suffered Death. And yet, there was no other Church. But One. That goes to Saint Paul saying to husbands to honor their wives. And wives to honor their husbands.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Mark 12:20-25:

#2
How then can the Sacrament of Marriage cease, if it did not cease upon Christ’s Death, to the Church? Was death til He and the Church did them part? Maybe to Protestantism, and to those like the Mormon’s, and the Orthodox Church, and the Jehova Witnesses. But Christ did not abandon His Church. He did not have other Brides, but One. One Sacrament, One Baptism (One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic.)

That means no other bride. Hence, the Sacrament did not cease with Him.

Now going back to Mark’s passage. He was being questioned by the Sadducee’s. Christ was telling them that the person who dies, are like the angels. Not given in marriage. However, Christ is the Bridegroom to His Church. Which then does He mean?

Revelation is filled with Marital Covenant language, imagery. And, even when Christ said to Mary at the Wedding Feast at Cana, when attention was brought to the fact the bridegroom and bride ran out of wine, saying, “It is not my time yet.”

You would have to counter Christ’s own words to His Mother, what He said to the Apostle’s, what Saint Paul exhorted, and in Revelation.

You’re reading Mark’s Gospel in the way the Sadducee’s hoped to catch Christ, and read what He said. But He was countering their misconception on Marriage. They were using Marriage in the way man uses marriage. They were not interested in the way He pointed to Marriage. The Consummation of the Age. Which is the Marital Feast and Banquet of Him.

Mark’s passage does not oppose that view. His passage was a counter made to the Sadducee’s.

Because as Christ said to them: "Are you not misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

Because, they are neither given in marriage (to each other.) For in the time of Noah, people were marrying, and given to marriage. In other words, it wasn’t a Covenant, a Communion, and an Embrace. But people living among themselves in their own way.

You may disagree how I approach these passages. Which there is room for. However, what I’m saying is not incompatible with the Gospels, nor with the Scriptures. What I’m saying is a fulfillment of them. Christ died and fulfilled. The Marital Feast of the Lamb. The Consummation of humanity with God. One.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Romans 7:2-3

#3
The Sacrament is not a “law.” The Sacrament is imparting Divine Grace. Or, as to say, the State of Grace in Matrimony.

Saint Paul was a Scribe. His understanding is from Judaic Law. Which is how he processes and understands. You also know that the Romans were people who understood Law in the Legalistic Prose too (call it Pontius Pilate Law: “I find no guilt.”)

That is why Saint Paul talks about Law in this passage, to the Romans.

The Sacrament, however, is not Law: Ephesian 5:21-23. Husbands honoring wives. And wives honoring husbands (their marital vows.) But as Christ is the head of the Church.

Saint Paul knew this very well what that meant. For by stoning the Christians (The Way) who all shared One Baptism (reference to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - One Body.) Saint Paul, by a bright and blinding light fell off of either a donkey or a horse. Saint Paul would therefore be required to remember (as I imagine as a Jewish Scribe at the time, he could not forget an event like that.) That the Body of Christ (the Church) is One with Him. That when Saint Paul had the Christians stoned to death, he was persecuting Christ, through His Body (His Church, His Bride.)

That would not be misleading Saint Paul’s understanding regarding his Letter to the Romans.

Again, the Gospel passage you refer to in Mark, and Saint Paul’s Letter to the Roman’s ignore Christ. But rather hold to the Sadducee’s (who really did not care about who was going to be married after death, because they did not believe in the Resurrection anyway.) And, your illustration would hold to Saint Paul as a Pharisee, merely focused on “Law.” Which is not incumbent upon the Sacrament.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

The Sacrament is not defined by Canon Law. Nor does the Sacrament take it’s presence through Canon Law. Canon Law, however, is to safeguard the Sacraments (the life of the Church.) In the case of the Sacrament of Marriage, Canon Law is to take great care on how the Sacrament is handled, observed, and respected among the spouses, and the Priesthood.

Therefore, Canon Law does not dictate whether a Sacrament ceases to be. All it may do is describe if it happened or not. Or no longer exists between the two spouses.

Again, when people say “til death do us part.” That’s not a Sacrament, but a vow upheld to the Sacrament with the person they become “One Flesh” with in the Church.

The person is freed of Marital vows to that person upon their bodily death (physical.) But when they are raised up upon the End of the Age. They will be fully united in Christ in the Consummated Relationship (Marriage.) Again, Christ said at the Wedding Feast in Cana, to Mary: “It is not my time yet.” Thus, speaking of His Passion, leading to the Resurrection. The Marital relationship with the Church, which never ceased. But continues, unceasing.

What becomes of the Sacramental embrace between the man and the woman upon one of the bodily deaths of the other, is simply put. The spouse, upon death, is being given away to Christ. To the Bridegroom. Again, this is the Higher Order of that Marriage - God’s Covenant with man.

Therefore, the Sacrament of Marriage never ceases, but a whole new other beginning in Heaven - Beatific.

For the spouse on earth. They can join a Holy Order, remain single and chaste, or Marry someone who is not married. This begins a whole new beginning in taking again the Sacrament of Marriage, upholding vows to that love and relationship to that whole other person. And thus, when they have children. A new family begins, and also make their ascent and rise to Eternal Glory through Baptism.

The Sacrament still remains.

 

[Vico]

Thus, when the soul passes away, they ascend through Baptism and receiving Christ Sacramentally into this new union, whole new body. They are made clean and anew.

I could not make sense from your statement above. The soul is immortal. A person’s body and soul are reunited in their resurrection, which is either glorified (when the person is not condemned) or not. A soul which is destined for heaven that is still attached to sin may be purified after death however. The husband and wife may not both be together after death since one may go the hell and the other to heaven.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

In the physical, their bodies decompose. Then, upon the Resurrection, their soul will be re-united to the body which was decomposed?

Christ can take and restore the body (just as He restored the ear cut by Saint Peter.)

But, how the body will be? It will be in a state that it wasn’t (no aging, no death, no illness, no ailments, etc.) Thus, they will receive a whole new body. Christ arose from the Dead, and Saint Mary Magdalene thought He was a gardener.

The soul being immortal, does happen to be in a non-animated state. Or, they are either in Hell, Purgatory, or Heaven.

But, if you go to a gravesite, there’s no question the remains of the body are generally there. Quite commonly the bones left. How will the Dead arise? With a new body. Wherefore will they arise? I do not know. Maybe their graves. Or maybe not.

But even with that they rise from their graves, or are seen in Heaven. The fact and matter is they receive a whole new body which they were graced through their Baptism to receive.

By receiving Sacramentally, that would mean receiving Him fully in the Sacraments. That the person had to be born of Water, and from Above (the Holy Spirit.) The waters of Baptism are necessary to receive Christ fully in the Sacrament, upon Death being raised into Eternal Life.

The reality of people who are not Baptized. But would had otherwise yearned to be. Have a pre-disposed state for Baptism. That if they knew, had the chance, and could had availed themselves. They ultimately seek the Bridegroom. Longing for Him. Christ can raise the pagan from the Dead, and still Baptize them. They can still enter the state of Baptism.

He will come to Judge the Living and the Dead (as the Creed states.)

I want to note in Baptism. The body of the person whose body decomposes after Death, was sanctified at Baptism. The stasis of their body is held in the Sacramental Mystery of Baptism. That even if their body decomposes (as we would see the naked eye.) Will nevertheless be re-united with the soul. That body and soul unity will not be the same as they were on earth. Meaning, appearance. Their body though will be themselves. Whatever they received here on earth, their appearance will be the same (face, body, etc.) I imagine eye color. But, it will be in such a sanctified state, fulfilled and perfected. That, they will not necessarily be recognized until the Wedding Feast (just as Christ was recognized through the breaking of the bread.)

 

[Gorgias]

Is Christ’s Marriage to the whole Church?

It’s a metaphor; it’s not sacramental marriage. C’mon, now… stop that!

Thus, each soul is Married to Christ.

Each of us has a relationship to Christ. However, the metaphor of ‘marriage’ applies to the Church, who is the Bride of Christ. Seriously… how far are you going to attempt to stretch this metaphor and hope to cling to credibility?

How then can the Sacrament of Marriage cease, if it did not cease upon Christ’s Death, to the Church?

Because it’s not a sacramental marriage; it’s a metaphor that expresses the relationship of Christ to His Church.

You may disagree how I approach these passages. Which there is room for. However, what I’m saying is not incompatible with the Gospels, nor with the Scriptures.

The literal way in which you seem to be grasping at these assertions is incompatible with Scripture. As a spiritual meditation, it’s OK – it’s just when you assert elements of sacramental marriage as if they apply literally to the ‘Bride of Christ’ that you go off the rails.

If you want a spiritual reflection, try this one on for size: human marriage – that is, sacramental marriage – is merely a reflection and an image of the true, spiritual relationship that humanity has with Christ. Just as the family is merely a human, imperfect reflection of God’s life within the Trinity, sacramental marriage is a human, imperfect reflection of God’s relationship to humanity.

(As analogies of transcendent realities, of course, there will be elements of these two notions that aren’t exactly identical to the transcendent truths they portray. You’re looking at it backward and trying to make our relationship with God conform to our understanding of human marriage. What you should be doing is looking at marriage and trying to make it more like the transcendent reality it models.)

Saint Paul was a Scribe. His understanding is from Judaic Law. Which is how he processes and understands.

So… you’re saying that St Paul isn’t speaking inerrant truth when his epistle is part of the canon of the Bible? You might want to think twice before making that claim…

The Sacrament is not defined by Canon Law. Nor does the Sacrament take it’s presence through Canon Law. Canon Law, however, is to safeguard the Sacraments (the life of the Church.)

The Church as the authority to regulate Her Sacraments. You seem to be saying that the Sacraments have authority over the Church!

Whatever they received here on earth, their appearance will be the same (face, body, etc.)

Nowhere does the Bible or the teaching of the Church state this. You’re well into your own personal little dogma, here…