 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 622 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 10:14 am |
|
We received a letter saying the final judgement had been written, and will be on it's way to Columbus for final approval. We received that on Friday. On Thursday I spoke to Father about where we were and what needed done next. I felt better after talking to him. It's not so much "if" but "when". I think I was holding back because I didn't want to be all excited, and hit another bump that would set me/us back again.
So we have a better idea where we are with that.
Now, explain to me this whole idea about why I can't come into the Church now. It's been explained before, but I was having a conversation over the weekend with my Baptist neighbor  about the whole thing, and I was at a loss for words (rare for me, lol).
Why is my salvation hinging on my dh's annullment? What if there was a hold up and it wasn't granted? Then what would happen to me???
If we are already living in sin, and we are right? Then why can't I live in sin baptized? I know, I know, wrong attitude.
It was also frustrating having to tell her that we wouldn't be able to be intimate for a period between the final declaration of nullity and the repeating of our vows. She insisted he could just go to confession "after all, that's what it's for". I tried to tell her that's not what it's for, and was very frustrated. We should never sin willingly, knowing we will be forgiven. We shouldn't put God to the test like that. But I couldn't put it into words she understood. Like I said, frustrated. Or maybe, she just didn't want to hear me.
Patience a virtue we are having a hard time practicing at the moment!
But on the bright side, it looks like things will be finished up close to our original wedding date of July 9  Which this year falls on a Monday. So I can be confirmed and everything on Sunday the 8th, and have our ceremony on Monday. Should I start making plans now? LOL probably not, huh?
Thanks,
Ali
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 09:47 pm |
|
Why in the world would she say your salvation hinged on the anullment? Just because you can't officially be received into the church until the paperwork comes through doesn't mean you are going to Hell without the paperwork. The paperwork just confrims what God already knows, that the marriage was invalid from the start. Thus, you are not living in sin. My anullment didn't come through until well after Pentecost and I was so discouraged. I had come to the conclusion in my mind that even if the tribunal declared the marriage valid I would just continue on as before and wait for my ex to die. The tribunal is not infallible and ultimately God will judge the situation.
As for not being intimate until the annulment, I would just wait to be received until the paperwork comes through. I cried and cried after the Easter vigil when I was left out but I wasn't willing to deny the validity of my marriage by living as brother and sister. To me, and this is just my opinion, doing that would be like admitting my marriage wasn't valid.
Now the comment about "that is what confession is for" is pure ignorance so just let that one roll off you.
I refused to get excited too when I got to the same point, I was just sure something would go wrong. I felt so rejected by the church because my RCIA class moved on without me and I was still in that limbo between protestant and Catholic. I often had to leave mass before the end because it hurt so bad to see everyone else from the class able to receive the Eucharist. So hang in there, I know it is awful but it will end. Nothing went wrong, it was just like they said, the confirmation is just a formalilty and my paperwork came in during the summer.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 7 months and 16
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 10:30 pm |
|
First of all, Becky, let me say that I agree with you completely. The purpose of the annulment process is to let the Church officially recognize what you already know: That the original marriage was a mistake, not a sacrament, and it was not blessed by God. That's why it failed.
The Church teaches us that marriage is a sacrament, and presumes that every marriage is sacramental until proven otherwise. In my opinion, a sacramental marriage will survive virtually any trial, because "what God has joined, man must not divide". The failure of the marriage is evidence that the marriage was not a sacrament from the beginning. In fact, I believe that my own marriage was not a sacrament at its inception; I believe it became sacramental later, when we repeated our vows before a priest on our fifth anniversary. We were so immature when we pronounced our original vows that I believed then (and believe now) that we needed to reinforce our commitment in order for our marriage to be a true and lasting sacrament. It has now survived, and June 3, 2007, will mark our 35th anniversary.
The Church does not know whether your commitment is sacramental; it presumes that it is. The purpose of the annulment process is to examine that presumption and reverse it if necessary. The chances are that if the marriage has failed, it is because the original consent was flawed, meaning that a sacrament never took place at the outset. We have a different understanding in the United States than in other countries; we have so much that we tend to be immature in our expectations, so our commitments to a lifetime marriage tend to be more selfish and less selfless. As Paul tells us, love is patient and kind and anything but selfish, so a selfish commitment tends to be flawed from the beginning. And a flawed commitment is not a sacramental commitment.
The Church believes that a sacramental marriage is permanent, and can be ended only by the death of one of the partners. If both partners are still alive, the marriage is presumed to be a sacrament. That means if the marriage ends for any reason, the partners are not free to be married again. Remarriage is bigamy, and so the second marriage is invalid.
The position of the Church is that the first marriage must first be declared invalid. Then, the second marriage can be "sacramentalized" or validated by a renewal of vows. The easiest way to accomplish this is to repeat vows before a priest or deacon. That repitition of vows in the presence of the Church's official witness will "validate" the marriage in the eyes of the Church, not because the marriage was not already a sacrament (which it may well have been), but because the Church will officially witness the sacrament, and record it as taking place.
Since the first marriage is presumed to be a sacrament, the second marriage is presumed to be non-sacramental. Recognizing the first marriage as invalid does not automatically cause the second to be a sacrament; a new exchange of vows is required. A bigamist whose first marriage ends in divorce does not automatically become married to his second wife; perhaps because of his bigamy, she will no longer wish to be married to him. The circumstances have changed, so a new consent is required by law. The Church's position is the same. A new consent is required, and it is easier for the Church to recognize and record it if it takes place according to Church law.
Of course, Church recognition does not affect reality. Salvation does not hinge on Church recognition for non-Catholics. Still, the Church must use the process it knows in order to recognize what God has declared sacramental. The Church knows no other way.
Once a declaration of nullity has been issued, it is possible for the Church to issue a declaration recognizing the second marriage as legitimate from its inception. The process is known as "Radical Sanation" but it is more complicated than a simple renewal of vows. Still, both processes are available and can be used when circumstances dictate.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 10:53 pm |
|
Ali wrote: Now, explain to me this whole idea about why I can't come into the Church now.
Quite simply, it's because the process isn't finished yet. Some dioceses in the United States were automatically approving all applications for Declarations of Nullity, so the Vatican required a review at the provincial level. That's where you are now. They will simply verify the facts in your case, and then approve the Declaration. Reversals are rare, but they do happen. It is also possible that your case could be sent to the Vatican for further review; again, extremely rare but possible. If the Tribunal in your diocese did their job properly, you will have no problem. You cannot come into the Church now simply because your situation is not yet completely resolved.
Why is my salvation hinging on my dh's annullment? What if there was a hold up and it wasn't granted? Then what would happen to me???
Your salvation does not hinge on your dh's annulment. God knows what is in your heart, and your salvation will be judged by your own internal commitment to our Savior. If the Church fails to recognize it because of a technicality, it will not change reality. The Church cannot declare you "saved;" it can only offer you a method of salvation. The Church is not God, and only God can judge your internal disposition, because God knows what is in your heart.
If we are already living in sin, and we are right? Then why can't I live in sin baptized? I know, I know, wrong attitude.
The Church cannot offer you baptism without repentance. God, however, is free to offer you salvation outside of the sacraments. The Church recognizes this as "Baptism of Desire." As important as your baptism is, your wish to be baptized will result in your salvation if you are hit by a bus tomorrow, whether the Church has issued the Declaration of Nullity or not. Your salvation does not hinge on your husband's annulment. Your salvation hinges on your love of God.
It was also frustrating having to tell her that we wouldn't be able to be intimate for a period between the final declaration of nullity and the repeating of our vows.
Then repeat your vows quickly! Perhaps this will be a good time to discover other forms of intimacy, such as conversation!
Should I start making plans now? LOL probably not, huh?
God's time is not man's time. Church time is sometimes even slower than God's time! In our diocese, the provincial review usually takes a few weeks. Your pastor can tell you the normal time frame in your diocese.
Last edited on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 10:57 pm by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 622 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2007 09:22 am |
|
Becky, thank you so much for your BTDT advice.
This in between thing is bad. I've gone from never stepping foot in a Catholic church to impatiance at being allowed to join the Catholic church. LOL
{deep breath} Patience and prayer. Patience and prayer. Patience and prayer.
Ali
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 622 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2007 09:38 am |
|
Rick -- all you say I know is true. Thank you for saying the words, though. It helps to *hear* them as well. No doubt talking to someone who doesn't get in, and doesn't want to did not help my anxiety over this issue any. I'll remember that for future reference. I'm really not worried about the no-sex rule (if we'll have one). I've been pregnant, given birth, nursed, and been depressed. There's been plenty of times when intimacy through sex hasn't been on my #1 list and we coped (was that to much information? ).
It will be ok and work out according to God's plan. Don't we all just wish God moved on our time frame sometimes, though? LOL
Ali
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2007 10:09 am |
|
Ali wrote: It will be ok and work out according to God's plan. Don't we all just wish God moved on our time frame sometimes, though? LOL
I just read a quote from Blessed Teresa of Calcutta:
"I know God won't give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much."
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:00 am |
|
Rick, you said to Ali, "The church cannot offer you baptism without repentance." Now that answer has me a bit perplexed. In my post some months ago, I spoke about my difficulty in coming to grips with Catholic teaching on Baptism, especially regarding baby Baptism. Your statement would lead me to believe that whoever is baptized within the Catholic faith must first repent of their sins, which in my Protestant upbringing was called "Believer's Baptism." The Catholic Church baptizes babies all the time. How can babies repent of their sins? Rhetorical question, because we know they aren't even cognizant of the fact that they are born with original sin. Therefore, why does the Catholic Church baptize babies, who are unable to first repent of their sins? I ask all this because it seems your statement is contrary to Catholic doctrine and practice. Either babies should wait until they are old enough to repent of their sins and then be baptized, or else there is something I am misunderstanding about baby baptism. I would really like some clarification on this.
As alway, I appreciate your helpful comments.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:02 am |
|
Oh no, I just realized I put my question under the wrong category. I should have started a new thread under the Baptism category. So sorry.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:45 am |
|
Darlene wrote: Rick, you said to Ali, "The church cannot offer you baptism without repentance."
Darlene, Protestants typically believe every passage of scripture is advice to the ages meant for all believers. Unfortunately, it isn't true. Often, Paul in particular was writing to individual Churches with answers to particular questions and admonitions dealing with particular problems. That is the case with my answer.
Ali asked the question: "If we are already living in sin, and we are right? Then why can't I live in sin baptized?"
My answer reflected that question. I don't like the term "living in sin" but the fact is that Ali is in an irregular marriage. Steps must be taken in her case to resolve the situation before the Church can offer baptism. It is not the knowledge that she is a sinner; we are all sinners. It is the knowledge that she is living in contradiction to the Church's authority and she is not able to resolve that situation at this time. She is awaiting an annulment, whichi will allow her to regularize her marital situation. In the mean time, there is another alternative. She can stop living with her husband and maintain a chaste relationship. That is also not an acceptable alternative (and frankly, it wouldn't be for me, either). Therefore, she will continue to "live in sin". The Church does not feel it can offer Baptism to a person in an ongoing sinful situation, even if there is no "real" sin being committed. (We cannot judge the reality of sin; that is between a person and God. That's why I don't like the term "living in sin".)
When Ali, as an adult, makes her profession of faith, it will be an acceptance of the authority of the Church. Her current marital situation does not allow her to fully and without reservation accept the authority of the Church. And therefore, she must wait until she can. It's not a question of sin or salvation; it's a question of standing before God and the Church promising to live by the rules. She cannot take that vow in good conscience at this time because in fact she is not following the rules, so she is not a candidate for Baptism.
Needless to say, the circumstances are different for infants and adults not in irregular marriages, but there could very well be other situations of ongoing sinful behavior or ongoing failure to accept Church teaching that could prevent a person from being baptized. A person in a homosexual relationship, or cohabitating without marriage, or who is not supporting a child, or an unrepentant pedophile or spouse abuser, or an employee at an abortion clinic, could all be denied baptism for the same reason.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:50 am |
|
Darlene wrote: Oh no, I just realized I put my question under the wrong category. I should have started a new thread under the Baptism category. So sorry.
Actually, in this case, it was better placed as a reply here. It involves a very specific issue that deals with irregular marriages moreso than Baptism. This is actually one of the very few instances where Canon Law permits the Church to withhold Baptism.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
DaveQue
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | lifetime roman catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 05:52 am |
|
CajunRick, in my opinion, your statement, The failure of the marriage is evidence that the marriage was not a sacrament from the beginning.
,while it may not be without merit, is HOGWASH.
It is oversimplification of a very complex issue. If a marriage is "failing," it does not necessarily mean that it is not a true sacramental marriage. There are too many people (Catholics included) out there these days who give up when things get tough in a marriage. Your statement can be used to justify bailing out.
I am glad you preambled your statment with "In my opinion" because it is not part of the Catholic faith.
Dave
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 11:04 am |
|
DaveQue wrote: CajunRick, in my opinion, your statement, The failure of the marriage is evidence that the marriage was not a sacrament from the beginning.
,while it may not be without merit, is HOGWASH.
Dave, I realize that this is your very first post at CHN, but we don't use terms like "hogwash" around here in referring to another person's postings or opinions. Please re-read our Forum Guidelines.
You are welcomed here and we are glad to have you, but please be more charitable in the future.
And I believe you are incorrect. The fact that the marriage failed is indeed one of the many factors that a marriage tribunal takes into account. I didn't say it indicates the marriage was not a sacrament; I said it was evidence. That's why the tribunal requires a final decree of divorce before it investigates a marriage issue.
If someone is murdered with a gun that belongs to me, that fact can be used in evidence, even if I can prove I was elsewhere or that the gun was stolen. It does not prove I committed the crime; it is evidence.
Last edited on Tue Apr 10th, 2007 11:06 am by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
DaveQue
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | lifetime roman catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2007 06:14 am |
|
Please forgive me for my "hogwash" statement. Thank you for clarifying your statement. Maybe I am a little too old fashioned or maybe it is my dislike for gray areas. It just seemed to me that your statement makes it too easy to justify not trying anymore.
I just believe that a marriage should be considered sacramental unless it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't. There are, in my opinion, far, far too may annullments granted these days. Annullments should be as rare as hen's teeth and not as common as they are today.
I have heard way too many times, from Catholics and Non-catholics alike, that an annullment is just a "Catholic divorce" and that the only reason the Church reqires it is to make money (get their cut). I know that it is not true but I have never been able to sucessfully defend the Church on annullment.
I don't know. Maybe I just feel a little foolish or weak for sticking with my marriage and continuing to try despite happenings that would and have destroyed many marriages.
Last edited on Sat Apr 14th, 2007 06:18 am by DaveQue
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2007 01:01 pm |
|
DaveQue wrote: I just believe that a marriage should be considered sacramental unless it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't. There are, in my opinion, far, far too may annullments granted these days. Annullments should be as rare as hen's teeth and not as common as they are today.
As I'm sure you know, this is a controversial matter in the American Church. Many bishops will tell you that "lifetime commitment" is not part of the marriage ceremony for many people today. Many couples do not know each other well enough or are not mature enough when they exchange their vows to ever expect their marriage to last a lifetime. In response, the bishops of many provinces (including my own) have made it harder to get married, which is the right way to address the problem.
Certainly every marriage is considered sacramental until proven otherwise, but in too many cases it's obvious the couple should never have married in the first place. And the fact of the divorce is one of the pieces of evidence the Church considers.
As long as our society condones a 50% divorce rate, there will always be too many cases deserving to be declared null, especially in cases where a non-Catholic partner has been previously married. At least in some areas, the Church is taking steps to make marriage more difficult and therefore make divorces and annulments less common.
I have heard way too many times, from Catholics and Non-catholics alike, that an annullment is just a "Catholic divorce" and that the only reason the Church reqires it is to make money (get their cut). I know that it is not true but I have never been able to sucessfully defend the Church on annullment.
IMHO, the majority of annulments are granted for marriages that did not take place in the Church in the first place. And the Church loses money on annulments, so it's certainly not a profit-making enterprise. But then some people will use any excuse to disparage the Church, so they will never be convinced. The real question to ask them, especially if they are bible literalists, is how their church can condone divorce in spite of Jesus' clear teaching?
I don't know. Maybe I just feel a little foolish or weak for sticking with my marriage and continuing to try despite happenings that would and have destroyed many marriages.
I understand. We are approaching our 35th anniversary, and it never ceases to amaze me that my wife has stuck with me all those years.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 07:14 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
