The Ultimate Super-sized XXL Marriage Thread Plus

[dUSt]

6 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Eh, I hate to be so sensitive but I'm a little salty that the threads were combined. As anomaly said, these are 3 different situations. Mine is still yet unresolved and I'm still fairly tormented over it, so having it devolve into Australian animal memes is kind of irritating

Sorry, I split the emu stuff into a different thread.

[Sponsa-Christi]

4 hours ago, franciscanheart said:

It sounds super weird to talk about all the paperwork people need to do in order to receive the proper graces from their Creator.

I understand this sentiment, but I think we have to follow things back a few steps when we're tempted to make statements like this. It's not paperwork qua paperwork that's important, but what those papers convey or represent. In other words, we're not really talking about paperwork, we're talking about the Church lawfully issuing certain permissions which happens by means of written words on paper. (Or else talking about proper record keeping, which I don't think anyone objects to.)

If we're going to reduce our reflection on the Church's role in Catholic marriages to: "Does God REALLY care about a bunch of paperwork?", then we might as well say about baptism: "So Christ only came to save people whose head got wet that one time?" Or about the Mass: "It's weird that we need to follow a certain script in order for God to be made present to us."

Edited June 29, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi

[Maggyie]

34 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I understand this sentiment, but I think we have to follow things back a few steps when we're tempted to make statements like this. It's not paperwork qua paperwork that's important, but what those papers convey or represent. In other words, we're not really talking about paperwork, we're talking about the Church lawfully issuing certain permissions which happens by means of written words on paper. (Or else talking about proper record keeping, which I don't think anyone objects to.)

If we're going to reduce our reflection on the Church's role in Catholic marriages to: "Does God REALLY care about a bunch of paperwork?", then we might as well say about baptism: "So Christ only came to save people whose head got wet that one time?" Or about the Mass: "It's weird that we need to follow a certain script in order for God to be made present to us."

Well it's still a bit weird. Baptism is a good analogy because we know it's possible for people who havn't been baptized to be saved. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

39 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I understand this sentiment, but I think we have to follow things back a few steps when we're tempted to make statements like this. (Or elIt's not paperwork qua paperwork that's important, but what those papers convey or represent. In other words, we're not really talking about paperwork, we're talking about the Church lawfully issuing certain permissions which happens by means of written words on paper.se talking about proper record keeping, which I don't think anyone objects to.)

The reason for this is to confirm, and satisfy the legal end.   For the Book of Life?

\

5 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

19 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Well it's still a bit weird. Baptism is a good analogy because we know it's possible for people who havn't been baptized to be saved. 

Backing this up a bit more, exactly what kind of paperwork is the "weird" paperwork that we're talking about here? 

Assuming that the weird paperwork is paperwork that's necessary for the validly of a marriage---e.g., a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Christian, a dispensation of canonical form for a Catholic to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony, or paperwork involving the pastor delegating the wedding ceremony to another priest---the more I think about this, the less weird it actually seems to me.

In our society, we regularly use the written word as a means of communication. So when a bishop needs to give special permission for something, he'll generally give it in writing; or if a lawful authority wishes to delegate a task properly, he'll also do this in writing. This means that there is "paperwork" involved, but this sort of written communication seems completely sensible to me. 

Would it seem weird if a Catholic in a non-literate society who needed a dispensation/permission for something went and met the bishop in person, and then received the dispensation orally from the bishop? Because "paperwork" is essentially the same thing, only conveyed through a different (and arguably more reliable) medium.

But if the problem is rather that it seems weird that a Catholic would ever need a bishop's personal permission for anything pertaining to God's grace, then this is getting into much bigger questions on the nature of Apostolic succession, the authority of the Church as a visible institution, and even our whole Catholic sacramental paradigm. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

[franciscanheart]

On 6/29/2016 at 2:19 PM, Sponsa-Christi said:

Backing this up a bit more, exactly what kind of paperwork is the "weird" paperwork that we're talking about here? 

Assuming that the weird paperwork is paperwork that's necessary for the validly of a marriage---e.g., a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Christian, a dispensation of canonical form for a Catholic to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony, or paperwork involving the pastor delegating the wedding ceremony to another priest---the more I think about this, the less weird it actually seems to me.

In our society, we regularly use the written word as a means of communication. So when a bishop needs to give special permission for something, he'll generally give it in writing; or if a lawful authority wishes to delegate a task properly, he'll also do this in writing. This means that there is "paperwork" involved, but this sort of written communication seems completely sensible to me. 

Would it seem weird if a Catholic in a non-literate society who needed a dispensation/permission for something went and met the bishop in person, and then received the dispensation orally from the bishop? Because "paperwork" is essentially the same thing, only conveyed through a different (and arguably more reliable) medium.

But if the problem is rather that it seems weird that a Catholic would ever need a bishop's personal permission for anything pertaining to God's grace, then this is getting into much bigger questions on the nature of Apostolic succession, the authority of the Church as a visible institution, and even our whole Catholic sacramental paradigm. 

I'd like to, as a fairly ignorant Catholic, like to hear your thoughts on the later -- maybe in a different thread.

[Sponsa-Christi]

On 6/30/2016 at 4:06 PM, franciscanheart said:

I'd like to, as a fairly ignorant Catholic, like to hear your thoughts on the later -- maybe in a different thread.

Yes, this might be better in a different thread, but to try to give a very quick answer...

God created us as body and soul (read: we're not nothing-but-spirit like the angels are), and as such we human beings relate to and come to understand reality primarily through material things. That is, a large portion of our knowledge about anything comes from our five senses. 

Knowing this, God became incarnate to save us from sin---i.e., our savior Jesus is "the Word made flesh." Jesus only walked the earth for thirty-something years, but He intended His saving ministry to continue on earth until the end of the world. To do this, Jesus established a Church which is a visible institution, and not simply an abstract concept or a purely spiritual reality. He gave the authority to run the Church to the Twelve Apostles, and the mission of the Twelve included teaching (authoritatively proclaiming what is true about God), sanctifying (administering the sacraments), and governing (ensuring good order in the Church). 

The famous scriptural passage on this is Matthew 16:18, when Jesus calls Peter "the rock on which I will build My Church" and tells him: "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Or in other words, Jesus was basically giving Peter the power to dispense God's grace. 

"Apostolic succession" is our belief that today's bishops (and by extension, the priests who assist them) are the direct successors of the Apostles, with the same mission and therefore the same "powers" as the original Twelve. 

So, when the Church makes laws about things which she is competent to make laws about (like marriage and the other sacraments), we believe that the bishops who do this are doing so in their capacity as "Apostles," and thus that they are doing so with Christ's own authority.

Sort of like how when we go to Confession, the priest is involved but we are really confessing our sins to God rather than to Fr. Joe Smith personally; when a person needs a dispensation from a bishop to be married they are, in a sense, really asking Christ for His permission. 

Of course, there are loads of nuances and caveats I could get into here, but this is the basic idea of why it's important to obey the Church's "paperwork" rules, and why we can't go by just "what we feel in our hearts." 

[franciscanheart]

On 7/1/2016 at 5:27 PM, Sponsa-Christi said:

Yes, this might be better in a different thread, but to try to give a very quick answer...

God created us as body and soul (read: we're not nothing-but-spirit like the angels are), and as such we human beings relate to and come to understand reality primarily through material things. That is, a large portion of our knowledge about anything comes from our five senses. 

Knowing this, God became incarnate to save us from sin---i.e., our savior Jesus is "the Word made flesh." Jesus only walked the earth for thirty-something years, but He intended His saving ministry to continue on earth until the end of the world. To do this, Jesus established a Church which is a visible institution, and not simply an abstract concept or a purely spiritual reality. He gave the authority to run the Church to the Twelve Apostles, and the mission of the Twelve included teaching (authoritatively proclaiming what is true about God), sanctifying (administering the sacraments), and governing (ensuring good order in the Church). 

The famous scriptural passage on this is Matthew 16:18, when Jesus calls Peter "the rock on which I will build My Church" and tells him: "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Or in other words, Jesus was basically giving Peter the power to dispense God's grace. 

"Apostolic succession" is our belief that today's bishops (and by extension, the priests who assist them) are the direct successors of the Apostles, with the same mission and therefore the same "powers" as the original Twelve. 

So, when the Church makes laws about things which she is competent to make laws about (like marriage and the other sacraments), we believe that the bishops who do this are doing so in their capacity as "Apostles," and thus that they are doing so with Christ's own authority.

Sort of like how when we go to Confession, the priest is involved but we are really confessing our sins to God rather than to Fr. Joe Smith personally; when a person needs a dispensation from a bishop to be married they are, in a sense, really asking Christ for His permission. 

Of course, there are loads of nuances and caveats I could get into here, but this is the basic idea of why it's important to obey the Church's "paperwork" rules, and why we can't go by just "what we feel in our hearts." 

I sincerely hope that your last statement was as general as the ones that preceded it.

So, how does the Church explain all the rules and regulations that have changed over time -- including, most recently, how annulment petitions are reviewed -- if Jesus is basically giving the go-ahead on all of this? Is there no room for human error in the red tape of the Church's human structure?

[LittleWaySoul]

@franciscanheart to prevent further derailing of this already-somewhat derailed thread, that's an excellent question to pose in the Q&A section. I'm currently helping out at a tribunal so I may at least have some answers for you on Pope Francis's recent motu proprios concerning annulments. @Sponsa-Christi could go into further detail over there as well to help answer your question more fully.  

[Sponsa-Christi]

On 7/5/2016 at 0:24 PM, franciscanheart said:

So, how does the Church explain all the rules and regulations that have changed over time -- including, most recently, how annulment petitions are reviewed -- if Jesus is basically giving the go-ahead on all of this? Is there no room for human error in the red tape of the Church's human structure?

In my earlier posts about "paperwork," I was thinking mostly of the Church's right to make "arbitrary" (in scare quotes because those laws aren't truly arbitrary in the sense of being without reason or purpose) marriage laws, such as the the requirement of a Catholic wedding for Catholics. Theologically you can indeed look at obedience those laws as obedience to Christ in His representatives. 

But, I don't think the specifics of the process of a trial to determine marriage nullity are really comparable to questions of whether or not Catholics really need to observe canonical form. 

The rules for a nullity trail are purely of human origin, and they are subject to change over time in ways which ensure that justice is most efficiently rendered in light of contemporary societal conditions. But I certainly don't think this means that such rules are simply "red tape." They're ultimately meant to facilitate Christian living in a sensible way according to human prudence.

When you have an "annulment" trial, you're setting out to prove that a marriage never occurred because of some defect of consent or because of an fundamental inability to enter into marriage. Even though it can seem complicated, the rules for a nullity trial are actually mostly basic common-sense practices for determining the truth about a situation while respecting the rights of everyone involved. For example, Jesus didn't literally say: "you must cite the respondent [i.e., inform the other spouse that an annulment trial is taking place and give them an option to participate]." But anyone with a basic sense of fairness would understand why it's important to contact and involve the other party!

This might sound silly, but I think a parallel might be a parish first Communion program. First Communicants have to take preparatory catechetical classes, which usually involves some paperwork with the parish (like having emergency contact numbers on file, etc.) The kids also have to learn a lot of arbitrary "rules" for the big day, like how to line up, which pew to sit in, how to process back to their seat after they receive communion, etc. But just because (for example) being seated in alphabetical order is something that's obviously not divinely inspired doesn't mean that the DRE is wrong to arrange things that way, or that it's somehow creating a barrier to the grace of the sacrament. It just means that the DRE just needs a sensible way to direct schoolchildren through a ceremony. Likewise, having to fill out forms for a child to attend catechetical classes is a way to ensure everyone's safety and to make sure that everyone's expectations are clear---again, that specific paperwork is not divinely inspired per se but it's still a wholly legitimate thing to be doing. 

1 hour ago, LittleWaySoul said:

@Sponsa-Christi could go into further detail over there as well to help answer your question more fully.

I'm neither a Church scholar nor Church militant, so I can't post in the forum.

[LittleWaySoul]

14 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I'm neither a Church scholar nor Church militant, so I can't post in the forum.

Wait, don't you have a licentiate in Canon Law? @dUSt, get this woman a Church Scholar tag!

[Sponsa-Christi]

Just now, LittleWaySoul said:

Wait, don't you have a licentiate in Canon Law?

Yes, I finished my J.C.L. in 2014. (I also have a Master's in theology, for whatever it's worth.) Thanks for remembering!

[truthfinder]

4 minutes ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Wait, don't you have a licentiate in Canon Law? @dUSt, get this woman a Church Scholar tag!

Yeah! Goodness! I second that

[franciscanheart]

14 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

In my earlier posts about "paperwork," I was thinking mostly of the Church's right to make "arbitrary" (in scare quotes because those laws aren't truly arbitrary in the sense of being without reason or purpose) marriage laws, such as the the requirement of a Catholic wedding for Catholics. Theologically you can indeed look at obedience those laws as obedience to Christ in His representatives. 

But, I don't think the specifics of the process of a trial to determine marriage nullity are really comparable to questions of whether or not Catholics really need to observe canonical form. 

The rules for a nullity trail are purely of human origin, and they are subject to change over time in ways which ensure that justice is most efficiently rendered in light of contemporary societal conditions. But I certainly don't think this means that such rules are simply "red tape." They're ultimately meant to facilitate Christian living in a sensible way according to human prudence.

When you have an "annulment" trial, you're setting out to prove that a marriage never occurred because of some defect of consent or because of an fundamental inability to enter into marriage. Even though it can seem complicated, the rules for a nullity trial are actually mostly basic common-sense practices for determining the truth about a situation while respecting the rights of everyone involved. For example, Jesus didn't literally say: "you must cite the respondent [i.e., inform the other spouse that an annulment trial is taking place and give them an option to participate]." But anyone with a basic sense of fairness would understand why it's important to contact and involve the other party!

This might sound silly, but I think a parallel might be a parish first Communion program. First Communicants have to take preparatory catechetical classes, which usually involves some paperwork with the parish (like having emergency contact numbers on file, etc.) The kids also have to learn a lot of arbitrary "rules" for the big day, like how to line up, which pew to sit in, how to process back to their seat after they receive communion, etc. But just because (for example) being seated in alphabetical order is something that's obviously not divinely inspired doesn't mean that the DRE is wrong to arrange things that way, or that it's somehow creating a barrier to the grace of the sacrament. It just means that the DRE just needs a sensible way to direct schoolchildren through a ceremony. Likewise, having to fill out forms for a child to attend catechetical classes is a way to ensure everyone's safety and to make sure that everyone's expectations are clear---again, that specific paperwork is not divinely inspired per se but it's still a wholly legitimate thing to be doing. 

I'm neither a Church scholar nor Church militant, so I can't post in the forum.

That seems like a weak and confusing parallel, but perhaps we should split into a new thread. No time now as my plate is creeping toward full, but soon. Thank you for your thoughtful responses.