Catholic marrying a non-Catholic

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Examples of abuse/nonabuse of Pauline privelege:
abuse - 2 atheists get married. Woman becomes Catholic. Husband agrees to raise children Catholic, etc. He doesn't pose any moral threats to her. Wife becomes attracted to other guy, and gets marriage dissolved so she can marry this other guy. Let's say this guy is almost a carbon copy of the first guy. Pauline privelege, if used here, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

nonabuse - same initial situation. Husband is pretty anti-religious though. He wouldn't agree to raise children Catholic. He represents a threat to her religion. Here, Pauline privelege is used so that she's not "unequally yoked."

Does that make sense? [/quote]

It makes sense but i am not sure I agree, what happened in ones pre christian life may well be forgotten, what if the women simply does not like the man after she has been converted, what if he is not good for her, ( and I mean that in a strict since of the word Good) If he is an occasion of sin then the marriage should be desolved, I myself cannot see how the presence of an Athiest in the marriage bed could lead to something Good.

[scardella]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 24 2005, 03:37 PM'] Not at all, once baptised one is no longer enslaved, however the ability to make a free choice would be diminished by the mortal sins on ones soul. That is why one should make a confession before recieving a sacrament such as Marriage.


First forcing is actually straping them down, baptisms by the sword,( be baptised or we will chop off your head) while discouraged where determined by the Church to be valid baptisms during the 9th century. Second if ones will has been compromised by sin or anything else then it is by definition not free. [/quote]
Does any sin or mortal sin only affect free choice? Your post says differently at different points. To put it succinctly, though, what's really at stake is whether they are free enough to make an irrevocable consent of the will, which is what happens during the marriage vows. I'm not convinced that a non-Christian cannot make such a consent.

I'd like to see documentation or a link on the baptisms by the sword deal. Certaintly sounds fishy to me.

[scardella]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 24 2005, 03:42 PM'] What if he is not good for her, ( and I mean that in a strict since of the word Good) If he is an occasion of sin then the marriage should be desolved, I myself cannot see how the presence of an Athiest in the marriage bed could lead to something Good. [/quote]
If he IS an occasion of sin or sufficient scandal to the children, then that's what I'm arguing the Pauline privelege is for.

It's more that the presence of a Christian in the marriage bed can lead to something good. I've seen in couples that a gentle witness, day in and day out, has led to his* spouse's conversion. Even if the spouse doesn't convert, the Christian spouse is fulfilling his mission to preach the Gospel at all times by being faithful to God and his spouse. There is also the witness he provides to his children.

*When the gender is not known, proper english defaults to the masculine.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]*When the gender is not known, proper english defaults to the masculine. [/quote]

Something we agree on fully.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]I'd like to see documentation or a link on the baptisms by the sword deal. Certaintly sounds fishy to me. [/quote]
Blessed Charlemange forced the Saxons to convert, he obliged there nobles to convert under penelty of Beheading, this was over the protest of some of the clergy of the time Alcuin I believe was a vocal opponant( although I could have the name wrong), this was not his first option to be sure and only occured after years of them murderering priest and looting Churches, yet it was done. The Church never questioned the Validity of the Baptisms, in fact the Pope ordered a general feast of thanksgiving( agian my brainis a bit foggy but I believe this was 785 or there abouts) . Notable the greatest of Chiefs who submited Widukind took no further part in the Saxon uprisings but completly abandoned paganism. He later became a great Christian Hero and was known as a great builder of Churches. By the 850's the children and Grandchildren of these men where building monestaries and acting the role of missionaries to pagans farther north. Agian the actions of Charlemagne far from being condemned where praised by the Pope. No debate of there vadity even issued from the protest of the missionaries, because the fact is the men where fully allowed to choose to be baptised or not and the baptism was done with water and in the proper form.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='scardella' date='May 24 2005, 03:49 PM'] Does any sin or mortal sin only affect free choice? Your post says differently at different points. To put it succinctly, though, what's really at stake is whether they are free enough to make an irrevocable consent of the will, which is what happens during the marriage vows. I'm not convinced that a non-Christian cannot make such a consent.

I'd like to see documentation or a link on the baptisms by the sword deal. Certaintly sounds fishy to me. [/quote]
anything which affect the will affects Free choice, however the irrovocable consent of the will is always available to the sane unpossessed baptised Christian, and might not be available to a sane unpossessed unbaptised heathen; as it is not that their will has been tainted by sin; it simply has never been freedfrom sin at all.

[scardella]

I was talking with a more theologically experienced friend last night, and he reminded me of an important defect in your argument regarding consent of the will. You are assuming that all graces are part and parcel of Sanctifying Grace, which is the share in God's Divine Life. However, there are actual graces, which are supernatural helps, but not Sanctifying Grace. For example, your existance is an actual grace. It is there even if you are in the state of mortal sin. If it wasn't, once Adam had sinned, he would have ceased to exist; likewise the fallen angels would have ceased to exist.

This ability of the will to consent to marriage is an actual grace, which can operate independently of the state of the person's soul. To say that God would limit actual graces to those in a state of grace would imply that God would not give someone the grace to accept forgiveness, which is absurd.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 1 2005, 12:11 PM'] I was talking with a more theologically experienced friend last night, and he reminded me of an important defect in your argument regarding consent of the will.  You are assuming that all graces are part and parcel of Sanctifying Grace, which is the share in God's Divine Life.  However, there are actual graces, which are supernatural helps, but not Sanctifying Grace.  For example, your existance is an actual grace.  It is there even if you are in the state of mortal sin.  If it wasn't, once Adam had sinned, he would have ceased to exist; likewise the fallen angels would have ceased to exist.

This ability of the will to consent to marriage is an actual grace, which can operate independently of the state of the person's soul.  To say that God would limit actual graces to those in a state of grace would imply that God would not give someone the grace to accept forgiveness, which is absurd. [/quote]
OH the existance as actual grace arguement, we've had that one before, that is completly irrelevant to the discussion. First Will may or may not be an actual Grace, that is debatable and not something I am simply willing to concede... I emphatically deny that free will is simply something you have by nature of existance, that is not in keeping with tradition, or scripture which both make very clear that sin is an enslaving force. One is not free if one is a slave. Second existance was willed, is willed, and will be willed not because God is required to constantly Will our existance but because when God Wills, He being completly outside of time, which is His creation, and seperate and distinct from Him, is in effect always Willing it's existance. As such the actual grace of existance can not be corraletive to thegrace of free will for all things are Willed to exist yet all things are not willed to have free will, free will is a specific gift given to Man and to the Angels( although being all spirit and will alters their free will a bit) as it is a specific gift it cannot be analgus to the grace of existance which is even given to dirt. So I am not claiming that Actual Grace is in anyway effected by sin, I am specificly denying that Free Will is analgous to The Actual Grace of existance.

Further I fail to see how the ability to except forgiveness is grace at all, ones acceptance or regection of forgiveness is immaterial one who is forgiven is forgiven regardless of their acceptance, forgiveness is an action by the forgiver not the forgiven. Now if you mean that God would not give someone the grace to seek forgivness or to desire it which is a requirment for forgivness well then I would say you are simply wrong, Scripture tells us that God has specificly removed that desire before such as with Pharoh and perhaps even with Judas. Further the desire to have Faith and be forgiven is a Sanctifying Grace so either way it is immaterial.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 20 2005, 12:25 PM'] So Don John, If a non-Catholic (and thereby "non-sacramentally" married) husband and wife, enter into the Church, do they have to get married again? Would they be "living in sin"? [/quote]
I apparantly forgot to address this, yes socrates they would have to get remarried, this is usually refered to as being "blessed " by the Church but that blessing is infact the nuptual blessing and is an invokation binding the two in a sacramental marriage.

[Don John of Austria]

.... no answers?

[dspen2005]

i know the Church allows but does prefer that Catholics marry only Catholics.... many spiritual writers of the past have stated that it is the best interest of the Catholic involved to marry another Catholic, otherwise there may be a danger of temptation, or a danger of being weakened in the Faith.

[Azriel]

Sigh.

[kateri05]

yea double sigh, how did this pop back up? .... sigh

[Anastasia13]

This was in the Gospel today:

Marriage is the primordial sacrament. It was there "in the beginning", before Jesus raised it to the level of a Sacrament. It's still valid. BTW, I'd still like a chance to look at my notes.

 

Sorry for the micromanage-am on a device without copy function.

 

Marriage was not always a sacrament?

 

How was it raised to a sacrament? When and why?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

It isn't a matter of infallible faith and morals but if we are truly catholic Christian we must respect the suggestions of the holy magesterium, like seriously respect ie: take into serious consideration as being from a higher source above the self. And if indeed canon law is incorrect it is still nihil obstat (nothing deliberately contrary to faith) and also if indeed the holy magesteriums understanding of such matters is a bit askew you are not and god is, so where do you go? Really why do we need to hit the ground to open our eyes and see what tripped us, i understand this and do so myself at times but am learning to look and listen. I thought the holy magesterium was a light from the true light to help us see that which we may stumble over in this shadow of sin, surely we must respect this. Get this, your on a train and you know the destination is trouble or an unknown destination ie walking blind, get off the dang train before it gets to the last stop, your choice, and many are on that train right, it's public transport or solo in there own car running red lights when no one is watching. The wide and crooked or the straight and narrow. We are still few even if we are the biggest religious body on the planet, but it is a body not separate bodies or separate individual bodies, and the holy magesterium + pope is the head of that body and Jesus christ is the head of the head, what is there not to get?

 

JESUS IZ LORD!