Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: InfiniteFaith on August 14, 2014, 05:24:29 AM
-
When I was young and stupid (18 years old), I entered into a relationship with a girl for about 4 months. It was one of the biggest mistakes of my life as the relationship was full of fornication. I entered into this relationship out of curiosity, I wasn't really attracted to her, and I did not truly love her. Even though I would tell her I did. Yeah I know it sounds weird, but I guess I felt kinda trapped into this relationship for a number of reasons. Anyways, I remember that, one day, towards the end of the relationship, I asked her to marry me. I think I was half serious about it and half way joking about it at the same time. Then of course, she says "yes". Then she asked the same question in return, and I said "yes". We never went any further than that with it. There was no blessing from a priest or a wedding or anything. That was it.
The part that is getting me now is that I just read that you do not need a priest in order to get married. I am wondering if maybe I am actually married to this girl because of what I mentioned above.
Nowadays, she lives in another country and is married to another guy, and has a kid by him. I am not sure if this matters in the eyes of God. Maybe God still sees me and her as being married. That is, of course, if we truly are because of what i mentioned above.
So I will leave it at that for now. But I need to know if I need to get an annulment of some sort. I was not very serious about it when I asked her but I think she was. Plus I did not truly love her. What do you think?
-
No, on several counts. If you are a baptized Catholic (or she is), the marriage must be witnessed by a priest in order to be valid. Also, this would no more constitute an actual marriage than an engagement does; some vague intention or plan to get married does not constitute the same thing as the actual marriage vows.
-
The part that is getting me now is that I just read that you do not need a priest in order to get married.
That's only if you're marooned on a desert island or something and there is no priest available. If you can get a priest, you need a priest.
-
Merely agreeing to marry, or even announcing your intention to marry, is not the same as actually marrying. In order for a marriage to occur, both the man and the woman must give their present consent to be married from that point on (neither party may have an impediment to marry either, of course).
Further, even if you both did give actual consent to marry, if one of both of you were baptized Catholics, the marriage would be invalid. Canon law requires a witness for the Church (i.e. a priest) in order for the marriage of a Catholic to be valid. As clare has pointed out, the only time this isn't required is if it is impossible to marry in front of a priest (marooned on an island, trapped in a country hostile to the Church, etc.).
-
Asking permission to do something is not the same as doing the act.
You both made an agreement to marry at some point but you both, evidently, decided not to go through with the agreement. Hopefully, you have confessed your sins with this girl and you can now continue your life. You are not married.
When I read the title of this topic I thought of something completely different. I was married in the Novus Ordo. When I had been married just shy of two years, we moved to Indiana. The prior archbishop had recently died and there was no replacement yet named. After a few months, a new archbishop was named and, upon taking the reigns of the archdiocese, began writing a column in the archdiocesan newspaper. Of course, with all the moral rot in society, one of the first topics he felt compelled to write about was the annulment process. :confused1:
The point of his article was to explain and defend how an "apparent marriage" could last many years, produce many children, and yet, have never been a valid "sacramental marriage". He discussed how people who really have no understanding of what marriage entails, did not really know what the commitment would truly require, may have been too emotionally immature at the time of the marriage to truly be married even though they had "appeared" to be married for 25 or 30 years and had adult children and even grandchildren.
This article truly scandalized me. I was in shock. Was I truly married? Did I receive the sanctifying grace of the sacrament? Was I destined to discover years from now that we were never truly married? I wrote to the archbishop.
I received a reply (sadly, I do not have a copy of my original letter or his reply anymore). His reply assured me that I was validly married--even though he didn't know me from Adam. He also suggested, in a round-a-bout way that the primary proof that a marriage was never really valid was that it ends in a civil divorce. This was 1992.
It was also when my "confusion" about the Conciliar Church began. This was my beginning of my search for Catholic Truth. I seriously could not understand how an archbishop of the Catholic Church could be so shallow as to assume that we could, after years of stable marriage, suddenly discover that--Oops!--we weren't married after all! I had even asked him if priests really fully understood what they were entering into when they were ordained and wondered if they could discover that their ordinations weren't really valid because of their emotional immaturity. He didn't address this question at all.
-
TKGS: When I read the title of this thread I thought of the validity of a NO Sacrament of Marriage. It is my understanding that there were no changes to this Sacrament. However, I do doubt now whether we received the Body and Blood of our Lord at our Mass. I tend to believe that the priest who confected the Eucharist was ordained by a valid bishop, but I guess there will always a bit of doubt about his ordination.
-
Was she at least an 8?
-
TKGS: When I read the title of this thread I thought of the validity of a NO Sacrament of Marriage. It is my understanding that there were no changes to this Sacrament. However, I do doubt now whether we received the Body and Blood of our Lord at our Mass. I tend to believe that the priest who confected the Eucharist was ordained by a valid bishop, but I guess there will always a bit of doubt about his ordination.
Actually, there are various "forms" that the couple can choose for a wedding. One of which is the "traditional form" which is largely the same. The actual words used (i.e., the sacramental form) used in the new "traditional form" are basically the same as in the true traditional form, but many of the ceremony surrounding the sacramental form have changed even using the new "traditional form".
The priest gave us a booklet which contained a number of options which, sadly, I no longer have. But there were a number of different options for both wedding Masses (Novus Ordo, of course) and a wedding without a Mass.
The Conciliar sect did not leave any of the sacraments alone.
-
When I was young and stupid (18 years old), I entered into a relationship with a girl for about 4 months. It was one of the biggest mistakes of my life as the relationship was full of fornication. I entered into this relationship out of curiosity, I wasn't really attracted to her, and I did not truly love her. Even though I would tell her I did. Yeah I know it sounds weird, but I guess I felt kinda trapped into this relationship for a number of reasons. Anyways, I remember that, one day, towards the end of the relationship, I asked her to marry me. I think I was half serious about it and half way joking about it at the same time. Then of course, she says "yes". Then she asked the same question in return, and I said "yes". We never went any further than that with it. There was no blessing from a priest or a wedding or anything. That was it.
The part that is getting me now is that I just read that you do not need a priest in order to get married. I am wondering if maybe I am actually married to this girl because of what I mentioned above.
Nowadays, she lives in another country and is married to another guy, and has a kid by him. I am not sure if this matters in the eyes of God. Maybe God still sees me and her as being married. That is, of course, if we truly are because of what i mentioned above.
So I will leave it at that for now. But I need to know if I need to get an annulment of some sort. I was not very serious about it when I asked her but I think she was. Plus I did not truly love her. What do you think?
No, you are not married to her. In order for a marriage to be valid it has to follow the correct form as determined by the Catholic Church as determined by Canon Law. This is the rule book you would have to follow.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
On a side note. If you lived in the 1790s the fact that you proposed marriage to her and she accepted, that would be an impediment to any future marriage to any one else.
-
Was she at least an 8?
Son, I'm sorry you had to find out about who your father is this way. But its important that you know now. I hope you understand, and please forgive me for not being apart of your life.
I wish I could make it up to you, but I can't. I'm sorry that you are taking it so hard.
-
Whiskey tango foxtrot.
:whistleblower:
-
TKGS: When I read the title of this thread I thought of the validity of a NO Sacrament of Marriage. It is my understanding that there were no changes to this Sacrament. However, I do doubt now whether we received the Body and Blood of our Lord at our Mass. I tend to believe that the priest who confected the Eucharist was ordained by a valid bishop, but I guess there will always a bit of doubt about his ordination.
Actually, there are various "forms" that the couple can choose for a wedding. One of which is the "traditional form" which is largely the same. The actual words used (i.e., the sacramental form) used in the new "traditional form" are basically the same as in the true traditional form, but many of the ceremony surrounding the sacramental form have changed even using the new "traditional form".
The priest gave us a booklet which contained a number of options which, sadly, I no longer have. But there were a number of different options for both wedding Masses (Novus Ordo, of course) and a wedding without a Mass.
The Conciliar sect did not leave any of the sacraments alone.
Oh I don't doubt there were some things changed. I guess my main concern was whether any of the changes placed any doubt to its validity. From my readings, I don't think there was.
-
Was she at least an 8?
Son, I'm sorry you had to find out about who your father is this way. But its important that you know now. I hope you understand, and please forgive me for not being apart of your life.
I wish I could make it up to you, but I can't. I'm sorry that you are taking it so hard.
And you're the guy who thought he was the prophecied Great Catholic Monarch, huh?
-
Was she at least an 8?
Son, I'm sorry you had to find out about who your father is this way. But its important that you know now. I hope you understand, and please forgive me for not being apart of your life.
I wish I could make it up to you, but I can't. I'm sorry that you are taking it so hard.
And you're the guy who thought he was the prophecied Great Catholic Monarch, huh?
InfiniteFaith, for whatever reason, is desperate to be on the top rung of a hierarchy. Perhaps it's because isn't on top of one based on merit right now, but he seems to want to find some innate quality of himself that make him better than others. First it was his race; he'd go on and on about white superiority, both in a worldly and spiritual matter. Thankfully he has abandoned that nonsense. Then it was the fact that he was the Great Catholic Monarch. Now, it's his physical attractiveness that makes him better. I wonder what will be next.
-
Was she at least an 8?
Son, I'm sorry you had to find out about who your father is this way. But its important that you know now. I hope you understand, and please forgive me for not being apart of your life.
I wish I could make it up to you, but I can't. I'm sorry that you are taking it so hard.
And you're the guy who thought he was the prophecied Great Catholic Monarch, huh?
I can't even believe that you are still thinking about that. What are you doing? Monitoring me? If so, then please stop. I don't like being monitored.
I never thought I was that. I just wondered if there was any chance.
I don't need to be anything like that. Its hard enough trying to stay focused on God, and the road to salvation. As long as I am in grace, and doing the right thing I will be happy. Oh, I could use a family too. That would help me get through it all.
-
I can't even believe that you are still thinking about that. What are you doing? Monitoring me? If so, then please stop. I don't like being monitored.
Back in high school I knew an odd kid named Albert who was a big fan of the movie Highlander. One day, in the middle of English class and entirely unprovoked, he announced to me that he had a burning secret from which he needed to unburden himself: It seemed Albert had come to believe that he was an immortal; that no physical illness or injury could harm him, and that he knew that this amazing power would soon be put to the test in a swordfight with his most hated enemy (a guy named Dave who had stolen his girlfriend). He was completely serious about this.
While I can assure you that I have not spent the past two decades continually ruminating on this revelation, I can nonetheless recall it with perfect clarity because it made an impression on me. Specifically, it made the impression that Albert was a melodramatic, self-centered adolescent with some pretty pathological delusions of grandeur. Your thread musing about the possibility of your being the prophesied Monarch who will restore Christendom made a similar impression on me. I find your protestations that it shouldn't a little disingenuous.
If by "monitoring" you mean "read a post you'd written," then I plead guilty as charged to being both the "perpetrator" and "victim" of such monitoring... because, you know, this is an internet forum. As such, your desire to not be "monitored" is an easy one to fulfill - just stop posting.
.
Its hard enough trying to stay focused on God, and the road to salvation.
Very true. You're not doing yourself any favors in this regard by posting whatever childish fantasies, paranoid suspicions, expressions of foppish vanity, or puerile insults that happen to float through your mind's transom at any given moment.
Take a break from posting. Study the Faith and the saints. Pray and fast. Mortify your flesh. Conquer your passions. Do this and it will be that much easier to focus on God and the Salvation of your soul.
-
Now look what you've done IF, you've rendered Lepanto Again speechless!
I think you may be on to something BTNYC with the transom idea. Some one should climb up there and close it. It'll take a brave person with a serviceable hazmat suit.
-
I can't even believe that you are still thinking about that. What are you doing? Monitoring me? If so, then please stop. I don't like being monitored.
Back in high school I knew an odd kid named Albert who was a big fan of the movie Highlander. One day, in the middle of English class and entirely unprovoked, he announced to me that he had a burning secret from which he needed to unburden himself: It seemed Albert had come to believe that he was an immortal; that no physical illness or injury could harm him, and that he knew that this amazing power would soon be put to the test in a swordfight with his most hated enemy (a guy named Dave who had stolen his girlfriend). He was completely serious about this.
While I can assure you that I have not spent the past two decades continually ruminating on this revelation, I can nonetheless recall it with perfect clarity because it made an impression on me. Specifically, it made the impression that Albert was a melodramatic, self-centered adolescent with some pretty pathological delusions of grandeur. Your thread musing about the possibility of your being the prophesied Monarch who will restore Christendom made a similar impression on me. I find your protestations that it shouldn't a little disingenuous.
If by "monitoring" you mean "read a post you'd written," then I plead guilty as charged to being both the "perpetrator" and "victim" of such monitoring... because, you know, this is an internet forum. As such, your desire to not be "monitored" is an easy one to fulfill - just stop posting.
.
Its hard enough trying to stay focused on God, and the road to salvation.
Very true. You're not doing yourself any favors in this regard by posting whatever childish fantasies, paranoid suspicions, expressions of foppish vanity, or puerile insults that happen to float through your mind's transom at any given moment.
Take a break from posting. Study the Faith and the saints. Pray and fast. Mortify your flesh. Conquer your passions. Do this and it will be that much easier to focus on God and the Salvation of your soul.
And of course, your thinking is not impressing me at all in this post. You can use fancy words all you want but they are not an indicator of intelligence as you may somehow think in your own mind. Let me explain why I am saying this...
1) Albert had no reason to believe that he was immortal.
2) Trying to say that Albert's fantasy of being immortal is equivalent to my "fantasy" of being the Great Catholic Monarch is not accurate at all. While Albert had no reason to believe what he did, I showed some reason when I posted my lineage on that thread. My lineage is rare in North America and probably Europe as well. I have a docuмent that says so. There may only be 50,000 people in North America with French lineage that traces to Charlemagne. How many of those do you think can actually prove it even if they wanted to? Not very many. Keep in mind, I never once stated I believed that I was the Great Catholic Monarch. I was just contemplating it.
3) From my understanding, the requirement for being the Great Catholic Monarch is vague. It could literally be anybody. One prophecy that I know of has him as a "scion" of French Royalty. A scion is just a descendant. That is what I am. Of course there are a decent amount of other people who also are a "scion" of French royalty. But the pool of candidates for being the Great Catholic Monarch is very small. Its so small to the point where your odds of being the GCM (if you have French lineage to Charlemagne) are much higher than winning the Lotto. They might be as high as 1 in 5,000.
4) I firmly believe that there will be an Angelic Pope and Great Catholic Monarch as prophesied. I also believe that these 2 figures are going to appear within the next 25 years if not sooner. There is very strong evidence of this. If you really want to see where I am coming from then please let me know.
So calling me childish and whatever else is doing nothing here. I had some reason for thinking the way that I did while the other guy you are talking about had none.
-
I can't even believe that you are still thinking about that. What are you doing? Monitoring me? If so, then please stop. I don't like being monitored.
Back in high school I knew an odd kid named Albert who was a big fan of the movie Highlander. One day, in the middle of English class and entirely unprovoked, he announced to me that he had a burning secret from which he needed to unburden himself: It seemed Albert had come to believe that he was an immortal; that no physical illness or injury could harm him, and that he knew that this amazing power would soon be put to the test in a swordfight with his most hated enemy (a guy named Dave who had stolen his girlfriend). He was completely serious about this.
While I can assure you that I have not spent the past two decades continually ruminating on this revelation, I can nonetheless recall it with perfect clarity because it made an impression on me. Specifically, it made the impression that Albert was a melodramatic, self-centered adolescent with some pretty pathological delusions of grandeur. Your thread musing about the possibility of your being the prophesied Monarch who will restore Christendom made a similar impression on me. I find your protestations that it shouldn't a little disingenuous.
If by "monitoring" you mean "read a post you'd written," then I plead guilty as charged to being both the "perpetrator" and "victim" of such monitoring... because, you know, this is an internet forum. As such, your desire to not be "monitored" is an easy one to fulfill - just stop posting.
.
Its hard enough trying to stay focused on God, and the road to salvation.
Very true. You're not doing yourself any favors in this regard by posting whatever childish fantasies, paranoid suspicions, expressions of foppish vanity, or puerile insults that happen to float through your mind's transom at any given moment.
Take a break from posting. Study the Faith and the saints. Pray and fast. Mortify your flesh. Conquer your passions. Do this and it will be that much easier to focus on God and the Salvation of your soul.
And of course, your thinking is not impressing me at all in this post. You can use fancy words all you want but they are not an indicator of intelligence as you may somehow think in your own mind. Let me explain why I am saying this...
1) Albert had no reason to believe that he was immortal.
2) Trying to say that Albert's fantasy of being immortal is equivalent to my "fantasy" of being the Great Catholic Monarch is not accurate at all. While Albert had no reason to believe what he did, I showed some reason when I posted my lineage on that thread. My lineage is rare in North America and probably Europe as well. I have a docuмent that says so. There may only be 50,000 people in North America with French lineage that traces to Charlemagne. How many of those do you think can actually prove it even if they wanted to? Not very many. Keep in mind, I never once stated I believed that I was the Great Catholic Monarch. I was just contemplating it.
3) From my understanding, the requirement for being the Great Catholic Monarch is vague. It could literally be anybody. One prophecy that I know of has him as a "scion" of French Royalty. A scion is just a descendant. That is what I am. Of course there are a decent amount of other people who also are a "scion" of French royalty. But the pool of candidates for being the Great Catholic Monarch is very small. Its so small to the point where your odds of being the GCM (if you have French lineage to Charlemagne) are much higher than winning the Lotto. They might be as high as 1 in 5,000.
4) I firmly believe that there will be an Angelic Pope and Great Catholic Monarch as prophesied. I also believe that these 2 figures are going to appear within the next 25 years if not sooner. There is very strong evidence of this. If you really want to see where I am coming from then please let me know.
So calling me childish and whatever else is doing nothing here. I had some reason for thinking the way that I did while the other guy you are talking about had none.
Also consider that the Great Monarch will be French and German. So of all the people who are descended of French Royals/Nobles, how many of those do you think have german blood in them? Certainly not all of them.
Its possilble that the Great Monarch wil also have spanish blood. But there is only 1 or 2 prophecies that indicate this.
-
Enough of this nonsense.
I must now disclose that my mother's maiden name is Lyon.
Yes, Lyon. A royal family of Scotland, heirs to Glamis Castle. And the family of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the late Queen Mother of England.
Therefore, Infinite Faith, I contend that my claim is superior to yours.
Hand me the ring now, young man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHEw2n9LwE
-
Enough of this nonsense.
I must now disclose that my mother's maiden name is Lyon.
Yes, Lyon. A royal family of Scotland, heirs to Glamis Castle. And the family of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the late Queen Mother of England.
Therefore, Infinite Faith, I contend that my claim is superior to yours.
Hand me the ring now, young man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHEw2n9LwE
"You would have a queen..."
Well, that depends on what definition we're working with.
The "treacherous as the sea" part is spot on, though.
-
IF, genealogy is something I know a bit about. For reasons that would be way too involved for this exchange, descent from European/British royalty is fairly common in the United States. This is because of the make-up of the colonists that poured into early Virginia. There are literally millions of people in this country that can be traced back through British and French royal lines to Charlemagne.
That and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee.
-
IF, genealogy is something I know a bit about. For reasons that would be way too involved for this exchange, descent from European/British royalty is fairly common in the United States. This is because of the make-up of the colonists that poured into early Virginia. There are literally millions of people in this country that can be traced back through British and French royal lines to Charlemagne.
That and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee.
I'll take a large hazelnut with soymilk and two Truvias, please. :laugh1:
-
IF, genealogy is something I know a bit about. For reasons that would be way too involved for this exchange, descent from European/British royalty is fairly common in the United States. This is because of the make-up of the colonists that poured into early Virginia. There are literally millions of people in this country that can be traced back through British and French royal lines to Charlemagne.
That and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee.
Your right about the British part. i have a docuмent that states that if you are an American with British lineage then you are related to Charlemagne. And there are probably more than 50 million poeple in North America who are. Its the French lineage to Charlemagne that is rare. The docuмent I have also says this. There were only about 1500-2000 people of french noble descent who migrated to North American between 1600 and 1850. Plus they all migrated to the same area in Quebec and intermarried. So the population growth for this group of people was very very small. If you apply a population growth model to 2000 people from then till now...you would find that there are no more than 50,000 people today who descend from the french nobles who migrated here. So 2000 people became 50,000 people in about 400 years. Its probably more like 25,000 people but im estimating high.
You also have to consider the French Revolution where many french nobles and royals were killed. Some escaped, migrated to other countries, and then intermarried with the nobles in those countries. Then some of the escapees returned to France when the time was right.
I bet today that there are no more than 50,000 people in both Europe and the United States.
Going back to what you were saying... I need to see some more evidence behind it. I can show you mine.
-
I'll take a large hazelnut with soymilk and two Truvias, please. :laugh1:
The el grande hazelnut will cost you $5.75, that is unless you are related to Charles the Great by the French route, not the English. Then it will only cost you $5.00 plus an additional $325 to prove your lineage.
-
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168779-show-stopping-groom-returns-wedding-guests-realize-left-first-place/
Holy Matrimony? Today that seems to occur where the "church", of whatever denomination, is like a movie set for the idealized future memories of secular "christians". May as well record the Super Bowl over it.
-
If your living arrangemen were to have taken place before the council of Trent or in an area where the decrees of the council wwere to have been unable to have been promulgated then you would have been married.
-
If your living arrangemen were to have taken place before the council of Trent or in an area where the decrees of the council wwere to have been unable to have been promulgated then you would have been married.
I think the Novus Ordo is teaching that marriage occurs between 2 individuals, and that a priest is not required. I suppose once the 2 individuals commit to marriage then preform the marital act they are then married. If I am understanding things correctly.
-
If your living arrangemen were to have taken place before the council of Trent or in an area where the decrees of the council wwere to have been unable to have been promulgated then you would have been married.
I think the Novus Ordo is teaching that marriage occurs between 2 individuals, and that a priest is not required. I suppose once the 2 individuals commit to marriage then preform the marital act they are then married. If I am understanding things correctly.
You are not understanding things correctly.
In order for Catholics to be validly married, even in the Novus Ordo, they must do so in a church before a priest. The priest does not confer the Sacrament, rather the husband and wife confer it on each other, but the priest witnesses the marriage for the Church and blesses it.
Even though the priest is only a witness of the marriage, Canon Law (even the new Canon Law) is clear that if a Catholic marries outside of the Church, it is invalid; in other words, there is no marriage at all.
-
If your living arrangemen were to have taken place before the council of Trent or in an area where the decrees of the council wwere to have been unable to have been promulgated then you would have been married.
I think the Novus Ordo is teaching that marriage occurs between 2 individuals, and that a priest is not required. I suppose once the 2 individuals commit to marriage then preform the marital act they are then married. If I am understanding things correctly.
No that is incorrect. In order for a marriage to be valid the marriage has to follow the proper form as determined by Canon Law. You have to play by this set of rules in order for anybody's marriage to be valid.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM