XP: Caught off guard (may turn into religious conversation or get tense)

hlvonb · December 2013

A friend and I were out to lunch today and we were talking about weddings and marriage in general when she said something that caught me off guard and I had no idea how to act or what to say. She said that a couple can stand in front of the church and go through the ceremony and be pronounced husband and wife by the pastor but that they are not considered legally married or fully married in the eyes of God unless the consummate their marriage and that it must take place the night of the wedding. She said if it is done the next morning they will not be considered fully married since it didn't happen on their wedding night.

Would you have been caught off guard?
How would you have responded?

afox007 · December 2013

I'd be caught off guard but would probably ask if it counts if you do it in the coat closet at the reception.

HisGirlFriday13 · December 2013

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

easilyunamused · December 2013

That's interesting considering that poll where almost 50% of newlyweds say they didn't have sex on their wedding night. Divorce rates go down...annulments go up!

easilyunamused · December 2013

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

I love the stories of Henry VIII and his many wives. Have you read any Phillipa Gregory? I love her books. Even though they are fiction, I think they are really exciting reads.

Drewsgirl31 · December 2013

@hisgirlfriday13 you're the only other person I've ever "met" that's known anything about them. They're one of my favorite subjects (not sure if that's what they would be considered) to read about.

I would be caught off guard OP especially since most friends and family I've talked to after their wedding didn't have sex the night of their wedding

HisGirlFriday13 · December 2013

LuvBird29 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

I love the stories of Henry VIII and his many wives. Have you read any Phillipa Gregory? I love her books. Even though they are fiction, I think they are really exciting reads.

I have read all of her works, actually. DH bought me her Red Queen and White Queen books last year. I like her, but I find that you have to have a fairly good understanding of the actual history she's writing about to truly understand her books. It also took me a long, long time to warm up to her.

rwhite0123 said:

@hisgirlfriday13 you're the only other person I've ever "met" that's known anything about them. They're one of my favorite subjects (not sure if that's what they would be considered) to read about. I would be caught off guard OP especially since most friends and family I've talked to after their wedding didn't have sex the night of their wedding

I majored in history in college, although I developed my interest in the Tudors after college. I've done all of my learning about them independently, actually, and I now own several dozen books on the various members of the family. They're absolutely one of my favourite periods of history to study.

If you ever want recommendations on any books, let me know!

jenajjthr · December 2013

I read somewhere that Henry and Catherine used the fact that she and Henry's brother never slept together to get her first annulment so she could marry Henry in the church. Then when Henry tried to get an annulment saying that Catherine and Arthur had had done the deed, that put the church in an awkward position of going back on what they first decreed. I also read that Catherine was related to the Pope so that was another block for Henry's annulment.

manateehugger · December 2013

jenajjthr said:

I read somewhere that Henry and Catherine used the fact that she and Henry's brother never slept together to get her first annulment so she could marry Henry in the church. Then when Henry tried to get an annulment saying that Catherine and Arthur had had done the deed, that put the church in an awkward position of going back on what they first decreed. I also read that Catherine was related to the Pope so that was another block for Henry's annulment.

Yep. This debacle is one of the main reasons Henry began to pursue a split from the Catholic Church. Then he could declare his own marriage invalid.

HisGirlFriday13 · December 2013

jenajjthr said:

I read somewhere that Henry and Catherine used the fact that she and Henry's brother never slept together to get her first annulment so she could marry Henry in the church. Then when Henry tried to get an annulment saying that Catherine and Arthur had had done the deed, that put the church in an awkward position of going back on what they first decreed. I also read that Catherine was related to the Pope so that was another block for Henry's annulment.

Yes to both. Also, Henry wanted to use Deuteronomy first to marry her (Deut. 25:5 -- "If brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be remarried outside of the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go into her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.") and then use Leviticus to prove his marriage was invalid (Lev. 18:16 -- "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness."-- and Lev. 20:21 -- "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...they shall be childless."-- even though he and Catherine had one living child, Mary Tudor (later Mary I).)

And not exactly to the Papal relationships -- her nephew, Charles V, was Emperor of Spain and also the Holy Roman Emperor. The various popes, including Clement VII, weren't about to give into Henry's demands for fear of (a) being called hypocrites and (b) with Charles right next door, they feared his retaliation and/or withdraw of (military) support.

HisGirlFriday13 · December 2013

Musikalbunni said:

So people who live together are married already?

Under the mediaeval rules of betrothal and matrimony, yes. If you announced your intention to marry, and had the banns read, you could then move in together and be considered 'married' in the eyes of the law and the church.

This was done because lots of smaller, rural areas didn't have full-time priests, so there was no one to perform the marriage ceremony. Thus, the public declaration of intent counted.

Also, interestingly, a public declaration of betrothal counted as married even without sex -- so if you publicly declared your intent to marry and announced you were betrothed, you couldn't then break it off without good reason.

And if someone was found to have been betrothed to Person A and then married Person B, and Person B found out, he/she could sue for an annulment on the grounds that his/her spouse lacked the freedom to marry.

(This is how Henry VIII got out of his marriage to wife number five, Catherine Howard -- she was betrothed to another man, whom she had also had relations with, and thus she was not free to marry Henry. He also had her beheaded for lying to him about her virginity, which is a whole different set of crazypants).

jenajjthr · December 2013

I saw once an Animaniacs song about Henry the 8th. Surprisingly that was a very educational cartoon. It listed the wives as " Died, beheaded, survived, died, beheaded, survived. True?

manateehugger · December 2013

jenajjthr said:

I saw once an Animaniacs song about Henry the 8th. Surprisingly that was a very educational cartoon. It listed the wives as " Died, beheaded, survived, died, beheaded, survived. True?

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. (Catherine, Anne, Jane, Anne, Kathryn, Katherine)

hlvonb · December 2013

afox007 said:

I'd be caught off guard but would probably ask if it counts if you do it in the coat closet at the reception.

@afox007

If I had thought of that I probably would have. Lol. Maybe I should text or call her and ask lmao

hlvonb · December 2013

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

@HisGirlFriday13

I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

hlvonb · December 2013

LuvBird29 said:

That's interesting considering that poll where almost 50% of newlyweds say they didn't have sex on their wedding night. Divorce rates go down...annulments go up!

Right! My sister got married 6 or 7 years ago and I had a friend get married last year. They both said they never did anything their wedding night except get undressed and pass out because they were too tired.

hlvonb · December 2013

Musikalbunni said:

So people who live together are married already?

@Musikalbunni

According to the conversation. Yes (assuming they have sex).

hlvonb · December 2013

alisonmarie658 said:

I love this thread -- so much knowledge!

**STUCK IN BOX**

I agree!

JCbride2015 · December 2013

hlvonb said:

LuvBird29 said:

That's interesting considering that poll where almost 50% of newlyweds say they didn't have sex on their wedding night. Divorce rates go down...annulments go up!

Right! My sister got married 6 or 7 years ago and I had a friend get married last year. They both said they never did anything their wedding night except get undressed and pass out because they were too tired.

I've always thought that no matter how tired we were, we would just make it happen because it's your Wedding Night. I guess we'll see what actually happens when we get there, lol. But I've also heard that lots of couples don't have sex on the wedding night.

hlvonb · December 2013

JCBride2014 said:

hlvonb said:

LuvBird29 said:

That's interesting considering that poll where almost 50% of newlyweds say they didn't have sex on their wedding night. Divorce rates go down...annulments go up!

Right! My sister got married 6 or 7 years ago and I had a friend get married last year. They both said they never did anything their wedding night except get undressed and pass out because they were too tired.

I've always thought that no matter how tired we were, we would just make it happen because it's your Wedding Night. I guess we'll see what actually happens when we get there, lol. But I've also heard that lots of couples don't have sex on the wedding night.

@JCBride2014

Our goal is to no matter what but we also know its very likely that it may not happen. Or there may be a cat nap and a middle of the night session but no one knows until it happens. Lol

manateehugger · December 2013

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

@HisGirlFriday13
I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

Umm which lines? FI comes from a very Lutheran (LCMS) family and has never heard of this. I'm wracking my brain and am coming up short for thinking of versus that say, "No sex on your wedding night? You're screwed FOR-EV-VER."

afox007 · December 2013

hlvonb said:

JCBride2014 said:

hlvonb said:

LuvBird29 said:

That's interesting considering that poll where almost 50% of newlyweds say they didn't have sex on their wedding night. Divorce rates go down...annulments go up!

Right! My sister got married 6 or 7 years ago and I had a friend get married last year. They both said they never did anything their wedding night except get undressed and pass out because they were too tired.

I've always thought that no matter how tired we were, we would just make it happen because it's your Wedding Night. I guess we'll see what actually happens when we get there, lol. But I've also heard that lots of couples don't have sex on the wedding night.

@JCBride2014
Our goal is to no matter what but we also know its very likely that it may not happen. Or there may be a cat nap and a middle of the night session but no one knows until it happens. Lol

That's our goal too, but knowing FI he might actually try for the coat closet...wait it's an outdoor venue. I wonder if my daddy can make me a coat closet

HisGirlFriday13 · December 2013

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

@HisGirlFriday13
I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

That is inconsistent with the teachings I know about the Lutheran church, and I just asked a friend of mine who is a Lutheran minister, and she says no, that you DO have to consummate it, but not the night of.

My guess is she's drawing it from OT theology, which also required that the marriage be consummated at the bride's parents' house (because she would still be living with them, naturally), and that it be done on a special "bridal cloth" and in the presence of witnesses assigned by the parents of the bride and the groom to ensure that it did happen.

So, you know, if she wants to get technical here...

hlvonb · December 2013

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

@HisGirlFriday13
I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

Umm which lines? FI comes from a very Lutheran (LCMS) family and has never heard of this. I'm wracking my brain and am coming up short for thinking of versus that say, "No sex on your wedding night? You're screwed FOR-EV-VER."

@PDKH

I am not sure which lines. I have been raised Lutheran my whole life and I don't even know what she's talking about. The only response I got to that was "look at all the passages where the Bible talks about marriage (relationships between man and woman in general) and sex. As you read through them it will become very clear to you...."

I have no idea if she even knows what she is saying anymore.

hlvonb · December 2013

afox007 said:

hlvonb said:

JCBride2014 said:

hlvonb said:

LuvBird29 said:

That's interesting considering that poll where almost 50% of newlyweds say they didn't have sex on their wedding night. Divorce rates go down...annulments go up!

Right! My sister got married 6 or 7 years ago and I had a friend get married last year. They both said they never did anything their wedding night except get undressed and pass out because they were too tired.

I've always thought that no matter how tired we were, we would just make it happen because it's your Wedding Night. I guess we'll see what actually happens when we get there, lol. But I've also heard that lots of couples don't have sex on the wedding night.

@JCBride2014
Our goal is to no matter what but we also know its very likely that it may not happen. Or there may be a cat nap and a middle of the night session but no one knows until it happens. Lol

That's our goal too, but knowing FI he might actually try for the coat closet...wait it's an outdoor venue. I wonder if my daddy can make me a coat closet

@afox007

Never hurts to ask. Lol

hlvonb · December 2013

HisGirlFriday13 said:

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

@HisGirlFriday13
I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

That is inconsistent with the teachings I know about the Lutheran church, and I just asked a friend of mine who is a Lutheran minister, and she says no, that you DO have to consummate it, but not the night of.

My guess is she's drawing it from OT theology, which also required that the marriage be consummated at the bride's parents' house (because she would still be living with them, naturally), and that it be done on a special "bridal cloth" and in the presence of witnesses assigned by the parents of the bride and the groom to ensure that it did happen.

So, you know, if she wants to get technical here...

@HisGirlFriday13

I am not sure which lines. I have been raised Lutheran my whole life and I don't even know what she's talking about. The only response I got to that was "look at all the passages where the Bible talks about marriage (relationships between man and woman in general) and sex. As you read through them it will become very clear to you...."

I have no idea if she even knows what she is saying anymore.

I don't know if she wants to get technical although its looking like it may head that way. Lol

manateehugger · December 2013

hlvonb said:

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

Umm which lines? FI comes from a very Lutheran (LCMS) family and has never heard of this. I'm wracking my brain and am coming up short for thinking of versus that say, "No sex on your wedding night? You're screwed FOR-EV-VER."

@PDKH
I am not sure which lines. I have been raised Lutheran my whole life and I don't even know what she's talking about. The only response I got to that was "look at all the passages where the Bible talks about marriage (relationships between man and woman in general) and sex. As you read through them it will become very clear to you...."
I have no idea if she even knows what she is saying anymore.

LOL! Confused party of her.

I mean, most believe that the marriage needs to be consummated at some point, but her timing restriction makes no sense. So what are you supposed to do if you don't do it on the wedding night? PPD time!?

FI and I have our marriage counseling thingymajig for his church next weekend. Maybe I'll ask haha.

HisGirlFriday13 · December 2013

I agree with @PDKH: She's confused. She's not sure what she believes, and she's damn well not clear on what her religion teaches.

manateehugger · December 2013

alisonmarie658 said:

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

Umm which lines? FI comes from a very Lutheran (LCMS) family and has never heard of this. I'm wracking my brain and am coming up short for thinking of versus that say, "No sex on your wedding night? You're screwed FOR-EV-VER."

@PDKH
I am not sure which lines. I have been raised Lutheran my whole life and I don't even know what she's talking about. The only response I got to that was "look at all the passages where the Bible talks about marriage (relationships between man and woman in general) and sex. As you read through them it will become very clear to you...."
I have no idea if she even knows what she is saying anymore.

LOL! Confused party of her.

I mean, most believe that the marriage needs to be consummated at some point, but her timing restriction makes no sense. So what are you supposed to do if you don't do it on the wedding night? PPD time!?

FI and I have our marriage counseling thingymajig for his church next weekend. Maybe I'll ask haha.

Also Lutheran. Also confused. I think consummated is consummated all the way around -- because if that's the case if you do the deed after midnight does it count as the day of your wedding if you want to split hairs?

Hmmm yeah that would make sense (in this nonsensical situation). I feel like that gives more weight to the actual act of consummation than the act of making vows before God, which seems odd. You'd think it would be a package deal regardless of timing.

hlvonb · December 2013

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

Umm which lines? FI comes from a very Lutheran (LCMS) family and has never heard of this. I'm wracking my brain and am coming up short for thinking of versus that say, "No sex on your wedding night? You're screwed FOR-EV-VER."

@PDKH
I am not sure which lines. I have been raised Lutheran my whole life and I don't even know what she's talking about. The only response I got to that was "look at all the passages where the Bible talks about marriage (relationships between man and woman in general) and sex. As you read through them it will become very clear to you...."
I have no idea if she even knows what she is saying anymore.

LOL! Confused party of her.

I mean, most believe that the marriage needs to be consummated at some point, but her timing restriction makes no sense. So what are you supposed to do if you don't do it on the wedding night? PPD time!?

FI and I have our marriage counseling thingymajig for his church next weekend. Maybe I'll ask haha.

@PDKH

Heck if I know. Maybe she is secretly a supported of PPD? Lmao. Y

I think you should ask haha

hlvonb · December 2013

alisonmarie658 said:

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

PDKH said:

hlvonb said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I think this is a case of having heard a little of something that is true, but not having heard it all.

In the Catholic Church, your marriage MUST be consummated to be considered valid. If you don't consummate your marriage, either spouse can seek an annulment on the grounds of lack of consummation.* But the church says nothing about WHEN the marriage must be consummated -- only that it must be to be considered valid.

*Fun historical fact: The question of consummation is what Henry VIII's nullity suit to Catherine of Aragon hinged on. He claimed she had had intercourse with his brother, Arthur, while the two were married, thus creating a relationship of consanguinity that would make his marriage to her sacramentally invalid. She claimed she and Arthur never consummated their marriage.

And, as is so often the case with Great Harry, he picked and chose the parts of canonical law that he wanted to follow. The allegation of consanguinity (the belief that intercourse creates a blood tie) against Catherine and Arthur (his wife and his brother) making his marriage invalid should also have applied to his relationship with Anne Boleyn, whose older sister, Mary, he had also had relations with.

To answer your question, though, I would have said, "Well, that's half-true, but you've got some of the substantial facts wrong," and then I would have corrected her.

I texted her (after I posted this) asking her where she got that idea from. She said it's in the Bible but you have to read between the lines. Don't know if it matters but we're Lutheran.

Umm which lines? FI comes from a very Lutheran (LCMS) family and has never heard of this. I'm wracking my brain and am coming up short for thinking of versus that say, "No sex on your wedding night? You're screwed FOR-EV-VER."

@PDKH
I am not sure which lines. I have been raised Lutheran my whole life and I don't even know what she's talking about. The only response I got to that was "look at all the passages where the Bible talks about marriage (relationships between man and woman in general) and sex. As you read through them it will become very clear to you...."
I have no idea if she even knows what she is saying anymore.

LOL! Confused party of her.

I mean, most believe that the marriage needs to be consummated at some point, but her timing restriction makes no sense. So what are you supposed to do if you don't do it on the wedding night? PPD time!?

FI and I have our marriage counseling thingymajig for his church next weekend. Maybe I'll ask haha.

Also Lutheran. Also confused. I think consummated is consummated all the way around -- because if that's the case if you do the deed after midnight does it count as the day of your wedding if you want to split hairs?

@alisonmarie658

That's a good point.

XP: Caught off guard (may turn into religious conversation or get tense)

Re: XP: Caught off guard (may turn into religious conversation or get tense)

Choose Another Board

Search Boards