|
0 members (),
1,020
guests, and
93
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
1.a)Two Catholics marry before a Judge: it is a sacrament.No. It would be a sacrament, theologically speaking. The two Catholics in 1.a) after several years divorce. One wants to remarry another who is Catholic. What says the Church: 1.) They marry before a Judge. 2.) They request a wedding in a Catholic Church from their Pastor. Since in Catholic theology, marriages are absolutely indissoluble once consummated, the second union (unless there are grounds for an annulment) would be considered adulterous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
Let's return to the USCCB document, A Pastoral Statement on Orthodox/Roman Catholic Marriages, and compare with Burke's assessment. The USCCB document has a narrower focus than Msgr. Burke's much more general assessment which, because it is so general, impacts what is in the Pastoral Statement. Msgr. Burke's assessment: At times it has been suggested that the church should drop the requirement of canonical form and simply recognize marriages celebrated according to civil law. Where there are significant difficulties to this suggestion, they are of a merely socio-juridical or pastoral-practical nature. There are, in other words, no theological difficulties to be advanced against the possible legislation of such a change. Marriages thus celebrated between two Christians would be just as sacramental as those celebrated "in church."[/b] More accurately, to insist on what we have said, such civil marriages would -- in the theological, though not in the merely human-social sense -- be celebrate "in church."
From "Theology of Marriage," [emphasis added] USCCB In the teaching of our churches, a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners and God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church. At the present time, there are differences in the ways by which this ministry is exercised in order to fulfill the theological and canonical norms for marriage in our churches. ...
We do not wish to underestimate the seriousness of these differences in practice and theological explanation. We consider their further study to be desirable. At the same time, we wish to emphasize our fundamental agreement. Both our churches have always agreed that ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage. Within this fundamental agreement, history has shown various possibilities of realization so that no one particular form of expressing this ecclesial context may be considered absolutely normative in all circumstances for both churches. [emphasis added] How is this to be reconciled with Msgr. Burke's assessment? The USCCB document continues: In our judgment, our present differences of practice and theology concerning the required ecclesial context for marriage pertain to the level of secondary theological reflection rather than to the level of dogma. [emphasis added] Are they, the Joint US Committee of Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bishops, not aware of Msgr. Burke's assessment? Theologically speaking, there is nothing that would hinder the Church changing its legislation to accept civil marriages between Christians. It's a completely different question whether that is the state of affairs now. According to Pohle-Preus In this chapter we purpose to show, ( i ) that the Church possesses control over Christian marriage; (2) that this control is based on a positive divine law and can be exercised independently of the secular power; (3) ***that the Church has the exclusive right to establish diriment impediments***. b) In order to understand how the Church can invalidate the Sacrament of Matrimony without changing its matter and form, we must consider that the validity of the Sacrament is conditioned by the validity of the matrimonial contract. By nullifying the contract, the Church deprives the Sacrament of its basis. The validity of the contract does not depend solely on the free will of the contracting parties ; it depends also on the will of God, which may manifest itself in a threefold manner : through the law of nature, through a positive law, or through an ***ecclesiastical precept***. Hence there are three distinct classes of diriment impediments: (1) Impediments flowing from the law of nature (e. g. impotency, error, violence); (2) Impediments set up by a positive 'divine law (e. g. the bond of an existing marriage) ; (3) Impediments established by ecclesiastical law (e. g. clandestinity, difference of religion, affinity). .... All other impediments are of purely ecclesiastical institution, and it needs no argument to prove that the Church can dispense from laws of her own making.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
I want to preface that the Church has the right to place ecclesiastical impediments which invalidates marriages between Catholics who marry outside the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
I want to preface that the Church has the right to place ecclesiastical impediments which invalidates marriages between Catholics who marry outside the Church. Does the Church have a right to "place ecclesiastical impediments which invalidates marriages" or otherwise impose conditions, between baptized non-Catholics?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
I want to preface that the Church has the right to place ecclesiastical impediments which invalidates marriages between Catholics who marry outside the Church. Does the Church have a right to "place ecclesiastical impediments which invalidates marriages" or otherwise impose conditions, between baptized non-Catholics? Well, the Church doesn't recognize marriages that are done clandestinely (that is, without any witnesses or documentation), whether it is between Catholics or non-Catholic Christians. However, that doesn't necessarily mean a marriage between non-Catholic Christians is invalidated in this circumstance; yet it is with regards to Catholics. Ecclesiastical impediments typically apply to those baptized persons who fall under the Church's jurisdiction.
Last edited by RomCatholic; 12/22/15 08:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
Hence there are three distinct classes of diriment impediments:
(1) Impediments flowing from the law of nature (e. g. impotency, error, violence);
(2) Impediments set up by a positive 'divine law (e. g. the bond of an existing marriage) ;
(3) Impediments established by ecclesiastical law (e. g. clandestinity, difference of religion, affinity).
....
All other impediments are of purely ecclesiastical institution, and it needs no argument to prove that the Church can dispense from laws of her own making. So should (3) be eliminated from the list since " the Church can dispense from laws of her own making"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
Hence there are three distinct classes of diriment impediments:
(1) Impediments flowing from the law of nature (e. g. impotency, error, violence);
(2) Impediments set up by a positive 'divine law (e. g. the bond of an existing marriage) ;
(3) Impediments established by ecclesiastical law (e. g. clandestinity, difference of religion, affinity).
....
All other impediments are of purely ecclesiastical institution, and it needs no argument to prove that the Church can dispense from laws of her own making. So should (3) be eliminated from the list since " the Church can dispense from laws of her own making"? Why would it be removed from the list, if the Church has already put in place ecclesiastical impediments? By the way, I edited my previous comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
Hence there are three distinct classes of diriment impediments:
(1) Impediments flowing from the law of nature (e. g. impotency, error, violence);
(2) Impediments set up by a positive 'divine law (e. g. the bond of an existing marriage) ;
(3) Impediments established by ecclesiastical law (e. g. clandestinity, difference of religion, affinity).
....
All other impediments are of purely ecclesiastical institution, and it needs no argument to prove that the Church can dispense from laws of her own making. So should (3) be eliminated from the list since " the Church can dispense from laws of her own making"? Why would it be removed from the list, if the Church has already put in place ecclesiastical impediments? By the way, I edited my previous comment. Let me rephrase since I wasn't clear. Of the three classes of diriment impediments, the Church cannot dispense from (1) and (2) but it can dispense from or modify (3). Do you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
Yes, that is what the texts states.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
So an invalid marriage is a sacrament (see below) ??? You say here: 1.a)Two Catholics marry before a Judge: it is a sacrament.No.
It would be a sacrament, theologically speaking.
The two Catholics in 1.a) after several years divorce. One wants to remarry another who is Catholic. What says the Church:
1.) They marry before a Judge.
2.) They request a wedding in a Catholic Church from their Pastor. However, from before you said: "3. What is the status of two Catholics who marry before a non-Catholic minister without dispensation and do so: (i) secretly/privately; (ii) openly/publicly?" Well, why would two Catholics be getting married outside of the Church in the first place? Anyhow, it would be invalid under both circumstances. Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case? ""Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case?" Firstly, there is no reason why two Catholics would be getting married outside the Church in the first place. Nor would a bishop grant a dispensation to two Catholics. It simply doesn't make any sense. The only reason a dispensation would be given, is in the case of a mixed marriage. Since Catholics are bound to the Church's laws, a dispensation must be granted for a marriage to be considered valid.
Last edited by ajk; 12/23/15 10:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
Ecclesiastical impediments typically apply to those baptized persons who fall under the Church's jurisdiction. I understand how and why "jurisdiction" is used as here. It prompts me to comment on the difference in perspective that I see exemplified in this dialog and especially in opinions and so-called proofs from a canon law perspective. Now I like Canon Law for order and clarity but it should be the servant of theology, good applied theology, rather than that theology is some idealized, theoretical justification or vindication of the Canons. So the development and understanding should be from the foundation -- theology, ecclesiology -- up and not top down. There is only one Christ and one baptism and one Church, His one body of which He is head. So all who are baptized into Christ are members of that One Church and, consequently, are properly subject to that one only Church. The One True Church claims ALL Christians as members who have "put on" Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
So an invalid marriage is a sacrament (see below) ??? You say here: [quote=ajk]1.a)Two Catholics marry before a Judge: it is a sacrament.No.
It would be a sacrament, theologically speaking.The two Catholics in 1.a) after several years divorce. One wants to remarry another who is Catholic. What says the Church: 1.) They marry before a Judge. 2.) They request a wedding in a Catholic Church from their Pastor. However, from before you said: "3. What is the status of two Catholics who marry before a non-Catholic minister without dispensation and do so: (i) secretly/privately; (ii) openly/publicly?" Well, why would two Catholics be getting married outside of the Church in the first place? Anyhow, it would be invalid under both circumstances. Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case? ""Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case?" Firstly, there is no reason why two Catholics would be getting married outside the Church in the first place. Nor would a bishop grant a dispensation to two Catholics. It simply doesn't make any sense. The only reason a dispensation would be given, is in the case of a mixed marriage. Since Catholics are bound to the Church's laws, a dispensation must be granted for a marriage to be considered valid. [/quote] I had in mind fallen-away Catholics when I replied with my comments. So when they contracted a civil marriage, it would still be a sacrament.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
Ecclesiastical impediments typically apply to those baptized persons who fall under the Church's jurisdiction. I understand how and why "jurisdiction" is used as here. It prompts me to comment on the difference in perspective that I see exemplified in this dialog and especially in opinions and so-called proofs from a canon law perspective. Now I like Canon Law for order and clarity but it should be the servant of theology, good applied theology, rather than that theology is some idealized, theoretical justification or vindication of the Canons. So the development and understanding should be from the foundation -- theology, ecclesiology -- up and not top down. There is only one Christ and one baptism and one Church, His one body of which He is head. So all who are baptized into Christ are members of that One Church and, consequently, are properly subject to that one only Church. The One True Church claims ALL Christians as members who have "put on" Christ. Yes, the Church has claim over all Christians, but it does not follow that all are members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It would be absurd to place ecclesiastical impediments on protestants since they are not members of the Church. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "jurisdiction".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
I had in mind fallen-away Catholics when I replied with my comments. So when they contracted a civil marriage, it would still be a sacrament. So if "fallen-away" Catholics, or Catholics who have lost their faith get married in a civil ceremony it is an outward sign of the union of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32)) that imparts grace, a sacrament? But if they are not, what, sufficiently "fallen-away" then no valid marriage, no sacrament. So here the farther you get from the Church the better your opportunity to have a sacramental marriage by a civil ceremony.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
|
|
|
|
|
