No, that was in reference to people who were living in sin. A person who is not married who has relations with someone who is not married is commiting fornication. In those instances if there is a seperation, the parties are free to marriy shoever they want to who is free to marry.  

I have read this explanation as well and was inclined to write this explanation initially.  However, I read this explanation back in my Novus Ordo days and it would have been from a Novus Ordo source.  I no longer have those books on my shelves so I can't reference it, nor would I have referenced it even if I still had those books.

None of my pre-Vatican II catechisms discuss this very specific issue, which is why I believe this is not an issue that should be taught in a Sunday sermon.  The only specific explanation I found was from the note in the Douay-Rheims bible I quoted.

From the OP'er ~ this was said by an SSPX priest who had as his server at Mass a NO deacon from the nearby Indult parish.

Now I am beginning to understand why this might have been brought up in such an inappropriate venue.  Are the faithful being prepared so they won't be "scandalized" with the ordinary state of affairs (no pun intended) in the Novus Ordo and Indult parishes when the eventual reunion takes place?

She clearly remembers him saying divorce is allowed in the case of fornication.
But will not allow to remarry because that would be adultery.
Why the distinction?
Why not just say divorce is allowed in cases of adultery, why specify and distinguish the two?
My understanding is divorce is absolutely NOT allowed under ANY circuмstance.
I am flabbergasted!
Could this possibly be a "concession"?
Something the NO guest deacon was supposed to hear?
 :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

Doesn't sound like the priest botched it but the poster was confused of why there is a distinction between separation and separation and being with another.

Quote from: Tiffany

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest

Single people fornicate.  Married people commit adultery.

I believe this is the annulment clause.  If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.

If one or both of the spouses were fornicating with others at the time of the marriage then it can be evidence of a non-sacramental union because it shows that they never intended to have unity within the marriage alone.

Would you share where this info came from? I've not heard of fornication making a marriage invalid.

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Is this Code of Canon Law the 1983 version?

She clearly remembers him saying divorce is allowed in the case of fornication.
But will not allow to remarry because that would be adultery.
Why the distinction?
Why not just say divorce is allowed in cases of adultery, why specify and distinguish the two?
My understanding is divorce is absolutely NOT allowed under ANY circuмstance.
I am flabbergasted!
Could this possibly be a "concession"?
Something the NO guest deacon was supposed to hear?
 :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

Your understanding is incorrect.

Divorce is allowed.  A divorce is a legal action by which the spouses are separated according to civil law.  It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they're still married.  They are still married (sacramentally).  The law just does not recognize their marriage, so they may move away from one another and have the property divided and whatever other steps or actions that are necessary without suffering consequences from the civil law.

Divorced =/= "not married."  That is a modern way of thinking.

There are other extraordinary instances which might justify divorce, such as one of the spouses being dangerous to the family.  In such an instance it could be prudent to seek a divorce according to the civil law to protect the family from the deranged spouse.  

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Tiffany

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest

Single people fornicate.  Married people commit adultery.

I believe this is the annulment clause.  If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.

If one or both of the spouses were fornicating with others at the time of the marriage then it can be evidence of a non-sacramental union because it shows that they never intended to have unity within the marriage alone.

Would you share where this info came from? I've not heard of fornication making a marriage invalid.

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Is this Code of Canon Law the 1983 version?

That was the 1983.  And here are the same statements from other sources:

 1917 Code Canon 1013 - §2.
The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which acquire a special firmness in Christian marriage by reason of its sacramental character.

Council of Trent:
Definition of Matrimony

Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.

In order that the different parts of this definition may be better understood, it should be taught that, although a perfect marriage has all the following conditions, - namely, internal consent, external compact expressed by words, the obligation and tie which arise from the contract, and the marriage debt by which it is consummated; yet the obligation and tie expressed by the word union alone have the force and nature of marriage.

No it doesn't but if a dude has a harem of girlfriends and marries another lady and keeps the girlfriends that might imply lack of unity.