Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on April 06, 2016, 11:33:04 AM
-
A marriage between two unbaptized Jєωs, Muslim , atheist, is nothing but a weird form of concubinage. Am I right? It is not sacramental and divorce can be encouraged in these so called Marriages right? I'm very confused.
-
A marriage between two unbaptized Jєωs, Muslim , atheist, is nothing but a weird form of concubinage. Am I right? It is not sacramental and divorce can be encouraged in these so called Marriages right? I'm very confused.
Here is an answer, not written by me, but which states what I've always understood about marriage of non-Catholics:
In general, marriages between non-Catholics, of whatever religion, are considered valid, but the situation is not as simple as it sounds because there are two kinds of marriage: natural (ordinary) marriage and supernatural (sacramental) marriage. Supernatural marriages exist only between baptized people, so marriages between two Jєωs or two Muslims are only natural marriages. Assuming no impediments, marriages between Jєωs or Muslims would be valid natural marriages. Marriages between two Protestants or two Eastern Orthodox also would be valid, presuming no impediments, but these would be supernatural (sacramental) marriages and thus indissoluble.
Sounds like you are correct that marriage between non-Baptized people is "not Sacramental", but I don't know that I would say "divorce can be encouraged." But if you mean they are not indissoluble, & thus "divorce" may be possible, sounds like that is correct, from the implication of the passage above, although not stated explicitly.
-
Copy and paste into address bar: dropbox.com/s/ug6joruw0k692nt/The-Church-Laws-On-Marriage-171.mp3?dl=0
He starts speaking about the laws of marriage at the 8 minute mark.
At the 12 minute mark he touches on marriage of the unbaptized.
I didn't need to but you may need to add " www. " in front of the above link to get it to work.
It is a recorded sermon of Fr. Wathen, probably from some time in the 1980s. It's worth a listen to anyone interested in this subject.
-
Here is an answer, not written by me, but which states what I've always understood about marriage of non-Catholics:
In general, marriages between non-Catholics, of whatever religion, are considered valid, but the situation is not as simple as it sounds because there are two kinds of marriage: natural (ordinary) marriage and supernatural (sacramental) marriage. Supernatural marriages exist only between baptized people, so marriages between two Jєωs or two Muslims are only natural marriages. Assuming no impediments, marriages between Jєωs or Muslims would be valid natural marriages. Marriages between two Protestants or two Eastern Orthodox also would be valid, presuming no impediments, but these would be supernatural (sacramental) marriages and thus indissoluble.
Sounds like you are correct that marriage between non-Baptized people is "not Sacramental", but I don't know that I would say "divorce can be encouraged." But if you mean they are not indissoluble, & thus "divorce" may be possible, sounds like that is correct, from the implication of the passage above, although not stated explicitly.
Yes this is my understanding also. Non-Catholic marriages are valid as part of natural law.
As far as divorce being an option, I think so, since it was also permissible under some circuмstances before the New Covenant.
What puzzles me is why "Protestant marriages" are considered supernatural by the author... on what grounds? Maybe he means "Anglican" or "Lutheran", but I've never heard their Sacrament of Marriage to be valid (but illicit) so far.
PS: Stubborn, I've received your pm but CI won't let me reply to you and gives me an error. I've dl'ed the file but not yet listened to it.
Thank you
-
A marriage between two unbaptized Jєωs, Muslim , atheist, is nothing but a weird form of concubinage. Am I right? It is not sacramental and divorce can be encouraged in these so called Marriages right? I'm very confused.
If we're getting to the point that Catholics themselves think they're the only people with valid marriages, then we need to reevaluate our faith. It starts a slippery slope and sooner or later, we'll be having people saying that shooting a non-Catholic child is a good thing.
Yes, the non-baptized have valid, indissoluble marriages.
-
A marriage between two unbaptized Jєωs, Muslim , atheist, is nothing but a weird form of concubinage. Am I right? It is not sacramental and divorce can be encouraged in these so called Marriages right? I'm very confused.
If we're getting to the point that Catholics themselves think they're the only people with valid marriages, then we need to reevaluate our faith. It starts a slippery slope and sooner or later, we'll be having people saying that shooting a non-Catholic child is a good thing.
Yes, the non-baptized have valid, indissoluble marriages.
Well it's hard to really clear up the issue. For instance, on what authority and by whom exactly are two heathens conjoined in (not holy but natural) matrimony?
Is it the shaman/rabbi/pastor/lezbian civil clerk's?
Surely not.
So, it must be their own vows performed before God implicitly and unvoluntarily sometimes even.
How to be sure it is even a valid bonding?
What it is exactly required of the two spouses? Good intention? A bare-minimum formula?
What if I, being unmarried, were to just walk up to some girl and ask her to marry me and she'd play along and we'd pretend to? Would it be a valid natural law marriage? Indissoluble at that?
What if we were honest about it and impromptu married "before God" without anyone around? Is that valid?
How does all this even work?
-
A marriage between two unbaptized Jєωs, Muslim , atheist, is nothing but a weird form of concubinage. Am I right? It is not sacramental and divorce can be encouraged in these so called Marriages right? I'm very confused.
If we're getting to the point that Catholics themselves think they're the only people with valid marriages, then we need to reevaluate our faith. It starts a slippery slope and sooner or later, we'll be having people saying that shooting a non-Catholic child is a good thing.
Yes, the non-baptized have valid, indissoluble marriages.
Well it's hard to really clear up the issue. For instance, on what authority and by whom exactly are two heathens conjoined in (not holy but natural) matrimony?
Is it the shaman/rabbi/pastor/lezbian civil clerk's?
Surely not.
So, it must be their own vows performed before God implicitly and unvoluntarily sometimes even.
How to be sure it is even a valid bonding?
What it is exactly required of the two spouses? Good intention? A bare-minimum formula?
What if I, being unmarried, were to just walk up to some girl and ask her to marry me and she'd play along and we'd pretend to? Would it be a valid natural law marriage? Indissoluble at that?
What if we were honest about it and impromptu married "before God" without anyone around? Is that valid?
How does all this even work?
60 years ago we were taught marriage was valid between 2 willing persons (male and female) before witnesses.
Most governments require a licensed somebody as one of the witnesses for the state.
The nuns told of people in third world countries professing their vows before witnesses, having children and several years later when the priest made his rounds to their remote village the priest blessed and recorded the marriage for the church.
As to your scenario about you and the girl pretending....if you consumated the marriage I think before God you could be married. Remember you were both willingly pretending. When a priest teaches another priest or seminarian to offer Mass he doesn't pronounce the words of consecration.
There are things you don't fool around with.. ... a ouiji board and marriage are just two examples.
-
Well it's hard to really clear up the issue. For instance, on what authority and by whom exactly are two heathens conjoined in (not holy but natural) matrimony?
The Church recognizes civil marriages between a man and a woman as valid marriages. So if the man and woman were free to marry and the state recognizes the marriage, so does the Church. The Church will always and everywhere side with the sacrament, never against it unless proven otherwise.
In the case of two unbaptized, the Church has no jurisdiction over unbaptized persons yet still recognizes the marriage contract as valid for the same reasons She recognizes all marriages as valid - for the good of the family so that the children are not bastards, that they have a mother and father to take care of their material needs, so that divorce is discouraged so that there are not multiple step children/step parents/step cousins and step grand parents and step etc. to the point that the family is far separated from itself - as is common place today.
The safest way to be is to say, if they were free to marry and the two said the words "I do" after taking their vows, the Church always presumes that marriage indissoluble unless or until the contrary is proven.
-
Please note that when unbaptized persons marry, the Church does not recognize a right of either spouse to remarry when one of the parties is converted unless the non-converted party rejects the new Christian and refuses to continue to be married. If the non-converted party is willing to have a Christian spouse and does not put away the spouse, the new Christian must remain in the marriage and has no right to a divorce and remarriage. This is often called the Pauline Privilege.
Marriage is not that hard a thing to understand. It is not complicated. As Father Wathen once said in a debate with Conciliar apologists, men and women have been marrying for thousands of years. Only in the recent past has there been some sort of confusion about what constitutes a marriage.