Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: BernardoGui on December 03, 2022, 08:45:16 AM
-
If only a valid Catholic priest can administer the sacraments(marriage being one of them) then doesn't it
stand to reason that all the people who were married in false churches and sects or the local courthouse or by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, aren't really married at all?
If they then get a divorce are they free to marry in the Catholic faith since their first "marriage" wasn't really valid?
-
A baptized Catholic cannot marry in a non-catholic religion or ceremony. To Novus ordo persons marrying our validly married because they belong to the same religion and took a vow of marriage. Same goes for two Jews or any other religion. That's my understanding.
-
If only a valid Catholic priest can administer the sacraments(marriage being one of them) then doesn't it
stand to reason that all the people who were married in false churches and sects or the local courthouse or by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, aren't really married at all?
If they then get a divorce are they free to marry in the Catholic faith since their first "marriage" wasn't really valid?
In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the priest does not administer the sacrament. The spouses administer it to each other.
Marriages of people, neither of whom is a member of the Catholic Church, are presumed valid unless it can be proven otherwise. Non-Catholics are not subject to the Church's canon law on marriage (canonical form, etc.)
-
A baptized Catholic cannot marry in a non-catholic religion or ceremony. To Novus ordo persons marrying our validly married because they belong to the same religion and took a vow of marriage. Same goes for two Jєωs or any other religion. That's my understanding.
By Catholic, do you mean someone instructed in the Faith? There are many souls who were baptized and were never instructed. Just because they were baptized does not necessarily you mean their non catholic marriage is invalid.
-
By Catholic, do you mean someone instructed in the Faith? There are many souls who were baptized and were never instructed. Just because they were baptized does not necessarily you mean their non catholic marriage is invalid.
No. Canon Law states that anyone who was baptized a Catholic, even if they were not raised Catholic, are required to marry before a priest for the marriage to be valid. Obviously they are not guilty of fornication if they're ignorant regarding the status of their "marriage," but it's not valid in the eyes of the Church and therefore of God.
-
Thanks for all the responses but perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
In the following hypothetical situation...let's say I, or some other single Catholic gentleman,
were to meet a divorced woman who was not baptized Catholic, nor was their former spouse.
She had been married in a civil ceremony or whatever kind of pastor that wasn't Catholic.
Is she considered to have been never married and therefore able to date?
-
Thanks for all the responses but perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
In the following hypothetical situation...let's say I, or some other single Catholic gentleman,
were to meet a divorced woman who was not baptized Catholic, nor was their former spouse.
She had been married in a civil ceremony or whatever kind of pastor that wasn't Catholic.
Is she considered to have been never married and therefore able to date?
18] [All marriages where both parties are not baptized] The Church's law does not govern infidels. Such persons are capable of contracting natural marriages that are valid and lawful inasmuch as they meet the conditions established for validity and liciety according to whatever governing body to whom they answer.
-
No. Canon Law states that anyone who was baptized a Catholic, even if they were not raised Catholic, are required to marry before a priest for the marriage to be valid. Obviously they are not guilty of fornication if they're ignorant regarding the status of their "marriage," but it's not valid in the eyes of the Church and therefore of God.
Thanks for the correction.
-
18] [All marriages where both parties are not baptized] The Church's law does not govern infidels. Such persons are capable of contracting natural marriages that are valid and lawful inasmuch as they meet the conditions established for validity and liciety according to whatever governing body to whom they answer.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to look for loopholes in Church law. Just trying to understand what constitutes a valid marriage outside the realm of Catholicism.
How could a Mormon marriage, or one conducted by a witchdoctor, or lesbian Episcopalian, or Elvis impersonator be valid in any way?
Were any of Elizabeth Taylor's marriages valid?
-
No. Canon Law states that anyone who was baptized a Catholic, even if they were not raised Catholic, are required to marry before a priest for the marriage to be valid. Obviously they are not guilty of fornication if they're ignorant regarding the status of their "marriage," but it's not valid in the eyes of the Church and therefore of God.
I question this. It would stand to reason that if this were true then all validly baptized Protestants who contracted a marriage would necessarily be in an invalid marriage. Can you quote the Canon that supports this ?
-
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to look for loopholes in Church law. Just trying to understand what constitutes a valid marriage outside the realm of Catholicism.
How could a Mormon marriage, or one conducted by a witchdoctor, or lesbian Episcopalian, or Elvis impersonator be valid in any way?
Were any of Elizabeth Taylor's marriages valid?
Again, the ministers of marriage are the couple themselves, however to be legal the contract must be have witnesses.
A mormon marriage would be valid, as long as the spouses were not committed to a previous marriage and they intended to stay married to each other till one spouse dies.
I haven’t followed Taylor’s saga, but I would assume that only her first marriage would be valid, as long as her first spouse was free to marry her. There are no special laws for actors.
The witch doctor and the Elvis impersonator would not make any difference to the validity of a natural marriage provided the conditions were right as far as the intentions of the prospective spouses were concerned. After all, the ministers of marriage are the couple themselves.
-
I question this. It would stand to reason that if this were true then all validly baptized Protestants who contracted a marriage would necessarily be in an invalid marriage. Can you quote the Canon that supports this ?
The have to be baptized in the Catholic Church to Catholic parents. If they were baptized by Prots and raised by Prots, their marriages would be valid.
Taught not only at STAS, but explained to me also by several Catholic priests, including then-Father Sanborn:
Canon 1070
§ 1. That marriage is null that is contracted between a non-baptized person and a person baptized in the Catholic Church or converted to her from heresy or schism.
Canon 1094
Only those marriages are valid that are contracted in the presence of the pastor, or the local Ordinary, or a priest delegated by either, and two witnesses, according to the rules expressed in the canons that follow, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in Canons 1098 and 1099.
Canon 1099
§ 1. [The following] are bound to observe the above-stated form:
1. ° All those baptized into the Catholic Church or converted to her from heresy or schism, even if these or the others have left her later, as long as they enter marriage among themselves;
2. With due regard for the prescription of § 1, n. 1, non-Catholics, whether baptized or non-baptized, if they contract among themselves, are not in any way bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage; likewise, those born of non-Catholics, even if they are baptized in the Church, [but] who from infancy grow up in heresy or schism or infidelity or without any religion, as often as they contract marriage with a non-Catholic.
So that last part refers to those who, somehow (how, I don't know) were baptized in the Catholic Church but whose parents were non-Catholics and then raised them from infancy as non-Catholics.
Actually, now that I think of it, I recall the case of that Jєωιѕн boy raised by Pope Pius IX. So, a Catholic nurse saw an infant with Jєωιѕн parents who was thought to be dying. So she baptized the boy. Yet the boy lived. Well, the boy was baptized by a Catholic (as a Catholic) but was the child of non-Catholics and raised as a non-Catholic (i.e. as a Jew). Had he grown up and married a Jewess, his marriage would not have been invalid, since, although he was baptized Catholic, his parents were non-Catholics and he would have been raised as a non-Catholic. As it was, however, Pope Pius IX had other plans.
This is actually a very interesting story (even if a slight tangent) --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortara_case
For a while, the NO made an exception for those who formally renounced the faith, but Ratzinger actually rolled that back in 2009 because it was causing massive confusion.
So this is a NO Canon Law commentary --
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2019/09/26/why-cant-an-ex-catholic-marry-validly-outside-the-church/
Effectively this means that the Church now holds everyone who was baptized a Catholic, or received into the Catholic Church after baptism in another Christian denomination, must marry in accord with canonical form (or be dispensed from this requirement in advance ...), or else the wedding is invalid.
-
Again, the ministers of marriage are the couple themselves, however to be legal the contract must be have witnesses.
A mormon marriage would be valid, as long as the spouses were not committed to a previous marriage and they intended to stay married to each other till one spouse dies.
I haven’t followed Taylor’s saga, but I would assume that only her first marriage would be valid, as long as her first spouse was free to marry her. There are no special laws for actors.
The witch doctor and the Elvis impersonator would not make any difference to the validity of a natural marriage provided the conditions were right as far as the intentions of the prospective spouses were concerned. After all, the ministers of marriage are the couple themselves.
I'm not disputing what you said if this is indeed the Church's teaching, it nevertheless doesn't make sense to me since the prospective spouses could make vows to each other allowing for a pluralistic or polyamorous arrangement, which we are seeing more and more of these days. This has always been widespread in pagan cultures. Up until the last century or so arranged marriages were pretty much the norm, even in Christendom. In these cases it doesn't even seem like the consent of each spouse was a consideration.
-
So the only conditions under which someone who was baptized in the Catholic Church could validly contract marriage without the prescribed form (priest officiating, two witnesses, etc. etc.) --
Both of the child's parents were non-Catholics and the child was raised a non-Catholic from infancy (such as in Mortara case).
Cases where this would not apply --
1) Child is baptized Catholic to one or more Catholic parents, but the parents decide to raise him as a pagan (let him decide what he wants to believe later, for example).
2) Child is baptized Catholc to one or more Catholic parents who apostasize after the child hits the age of reason and then continue raising him non-Catholic.
3) Child is baptized Catholic to two non-Catholic parents, but they decide to raise him as a Catholic.
-
I'm not disputing what you said if this is indeed the Church's teaching, it nevertheless doesn't make sense to me since the prospective spouses could make vows to each other allowing for a pluralistic or polyamorous arrangement, which we are seeing more and more of these days. This has always been widespread in pagan cultures. Up until the last century or so arranged marriages were pretty much the norm, even in Christendom. In these cases it doesn't even seem like the consent of each spouse was a consideration.
That's an entirely separate question. Basically the couple have to at least know that marriage consists of a permanent relationship for the procreation of children, and freely intend to enter it anyway. This is presumed unless prove otherwise, and the standard of proof for this is extremely high. Notice, they have to know that marriage is intended to be permanent and for the procreation of children. It doesn't matter that they might not INTEND to have it be permanent. If they have this idea of marriage that it's just a romantic ceremony and a temporary arrangement just for legal/tax purposes or to have a ceremony that merely symbolizes their fornication, that would render it invalid ... though again it would have to be proven without a shadow of a doubt.
-
I'm not disputing what you said if this is indeed the Church's teaching, it nevertheless doesn't make sense to me since the prospective spouses could make vows to each other allowing for a pluralistic or polyamorous arrangement, which we are seeing more and more of these days. This has always been widespread in pagan cultures. Up until the last century or so arranged marriages were pretty much the norm, even in Christendom. In these cases it doesn't even seem like the consent of each spouse was a consideration.
You have moved the goal posts! I understand that we are talking of marriage, not polygamy.
You seem confused as to what constitutes marriage.
Marriage is the union of ONE man and ONE woman to remain faithful to each other until one of them departs this world.
I think your dates are out for arranged marriages in the west, but they have still worked well. Arranged marriage is not forced marriage. Marriage still requires the consent of the proposed spouses.
-
I haven't found a better resource for understanding the Church's teaching on marriage:
https://archive.org/details/commentaryonnewc0005bach/page/n10/mode/1up
-
The have to be baptized in the Catholic Church to Catholic parents. If they were baptized by Prots and raised by Prots, their marriages would be valid.
Taught not only at STAS, but explained to me also by several Catholic priests, including then-Father Sanborn:
So that last part refers to those who, somehow (how, I don't know) were baptized in the Catholic Church but whose parents were non-Catholics and then raised them from infancy as non-Catholics.
Actually, now that I think of it, I recall the case of that Jєωιѕн boy raised by Pope Pius IX. So, a Catholic nurse saw an infant with Jєωιѕн parents who was thought to be dying. So she baptized the boy. Yet the boy lived. Well, the boy was baptized by a Catholic (as a Catholic) but was the child of non-Catholics and raised as a non-Catholic (i.e. as a Jєω). Had he grown up and married a Jєωess, his marriage would not have been invalid, since, although he was baptized Catholic, his parents were non-Catholics and he would have been raised as a non-Catholic. As it was, however, Pope Pius IX had other plans.
This is actually a very interesting story (even if a slight tangent) --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortara_case
For a while, the NO made an exception for those who formally renounced the faith, but Ratzinger actually rolled that back in 2009 because it was causing massive confusion.
So this is a NO Canon Law commentary --
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2019/09/26/why-cant-an-ex-catholic-marry-validly-outside-the-church/
Very good. Thank you for this!
-
All valid Trinitarian baptisms are "Catholic baptisms". Someone baptized by non-Catholics (remember, anyone can baptize validly, even an apostate) remains a Catholic until they attain the age of reason, at which time, if they embrace another religion (or no religion at all), they become at least material heretics, granted, through no fault of their own.
It seems to me, then, that the Church creates a kind of legal fiction, by which those children are treated in Canon Law as never having been Catholics. If it's not a legal fiction, then what is it?
-
I know a couple who got married in a civil ceremony, she was baptized in the NO, he was baptized in a protestant church.
Eventually they both became trad Catholics and joined an SSPX church.
They were required to each be rebaptized then live as brother and sister for a year while he received instruction in the Catholic Church in order of them to have a formal Catholic ceremony.
Does that sound right?
-
All valid Trinitarian baptisms are "Catholic baptisms". Someone baptized by non-Catholics (remember, anyone can baptize validly, even an apostate) remains a Catholic until they attain the age of reason, at which time, if they embrace another religion (or no religion at all), they become at least material heretics, granted, through no fault of their own.
It seems to me, then, that the Church creates a kind of legal fiction, by which those children are treated in Canon Law as never having been Catholics. If it's not a legal fiction, then what is it?
It’s called obedience. The Church made the law and you are to follow it. The law can not be to your liking, but to use a disparaging term like “legal fiction” is not very edifying to say the least.
If you noticed, I questioned Ladislaus’ statement when he first posted it. When he showed me the Canon that proved his point, I accepted it without question.
-
Very good. Thank you for this!
Mortara case probably deserves a thread of its own. Very interesting. That actually contributed to why Napoleon III turned on Pius IX, without whose support it became impossible for the Church to hold onto the papal states.
-
I found this interesting post on another forum. The post has additional information regarding CCL 1917 for marriage.
https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=133.0
Baptized in the Catholic Church: This term causes some confusion. It is not a colloquial expression, but a technical term in canon law. In principle, it has nothing at all to do with the actual minister or even the place of baptism but with the intent of the person who is seeking baptism (or in the case of infants, the intent of the parents who seek to secure baptism for their child).
Here is Woywod on the term:
"The term 'baptized in the Catholic Church' creates some difficulty, especially in cases of baptism administered by lay persons. In the first place, if the father and mother, or at least one of them, are Catholics and adhere to the Church, the infant baptized at the request of the Catholic party by a non-Catholic doctor or nurse in a case of emergency may still be considered baptized in the Catholic Church, for there is but one baptism, and whether the reception of that baptism means the joining of the Catholic Church or of some non-Catholic denomination depends on the will of the person who has the right and duty to care for the welfare of the infant. If neither parent adheres to the Catholic Church (i.e., if both are Protestants or apostate Catholics), but one of them consents to have the infant baptized by a Catholic priest, one must know whether some guarantee was given of the Catholic education of the child; if so, the child was by the will of the parent legitimately enrolled in the Catholic Church. If such guarantee was not given, no Catholic priest or layman had the right to baptized the child, and it was not legitimately enrolled in the Church Church, except in urgent danger of death... The Committee for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code declared on April 29, 1940, that persons born of non-Catholics and baptized in the Catholic Church, but not raised as Catholics, are subject to the impediment of disparity of cult according to Canon 1070 when they marry unbaptized persons" (Woywod p. 713-14).
-
It’s called obedience. The Church made the law and you are to follow it. The law can not be to your liking, but to use a disparaging term like “legal fiction” is not very edifying to say the least.
If you noticed, I questioned Ladislaus’ statement when he first posted it. When he showed me the Canon that proved his point, I accepted it without question.
"Legal fiction" is not a disparaging term. It's a term from common law. There's nothing disedifying about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction)
Another such legal fiction is treating children from putative marriages, later declared null, as being legitimate. If the marriage never existed, then of course they are bastards (another term that is merely a neutral statement of fact, viz. a child born out of wedlock, but that has become disparaging in common parlance), but for many reasons, the Church declares them to be considered legitimate. Aside from the social stigma attaching to bastardy, there could be some secular jurisdictions that would look to the Church, in the case of Catholics anyway, to decide whether a child is legitimate or not. (And it's never the child's fault.)
A sanatio in radice is another example of a legal fiction in ecclesiastical law.
-
Mortara case probably deserves a thread of its own. Very interesting. That actually contributed to why Napoleon III turned on Pius IX, without whose support it became impossible for the Church to hold onto the papal states.
The Mortara case is interesting on several different levels. It’s one of the reasons the Jєωs hated Venerable Pius IX (A great man!)
-
So, given most baptized Catholics are Novus Ordo, how do they get married by a priest/in the Church? For a large percentage, we're not talking about people who even assist at a Latin Mass (who probably would marry in front of a priest anyway).
-
So, given most baptized Catholics are Novus Ordo, how do they get married by a priest/in the Church? For a large percentage, we're not talking about people who even assist at a Latin Mass (who probably would marry in front of a priest anyway).
Baptisms in the NO are valid, and are regarded as such unless there is some reason to assume the person had the wrong intent and the proper form was not followed.
-
Baptisms in the NO are valid, and are regarded as such unless there is some reason to assume the person had the wrong intent and the proper form was not followed.
I don't think I was clear. Canon Law requires baptized Catholics to get married before a priest. What happens when a NO baptized Catholic who doesn't attend mass/doesn't practice gets married to a non-Catholic? What is the chance that such a person would get married before a NO priest? Even if he/she did, NO priests are doubtful. In the end, are these NO Catholics actually getting married before a priest? And if not, what's the chance that such a person would get married before a certainly valid priest (outside of the SSPX, R&R or sede chapels)?
I have to wonder how this canon truly gets fulfilled by most who identify as "Catholic" these days.
-
I don't think I was clear. Canon Law requires baptized Catholics to get married before a priest. What happens when a NO baptized Catholic who doesn't attend mass/doesn't practice gets married to a non-Catholic? What is the chance that such a person would get married before a NO priest? Even if he/she did, NO priests are doubtful. In the end, are these NO Catholics actually getting married before a priest? And if not, what's the chance that such a person would get married before a certainly valid priest (outside of the SSPX, R&R or sede chapels)?
I have to wonder how this canon truly gets fulfilled by most who identify as "Catholic" these days.
If you assume that the NO (here shorthand for the post-Vatican II Church) is, indeed, the Catholic Church, and that she has the power of binding and loosing (which, strictly speaking, does not require that the Petrine chair be occupied by a valid Pope), then if a pastor allows a couple to marry, then whether the priest is validly ordained or not, shouldn't matter.
I know, it's messy.
-
"Legal fiction" is not a disparaging term. It's a term from common law. There's nothing disedifying about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction)
Another such legal fiction is treating children from putative marriages, later declared null, as being legitimate. If the marriage never existed, then of course they are bastards (another term that is merely a neutral statement of fact, viz. a child born out of wedlock, but that has become disparaging in common parlance), but for many reasons, the Church declares them to be considered legitimate. Aside from the social stigma attaching to bastardy, there could be some secular jurisdictions that would look to the Church, in the case of Catholics anyway, to decide whether a child is legitimate or not. (And it's never the child's fault.)
A sanatio in radice is another example of a legal fiction in ecclesiastical law.
Sorry, I assumed that you meant it in a disparaging way. For the record, this is from the source you cited:
The term legal fiction is sometimes used in a pejorative way. Jeremy Bentham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham) was a famous historical critic of legal fictions.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#cite_note-Wacks2012-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#cite_note-Moglen1998-6) Proponents of legal fictions, particularly their use historically (for example, before DNA evidence could give every child the ability to have both genetic parents determined), identify legal fictions as "scaffolding around a building under construction".[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#cite_note-7)
I’m always very hesitant in questioning the wisdom of the Church and Her laws. Actually, when I question it, it’s only because I want to understand Her reasoning behind it.
-
I don't think I was clear. Canon Law requires baptized Catholics to get married before a priest. What happens when a NO baptized Catholic who doesn't attend mass/doesn't practice gets married to a non-Catholic? What is the chance that such a person would get married before a NO priest? Even if he/she did, NO priests are doubtful. In the end, are these NO Catholics actually getting married before a priest? And if not, what's the chance that such a person would get married before a certainly valid priest (outside of the SSPX, R&R or sede chapels)?
I have to wonder how this canon truly gets fulfilled by most who identify as "Catholic" these days.
Vermont,
It’s a complete mess. I remember when Father C. and I would discuss how horrifically difficult it will be for the Church to analyze and formulate a solution for these marriage cases when She reestablishes Herself. :facepalm:
-
I found this interesting post on another forum. The post has additional information regarding CCL 1917 for marriage.
https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=133.0
Baptized in the Catholic Church: This term causes some confusion. It is not a colloquial expression, but a technical term in canon law. In principle, it has nothing at all to do with the actual minister or even the place of baptism but with the intent of the person who is seeking baptism (or in the case of infants, the intent of the parents who seek to secure baptism for their child).
Here is Woywod on the term:
That was about Canon 1070 in particular, not about 1099. 1099 stipulates that those baptized in the Catholic Church but to non-Catholic parents who then proceed to raise him as a non-Catholic from infancy are exempt from the requirement that they later be married with the canonical form (officiated over by a priest, with two witnesses, etc.).
I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation that this has to do with the intention of the person "seeking" Baptism, because then I can see no scenario in which it would ever happen. Why would non-Catholics seek to have their children baptized in the Church but then proceed to raise them as non-Catholics? Perhaps in the Mortara case, it would have been the nurse's intention with regard to "seeking Baptism" that would be construed as baptized in the Church? Unless that were the case, I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario in which non-Catholic parents who did not intend to raise the child Catholic would seek Baptism in the Church. If some Prots were living in Catholic territory and took their child to a priest for Baptism, wouldn't the priest question them about whether they intended to raise the child Catholic? Would they perhaps lie about it? This one is rather confusing.
But the bottom line is that if one of your parents at least was Catholic and took you to a Catholic Church to get baptized, and then you grow up (even if you weren't raised a Catholic), if you then get "married" in some non-Catholic scenario (Prot church, justice of the peace, etc.), your marriage would not be valid.
-
The Mortara case is interesting on several different levels. It’s one of the reasons the Jєωs hated Venerable Pius IX (A great man!)
I'm surprised that Wojtyla went ahead with the "beatification" of Pius IX after the howls and garment-rending from the Jєωιѕн quarter. I did read somewhere else, though, that they secretly relished this beatification because it would given them additional ammunition against the Church.
So, it was actually the case of Pius IX that made me reconsider my erstwhile dogmatic sedevacantism. I ran into a man who had decided that Pius IX was an anti-pope, a heretic. That gave me pause to consider whether this guy, or Father Cekada's infamous "Aunt Helen," could just denounce any Catholic pope as a non-Catholic anti-pope. There are a fair number of people who are starting jump on the bandwagon of declaring Pius IX an anti-Pope, therefore rejecting papal infallibility, and basically becoming Old Catholics and/or Orthodox.
What's interesting is that when Pope Pius IX condemned the Old Catholics, he accused them of rejecting the indefectibility (not infallibility) of the Church. He realized that it was a bit of a circular argument to say that they were rejecting an infallibly-defined dogma when it was the ability of a pope to infallibly define dogma that was being defined. So he teaches that the Old Catholics are heretical because their conclusion would mean that the Catholic Church had "gone off the rails" ... which is not possible given her indefectibility. That's why I keep saying that the core problem here really is indefectibility. People can quibble to a certain extent regarding the precise limits of "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton called it), but with the Conciliar Church we're not talking about a problematic statement in an Encyclical Letter, but the establishment of an entirely new theological system, system of worship ... in short, a new religion that, were this change attributed to the Catholic Church, it would be tantamount to a substantial corruption of the Catholic Church, making it unrecognizable as a religion to Catholics who lived and died before Vatican II, and therefore lacking the notes or marks of the One True Church founded by Christ. That is the problem here more than the precise legal disposition of a heretic pope.
-
Sorry, I assumed that you meant it in a disparaging way. For the record, this is from the source you cited:
The term legal fiction is sometimes used in a pejorative way. Jeremy Bentham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham) was a famous historical critic of legal fictions.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#cite_note-Wacks2012-5)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#cite_note-Moglen1998-6) Proponents of legal fictions, particularly their use historically (for example, before DNA evidence could give every child the ability to have both genetic parents determined), identify legal fictions as "scaffolding around a building under construction".[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#cite_note-7)
I’m always very hesitant in questioning the wisdom of the Church and Her laws. Actually, when I question it, it’s only because I want to understand Her reasoning behind it.
True, but he says "sometimes", and clearly I didn't mean it pejoratively.
I'm not questioning the wisdom of the Church and her laws when I say that declaring children attaining the age of reason not to be Catholics if they are raised to believe a non-Catholic religion, declaring them legitimate even though their parents' marriage was null ab initio, and retroactively validating a marriage with a sanatio in radice (which can even be kept secret from the objecting spouse) are all legal fictions. All three fall within the Church's authority of binding and loosing. Put another way, creating legal fictions are part of that authority.
-
True, but he says "sometimes", and clearly I didn't mean it pejoratively.
I'm not questioning the wisdom of the Church and her laws when I say that declaring children attaining the age of reason not to be Catholics if they are raised to believe a non-Catholic religion, declaring them legitimate even though their parents' marriage was null ab initio, and retroactively validating a marriage with a sanatio in radice (which can even be kept secret from the objecting spouse) are all legal fictions. All three fall within the Church's authority of binding and loosing. Put another way, creating legal fictions are part of that authority.
So, this is precisely why the code treats of those who are baptized into the Catholic Church, as the Church has the right and the authority to impose legal obligations for the conditions required to contract a valid marriage over and above the requirements of Divine Law. Church has no such authority over those who were not baptized in the Catholic Church, and that is precisely the reason why this legal requirement does not apply to non-Catholics. Conversely, the Church could at any time lift this requirement and declare that a Catholic could marry validly even in a civil ceremony. But the Church in her wisdom realizes what grave harm this would do to the Sacrament of Matrimony.
So it is incorrect to call them legal fictions. When the Church binds on earth, it is bound in heaven, and vice versa. It's the Church's actual law and it determines reality, and not merely a legal fiction. To use the term "fiction" suggests that such people are not REALLY married, but the Church is merely pretending that they are for the purposes of subsequent application of law. When the Church declares a sanatio, the couple do in fact become married in reality, reality being "in the eyes of God".
-
So, it was actually the case of Pius IX that made me reconsider my erstwhile dogmatic sedevacantism. I ran into a man who had decided that Pius IX was an anti-pope, a heretic. That gave me pause to consider whether this guy, or Father Cekada's infamous "Aunt Helen," could just denounce any Catholic pope as a non-Catholic anti-pope. There are a fair number of people who are starting jump on the bandwagon of declaring Pius IX an anti-Pope, therefore rejecting papal infallibility, and basically becoming Old Catholics and/or Orthodox.
Just out of curiosity, do these people just reject Pius IX, or all popes after him as well? That would be a very long period of sede vacante. Shades of Richard Ibranyi!
Not saying I embrace this WRT Pius IX --- I don't --- but couldn't any given pope just be an antipope in isolation, assuming that subsequent conclaves were able to elect valid popes? Or if you maintain that one pope is an antipope, then does the papacy basically "die" until... until what? The latter doesn't really make sense.
-
This thread seems to be straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.
-
So, this is precisely why the code treats of those who are baptized into the Catholic Church, as the Church has the right and the authority to impose legal obligations for the conditions required to contract a valid marriage over and above the requirements of Divine Law. Church has no such authority over those who were not baptized in the Catholic Church, and that is precisely the reason why this legal requirement does not apply to non-Catholics. Conversely, the Church could at any time lift this requirement and declare that a Catholic could marry validly even in a civil ceremony. But the Church in her wisdom realizes what grave harm this would do to the Sacrament of Matrimony.
So it is incorrect to call them legal fictions. When the Church binds on earth, it is bound in heaven, and vice versa. It's the Church's actual law and it determines reality, and not merely a legal fiction. To use the term "fiction" suggests that such people are not REALLY married, but the Church is merely pretending that they are for the purposes of subsequent application of law. When the Church declares a sanatio, the couple do in fact become married in reality, reality being "in the eyes of God".
No, WRT sanatio in radice, the Church is not saying that there is no marriage, rather, she is saying that there is a marriage now and henceforth, and that she will treat it as though there was a valid marriage from the beginning, even though from the time it was illicitly and invalidly contracted, up to the moment the sanatio is promulgated, there was, in fact, no valid marriage. It is basically convalidation without requiring the spouses to renew their vows, i.e., retroactive validation. There could be any one (or more) of several reasons for so doing.
From The Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent):
The dispensation called sanatio in radice consists in the revalidation of a marriage by reason of a consent formerly given, but ineffective at the time owing to some ecclesiastical impediment. When the impediment is removed, the consent is ipso facto ratified and no renovation is required. In such a case, it is requisite that the consent of both parties to the marriage had not ceased and that their wedlock had had the external appearance of a true marriage. Sanatio is resorted to when there is urgent reason for not acquainting the parties with the nullity of their marriage, or when one of the parties alone is cognizant of the impediment and the other cannot be informed without grave consequences, or when one party would be unwilling formally to renew a consent that is presumably existent. The pope has power to give the dispensation called sanatio in radice for all marriages which are invalid in consequence of an ecclesiastical impediment. Bishops generally have no such power, even when by particular indult they can dispense in diriment impediments. For the granting of sanatio in radice a special apostolic faculty is required. In the United States, the ordinaries may grant such dispensation, under certain limitations, when only of the parties to the marriage is aware of the impediment.
I always liken it to the assertion made by some, that Ohio was never properly admitted to the Union in 1803, due to a procedural error, so in 1953, Congress retroactively made Ohio a state from the time of its putative 1803 admission up until that moment. The case can be made that from 1803 to 1953, without anyone realizing it, Ohio was not a state, but was, in fact, the sole remaining rump remnant of the Northwest Territory. It's entirely possible that without this, any laws passed by Congress, where Ohio's Senate and/or House votes would have made the difference between ratifying them and not ratifying them, would be invalid. That would be, as the saying goes, like trying to make fish soup into an aquarium, as opposed to making an aquarium into fish soup (which would be relatively easy by comparison).
-
If only a valid Catholic priest can administer the sacraments(marriage being one of them) then doesn't it
stand to reason that all the people who were married in false churches and sects or the local courthouse or by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, aren't really married at all?
If they then get a divorce are they free to marry in the Catholic faith since their first "marriage" wasn't really valid?
I think you may be forgetting about the Marriage Contract:
Canon 1012
§ 1. Christ the Lord raised the marriage contract itself to the dignity of a sacrament among the baptized.
§ 2. Therefore among the baptized there can be no valid contract of marriage without its also being a sacrament.
For Catholics who marry in the Church, while the sacrament itself suffices to assist the married spouses for their whole lives in all the duties they have till one of them dies, it is the contract that binds them to their vows until one of them dies.
Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.
Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.
The Church recognizes all marriages as valid initially - 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.
-
I think you may be forgetting about the Marriage Contract:
For Catholics who marry in the Church, while the sacrament itself suffices to assist the married spouses for their whole lives in all the duties they have till one of them dies, it is the contract that binds them to their vows until one of them dies.
Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.
Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.
The Church recognizes all marriages as valid initially - 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.
Good question. Wouldn't the canons regarding reasons for annulment provide some insight?
-
Good question. Wouldn't the canons regarding reasons for annulment provide some insight?
I may be wrong to do so, but I view this issue re: title of the OP, similar to all of the Church's sacraments, by that I mean simply that it is a mortal sin to administer or receive any of the sacraments outside of the Church, and while doing so is sinful, it does not invalidate the sacrament.
For example, an *adult* prot baptism done correctly is still a valid baptism, but is sinful to both the minister and the recipient because it is done outside of the Church. I don't know why it wouldn't it work the same way for the sacrament of matrimony, maybe it does but I don't see why it wouldn't.
-
The Catholic Church has always recognized marriages in other religions as valid. In fact, in the Catholic Church, you don't even need a priest to preside over the marriage. A Catholic man and woman can marry each other by exchanging vows before God, absent a priest, as long as there are witnesses.
Side note: the Church always recognized batpisms in other religions as valid, too, as long as the form, matter and intent are all present.
-
Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.
Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.
Catholics may not validly marry without canonical form unless a dispensation to do so is granted by the bishop. Two Catholics who hie themselves off to a justice of the peace, even if they are otherwise free to marry, do not marry validly, and there is no sacrament. This is due to the Church's authority to bind and to loose, which trumps the fact that two Catholics, free to marry, confer a valid sacrament upon one another. Canonical form gives them the "faculty", as it were, to confer the sacrament validly.
A similar analogy would be a priest who hears confessions without having faculties from the bishop of the diocese where he hears the confessions. The absolution he confers is invalid, even though he has the power of the priesthood to grant absolution per se. (I omit here the claims to emergency jurisdiction, epikeia, and the case of a priest who absolves someone in danger of death. I refer here to normal circuмstances.)
Pushing the analogy even further, there is the scenario, discussed in Fr Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, where a priest may validly ordain another priest with the permission of the Pope. He has the power to do so, but he cannot validly ordain without that permission. (I know, I thought it sounded bogus too. This is the reasoning that Fr Lucian Pulvermacher used when he ordained priests, and even consecrated bishops, when he became "Pope Pius XIII". He inferred that if a priest can ordain another priest, then with permission of the Pope --- in this case, himself --- a priest can consecrate a bishop, who in turn can consecrate other bishops, "jump-starting" the apostolic succession, as it were, IOW, in extremis, apostolic succession can come through a priest, in that every priest has been ordained by a bishop. IIRC --- don't quote me on this --- he used the alleged scenario of priests consecrating bishops secretly in Iron Curtain countries as a precedent. I will welcome anyone confirming whether I have this latter scenario correct.)
He would have made a good Pope. A far sight better than whom we have now.
-
I dunno, you could be right, but I think Matrimony is a different case from Ordinations / Absolutions.
Ott says this:
Since Christ elevated natural marriage, which consisted essentially in the contract of marriage, to the dignity of a Sacrament and an efficacious sign of grace, the Sacrament of Matrimony coincides materially with the contract of
marriage. Consequently every valid contract of marriage between Christians is, on the ground of positive Divine ordinance, at the same time a Sacrament. According to the Decretum pro Armenis, the mutual declaration of will of
the pair to be married (not the priestly blessing !) is the efficient cause of the Sacrament of Matrimony (D 702). According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, those clandestine marriages contracted without the co-operation of the Church by the free declaration of will of the contracting parties are valid marriages so long as the Church does not declare them invalid.
Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XI expressly declared that in Christian marriage the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be separated from the contract of marriage, and that on account of this, every true marriage among Christians is in itself and of itself a Sacrament.
This ^^ is what I was getting at - initially, the Church regards all marriages as valid, and if they are not valid She needs to declare them invalid.
I think there are probably some marriage minded trads out there who, having no luck finding another trad to marry, might start to think there is an open field of invalidly married potential spouses out there they can tap into. Or converts to tradition who married when they were prot or NO or whatever and think they see a way out of a bad marriage. But the Church always initially says the marriages are valid until She declares them invalid.
-
Apologies for the length of the proceeding post, but it seems highly relevant. Copied and pasted from a thread from a few years ago, this table describes the lawfulness and validity of all possible marriages. Please be sure to read the "other notes" below, which argue that due to Canon 1098, marriages that violate the Catholic form of marriage are still valid due to the crisis in the Church and the inability of marrying before one's pastor.
(https://i.imgur.com/XI8CAvm.png)
NOTES:
[1] [Civil Marriage] "Marriage between unbaptized persons is subject to the civil power, and in the case of these marriages the civil law has the right to determine the condition of the validity as well as the liceity of these marriage contracts. However, the civil power is bound to respect the divine law on marriage, and all civil laws which contradict the divine law are necessarily null and void" (Woywod vol. 1, p. 647 1957 ed.).
[2] [Marriage outside the Catholic Church] Canon 1094: "General Principle: Church Law requires for the validity of marriage that it be celebrated in the presence of the pastor or Ordinary of the place, or of a priest delegated by either of these, and at least two witnesses...
..."The Following Persons are obliged to observe the form above prescribed:
1) All who are baptized in the Catholic Church or who have been converted to it from heresy or schism, even though the former or the latter may later have left the Church, whenever the contract marriage among themselves;
2) The same persons above mentioned, if they contract marriage with non-Catholics, either baptized or not baptized, even after obtaining a dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion or disparity of cult" (Bouscaren and Ellis, 1946, C. 1094, p. 516).
[3] [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Valid and Licit] "If the civil law demands it, the Church does not censure parties for appearing even before a non-Catholic minister who is acting merely as an official of the government, provided that their purpose is solely to comply with the civil law and to get civil recognition of their marriage" (Woywod., p. 704).
[4] [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Valid and Licit] “Also note that Canon 1098 provides for Catholics who, if their pastor is unavailable to witness their marriage for the foreseeable future (a month), they are allowed to validly marry before witnesses only, and the canon does not require that these witnesses be Catholic. So in such a situation, a civil ceremony would suffice” (Woywod p. 705). [Also see “Regarding Canon 1098” at the end of the notes].
[5] [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Invalid and Illicit] It would be invalid and illicit, taking into account the principles from [2] and the details of canon 1099, if the couple forewent the religious ceremony in favor of the civil ceremony. Note that the civil officiation of the marriage does not make it valid or licit, but only under certain conditions simply makes it allowable, provided that canon 1094 is followed.
[6] [Marriage by two Catholics in the Catholic Church without the Bishop’s Permission] Does not seem possible; the bishops permission is not required except inasmuch as the couple are to be married in front of their pastor who is deputed by the bishop to act on his behalf. So in the rare and unusual instance that a couple, though free to marry, are for some reason forbidden by their pastor from marrying (something he does not, to my knowledge, have the power to do), and they go and get married in a different parish, one might perhaps face this instance. But it would still seem valid and lawful.
[7] [Marriage between two Catholics outside the Catholic Church with Bishop’s Permission] Does not seem possible at all.
[8] [Marriage between two Catholics outside the Catholic Church without Bishop’s Permission as invalid and illicit] See Note [2]. Also, regard later notes re: C. 1098
[9] [Civil Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic as invalid and illicit] It depends on whether or not the baptized non-Catholic was baptized in the Catholic Church. See note [2] and notes [3-5]
[10] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic in the Catholic Church with the Bishop’s Permission as valid and licit] The impediment of mixed religion may be dispensed from, rendering the marriage lawful and valid. Note that mixed religion never (by itself) renders a marriage invalid (Woywod, p. 670). The conditions for the dispensation to be granted is moral certainty on the part of the bishop that the non-Catholic party will at least not interfere with the upbringing of Catholic children and will not interfere with the Catholic life and duty of the family.
[11] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic in the Catholic Church, without the Bishop’s permission as valid and illicit] "Canon 1060. The Church everywhere most severely forbids the contracting of marriage between two baptized persons of whom one is a Catholic whereas the other is a member of a heretical or schismatical sect; and if there is danger of perversion for the Catholic party and the children, the marriage is forbidden also by the divine law itself" (Bouscaren and Ellis, p. 458 ).
My comment: without a dispensation (i.e., the permission of the ordinary), the marriage would be unlawful.
[12] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church with the Bishop’s permission as valid and licit] This would require not only a dispensation from the impediment but also a dispensation to the Catholic party to dispense them from observing the Catholic form of marriage.
[13] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church without the Bishop’s permission as valid and licit] Theoretically lawful and valid according to canon 1098. [See also note [4] and “Regarding Canon 1098” at the end of the notes].
[14] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church without the bishop’s permission as valid and illicit] Theoretically valid but unlawful according to canon 1098 depending on why the bishop's permission was not given-- was he appealed to? Could he be appealed to? etc. This note is not substantially different from the previous note. It's a very complicated situation. [See also note [4] and “Regarding Canon 1098” at the end of the notes].
[15] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church, without the Bishop’s permission as invalid and illicit] Without any extenuating circuмstance (such as one which would make canon 1098 applicable), the marriage would be invalid for wont of form and the lack of dispensation allowing the Catholic to marry elsewhere.
[16] [Civil Marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized as valid and licit] This is the impediment of disparity of cult (C. 1070), which renders a marriage invalid unless dispensed from (Woywod p. 712, see note [17]). So if this couple marries civilly without sufficient reason/dispensation, it is an invalid marriage. If, however, a dispensation is granted and the marriage before civil authorities is simply to gain civil benefits and recognition while the couple intend to or already have married in the Church with the proper dispensation and form, see note [3].
[17] [Marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized without the Bishop’s permission, regardless of place] Marriage between a person baptized in the Catholic Church, or received into the Church from heresy or schism, and an unbaptized person is null and void" (Woywod p. 712, C. 1070)
[18] [All marriages where both parties are not baptized] The Church's law does not govern infidels. Such persons are capable of contracting natural marriages that are valid and lawful inasmuch as they meet the conditions established for validity and liciety according to whatever governing body to whom they answer.
OTHER NOTES
Regarding Canon 1098: Canon 1098 is, in my opinion (so take it for what it’s worth), a law which dispenses parties from the requirement to observe the proper form of marriage, i.e., it dispenses from the requirement to marry in front of one’s pastor under pain of invalidity.
My opinion is based on the fact that the canon itself makes no requirement regarding the quality of witnesses (that is, it does not require them to be Catholic), nor have I ever read any commentators who require such a thing—indeed, most who write about the canon presuppose that this is not the case (i.e., when a couple to whom canon 1098 applies decide to marry in front of a civil official).
If that is the case, and I believe it is, then as a general (though exceptional) rule given the current ecclesiastical crisis, we can view the marriages between Catholics who marry outside the Church, and between Catholics and the baptized non-Catholics who marry outside the Church, as valid.
This study (https://archive.org/details/Canon1098AndTheValidityOfMarriagesToday)goes into great detail on the matter and echoes my own view about it.
Presumption of Validity: To bolster that contention, I would point out that marriage is a unique sacrament because it enjoys the favor of the law. That means that regardless of the type of doubt which may occur after the attempted contracting of marriage, marriages are presumed valid until and unless they are proven invalid.
Baptized in the Catholic Church: This term causes some confusion. It is not a colloquial expression, but a technical term in canon law. In principle, it has nothing at all to do with the actual minister or even the place of baptism but with the intent of the person who is seeking baptism (or in the case of infants, the intent of the parents who seek to secure baptism for their child).
Here is Woywod on the term:
"The term 'baptized in the Catholic Church' creates some difficulty, especially in cases of baptism administered by lay persons. In the first place, if the father and mother, or at least one of them, are Catholics and adhere to the Church, the infant baptized at the request of the Catholic party by a non-Catholic doctor or nurse in a case of emergency may still be considered baptized in the Catholic Church, for there is but one baptism, and whether the reception of that baptism means the joining of the Catholic Church or of some non-Catholic denomination depends on the will of the person who has the right and duty to care for the welfare of the infant. If neither parent adheres to the Catholic Church (i.e., if both are Protestants or apostate Catholics), but one of them consents to have the infant baptized by a Catholic priest, one must know whether some guarantee was given of the Catholic education of the child; if so, the child was by the will of the parent legitimately enrolled in the Catholic Church. If such guarantee was not given, no Catholic priest or layman had the right to baptized the child, and it was not legitimately enrolled in the Church Church, except in urgent danger of death... The Committee for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code declared on April 29, 1940, that persons born of non-Catholics and baptized in the Catholic Church, but not raised as Catholics, are subject to the impediment of disparity of cult according to Canon 1070 when they marry unbaptized persons" (Woywod p. 713-14).
Again, “baptized in the Catholic Church” is not a “common sense” term, not a general colloquialism, or anything of the like. It is a technical term with an intended legal meaning and legal consequences in this context. Apostates, for instance, would be “baptized in the Catholic Church” and despite their current-non-membership and rejection of the Church, they would be bound by this law. The Church normally governs only members in the sense that most of her laws apply only to members, but by divine right she has jurisdiction over all the baptized, and it is her jurisprudential prerogative to decide the extent to which she imposes her laws on them.
Purpose of Table: This is all my own opinion based on the sources provided. It's not uncommon for questions about marital validity to pop up around the forums, so I thought having this table would be useful. The table itself was designed by Geremia and posted on CI a while back, with a request for someone to fill it in. I am more than happy to receive any corrections or additions to the table if I've got something wrong.
Please also note that when I reference a marriage as lawful, that doesn't necessarily mean that either party attempting the marriage is free of all guilt. For instance, while I believe that the marriage between two Catholics in front of a Lutheran minister can be lawful, I do not mean to imply by this that the parties necessarily act with all moral uprightness in so marrying, only that the marriage itself is not unlawful. Other Catholic and moral principles that are distinct from marriage law still apply to all individuals.
Furthermore, a note of validity assumes that parties are free to marry and that there are no other impediments which would render the marriage invalid. In cases where other diriment impediments are present, those can of course render a marriage null regardless of who the parties are and where (and in front of whom) they marry.
-
Ott says this:
This ^^ is what I was getting at - initially, the Church regards all marriages as valid, and if they are not valid She needs to declare them invalid.
I think there are probably some marriage minded trads out there who, having no luck finding another trad to marry, might start to think there is an open field of invalidly married potential spouses out there they can tap into. Or converts to tradition who married when they were prot or NO or whatever and think they see a way out of a bad marriage. But the Church always initially says the marriages are valid until She declares them invalid.
That's exactly the reason I started this thread and the explanation I was looking for. Thank you
-
Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.
Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.
This is not correct. Such marriage would be invalid. This is the same issue you have with attempting to reduce heresy / schism to mortal sin.
Canon Law explicitly states that these marriages are invalid ... not merely illicit (i.e. sinful).
-
Just out of curiosity, do these people just reject Pius IX, or all popes after him as well? That would be a very long period of sede vacante. Shades of Richard Ibranyi!
Not saying I embrace this WRT Pius IX --- I don't --- but couldn't any given pope just be an antipope in isolation, assuming that subsequent conclaves were able to elect valid popes? Or if you maintain that one pope is an antipope, then does the papacy basically "die" until... until what? The latter doesn't really make sense.
This individual I mentioned merely limited this to Pius IX, but yes, there's no real theological backstop from there to declaring the every pope since then to be also invalid ... i.e. going Ibranyi, or, more recently, Pontrello. Once you go there, it's a hop, skip, and a jump to either Old Catholicism or Orthodoxy (which is where Ponrello and some of his "followers" ended up).
This was the central point of that "Pope-Sifting" letter (that The Angelus printed without my permissions as an article). This phenomenon is precisely what I referred to as Pope-Sifting.
-
I dunno, you could be right, but I think Matrimony is a different case from Ordinations / Absolutions.
Ott says this:
This ^^ is what I was getting at - initially, the Church regards all marriages as valid, and if they are not valid She needs to declare them invalid.
I think there are probably some marriage minded trads out there who, having no luck finding another trad to marry, might start to think there is an open field of invalidly married potential spouses out there they can tap into. Or converts to tradition who married when they were prot or NO or whatever and think they see a way out of a bad marriage. But the Church always initially says the marriages are valid until She declares them invalid.
Your citation rejects the separation between the marriage and the Sacrament.
Regardless, however, the Decree on Armenians simply referred to the fact that the couple actually contract the marriage, rather than the priest, at least in the Latin Rite (it's different in the Eastern). This decree on the Armenians was referring to the schismatic Armenian Church, so the question was whether marriage contracted without the witness of a priest was valid for them (i.e. for these non-Catholics) or whether, upon being readmitted to the Church they would be considered valid. This was to distinguish those couples among these schismatic non-Catholics who got officially married before a priest. So the Church declares that these marriages among non-Catholics did not require the witness of a priest, i.e. not only did the Church accept as married those among them who had their marriages witnessed by a priest, but also those who did not, since the Church here declared here that 1) the couple contract the Sacrament of Matrimony and 2) the requirement for a priest to officiate or witness it does not apply to non-Catholics.
-
If a person baptized in the Catholic Church does not observe the correct form, they marry invalidly. However-- and this is a BIG however-- the form of Catholic marriage is the exchange of vows before a lawfully appointed minister of the Catholic Church. It is not the wedding mass, nor even the prescribed nuptial rite itself. It has everything to do with who is witnessing the marriage on behalf of the Church.
.
An even bigger "however" is the fact that canon 1098 allows a couple to marry in front of non-appointed witnesses if it is foreseen that their pastor will not be available within a month. I believe that due to the crisis of the Church, canon 1098 applies more or less wholesale to Catholic marriages today, rendering many marriages which would otherwise be invalid, valid.
-
What's interesting is that when Pope Pius IX condemned the Old Catholics, he accused them of rejecting the indefectibility (not infallibility) of the Church. He realized that it was a bit of a circular argument to say that they were rejecting an infallibly-defined dogma when it was the ability of a pope to infallibly define dogma that was being defined. So he teaches that the Old Catholics are heretical because their conclusion would mean that the Catholic Church had "gone off the rails" ... which is not possible given her indefectibility. That's why I keep saying that the core problem here really is indefectibility. People can quibble to a certain extent regarding the precise limits of "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton called it), but with the Conciliar Church we're not talking about a problematic statement in an Encyclical Letter, but the establishment of an entirely new theological system, system of worship ... in short, a new religion that, were this change attributed to the Catholic Church, it would be tantamount to a substantial corruption of the Catholic Church, making it unrecognizable as a religion to Catholics who lived and died before Vatican II, and therefore lacking the notes or marks of the One True Church founded by Christ. That is the problem here more than the precise legal disposition of a heretic pope.
So the Old Catholics would have been theologically sound on indefectibility if they had declared Pius IX a heretic and therefore not a pope since not Catholic, and therefore the true Catholic Church, which is only governed by legitimate, non-heretical, Catholic popes, was still somewhere present and indefectible post-Vatican I? That church under Pius IX, perhaps the First Conciliar Church, whatever it was, wasn't the Catholic Church - so would go an Old Catholic who had his argument tightened.
That's basically your argument: the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church because its "popes" and bishops who accept their doctrine and governance are heretics and the true Catholic Church remains among us and indefectible despite those four or five or whatever non-popes sitting on the see of Peter for some 60 years running and no visible governing body for that entire period.
You're an Old Catholic with the benefit of about 150 or so years of theological refinement.
-
An even bigger "however" is the fact that canon 1098 allows a couple to marry in front of non-appointed witnesses if it is foreseen that their pastor will not be available within a month. I believe that due to the crisis of the Church, canon 1098 applies more or less wholesale to Catholic marriages today, rendering many marriages which would otherwise be invalid, valid.
Hello Mithrandylan-
Do you say 1098 applies wholesale amidst this crisis because there are no more church pastors holding legitimate office (which wouls satisfy sedes, but not R&R)?
or
Do you say 1098 applies because the moral impossibility of a trad summoning a conciliar priest satisfies the "grave inconvenience" exception clause of 1098 (which would satisfy both sedes and R&R)?
-
Hello Mithrandylan-
Do you say 1098 applies wholesale amidst this crisis because there are no more church pastors holding legitimate office (which wouls satisfy sedes, but not R&R)?
or
Do you say 1098 applies because the moral impossibility of a trad summoning a conciliar priest satisfies the "grave inconvenience" exception clause of 1098 (which would satisfy both sedes and R&R)?
.
I do not hold that there are no more church pastors, but I do hold that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine who they are, and would concede that most Catholics are without pastors for all intents and purposes due to the difficulty in sorting the proverbial wheat from the chaff. So between the two options you gave, my position would be closer to the latter.
-
.
I do not hold that there are no more church pastors, but I do hold that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine who they are, and would concede that most Catholics are without pastors for all intents and purposes due to the difficulty in sorting the proverbial wheat from the chaff. So between the two options you gave, my position would be closer to the latter.
Much appreciated; thank you.
-
Much appreciated; thank you.
For what it's worth, I think marriages officiated by the SSPX, CMRI, and other independent clergy are valid marriages by virtue of canon 1098 rather than by virtue of any particular supplied jurisdiction. or at least, I think the argument from canon 1098 is a much stronger, more airtight argument than an argument from supplied jurisdiction or common error.
.
-
For me, this excerpt from the protest of the seven French SSPX deans (one of which -Fr. Gaudray- was a professor of mine in Winona) says all I need:
"...we reply that the state of necessity which legitimates our way of doing things is not canonical, but dogmatic, and that the impossibility of having recourse to the current authorities is not a physical, but a moral one."
In other words, I'm fine with canonical arguments, insofar as they are applicable (e.g., the moral imposibility of obtaining a conciliar delegation satisfying the "grave inconvenience" clause of 1098), but they often will close off avenues of survival -contrary to their purpose- precisely because as St. Thomas says, laws are written for ordinary times, and necessarily leave out of consideration circuмstances which happen only rarely.
For me, the stronger argument is always dogmatic and doctrinal (e.g., necessity, epikeia).
I realize nobody is denying this, but just wanted to bring it into the conversation, unless people paint themselves into a corner by only entertaining canonical considerations.
PS to Mith: Looks like we were typing at the same time.
-
This is not correct. Such marriage would be invalid. This is the same issue you have with attempting to reduce heresy / schism to mortal sin.
Canon Law explicitly states that these marriages are invalid ... not merely illicit (i.e. sinful).
Which canon law?
-
Apologies for the length of the proceeding post, but it seems highly relevant. Copied and pasted from a thread from a few years ago, this table describes the lawfulness and validity of all possible marriages. Please be sure to read the "other notes" below, which argue that due to Canon 1098, marriages that violate the Catholic form of marriage are still valid due to the crisis in the Church and the inability of marrying before one's pastor.
Yes, that's a different question of course, since Traditional Catholics don't marry before their "pastor" as we don't actually have pastors (that we feel we can go to).
Conciliar Church of course considers Trad marriages to be invalid on these grounds.
So it all boils down to whether you believe that we live in a Crisis that renders this impossible.
-
Your citation rejects the separation between the marriage and the Sacrament.
Regardless, however, the Decree on Armenians simply referred to the fact that the couple actually contract the marriage, rather than the priest, at least in the Latin Rite (it's different in the Eastern). This decree on the Armenians was referring to the schismatic Armenian Church, so the question was whether marriage contracted without the witness of a priest was valid for them (i.e. for these non-Catholics) or whether, upon being readmitted to the Church they would be considered valid. This was to distinguish those couples among these schismatic non-Catholics who got officially married before a priest. So the Church declares that these marriages among non-Catholics did not require the witness of a priest, i.e. not only did the Church accept as married those among them who had their marriages witnessed by a priest, but also those who did not, since the Church here declared here that 1) the couple contract the Sacrament of Matrimony and 2) the requirement for a priest to officiate or witness it does not apply to non-Catholics.
I don't have a clue what you're babbling on about. Reject what separation? - Canon law 1012 I posted says there can be no separation in a valid marriage. Why bring in the Armenians, what about the Irish? Plenty of posters from Ireland here you know.
Whatever it is your babbling on about, what Ott says simply makes sense....
"According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, those clandestine marriages contracted without the co-operation of the Church by the free declaration of will of the contracting parties are valid marriages so long as the Church does not declare them invalid."
-
Which canon law?
1917 Code 1070 and 1098 in particular. I cited it above, but I deleted the cross-references to the 1983 Code, but the latter upholds the same standards ... EXCEPT that at some point that I not yet researched, one of the Conciliar papal claimants made an exception for those who formally renounced their Catholic faith. But that caused so much confusion that in 2009 Ratzinger rolled it back.
-
I don't have a clue what you're babbling on about. Reject what separation? - Canon law 1012 I posted says there can be no separation in a valid marriage. Why bring in the Armenians, what about the Irish? Plenty of posters from Ireland here you know.
I bring up the Armenians since that was the context of your citation from Ott, duh? So you brought up the Armenians by citing that passage.
-
.
I do not hold that there are no more church pastors, but I do hold that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine who they are, and would concede that most Catholics are without pastors for all intents and purposes due to the difficulty in sorting the proverbial wheat from the chaff. So between the two options you gave, my position would be closer to the latter.
If you're with SSPX now, though, you're good ... since they have some symbiotic relationship with the Conciliar Church to make sure the Conciliar Bishop and one of his appointed presbyters PROPERLY witnesses / approves of your marriage.
So does this mean all those people the SSPX witnessed marriages for should go back to the SSPX to get their original marriages sanated by the Novus Ordo? Methinks this sends mixed messages and confusion to the faithful.
I've actually known two cases where women who wanted to leave their Trad husbands decided to get their marriages "annulled" (declared null) by the Novus Ordo on these grounds ... and they're now "happily remarried" (having milked their husbands for most of their martial assets while also cohabitating with someone providing another income). There are major financial incentives for pulling this stung. You get to milk your ex AND shack up with another "provider" and get dual incomes.
-
I didn't read every last posting on this thread, so if this is repetition.....never mind.
I have an acquaintance whose daughter that got permission from her local NO Bishop to marry a Jєω in a Jєωιѕн ceremony. The reason given was that getting married by a priest in a Church would cause too much distress and hardship for the Jєω and his family. A priest was not present.
I also know of a few marriages where both a priest and rabbi officiated together. I don't think this is unusual in the NO.
So , approved by the NO, but VALID????
-
I didn't read every last posting on this thread, so if this is repetition.....never mind.
I have an acquaintance whose daughter that got permission from her local NO Bishop to marry a Jєω in a Jєωιѕн ceremony. The reason given was that getting married by a priest in a Church would cause too much distress and hardship for the Jєω and his family. A priest was not present.
I also know of a few marriages where both a priest and rabbi officiated together. I don't think this is unusual in the NO.
So , approved by the NO, but VALID????
Yeah, that's why I don't understand why a NO baptized Catholic who doesn't practice the faith enters a valid marriage only if he/she has his/her marriage witnessed by a NO "priest".
-
If you assume that the NO (here shorthand for the post-Vatican II Church) is, indeed, the Catholic Church, and that she has the power of binding and loosing (which, strictly speaking, does not require that the Petrine chair be occupied by a valid Pope), then if a pastor allows a couple to marry, then whether the priest is validly ordained or not, shouldn't matter.
I know, it's messy.
So....even if the pastor is not a Catholic priest, but effectively a Protestant minister it doesn't matter?
-
So the Old Catholics would have been theologically sound on indefectibility if they had declared Pius IX a heretic and therefore not a pope since not Catholic, and therefore the true Catholic Church, which is only governed by legitimate, non-heretical, Catholic popes, was still somewhere present and indefectible post-Vatican I? That church under Pius IX, perhaps the First Conciliar Church, whatever it was, wasn't the Catholic Church - so would go an Old Catholic who had his argument tightened.
That's basically your argument: the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church because its "popes" and bishops who accept their doctrine and governance are heretics and the true Catholic Church remains among us and indefectible despite those four or five or whatever non-popes sitting on the see of Peter for some 60 years running and no visible governing body for that entire period.
You're an Old Catholic with the benefit of about 150 or so years of theological refinement.
This is a fairly solid point ... except that you're addressing it to the wrong individual. In fact, in my "Pope-Sifting" thesis, I pointed out explicitly that it's not acceptable to argue modo tollentis (aka, backwards) from a purported error taught by the Holy See to the illegitimacy of the Pope. That's precisely what is meant by "Pope-Sifting".
I argue from the fact that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church founded by Christ that the Papal authority and Magisterium that gave birth to this new religion cannot possibly be legitimate Papal authority being freely exercised.
As to how this happened or why, take your pick ... heretic pope, infiltrator pope, no pope, material pope, impounded pope, blackmailed pope(s), drugged pope, brainwashed MK Ultra pope, imposter pope, impeded pope (Siri was the true pope) ... my personal favorite. I'm not a dogmatic SV, and in fact I have referred to myself as a "sede-doubtist", appealing to the principle of papa dubius nullus papa (at least in the practical order), which positive doubt suffices for exonerating Traditional Catholics of schism / heresy.
It is precisely in this area, in identifying the credibility of an institution as being the One True Church of Christ where human reason (for us, enlightened by faith, since we have the faith to guide us) does play a legitimate role. We reject the claims of the Conciliar Church to be the One True Church founded by Christ. We do not recognize in the teaching of the V2 Papal Claimants the Voice of the Shepherd.
At no point did the Catholic Church under Pius IX lose the notes of the Church or cease to be be recognizable as the Catholic Church. Thus, since it's identifiable as the Church of Chist, it's indefectible and protected by the Holy Spirit from a grave error such as defining a false dogma. Had St. Pius V time-warped forward to the reign of Pius IX, he would have absolutely no problem identifying the Church under Pius IX as the Catholic Church. Had St. Pius V time-warped froward to the alleged / putative reign of Jorge Bergoglio, he would never in a million years guess that this sect is the Holy Catholic Church. And if you told him that it was, he'd immediately drop dead of horror.
This is my problem with you guys ... not that you might have one or another theory about how and why this crisis happened, but because you blaspheme and deride Holy Mother Church by claiming that she can become a whore like this and corrupt Catholic faith, morals, worship, and cultus (veneration of the saints).
It's absolutely laughable ... if it weren't diabolically perverse ... for you to accuse me of being an Old Catholic when you were exposed clearly as regurgitating nearly every single talking point from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrech.
-
So....even if the pastor is not a Catholic priest, but effectively a Protestant minister it doesn't matter?
If all the conditions of Canon 1098 are fulfilled, a marriage will be valid even if it's officiated by a non-Catholic minister.
The Extraordinary Form of Marriage According to Canon 1098. Edward Fus, J.C.D (1954), p.133:
Non-Catholic ceremonies are still forbidden, even in cases envisioned in Canon 1098. However, if the parties, whether in good or bad faith, do approach a non-Catholic minister and exchange matrimonial consent, otherwise naturally sufficient, in the presence of two witnesses, the marriage will nonetheless be valid.
Canon Law Digest, Vol.III., T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J. (1954), p.454:
Mixed Marriage Before Protestant Minister Valid If Conditions of Canon 1098 for Marriage Before Witnesses Only Are Verified (S. C. Sacr., 4 March, 1925) Private.
The following rescript was received by the Bishop of Pinsk in reply to a question concerning mixed marriages.
Reply. If all the conditions which are required by canon 1098 for the validity of marriages before witnesses only are verified, the circuмstance that such marriages were blessed in a non-Catholic church is an argument, not against validity, but against licitness.
(Private); S. C. Sacr., 4 March, 1925. Reported by Dalpiaz in Apollinaris, Vol. 10, 1937, p. 277. See also Nevin in The Australasian Catholic Record, Vol. 19, 1942, p. 96.
-
Apologies for the length of the proceeding post, but it seems highly relevant. Copied and pasted from a thread from a few years ago, this table describes the lawfulness and validity of all possible marriages. Please be sure to read the "other notes" below, which argue that due to Canon 1098, marriages that violate the Catholic form of marriage are still valid due to the crisis in the Church and the inability of marrying before one's pastor.
I've taken the liberty of snipping the vast bulk of this post. This is quite the essay, and I am going to have to print it out and sit down with it for awhile, to digest it, before I can respond appropriately. Let me be clear, though, that I was only referring to a "normal" situation, viz. two Catholics who are free to marry, and who have unimpeded access to a pastor and a parish, yet choose freely to attempt marriage outside of canonical form with no dispensation. I do not refer to a "no priest available for a month" scenario, or anything that is outside the pale of normal circuмstances in a normally functioning Church. IOW, pretend it's 1958 in an area where legitimate pastors and bishops are freely available to solemnize marriages.
My hat is off to anything who can write such a thorough, well-reasoned essay, with the research and knowledge that went into it.
-
If all the conditions of Canon 1098 are fulfilled, a marriage will be valid even if it's officiated by a non-Catholic minister.
Did you read Canon 1098?
Canon 1098
If the pastor or Ordinary or delegated priest who assists at marriage according to the norm of Canons 1095 and 1096 cannot be had or
cannot be present without grave inconvenience:
1. ° In danger of death marriage is contracted validly and licitly in the presence only of witnesses; and outside of danger of death provided it is prudently foreseen that this condition will perdure for one month;
2. ° In either case, if another priest can be present, he shall be called and together with the witnesses must assist at marriage, with due regard for conjugal validity solely in the presence of witnesses.
This requires danger of death or else that a ORDINARY / DELETED pastor (with the necessary faculties) CANNOT be found for a month. And even then, if any other Catholic priest can be found it is required for him to be called as an additional witness.
This is for either danger of death or the case of someone stranded on a desert island type of scenario where there can be no Catholic priests found or, alternatively, in a land where there are no Catholic Churches (of which there are very few) ... probably in the Middle East like in Saudi Arabia or the like.
But, no, you gratuitously throw in the part about the "officiated by a non-Catholic minister". No non-Catholic minister can "officiate" over a wedding, but can serve only as any other ordinary witness. Of course, if you have non-Catholic witnesses, their testimony would be sketchy at best, since they're not aware of what's required for valid Catholic marriage ... but would likely only be able to testify to the fact that these two said some stuff about getting married. Such a situation would likely have to be convalidated and potentially sanated later.
-
Correct, the non-Catholic minister would not be officiating on behalf of the Church, only on behalf of the civil law. It's also correct that for the conditions of Canon 1098 to be fulfilled, apart from danger of death, it must be prudently foreseen that the unavailability of the pastor, ordinary, or delegated priest will last for one month. And it's also true that any other Catholic priest should be called under these conditions to perform the marriage. It will be valid, though, without him, as Fr. Augustine says, "“Lastly, calling a priest does not affect the validity of the marriage, which therefore may be contracted validly in the presence of only two witnesses.” (Augustine, Charles P., O.S.B., D.D. A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law. 3 rd Ed. Vol. V, Book III, St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1920. C.1098, p.296).
Among other things, this priest would serve as one of the two required ordinary witnesses, but he would not be an official witness like the pastor, ordinary, or delegated priest.
"But since such a priest is not a testi qualificatus seu authorizabilis, “neque ad valorem neque ut videtur ad liceitatem matrimonii necesse est ut requirat excipiatque consensum.”
-- De Reeper, John, M.H. “The History and Application of Canon 1098.” The Jurist, Vol.14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954. p.171.
The only requirement of the two witnesses is that they have reached the age of reason and be able to act as witnesses. They are not required to ask anything or receive the mutual consent like a priest. They only need to be present in person and together, knowing that a marriage is being contracted between those two persons. Even if the parties unexpectedly exchange consent in the presence of the two witnesses, the marriage is valid under the conditions of c.1098.
“The second essential condition requires that two witnesses should be present. The canon uses the expression ‘testes’ in the plural, so one witness is not sufficient. The witness need ask nothing and need not receive the mutual consent, as must the priest when assisting. It suffices that the consent should be given in their presence. So they must be present: personally (not by telephone), together, ‘moraliter’ i.e. the must know that a marriage is being contracted between those two persons. In order to be valid witnesses, i.e. ad validitatem, the only requirements are that they should have reached the age of reason and be able to act as witnesses. So male or female, puberes or impuberes, Catholic or non-catholic, voluntary or forced, warned beforehand or totally unexpected, -so long as the ‘actu’ witness the contracting of the marriage.”
-- De Reeper, John, M.H. “The History and Application of Canon 1098.” The Jurist, Vol.14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954. pp.170-171
“Coram solis testibus. Since the Codex uses the plural, it goes without saying that one witness will not suffice. They need, however, ask or do nothing even if the parties should unexpectedly exchange consent in their presence, that would be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the law; it suffices, therefore, if they are merely present.”
-- De Reeper, John, M.H. “The History and Application of Canon 1098.” The Jurist, Vol.14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1954. pp.175
I'm not aware of anywhere that it's possible for Catholics to marry in the presence of the ordinary, pastor, or priest delegated by either of those, as prescribed by c.1094. Such conditions have existed for years now, and it may be prudently foreseen that these conditions will last at least another month. It seems reasonable to conclude that a majority of Catholics are currently under the conditions described in c.1098.
-
1917 Code 1070 and 1098 in particular. I cited it above, but I deleted the cross-references to the 1983 Code, but the latter upholds the same standards ... EXCEPT that at some point that I not yet researched, one of the Conciliar papal claimants made an exception for those who formally renounced their Catholic faith. But that caused so much confusion that in 2009 Ratzinger rolled it back.
Referencing Ott who referenced the Council of Trent.....
Trent:
Although it is not to be doubted, that clandestine marriages, made with the free consent of the contracting parties, are valid and true marriages, so long as the Church has not rendered them invalid; and consequently, that those persons are justly to be condemned, as the holy Synod doth condemn them with anathema, who deny that such marriages are true and valid; as also those who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by the children of a family, without the consent of their parents, are invalid, and that parents can make such marriages either valid or invalid; nevertheless...
Trent then goes on to talk about those *not* free to marry:
....and whereas it takes into account the grievous sins which arise from the said clandestine marriages, and especially the sins of those parties who live on in a state of damnation, when, having left their former wife, with whom they had contracted marriage secretly, they publicly marry another, and with her live in perpetual adultery; an evil which the Church, which judges not of what is hidden, cannot rectify, unless some more efficacious remedy be applied....
....Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them.
For those *free to marry* but marry outside of the Church, their marriage is valid unless and until the Church declares them invalid. Is that not what Trent says above in bold?
This is something I've come across more than once, there is a dreadful misconception among trads that all marriages outside of the Church are on that account, null and void - but as quoted from Trent in bold above, this belief is condemned by Trent.
To all those marriage minded trads who may be probing those who've been married outside of the Church for potential candidates because they think those marriages are automatically all null, don't do it, they're not all null. The bottom line is that you're better off to consider that are all without any doubt valid, and continue looking for those never married. If they both said the words, "I do", then look elsewhere.
-
Referencing Ott who referenced the Council of Trent.....
Trent then goes on to talk about those *not* free to marry:
For those *free to marry* but marry outside of the Church, their marriage is valid unless and until the Church declares them invalid. Is that not what Trent says above in bold?
This is something I've come across more than once, there is a dreadful misconception among trads that all marriages outside of the Church are on that account, null and void - but as quoted from Trent in bold above, this belief is condemned by Trent.
To all those marriage minded trads who may be probing those who've been married outside of the Church for potential candidates because they think those marriages are automatically all null, don't do it, they're not all null. The bottom line is that you're better off to consider that are all without any doubt valid, and continue looking for those never married. If they both said the words, "I do", then look elsewhere.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. I think we must assume that any “first” marriage is valid unless there is a blatantly obvious impediment that even a blind person could see and couldn’t cause scandal to even the most delicate of conscience’s.
-
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. I think we must assume that any “first” marriage is valid unless there is a blatantly obvious impediment that even a blind person could see and couldn’t cause scandal to even the most delicate of conscience’s.
Yes, imo it is definitely best to keep this matter as simple as possible.....if they said "I do" then they're married. Move on.
It's fine that Myth posted a laundry list of conditions, and referencing canon law etc., is what us lay folk are stuck with doing in these times, but the typical Catholic should simply accept the teaching of the Church that validity is always presumed unless declared invalid by the Church....or as you said above, invalidity in blatantly obvious, but even then we have no authority to declare invalidity, heck, these days who does?
-
So, one of my nephews (non-baptized) married a baptized Catholic woman (I'm assuming this since I believe her mother was brought up Catholic). This woman does not practice the Catholic Faith, does not attend church, etc. The wedding ceremony did not have a priest.
Even if this couple married with a priest, this would have been a NO priest who would not have really been a priest. She certainly would not have sought out a certain traditional Catholic priest.
Valid or not? It sounds like based on the canons, it's invalid. Of course, my head is spinning from this topic, so who knows?
Given the crisis and the question of NO priests, I'm not sure that it should be called invalid simply because I do not believe that the canons could have been properly followed.
-
Ladislaus,
I think you go wrong because you're struggling to make sense of the Conciliar Church with tools or principles that are inadequate to deal with it; the principles invoked are twisted so that you think you can manage them, like a rubber band, to go around the phenomenon, when in reality they snap in your attempt to apply them.
Indefectibility is destroyed not by a certain mass or quantum or error but by a quality of error. Even a drop of poison kills, if it's the right poison. A single, a single error in a definition of an ecuмenical council approved by a pope kills indefectibility. Or a single error of sufficient magnitude in any teaching proposed by a pope with the moral majority of the bishops in union with him on the teaching destroys indefectibility.
This is why Pius IX invoked the principle of indefectibility against the Old Catholics by their rejection of the single error of the Vatican I council in defining the infallibility of the pope. In your own words (from post 30 in this thread):
He realized that it was a bit of a circular argument to say that they were rejecting an infallibly-defined dogma when it was the ability of a pope to infallibly define dogma that was being defined. So he teaches that the Old Catholics are heretical because their conclusion would mean that the Catholic Church had "gone off the rails" ... which is not possible given her indefectibility.
By their conclusion that the Vatican I council had taught heresy in the single matter of infallibility the Old Catholics were saying that the Catholic Church had "gone off the rails," a violation of the doctrine of indefectibility per Pius IX, who of course is right there. A single drop of poison - a single heretical teaching - by the magisterium of the Church destroys indefectibility. Likewise, a single theological error of sufficient magnitude in an ecuмenical council's teaching, a false teaching regrading faith or morals proposed and taught to the world by the magisterium of the Catholic Church destroys indefectibility. Especially where it contradicts prior teaching of the Church, since it's impossible for truth to contradict itself, and an indefectible teaching is not indefectible if he teaches two things that are contradictory: he is false, erroneous in one fo those teachings, necessarily, by the requirements of truth itself.
So your totally "gone off the rails" argument, as a distinction, simply doesn't work. What's the principle that's applied to the Conciliar Church to support your argument? Totally "gone off the rails" doesn't work, since, as Pius IX showed with regard to the Old Catholics, a single error of sufficient magnitude taught by an ecuмenical council equals "gone off the rails" and a violation of the principle of indefectibility. So your "gone off the rails" theory doesn't distinguish the Conciliar Church from the claim of the Old Catholics that the Vatican I Church of Pius IX had "gone off the rails."
We're Catholic gentlemen, and reasonable men. The history of the Church is built on solid principles explaining the truth of our faith, an edifice unequalled by any other religion: St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the Scholastics, etc. Where's the principle supporting your position regarding the "gone off the rails" of the Conciliar Church?
Your "motives of credibility" theory or principle doesn't work either. As I've pointed out before, prior to Vatican II, when Paul VI was elected pope, what did the "motives of credibility" say? He was elected by all the Cardinals by proper procedure in conclave. He became pope by all appearances to the Church. His teaching thereafter would be the teaching of a pope. If "sifting" was proscribed from that point, the subsequent teaching of Vatican II should have been accepted, the New Mass, etc. - if one, as you say, is forbidden from "sifting" when the "motives of credibility" click in. So, your invocation of the "motives of credibility" theory or princinciple, like your invocation of "indefectibility," doesn't work to distinguish the Conciliar Church and its popes, or to shield you from your bogeyman of "sifting."
This is a fairly solid point ... except that you're addressing it to the wrong individual. In fact, in my "Pope-Sifting" thesis, I pointed out explicitly that it's not acceptable to argue modo tollentis (aka, backwards) from a purported error taught by the Holy See to the illegitimacy of the Pope. That's precisely what is meant by "Pope-Sifting".
At some point after the election of Paul VI you're "arguing backward" to reject him. This just doesn't work, Lad. I can't believe you don't see this.
I argue from the fact that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church founded by Christ that the Papal authority and Magisterium that gave birth to this new religion cannot possibly be legitimate Papal authority being freely exercised.
As to how this happened or why, take your pick ... heretic pope, infiltrator pope, no pope, material pope, impounded pope, blackmailed pope(s), drugged pope, brainwashed MK Ultra pope, imposter pope, impeded pope (Siri was the true pope) ... my personal favorite. I'm not a dogmatic SV, and in fact I have referred to myself as a "sede-doubtist", appealing to the principle of papa dubius nullus papa (at least in the practical order), which positive doubt suffices for exonerating Traditional Catholics of schism / heresy.
It is precisely in this area, in identifying the credibility of an institution as being the One True Church of Christ where human reason (for us, enlightened by faith, since we have the faith to guide us) does play a legitimate role. We reject the claims of the Conciliar Church to be the One True Church founded by Christ. We do not recognize in the teaching of the V2 Papal Claimants the Voice of the Shepherd.
Where's the principle invoked and applied, Lad? The issue is, what is the principle to determine the Church's "credibility" as an institution? Reason involves the application of principles to facts to reach conclusions. If it's "indefectibility," the Old Catholics would have been right, per Pius IX, for rejecting the Vatican I Church on that basis if it indeed taught heresy regarding infallibility of the pope, on the basis of that single teaching. The principle doesn't server to distinguish the phenomenon of the Conciliar Church. If it's "motives of credibility," Paul VI was elected by the cardinals and took the seat and was accepted as pope by the Catholic Church and from that point his teaching could not be rejected without the forbidden "sifting" of a pope, so that theory doesn't work either.
At no point did the Catholic Church under Pius IX lose the notes of the Church or cease to be be recognizable as the Catholic Church. Thus, since it's identifiable as the Church of Chist, it's indefectible and protected by the Holy Spirit from a grave error such as defining a false dogma. Had St. Pius V time-warped forward to the reign of Pius IX, he would have absolutely no problem identifying the Church under Pius IX as the Catholic Church. Had St. Pius V time-warped froward to the alleged / putative reign of Jorge Bergoglio, he would never in a million years guess that this sect is the Holy Catholic Church. And if you told him that it was, he'd immediately drop dead of horror.
This makes no sense. What's the purpose of your "[a]t no point"? After Pius IX's election, if "at some point" you determined that the notes were lost by Pius IX's teaching of heresy or imposition of a new rite of Mass, wouldn't that be "sifting"?
And the eyes of St. Pius V aren't a principle for us to apply. Even if they were, they are unavailable.
You mentioned somewhere recently John Portrello, who attacked the Sedevacantist argument and the Catholic Church in his book, The Sedevacantist Delusion. His arguments are effective because the explanation of the Conciliar Church in light of principles like "indefectibility" and your "motives of credibility" simply don't work: the facts and phenomenon of the Conciliar Church betray any attempt to explain it by using those arguments and principles.
This is my problem with your approach: its inconsistencies. Your arguments simply don't work under the facts. The Conciliar popes are popes, and if, as we believe, they have taught erroneously, and the bishops of the Catholic Church have supported the teachings, we need an explanation that works to explain that reality, because truth matters. Otherwise, why do we bother and argue about these things?
-
So, one of my nephews (non-baptized) married a baptized Catholic woman (I'm assuming this since I believe her mother was brought up Catholic). This woman does not practice the Catholic Faith, does not attend church, etc. The wedding ceremony did not have a priest.
Even if this couple married with a priest, this would have been a NO priest who would not have really been a priest. She certainly would not have sought out a certain traditional Catholic priest.
Valid or not? It sounds like based on the canons, it's invalid. Of course, my head is spinning from this topic, so who knows?
Given the crisis and the question of NO priests, I'm not sure that it should be called invalid simply because I do not believe that the canons could have been properly followed.
Who knows whether valid or not. I would say as Trent said - if both were free to marry, then valid until declared invalid....which may or may not be correct in this instance. We know this case is a diriment impediment, but the first course the Church would pursue would be to dispense with the impediment in order to save the marriage if at all possible, safeguarding the sanctity of the sacrament to avoid scandal.
In this case the Petrine Privilege might be invoked, but even then, the baptized woman has no religion so there's not much chance of that happening. Even so, normally doesn't the Church need to be convinced that the woman exhausted all efforts to convert the infidel before declaring it null?
What a mess.