Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16

Author Topic: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?  (Read 9617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2022, 05:33:57 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on December 05, 2022, 03:32:22 PM
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.....

Quote
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:
Quote
....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.

Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2022, 06:11:42 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on December 06, 2022, 05:33:57 AM
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.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2022, 06:54:13 AM »

Quote
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? 

Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2022, 07:00:22 AM »
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.




   
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2022, 07:10:57 AM »
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): 


Quote
 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."


Quote
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.


Quote
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. 


Quote
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?

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16
« previous next »