Author Topic: Have a Marriage License? (Read 1592 times)

Devonshire · « **on:** March 31, 2013, 12:37:30 AM »

I can hardly believe this, if it's indeed true... :tv-disturbed: :scared2:

http://www.mercyseat.net/marriagelicense.html

http://teamlaw.net/family.htm#Family

http://teamlaw.net/family.htm#Family

http://yhvh.name/?w=771

Thoughts?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2013, 06:14:08 AM »

Your last link shows a page that is garbled on the right side because there
are two images of text that appear on top of each other. Is that normal?

Rosarium · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2013, 08:05:25 AM »

Quote from: Devonshire

I can hardly believe this, if it's indeed true... :tv-disturbed: :scared2:

http://www.mercyseat.net/marriagelicense.html

http://teamlaw.net/family.htm#Family

http://teamlaw.net/family.htm#Family

http://yhvh.name/?w=771

Thoughts?

It is defying Canon Law and all Moral Theology.

Quote

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry.

Quote from: Moral Theology by Charles Jerome Callan and John A. McHugh

2795. Duties in Connection with Marriage.—The duties in reference to marriage as a permanent state of life were treated already in 2613 sqq., and we shall consider here only the duties that have to do with marriage as a contract and a Sacrament. These duties can be arranged under three heads: (a) before marriage, there are obligations in reference to the preparation for marriage, which consists remotely in engagement or espousals, and proximately in compliance with duties owed to divine, ecclesiastical, and civil law (e.g., license from the State, establishment of freedom to marry, proclamation of banns, dispensations, confession); (b) during marriage, in addition to the common obligations of intention and a state of grace, there are special duties in reference to the external form or rite of marriage; (c) after marriage, there is a duty of making canonical records and of validating defective marriages.

Quote

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage.

This is not true. The Moral Theology treatment of this matter does not give the State any authority over the Sacrament.

Quote

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral.

That is false and actually immoral. Studying the basics of Moral Theology will give clear answers on this matter.

Quote from: Moral Theology

375. Obligation of Human Laws.—All human laws that are just, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, made by believers in God or unbelievers, are obligatory in conscience, (a) From the beginning the Church has made laws and imposed them as obligatory (Acts, xv. 29; I Cor., vi. 4; I Cor., xi. 5; I Tim., v. 9-12), and has recognized as obligatory the laws of the State, without regard to the moral or religious qualifications of the rulers (I Peter, ii. 13-16; Rom., xiii. 1-7).

377. Obedience to unjust laws is not obligatory in the following cases. (a) If a law is opposed to the rights of God, it is not lawful to do what that law commands or permits, nor to omit what it forbids. Examples: If a law permits one to practise polygamy, or commands one to blaspheme religion, one may not use the permission or obey. If a law forbids one to give or receive Baptism, it has no force. (b) If a law is certainly opposed to the rights of man in any of the three ways mentioned in the previous paragraph (376, b), it does not of itself oblige in conscience, since it lacks some essential condition of a true law, and even the consent of the majority or of all does not make it just. However, it may oblige accidentally, on account of the greater evils that would follow on disobedience, such as scandal, civil disturbances, etc. The duty of subjects is to remonstrate against such a law and to work for its repeal.

Obtaining a marriage license is necessary and moral in most cases.

Quote

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority.

And the writer of this removes the Civil Authority, and is intensely unBiblical, immoral, and against Ecclesiastical Law.

Quote

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist.

The civil effects of marriage are not the Sacrament. For the state, it is not a matter of Natural or Divine Law. The Church requires witnesses too for the Sacrament generally, yet, nobody thinks the priest is married to all the couples he blessed (or whatever they call the priest's participation in the Sacrament...the ministers of the sacrament are the two people being married).

That first link is entirely false, unBiblical, immoral, and is just making excuses for violating Civil, Ecclesiastical, and Divine Law.

The civil dangers and moral deficiencies of the state's definition of "marriage" does not remove the authority of the Church or the fact that two people seeking sacramental marriage should obtain a marriage license from the state under whose jurisdiction they reside.

Rosarium · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2013, 08:06:47 AM »

It is dangerous to read unqualified materials when one is not prepared for it, and this is why.

People looking for answers would not have the background to recognize the errors (and I was not going to go point by point with citations, but if anyone wants any point I made expanded or explained, I will if asked).

Machabees · « **Reply #4 on:** April 02, 2013, 11:17:59 PM »

Unfortunately, in real life, if you go to YouTube and look at some of the Docuмentaries on this, using some search terms on this, as well as, the Truth about Birth Certificates, one would be surprised to know what the "civil society" and "civil law" really do with it, and in the stock market.

There is a whole [stock] market out there using computer algorithm to predict divorce, births, moving, etc, using the "corporate" number of the certificate(s).

It is a created "legal" corporate structure that is all about indentured servitude.

The reality of the situation is obviously not Catholic; it is eye opening and very educational. A lot of people are waking up to this stealth agenda and are trying to get the word out.

Remember, going to a Court house for a "marriage certificate" is issued from the State, or going to a Court house for a "Birth certificate" is issued from the State; it is a State Corporate Docuмent that is use for "civil" reasons. It has NOTHING to do with religion.

The State does NOT follow Moral theology laws...they have their own agenda. Just like the Federal Reserve Banking system.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** April 03, 2013, 11:41:16 AM »

While there is a lot of truth on the Internet, there is also a lot of fear-mongering, falsehood, error, etc.

Just about anything necessary or un-necessary will be criticized SOMEWHERE on the 'Net.

Both the horror stories you posted (in those links) describe a family that got "knocks on the door" trying to take their children. But both families were sending their children to public school. Why? That was their big mistake. They should have keep them out of the "system" to begin with, and they would have had less risk.

Less prying eyes means less attention and less risk.

I know I've stated several times that we have to learn from many different people, including atheists and protestants when they are experts in a given field. But on the Internet the "cost of entry" is about zero, so everyone with a pulse can make stuff up and post whatever they want. Because it's like a magazine (sort of), people give it way more credence than a similar printout found in a public restroom. Why?

The public restroom black-and-white photocopy handbill actually took more conviction, cost, and effort.

Agobard · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2013, 11:17:19 AM »

The Braveheart marriage. One of the better options in today's world, as are home births with the birth information written in a bible.

The Braveheart marriage is always a threat to any totalitarian state. Family or state, which is the more powerful. The Church for the past 100+ years has sided with the state, ordering Catholics to obey lawless marriage regulations.

Go to a priest and tell him you want your upcoming marriage off the state books. Tell that to the pope or any bishop and see if they will comply with you and side with the family.

Allow the Church to announce the wedding, if the state won't interfere and seek power over the marriage.

Agobard · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2013, 11:35:45 AM »

The main difficulty in clandestine marriage is the perennial abuse of women within such arrangements, abuse of women limited to only not telling her you have a mistress or are married to another woman.

This was the main reason used to ban clandestine marriages and mandated the Church to register every marriage for the protection of women.

Such clandestine marriages can only work with responsible and moral men. Which is why the whole basis of society is the raising of moral, strong young men and the attachment of society's daughters to those moral, strong men.

Common law marriages among non-Catholics, I sometimes view in higher regard than ones registered with the state. No clergyman was mandated until later in Church history.

Frances · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2013, 12:07:33 PM »

So, if one marries "legally" in the state of NY, (and many others, soon, all of USA, by Federal law), a Catholic marriage is no different than the "marriage" of of two men or two women. What message does this give "the world," if any? Something to think about...

PereJoseph · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2013, 12:31:13 PM »

Quote from: Agobard

The main difficulty in clandestine marriage is the perennial abuse of women within such arrangements, abuse of women limited to only not telling her you have a mistress or are married to another woman.

This was the main reason used to ban clandestine marriages and mandated the Church to register every marriage for the protection of women.

Today is no different. I imagine there are plenty of people out there who, being moved by false piety and the tempest of romance, would attempt to elope in the woods. "We're in a state of Crisis; those who do not understand this are just soft, not understanding the gravity of the malice of the Jєωs/State/Masons/Accordistas/etc." At the very least, one ought to be married by a priest and with lay witnesses because, they being fellow Catholics, one ought to give their opinion some weight before making a major decision in one's life -- especially one with such grave consequences as the matrimonial contract.

Quote

Common law marriages among non-Catholics, I sometimes view in higher regard than ones registered with the state. No clergyman was mandated until later in Church history.

Clergymen were mandated by the Sacred Canons since the Council of Trent, meaning that any clandestine marriage between a member of the Church and another or any clandestine marriage between two members of the Church is invalid. Such a marriage is only validly the sacrament of matrimony if there is a real moral impossibility of having an ecclesiastical witness. Even if said ecclesiastical witnesses may be hard to come by today, it seems rash to suggest that anybody should procure a marriage outside of the received regular means. There are just reasons for which the canon regulating this was originally passed, and it leaves very little room for exceptions. Better to not leave it to chance and the individual opinion of laymen.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2013, 01:12:10 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote
Common law marriages among non-Catholics, I sometimes view in higher regard than ones registered with the state. No clergyman was mandated until later in Church history.

Clergymen were mandated by the Sacred Canons since the Council of Trent, meaning that any clandestine marriage between a member of the Church and another or any clandestine marriage between two members of the Church is invalid. Such a marriage is only validly the sacrament of matrimony if there is a real moral impossibility of having an ecclesiastical witness. Even if said ecclesiastical witnesses may be hard to come by today, it seems rash to suggest that anybody should procure a marriage outside of the received regular means. There are just reasons for which the canon regulating this was originally passed, and it leaves very little room for exceptions. Better to not leave it to chance and the individual opinion of laymen.

This might be a question of accuracy, but when the Sacred Canons of the Council of Trent are invoked, and more so when speaking about the grave matter of questions of validity, the Church's promulgations should be followed ad litteram.

The Sacrosanct Council declares, not in a Canon but in a declaration on the reform of matrimony following the Canons, that the Sacrament of matrimony is only validly confected if celebrated in front of the proper Pastor (or another priest licensed by the Pastor or Ordinary).
No mention is made of clergymen or ecclesiastical witnesses not endowed with the necessary judicial prerogatives. I am sure you are aware that the Council Fathers and learned divines would not use this specific language in vain.

But maybe this is exactly what you mean in saying that these ecclesiastical witnesses may be hard to come by today. Or maybe you are of the opinion that the Sacrament is validly confected only in presence of priests "with" supplied jurisdiction, even though this would seem to contradict the literal sense as well as purpose of the declaration of Trent. Or the present extrajudicial priests serve no purpose in the confection of the Sacrament and are merely present for reasons of wisdom, splendor & decorum etc. Nevertheless, one would "leave it to chance" and follow a private opinion if not celebrating the Sacrament in front of a Pastor.

Whatever one may say and whatever position one takes in regards to the crisis of the Church, one should not forget about the realities and judicial structure of the Church or even supply them by one's own accord (as sedevacantist clerics have done in assuming ordinary jurisdiction).

PereJoseph · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2013, 02:35:11 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

But maybe this is exactly what you mean in saying that these ecclesiastical witnesses may be hard to come by today. Or maybe you are of the opinion that the Sacrament is validly confected only in presence of priests "with" supplied jurisdiction, even though this would seem to contradict the literal sense as well as purpose of the declaration of Trent.

I do believe that there is a hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction that persists somewhere in the world. That being said, I am not sure that I have ever met any member of it. Thus, you are right that I do believe that the overwhelming majority of marriages today are only validly confected by virtue of supplied jurisdiction. However, I was specifically thinking of the scenario wherein one is truly unable to contact a priest, such as the Japanese for the two hundred years they had no priest, or early settlers and traders in North America, who were married "à la façon du pays" and later had their marriages blessed when a priest was able to visit (sometimes many years after the fact). I am also under the impression that, if a couple believes that they are going to the Church for matrimony but are, in fact, mistaken, that the marriage is still valid so long as they were both honestly mistaken and were acting in good faith.

Quote

Or the present extrajudicial priests serve no purpose in the confection of the Sacrament and are merely present for reasons of wisdom, splendor & decorum etc. Nevertheless, one would "leave it to chance" and follow a private opinion if not celebrating the Sacrament in front of a Pastor.

Do they serve any intrinsic purpose in the confection of the sacrament ? My understanding is that they do not; rather, they serve merely an extrinsic purpose as the necessary juridical witnesses to a sacrament of the Church, their juridical witness being a condition imposed upon the faithful as a component of the bond -- that is to say, the matrimonial bond between two Catholics can only be sacramentally valid in its confection in the event that it is done under the aegis of the appropriate canonical legal witnesses, barring extraordinary circuмstances (being abandoned as dead on a deserted island for many years, or something like that).

Quote

Whatever one may say and whatever position one takes in regards to the crisis of the Church, one should not forget about the realities and judicial structure of the Church or even supply them by one's own accord (as sedevacantist clerics have done in assuming ordinary jurisdiction).

I agree. I specifically had in mind common error, namely, if a young couple attempts to marry with the FSSP under the mistaken belief that they are being married by a real priest, I am under the impression that they still do indeed confect the sacrament, supplied jurisdiction not being given to the (non-)cleric but rather directly applying to the sacrament as such.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #12 on:** April 08, 2013, 02:21:02 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

I am also under the impression that, if a couple believes that they are going to the Church for matrimony but are, in fact, mistaken, that the marriage is still valid so long as they were both honestly mistaken and were acting in good faith.

I am no expert in Canon Law, but this seems rash to me. If it is common error according to Canon 209 you are referring to, several conditions have to be fulfilled (I believe it is not positive and probable doubt of fact or of law were are concerned with, here): I. There has to be a false judgement on part of the faithful which is prevalent enough to be called common. II. This judgement has to be concerned with the qualification of the priest. III. There must be a danger to the common good or public utility.

This also sums up the whole raison d'être of the Lex Barbarius (error communis facit ius).

There is much difficulty and controversy in this area, and it is therefore not without good reason that marriage cases are treated by the learned judges of the Roman Rota.

Quote

Do they serve any intrinsic purpose in the confection of the sacrament ? My understanding is that they do not; rather, they serve merely an extrinsic purpose as the necessary juridical witnesses to a sacrament of the Church, their juridical witness being a condition imposed upon the faithful as a component of the bond -- that is to say, the matrimonial bond between two Catholics can only be sacramentally valid in its confection in the event that it is done under the aegis of the appropriate canonical legal witnesses, barring extraordinary circuмstances (being abandoned as dead on a deserted island for many years, or something like that).

Of course you are correct. Actually, it is not even an act strictly jurisdictional, but is treated as such, as the Canonists and Roman judges prove. Cardinal Gasparri explains the general principle well, as to be expected:

The mere fact that a priest is reputed to be a pastor does not of itself in absolute fashion confer upon him any right to assist at marriage. But, if he rules over and administers the parish under the circuмstances of common error, he officiates validly, because in this case the Church supplies jurisdiction for the external and the internal forum alike according to the rule of canon 209. For, though assistance at marriage is not an act of jurisdiction, still in the favored elements of law (in favorabilibus) it is put on a par with jurisdiction, and thus arises the use of such terms as delegation and delegated, which in their proper and native application are employed in reference to the power of jurisdiction.

Quote

I agree. I specifically had in mind common error, namely, if a young couple attempts to marry with the FSSP under the mistaken belief that they are being married by a real priest, I am under the impression that they still do indeed confect the sacrament, supplied jurisdiction not being given to the (non-)cleric but rather directly applying to the sacrament as such.

This seems to be a somewhat problematic formulation and I think it is not actually the case. I believe we dealt before with the act of assistance at a marriage and the supplementation of authority necessary by the Church.
But if a authorized minister cannot be had (as an objective fact where good will, honesty etc. on part of the couple is irrelevant) than this condition for validity would cease just as in the case of people stranded on an island.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 08, 2013, 02:30:22 AM »

The conciliar church with its bogus annulments is in no position to decide what constitutes a valid marriage. That is obvious.

The Council of Trent was making a statement on Church discipline, not doctrine.

Catholics must not be held hostage to liberals and other manipulative clerics participating in the corruption of marriage.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #14 on:** April 08, 2013, 05:11:17 AM »

Catholics must not change the discipline of the Church by their own authority. The various possibilities to avoid this problem have been shown above. Traditionalist clerics of various stances are very aware of the difficulty and have tried to answer it in different ways, usually by invoking Canon 209.

Conciliar Church annulments or the like were not the topic of the discussion at hand.