Author Topic: Leo XIII on marriage (Read 2159 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** October 27, 2011, 03:46:30 PM »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

trad123 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 27, 2011, 03:56:59 PM »

Since baptism is the gate to the other sacraments it would seem that unbelievers mentioned here would of course not be Catholics, but would be baptized. I'm not sure if infidels can have a sacramental marriage, or if once baptized the couple are then considered to have such.

trad123 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 27, 2011, 03:58:27 PM »

What of the Old Testament though... marriage was instituted before the requirement of baptism. I don't know what to make of that.

trad123 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 27, 2011, 04:00:36 PM »

From the link:

Quote

The term "sacrament", applied by the pope to all marriage, even those of infidels, is to be taken in its widest sense, and signifies nothing but a certain holiness inherent in marriage. Even among the Israelites marriage never had the importance of an Old Testament sacrament in the strict sense, since even such a sacrament produced a certain holiness (not indeed the interior holiness which is effected by the New Testament sacraments, but only an external legal purity), and even this was not connected with the marriage contract among the Jєωs. The sanctity of marriage in general is of another kind. The original marriage, and consequently marriage as it was conceived in the original plan of God before sin, was to be the means not merely of the natural propagation of the human race, but also the means by which personal supernatural sanctity should be transmitted to the individual descendents of our first parents. It was, therefore, a great mystery, intended not for the personal sanctification of those united by the marriage tie, but for the sanctification of others, i.e. of their offspring. But this Divinely ordered sanctity of marriage was destroyed by original sin. The effectual sanctification of the human race, or rather of individual men, had now to be accomplished in the way of redemption through the Promised Redeemer, the Son of God made Man. In place of its former sanctity, marriage retained only the significance of a type feebly representing the sanctity that was thenceforth to be acquired; it foreshadowed the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the close union which God was thereby to form with the human race. It was reserved for Christian marriage to symbolize this higher supernatural union with mankind, that is, with those who unite themselves to Christ in faith and love, and to be an efficacious sign of this union.

Sigismund · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2011, 10:11:32 PM »

The sacrament of marriage may not exist among unbelievers, but natural marriage does. Yes?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 27, 2011, 10:24:55 PM »

Leo XIII says "a sacrament of marriage," not "THE sacrament of marriage." He's just saying that even marriages of nonbelievers have a certain inherent dignity to them.

Caminus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2011, 11:46:09 AM »

Quote from: aquinasg

Why is the SPPX in Rome saying that Vatican II is heretical for saying that the Church is a "sacrament" (or rather, is sacramental), but say nothing about Leo XIII. Double standard? I think so

They don't say it's "heretical" they assert that the term as applied to the Church itself contains ambiguities and problematic unintended consequences (you add the little qualification "sacramental" in order to innoculate it thereby proving the point).

As has been explained, Leo is referring to the natural institution of marriage as always having existed among men with a concomitant sense of the sacredness of the institution.

Thus it depends on the sense of the terms and is precisely part, though a small one, of the critical appreciation of the docuмents of Vatican II.

Caminus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2011, 11:58:20 AM »

Quote from: aquinasg

My point is that Leo XIII is even more ambiguous than Vatican II, but he gets a free ride by the SSPX. Vatican II obviously didn't mean the Church was one of the seven sacraments, because that wouldn't even make sense! But such is not the case with Pope Leo

The ambiguity regarding Leo XIII's statement is purely subjective; that is, it is your problem, not his. But to address your sad attempt to justify the ambiguity of VII by pointing to other alleged ambiguities in the past, I must say that no one denies certain ambiguities exist either due to some extrinsic factor such as historical circuмstances, or intrinsically for want of clarity in a given statement. The problem with VII, on the other hand, is that the ambiguities appear to be calculated to some extent and lead directly or indirectly to error and even heresy. The empirical evidence for this is overwelming. But the question could be turned, if you admit there is ambiguity, why are you not calling for clarification? If you do so, what precisely do you desire to be corrected or clarified? On what grounds?

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2011, 12:32:58 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

Vatican II has intention ambiguities on the part of certain theologians, not necessarily the Pope and most of the bishops. And why is the "ambiguity regarding Leo XIII's statement is purely subjective"? This is the first and only time I have ever seen a Catholic theologian talk about a "natural sacrament". He used that word, although he could have just said "holiness". So if he can "coin a new phrase" why cannot Vatican II?

As to your first, it is precisely the Bishops and the Popes who have interpreted Vatican II in a destructive manner. As to your second, you should read more theology. The explanations given are perfectly clear, if you cannot accept them, that is your problem, not ours.

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2011, 12:33:33 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

And with proper understanding and counsel, the ambiguities of Vatican II do not present much of a problem

And who will provide us with a "proper understanding and counsel"? You?

Caminus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2011, 01:33:52 PM »

Is that the best you can do?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2011, 04:43:36 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

And with proper understanding and counsel, the ambiguities of Vatican II do not present much of a problem

The problem is, you don't have the proper understanding of Vatican II.

Quote

I showed that Leo XIII's statement was much more inclined to be interpreted heretically than Vatican II's.

Nonsense.

Quote

I don't understand you people on this forum

You won't find much support of your beliefs here or at Bellarimine forums.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2011, 05:08:54 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

Huh? I showed that Leo XIII's statement was much more inclined to be interpreted heretically than Vatican II's. Why laugh? I don't understand you people on this forum

You didn't "show" anything. The sense of the term was explained and is even more evident by the surrounding context. It is no more controversial than stating "religion has always existed among men." As far as willfully interpreting a phrase in an heretical manner, this proves nothing; Scripture itself is interpreted in an heretical manner. Appealing to an allegedly obscure text in order to justify VII is to admit a basic premise of traditional Catholics. Whether it can be interpreted "in light of Tradition" remains to be seen, for the post-conciliar Popes and Bishops have certainly not interpreted it in such a manner. Now you come along and claim that the authentic magisterium of the Pope and Bishops is erroneous, you have the correct hermeneutical key and that there is simply no problem at all with Vatican II (even though you implicitly admitted that there is a problem). Even Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity" contains an inherent contradiction. But supposing I granted his vague platitude, that doesn't get us an inch closer to determining whether VII contains erroneous doctrine or propositions that lead to error; whether its presentation of Catholic doctrine is seriously defective (a proposition which U.R. actually asserts viz. previous magisterial teaching). If you retort that Scripture itself is obscure, I reply that it is rightly so, but it is the business of the Magisterium to clarify and authoritatively teach with precision its true sense and meaning as well as Tradition. Vatican II did precisley the opposite, ignoring even the Papal magisterium from less than a century ago, adopting a strange new philosophy while abandoning St. Thomas, introducing new and unheard of principles and practices, introducing a hopeless subjectivism in which it is metaphysically impossible to assent, because the subjectivist statements are radically falsifiable, completely reorienting the Church's traditional attitude towards heretical sects and false religions, laying the groundwork for a false ecclesiology that departs from traditional Catholic doctrine, etc.

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2011, 07:05:30 PM »

I'm not sure you quite get it. Multiplying examples where you think one might misunderstand a teaching doesn't prove anything viz. Vatican II. The only thing that it proves is that some things can be contorted or misread, e.g. the Scriptures. Then you apply this simple assertion to the texts of Vatican II without seriously addressing the traditionalist critique and voila! you have done precisely nothing as a VII apologist except state the obvious. You can multiply texts infinitely wherein you purposely twist their meaning -- the only thing this proves is that you can twist, contort and deform Catholic doctrine or the statements of Popes and theologians. Our Lord said call no man your father. Say, what do you call your priest? Get it? So until you can actually address the controverted points of Vatican II and demonstrate perfect harmony, this little exercise of yours is rather pointless. It is very difficult to deal with a man infected by a form of nominalism; abandoning St. Thomas means much more than a change in mere linguistic form. But you exaggerate where it is convenient and attenuate when advantageous. I'm not sure how else to explain the matter.

Caminus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2011, 08:00:43 PM »

You're not engaging my points at all. If you don't want to have an honest discussion, just say so and I'll quit wasting my time.