Communion and remarriage

[Texas_Roofer]

Wow more mud sling and why?

If canon law is referred to as “ecclesiastical Law” does that change anything ? No, just more mud slinging.

If we say she must apply to both catholic and non catholic laws as catholics do when they marry outside the catholic church will that resolve the issue? No there appears to be a lack of correctness in such statements.

Well what if we say she is not free to marry? Who are we to say such, we have no such authority, the catholic church has no authority over her, has anybody mentioned she is not catholic.

Well what if we say he is not free to marry? There are many problems here the first being if he sinned how his sin to spread to her, the second being what authority the Catholic Church has on him, as a non-practicing catholic. It is clear the church has authority to limit the extent of his practice but the church cannot restrict his ability to marry. the church can refuse his sacrament of marriage but the church cannot control " The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring," because the church does not establish this the man and a woman establish. Yep right out of catholic teaching.

By the way she is not catholic but the catholics who post should know the church teaches " An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity." now that may not apply at all here because the marriage maybe real. Try to understand if they choose to join the catholic church and she received an annulment through a catholic tribunal, and then had a convalidation of this current marriage, then either she was right all along or the catholic church would be guilty of the very sin you claim she committed (though you also claim not to judge).

Hope that helps

 

[Corki]

Wow more mud sling and why?

If canon law is referred to as “ecclesiastical Law” does that change anything ? No, just more mud slinging.

What mudslinging?!?

If we say she must apply to both catholic and non catholic laws as catholics do when they marry outside the catholic church will that resolve the issue? No there appears to be a lack of correctness in such statements.

Well what if we say she is not free to marry? Who are we to say such, we have no such authority, the catholic church has no authority over her, has anybody mentioned she is not catholic.

The Catholic Church has no authority over her as an individual. The Church has authority over her marriage since she has chosen to marry a Catholic.

It is clear the church has authority to limit the extent of his practice but the church cannot restrict his ability to marry. the church can refuse his sacrament of marriage but the church cannot control " The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring," because the church does not establish this the man and a woman establish. Yep right out of catholic teaching.

citation? Canon law says:

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

This is a prohibition that can be dispensed for just cause. Marrying without this dispensation does not affect consent but it DOES affect validity.

By the way she is not catholic but the catholics who post should know the church teaches " An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity." now that may not apply at all here because the marriage maybe real.

“Putative” does not apply to investigated validity. It simply means the parties are not free to enter into another marriage.

The current marriage in the OP is not valid *and won’t be valid *no matter what is found upon investigating the first marriage. It can only become valid with convalidation or radical sanation.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What mudslinging?!?

The Catholic Church has no authority over her as an individual. The Church has authority over her marriage since she has chosen to marry a Catholic.

no, no one has ever invited the catholic church into that marriage, no one has ever requested a communion with the catholic church, did anyone mention she is not catholic?

citation?

That " " is a direct quote from Canon 1055 however that in itself is a great injustice because that statement is all over catholic teachings and yet more often dismissed than, taught . I wonder if we taught it correctly rather than hide it, may be there could be less divorce?

Canon law says:

Which does not apply to her, did anyone mention she is not catholic? It may or may not apply to him as we do not know if he has defected. but that is not relevant it does not apply to her as a non-catholic

This is a prohibition that can be dispensed for just cause. Marrying without this dispensation does not affect consent but it DOES affect validity.

You forgot something, it is validity inside the catholic church, did anyone mention she is not catholic?

“Putative” does not apply to investigated validity. It simply means the parties are not free to enter into another marriage.

What ? over and over on this thread we get these strange word uses, please document that.

The current marriage in the OP is not valid *and won’t be valid *no matter what is found upon investigating the first marriage. It can only become valid with convalidation or radical sanation.

By who’s authority? Did anyone mention she is not catholic? The authority over her marriage is Natural [Moral] Law, to which she claims to adhere to, her only judge is herself. Posters, and the catholic church are not in the equation. This is exactly why catholics are bound to tribunals for the same process. Did anyone mention she is not catholic?

hope that helps

 

[CoffeeHound]

Did anyone mention she is not catholic?

Yes. You did about 15 times. And about 4 times I tried to explain why that doesn’t matter. Let me try again:

There are two types of laws at play here: the first is Divine Law. It is applicable to everyone. Not being Catholic does not excuse you from Divine Law.

The second is Church laws (ecclesiastical laws). These are laws set by the Catholic Church to govern Catholics. Not being Catholic does excuse you from Church laws.

Canon law is not a third type of law. It is a codification of the above two sets of laws. Some canons are Divine Law and some are Church laws. Some apply only to Catholics, some (specifically those that come from Scripture) apply to everyone.

To be a valid marriage, a Catholic must obey Church laws and Divine Law. To be in a valid marriage, a non-Catholic must obey Divine Law. When we say “valid”, we mean in the eyes of God and of the Catholic Church. There are certainly cases where the Methodist Church would rule a marriage valid but the Catholic Church would not.

So what happens if a Methodist is in an invalid Catholic marriage but a valid Methodist marriage? Normally, nothing. The Methodist simply doesn’t care. But that doesn’t make the marriage valid in the Catholic Church - it just makes the Catholic Church’s opinion unimportant to that person.

So, back to the original post. What is wrong in that marriage?

1. Violation of Divine Law - the bride was not free to marry a second time. This makes even a Methodist marrying a Methodist invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
2. Violation of Church laws - the Catholic groom was married not in the Catholic form. This makes any marriage that the groom attempted to contract invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

So, is the fact that she’s not Catholic an excuse? No. Her husband is Catholic and violated Church law and the Bride violated Divine Law.

 

[CoffeeHound]

The authority over her marriage is Natural [Moral] Law, to which she claims to adhere to, her only judge is herself. Posters, and the catholic church are not in the equation.

The Catholic Church is in the equation because her husband is Catholic and cannot contract marriage validly in improper form.

The Church of Christ is in the equation because she violated Divine Law in contracting marriage while not free to marry. The only judge of that is God.

If you wish to have an opinion that Divine Law does not exist for marriages and thus marriage is governed by natural law, you can have that opinion. It is contrary to both Catholic teachings and the Bible, but you can have that opinion. However, 1) you should not try to pass it off as Church teachings, but rather your personal opinion and 2) it doesn’t address the authority of Church law over the husband.

 

[dans0622]

If you wish to have an opinion that Divine Law does not exist for marriages and thus marriage is governed by natural law, you can have that opinion.

I don’t think such an “opinion” is defensible since natural law is a part of divine law.

Anyway, getting back to the question which launched this exercise in (near) futility, here are two “Vatican” documents related to the question of the reception of Communion by those in irregular marriage situations. I don’t think these have been noted yet in this thread. While they speak specifically of Catholics who are divorced and then “remarried,” their guidance and principles can be applied to the situation under discussion.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

They’re not too long.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

If we say she must apply to both catholic and non catholic laws as catholics do when they marry outside the catholic church will that resolve the issue? No there appears to be a lack of correctness in such statements.

I think I said that. Could you point out the “lack of correctness”?

Thanks.
Dan

 

[CoffeeHound]

I don’t think such an “opinion” is defensible since natural law is a part of divine law.

Anyway, getting back to the question which launched this exercise in (near) futility, here are two “Vatican” documents related to the question of the reception of Communion by those in irregular marriage situations. I don’t think these have been noted yet in this thread. While they speak specifically of Catholics who are divorced and then “remarried,” their guidance and principles can be applied to the situation under discussion.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

They’re not too long.

Dan

Dan,

Thank you for your post. I think these should answer the OP’s question. I’m going to put Texas Roofer on ignore so I won’t be responding to any more of his comments.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Yes. You did about 15 times. And about 4 times I tried to explain why that doesn’t matter.

It is core to the issue

Let me try again:

There are two types of laws at play here: the first is Divine Law. It is applicable to everyone. Not being Catholic does not excuse you from Divine Law.

The second is Church laws (ecclesiastical laws). These are laws set by the Catholic Church to govern Catholics. Not being Catholic does excuse you from Church laws.

Canon law is not a third type of law. It is a codification of the above two sets of laws. Some canons are Divine Law and some are Church laws. Some apply only to Catholics, some (specifically those that come from Scripture) apply to everyone.

To be a valid marriage, a Catholic must obey Church laws and Divine Law. To be in a valid marriage, a non-Catholic must obey Divine Law. When we say “valid”, we mean in the eyes of God and of the Catholic Church. There are certainly cases where the Methodist Church would rule a marriage valid but the Catholic Church would not.

So what happens if a Methodist is in an invalid Catholic marriage but a valid Methodist marriage? Normally, nothing. The Methodist simply doesn’t care. But that doesn’t make the marriage valid in the Catholic Church - it just makes the Catholic Church’s opinion unimportant to that person.

So, back to the original post. What is wrong in that marriage?

1. Violation of Divine Law - the bride was not free to marry a second time.

  There is no such condition in divine law, that again is a condition in Canon Law which is Catholic, she is not catholic and what continuous to occur is to simply misrepresenting the Canon Law as Devine Law.

This makes even a Methodist marrying a Methodist invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
2. Violation of Church laws - the Catholic groom was married not in the Catholic form. This makes any marriage that the groom attempted to contract invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

You could list the actual Catholic Church review right?, no the Church has not reviewed the marriage can you guess why? The reason is the Catholic Church has not been asked to? It is probably because she is not catholic

So, is the fact that she’s not Catholic an excuse? No. Her husband is Catholic and violated Church law and the Bride violated Divine Law.

No violation of Devine Law is present, she is not under Canons, calling Canons Devine is not always correct. Canons must align with Devine Law however Canons can and do go past Divine Law, for example the decision to declare a wedding void of a marriage is handled differently in Divine law than in Canon Law
Would you like to go over scripture again?

*3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 5 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 6 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a **bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” **
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” * usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm

I would ask you to explain how the Catholic Church separates them?

Dan,

Thank you for your post. I think these should answer the OP’s question. I’m going to put Texas Roofer on ignore so I won’t be responding to any more of his comments.

I hope the Canon Laws and Divine Laws are not also being ignored.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think I said that. Could you point out the “lack of correctness”?

Thanks.
Dan

I can find no such base or teaching at all, and several teachings and Canons (disparity of cult) which seem opposed to the statement (radical sanation, some dispensations, catholic marring outside the church). Maybe it is a misunderstanding but for example if a catholic married a Muslim spouse the catholic could not pledge a belief of no divinity in Jesus to make the marriage lawful.

hope that helps

 

[dans0622]

I can find no such base or teaching at all, and several teachings and Canons (disparity of cult) which seem opposed to the statement (radical sanation, some dispensations, catholic marring outside the church). Maybe it is a misunderstanding but for example if a catholic married a Muslim spouse the catholic could not pledge a belief of no divinity in Jesus to make the marriage lawful.

hope that helps

Hello Texas Roofer,

Yes, there is some misunderstanding here. I’m not sure what else to say about this particular issue.

More broadly, I would say that if the Catholic Church operated under the principles you have promoted here, the workload at Tribunals would be reduced by about 33%. (Just a rough estimate).

Dan