God’s Divine Law is applicable to all. For example, if you divorce, you are not free to remarry unless the first spouse is deceased. How do we know that’s Divine Law? Matt. 19:3-9Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been* baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it***, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
But that scripture does not say lay catholics are to judge when (lets use USCCB source: - "…whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful)" ) it is unlawful verses when it is lawful. For her that judgement is made in Natural Moral Law and for her ( and all in her condition) it is easy. For Catholic’s the Natural Moral Law decision must be upheld by the Catholic Church. Our Church holds its power to bind has been used to require that affirmation from the Bishops office (tribunal) for us. But our Church also holds it does not have binding power over her.God’s Divine Law is applicable to all. For example, if you divorce, you are not free to remarry unless the first spouse is deceased. How do we know that’s Divine Law? Matt. 19:3-9
Ecclesiastical laws (internal Church laws) apply to only Catholics. For example, a Methodist is not bound to have her marriage in a Catholic Church, however a Catholics is bound to do so.
No, it wouldn’t. A reasonable reading would conclude that the case she posted in the OP is a marriage considered invalid by the Catholic Church because of two specific impediments.Any reasonable read of the thread would conclude that noclevername is a sinner by violation of the canon law which does not apply to her.
No one is judging. Per Canon Law, the wedding is not valid if what she said is complete and correct. That’s just a restatement of a fact.Similarly we see catholics quickly judge, yet again where is the catholic teaching to judge at all! Let alone quickly judge a protestant’s marriage? (…sounds like the old……we do not need any stinking badges…)
She asked a specific scenario and was given a specific response. As stated several times in this thread, no one can give an internet diagnosis without fully understanding the situation, so she should meet with a priest to discuss the issue (or as suggested, contact her husband’s baptismal parish). But she seems to have no interest in that.But that scripture does not say lay catholics are to judge when (lets use USCCB source: - "…whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful)" ) it is unlawful verses when it is lawful.
There are two things you’re ignoring: the Church does not need to exercise binding power over her in the case of Divine Law (i.e. freedom to marry). Also, her husband is Catholic, so the Church does have binding power over him (i.e. the Canonical Form of Marriage).For her that judgement is made in Natural Moral Law and for her ( and all in her condition) it is easy. For Catholic’s the Natural Moral Law decision must be upheld by the Catholic Church. Our Church holds its power to bind has been used to require that affirmation from the Bishops office (tribunal) for us. But our Church also holds it does not have binding power over her.
She is not catholic something which is dismissed or reinstated at will. If one understands she is not catholic rather than flip flop one can address her questions. Btw she did not ask the questions being answered.No, it wouldn’t. A reasonable reading would conclude that the case she posted in the OP is a marriage considered invalid by the Catholic Church because of two specific impediments.
somebody is kidding their selfNo one is judging.
She is not catholicPer Canon Law, the wedding is not valid if what she said is complete and correct. That’s just a restatement of a fact.
“If I rob someone at gun point, did I break the law?” “Yes. It is illegal to rob someone at gun point.” “Don’t be so quick to judge!!!”
She is not catholic so what is the priest to do, other than explain the correct parts of this thread. He has no authority over her, she is not catholicShe asked a specific scenario and was given a specific response. As stated several times in this thread, no one can give an internet diagnosis without fully understanding the situation, so she should meet with a priest to discuss the issue (or as suggested, contact her husband’s baptismal parish). But she seems to have no interest in that.
Look at it this way, continuing my example from above.
Asker: “If I rob someone at gun point, did I break the law?”
Respondent: “Yes. It is illegal to rob someone at gun point.”
She is not catholic, she is not under catholic law. Legal authority is clear an issue lacking proper understanding on this thread. Nothing in this thread indicates a breaking of devine law. ONLY to those who judge her marriage attempts can one assess Devine Law. Without judging the marriages there is no reason to doubt her comments on marriage.That is not judging, it’s just restating a fact. However, the respondent isn’t a court of law, so she can’t put the asker in prison. However, she can give general information about what is legal and what is not legal and that is acceptable.
There are two things you’re ignoring: the Church does not need to exercise binding power over her in the case of Divine Law (i.e. freedom to marry). Also, her husband is Catholic, so the Church does have binding power over him (i.e. the Canonical Form of Marriage).
She is not catholic, and nothing in this thread indicates a breaking of Devine law.I’m starting to believe that the whole point of your posts are to confuse people.
I really can’t take you serious anymore. You’ve got to by trying to push some buttons here.She is not catholic something which is dismissed or reinstated at will.
To determine her husband’s state for communion, one would need to determine the state of her marriage. That is the connection between her marriage and her question.If one understands she is not catholic rather than flip flop one can address her questions. Btw she did not ask the questions being answered.
You do not need to be Catholic to be in a marriage considered invalid by the Catholic Church. Typically, non-Catholics couldn’t care less what the Church thinks, but in her case, it matters because it affects her husband’s ability to receive communion.She is not catholic
But her husband is Catholic. She’s asking about her husband’s ability to accept communion. The priest would tell her whether or not her husband can receive communion, and whether or not her marriage is valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, then the priest would tell her and her husband how to resolve any issues if she wanted to do so.She is not catholic so what is the priest to do, other than explain the correct parts of this thread. He has no authority over her, she is not catholic
Matthew 19:3-9.She is not catholic, she is not under catholic law. Legal authority is clear an issue lacking proper understanding on this thread. Nothing in this thread indicates a breaking of devine law.
There is a Catholic in the marriage (the husband).If Divine Law is broken the Tribunal has no value for catholics or non catholics. Catholics are bound to the Tribunal’s interpetation of whether Devine Law is broken, Non-catholics use Natural Moral Law.
agreedI really can’t take you serious anymore. You’ve got to by trying to push some buttons here.
It is perfectly well understood that she is not Catholic. However, she is asking if her Catholic husband is in a state, per the Catholic Church, to receive communion in a Catholic church and this is being asked on a Catholic message board. So, yes, the Catholic view of marriage is germane to the discussion.
To determine her husband’s state for communion, one would need to determine the state of her marriage. That is the connection between her marriage and her question.
You do not need to be Catholic to be in a marriage considered invalid by the Catholic Church. Typically, non-Catholics couldn’t care less what the Church thinks, but in her case, it matters because it affects her husband’s ability to receive communion.
But her husband is Catholic. She’s asking about her husband’s ability to accept communion. The priest would tell her whether or not her husband can receive communion,
Why should we assume the Priest is so foolish and immature? Does the Priest tell the tribunal no further review is necessary?and whether or not her marriage is valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church,
then the priest would tell her and her husband how to resolve any issues if she wanted to do so.
Matthew 19:3-9.
This is just wrong flat out completely wrong. The Catholic Church does not change divine law through the annulment process. You can play games and say under divine law she is married and divorced per scripture (protestant interpretation) or you can use the catholic method she attempted marriage but was unsuccessful, then later married. Both are one in the same. The issue is not what scripture says or whether you wish to use Catholic or non-Catholic verbiage, the issue is was it lawful or unlawful. The error you made and other often make is to believe the Catholic Church makes marriages and thus dissolves marriages, they do neither. The Church writings are clear on that subject. When two Catholics receive an annulment it is not a ruling that: Divine Law has been moved to accommodate you! Either the marriage existed and thus is solvent regardless or never existed, and thus Divine Law never applied as it was not a marriage.She married, divorced, and remarried. By Divine Law under the new covenant, she is still married to her first husband and her second marriage is adulterous. She can refuse to believe that interpretation of scripture - that’s her decision. But by the Catholic interpretation, she is in violation of Divine Law and thus her second marriage would be invalid.
Now, she’s not Catholic so why should she care? Well because she’s asking about whether or not her husband can take communion in a Catholic Church.
Again - that’s not a judgment of a person. That’s what the Catholic Church believes. Maybe if I preface everything with legalese it’ll be more acceptable to you:
So are you agreeing that we have no reason to see sin on her part? Oh, wait you said “her second marriage is adulterous” (but did I mention she is not Catholic?). So it is good to know “her second marriage is adulterous” is in no way a judgment.There is a Catholic in the marriage (the husband).
You’re putting words into my mouth. I never claimed that the annulment process changes Divine Law. A tribunal only investigates the validity of a marriage. It doesn’t change anything.This is just wrong flat out completely wrong. The Catholic Church does not change divine law through the annulment process. You can play games and say under divine law she is married and divorced per scripture (protestant interpretation) or you can use the catholic method she attempted marriage but was unsuccessful, then later married. Both are one in the same.
Who ever said that an annulment is an “accommodation” or that it alters Divine Law? I have never heard anyone say that, let alone say that in this thread.The error you made and other often make is to believe the Catholic Church makes marriages and thus dissolves marriages, they do neither. The Church writings are clear on that subject. When two Catholics receive an annulment it is not a ruling that: Divine Law has been moved to accommodate you!
It’s not judgment, it’s Church teaching. Is she a sinner? Well, I assume that she doesn’t understand that what she’s doing is a grave matter, so take that for what it’s worth.So are you agreeing that we have no reason to see sin on her part? Oh, wait you said “her second marriage is adulterous” (but did I mention she is not Catholic?). So it is good to know “her second marriage is adulterous” is in no way a judgment.
His posts are NOT accurate, as has been repeatedly pointed out. But, you seem only interested in what you *want *to hear rather than what actually is.Thank you Texas Roofer. I appreciate your posts and the way you have explained things is the way I thought they were.
Well, I’m not sure why it is surprising you. Many people told you this would be the case BEFORE you even got married.And I never went on this forum looking for people to tell me I have an adulterous marriage. Ya know how big that makes me feel?
Not only are his posts inaccurate, but they do not make sense.Thank you Texas Roofer. I appreciate your posts and the way you have explained things is the way I thought they were.
I usually try to be nicer, but that’s how the Catholic Church views the case of a civil divorce / remarriage without an annulment. In such a situation, the person is still married to the first husband so relations with the second husband is adultery. It’s that way for every divorced person that was not granted an annulment, it’s just that most people don’t care or ask.And I never went on this forum looking for people to tell me I have an adulterous marriage. Ya know how big that makes me feel?
Coffee Hound,I usually try to be nicer, but that’s how the Catholic Church views the case of a civil divorce / remarriage without an annulment. In such a situation, the person is still married to the first husband so relations with the second husband is adultery. It’s that way for every divorced person that was not granted an annulment, it’s just that most people don’t care or ask.
And there it is from your own pen if a tribunal affirms her first attempted marriage was an invalid sacrament it always was. It does not matter when or if they rule, today, tomorrow, 66 years from now, either it was always valid or always invalid it was never the tribunal acting on part of the Church that changed validity.… A tribunal only investigates the validity of a marriage. ** It doesn’t change anything**…
Yes, but that does not make her second marriage a valid sacrament. Since marriage enjoys the favor of the law, her second marriage will be invalid regardless of the tribunal ruling on the first marriage because she was not free to marry at the time of the second marriage. There would have to be another marriage to the second husband (a convalidation) to make that marriage valid.And there it is from your own pen if a tribunal affirms her first attempted marriage was an invalid sacrament it always was.
Dan,The Church does not impose canon law on non-Catholics.
has anyone mentioned to you she is not catholic?Yes, but that does not make her second marriage a valid sacrament. Since marriage enjoys the favor of the law, her second marriage will be invalid regardless of the tribunal ruling on the first marriage because she was not free to marry at the time of the second marriage. There would have to be another marriage to the second husband (a convalidation) to make that marriage valid.
Which would be proof the first wedding did not produce a marriageI know it sounds like “wow, those crazy Catholics sure have a lot of unnecessary rules” but keep in mind that this only comes about because one very simply rule was broken: marriage is for life.
Yes. My use of “canon law” was not precise. Your clarification is correct and I should have used “ecclesiastical law.” But, my main point was that there are times when there are exceptions to the rule and “merely” ecclesiastical law *does *bind non-Catholics. This happens when a non-Catholic freely submits to the requirements of ecclesiastical law, e.g., the RCIA process, canonical form, procedural law in a marriage nullity process, the norms of c. 844, etc.I agree with most of what you said, except for the above. Canon Law is a collection of Divine Law and ecclesiastical laws. Some Canons apply to all people, regardless of religion and some are imposed only on Catholics. For example, the requirement of freedom to marry is Divine Law imposed on all by God, while the form of marriage is an ecclesiastical law not imposed on non-Catholics.
We all know SHE’s not Catholic. But the validity doesn’t flow to the person but to the matirmonial bond between the two people. Her husband IS Catholic. The bond cannot be valid unless BOTH parties were free to marry. HE was not free to marry a non-Catholic, outside the Church without a dispensation.has anyone mentioned to you she is not catholic?
And **she **was not free to marry either. She has a prior bond.We all know SHE’s not Catholic. But the validity doesn’t flow to the person but to the matirmonial bond between the two people. Her husband IS Catholic. The bond cannot be valid unless BOTH parties were free to marry. HE was not free to marry a non-Catholic, outside the Church without a dispensation.
Divine Law (freedom to marry) still applies to her. Both Divine and ecclesiastical laws (including form) apply to her husband and thus her second marriage.has anyone mentioned to you she is not catholic?
Not necessarily. Marriage is for life. But that doesn’t mean that ending a marriage (via divorce) makes it invalid; it would depend on what the individuals intended from the start of the marriage.Which would be proof the first wedding did not produce a marriage
Right, so there’s two defects: 1. the bride was not free to marry as she was already presumably validly married and 2. the groom ignored the canonical form of marriage. Both would have to be resolved for a marriage to be valid. Presumably (again, trying not to give the impression that this is authoritative for a specific case - it’s a general case).And **she **was not free to marry either. She has a prior bond.