Dispensations and 'remarriage'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Indifferently
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Indifferently

Guest
God does not permit remarriage. Jesus is crystal-clear about this fact. A man may not put away his wife.

The Roman Catholic Church, which, for its followers, is the font of undefiled truth, teaches that if a Roman Catholic wishes to marry a non-Roman Catholic (even if the latter be a baptised Christian), he must obtain first a ‘dispensation of form’ from his Ordinary (that is, the diocesan bishop).

If not, his marriage is ‘invalid’. If the marriage is not ‘validated’ subsequently, he is free to ‘divorce’ in the civil courts (since he is not married in the eyes of the Lord) and (re)marry in the Church, with God’s blessing.

Can someone please give me the scriptural, theological justification for this teaching?
 
God does not permit remarriage. Jesus is crystal-clear about this fact. A man may not put away his wife.

The Roman Catholic Church, which, for its followers, is the font of undefiled truth, teaches that if a Roman Catholic wishes to marry a non-Roman Catholic (even if the latter be a baptised Christian), he must obtain first a ‘dispensation of form’ from his Ordinary (that is, the diocesan bishop).

If not, his marriage is ‘invalid’. If the marriage is not ‘validated’ subsequently, he is free to ‘divorce’ in the civil courts (since he is not married in the eyes of the Lord) and (re)marry in the Church, with God’s blessing.

Can someone please give me the scriptural, theological justification for this teaching?
The theological explanation is going to involve the concept of a sacrament, I’m going to predict.

GKC
 
God does not permit remarriage. Jesus is crystal-clear about this fact. A man may not put away his wife.

The Roman Catholic Church, which, for its followers, is the font of undefiled truth, teaches that if a Roman Catholic wishes to marry a non-Roman Catholic (even if the latter be a baptised Christian), he must obtain first a ‘dispensation of form’ from his Ordinary (that is, the diocesan bishop).

If not, his marriage is ‘invalid’. If the marriage is not ‘validated’ subsequently, he is free to ‘divorce’ in the civil courts (since he is not married in the eyes of the Lord) and (re)marry in the Church, with God’s blessing.

Can someone please give me the scriptural, theological justification for this teaching?
If a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, permission must be obtained from the bishop because a non-Catholic is not allowed to receive Catholic sacraments without it. It’s as simple as that.

As far as proclaiming a marriage invalid and therefore free to divorce and remarry in the Church it is much more compicated than that. Even if one has only had a civil wedding they must disclose that to the Church and obtaining an anullment is far from a slam dunk in any case. I won’t pretend to be an expert in anullments but it is not even close to being as cut and dried as your present it to be.
 
Catholics are required to follow the law of the Church regarding marriage. If they attempt marriage outside the Church, there is no valid marriage at all. They have committed sins of disobedience/sacrilege as well as fornication with their invalid marriage.

To rectify this, they need to go to Confession and either marry validly or separate.
 
Catholics are required to follow the law of the Church regarding marriage. If they attempt marriage outside the Church, there is no valid marriage at all. They have committed sins of disobedience/sacrilege as well as fornication with their invalid marriage.

To rectify this, they need to go to Confession and either marry validly or separate.
Thank you. I have asked for the theological justification, with, I hope, scriptural backing, and have yet to be presented any.

Wonder why.
 
Thank you. I have asked for the theological justification, with, I hope, scriptural backing, and have yet to be presented any.

Wonder why.
Hmm… I think the answer you want to hear is “because there isn’t any.” That isn’t the case, however… 😉

Please allow me first to address your post, and then I’ll answer your question:
God does not permit remarriage. Jesus is crystal-clear about this fact. A man may not put away his wife.
This is true. However, not all attempts at marriage fall under this prohibition: Matthew attests to exceptions (cf chapters 5 and 19), and Paul discusses situations in marriages in which dissolution is possible. So, scripturally, this is not an absolute prohibition.
if a Roman Catholic wishes to marry a non-Roman Catholic (even if the latter be a baptised Christian), he must obtain first a ‘dispensation of form’ from his Ordinary (that is, the diocesan bishop).
If not, his marriage is ‘invalid’.
From a sacramental point of view, this is correct. After all, what we’re talking about is Christian marriage, and in this context, Catholics see Christian marriage as a sacramental reality.
If the marriage is not ‘validated’ subsequently, he is free to ‘divorce’ in the civil courts (since he is not married in the eyes of the Lord)
Actually, in reality, that’s backward. A person who divorces may petition the Church to examine the sacramental validity of their marriage. In the case of a Catholic who did not attempt to follow the form of marriage, this is a documentary procedure: it simply establishes that he had the obligation to follow the form prescribed by the Church and failed to attempt to do so. This failure implies that no sacramental marriage ever existed (although a civil marriage did).

Whether or not one is “married in the eyes of the Lord”, the Church does not tell its faithful that they are “free to divorce in civil courts.”
and (re)marry in the Church, with God’s blessing.
Note the distinction, which you already admit seeing: it’s not a ‘remarriage’, in the sacramental sense, since no such sacramental marriage previously existed.

OK: I think that this covers the assertions you’ve made in your post. Next: the answers to your question of scriptural/theological basis…
 
OK: having addressed the notions you mentioned in your post, let’s get to your real question, since it’s what’s causing you pain: what’s the Church’s justification for its teachings on marriage?

First off, the Church sees the wedding at Cana as an indication that Christ intended to bless the state of marriage; His statements on the indissolubility of marriage also support the notion of Christian marriage.

Since there is such a thing as ‘Christian marriage’, how is it that it should be understood and regulated? The Church understands that Christ’s commission to the apostles gives them the authority to regulate the life of the Church – and what they bind, shall likewise be bound in heaven.

Therefore, the Church has the responsibility (and the authority) to regulate Christian marriage for the faithful. In executing this responsibility, the Church has discerned that there are three essential conditions that characterize a valid Christian sacramental marriage: the consent of the parties, a lack of impediments, and adherence to the proper form of marriage. In the absence of any of these, the Church asserts, a valid sacramental marriage does not exist.

(However, the Church also asserts that marriage enjoys the favor of the law: if the spouses, in good will, attempted a valid marriage, then the Church presumes that their marriage is valid, unless proven otherwise.)

The question of ‘form’ is critical to the questions you’ve raised here. In short, the Church considers whether the Christian community of the spouse(s) set requirements for form, and expects that these spouses follow the form required of them. The Church of England, for example, does not set any requirements for form: therefore, the marriage of Anglicans who marry – with consent and in the absence of impediments – is honored by the Church as a valid, sacramental, Christian marriage.

However, the Church does have requirements of form for Catholics who wish to marry. These include having a marriage in a Catholic Church; before an approved minister (usually a priest or deacon) who has the authority (or delegation) to witness the marriage; and having witnesses to the marriage. These requirements oblige Catholics who wish to marry another Catholic, as well as Catholics who wish to marry a non-Catholic Christian. In the latter case, given the tensions that a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian may produce, the Church requires that the Catholic receives permission.

Please note that this procedure is distinct from the ‘dispensation’ that you mention: permission is required, and, having received that permission, a Catholic may marry a non-Catholic Christian (presuming that he observes the form of Catholic marriage). However, it is also possible to request a dispensation from form (for instance, to allow the marriage to be celebrated in a place other than a Catholic Church, and witnessed by a non-Catholic Christian minister). These two issues (‘permission’ and ‘dispensation’), however, shouldn’t be conflated.

One further note: in the case that a couple attempts to follow form, but is in some way deficient, then it is possible to convalidate that marriage in order to ensure that the marriage is valid. However, if the Catholic does not even attempt to observe form, then no sacramental marriage is present, and it would be necessary to make a subsequent attempt at valid sacramental marriage.

To sum up: your characterization of the Catholic Church’s stance on marriage is largely on target, but misses the mark in certain aspects. Further, with respect to ‘Scriptural’ or ‘theological’ bases, the Church sees Christ’s statements about the nature of marriage, as well as Paul’s statements, as affirming both that marriage is indissoluble and also that exceptions exist. Given the Church’s understanding of the authority given the apostles by Christ, it understands that it has the authority to regulate marriage, which it has done. I’ve tried to provide a concise yet thorough description of what the Church understands as the salient issues surrounding valid, sacramental Christian marriage.

I hope that this explanation has been helpful to you. Do you have any other questions, or need any other clarifications?

Blessings,

G.
 
I have asked for the theological justification, with, I hope, scriptural backing, and have yet to be presented any.
Is this what you are looking for? Mathew 16:18-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Surely it is not difficult to understand that the Church has the responsibility to perform marriages?
 
Thank you. I have asked for the theological justification, with, I hope, scriptural backing, and have yet to be presented any.

Wonder why.
Is it not fair to assume you have already read the numerous references in the CCC with its countless theological and scriptural references – too many to cite here on CAF? With Gorgias’ logical explanation above along with the details in the CCC this should suffice no? A link to the CCC here…
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#
 
Indifferently,

I don’t have time to go into it right now. I am late for work as it is. But what you are looking for is called in the Church the Pauline Privilage and it come from 1 Corinthian 7: 10-15. There is alaso the Pertrine Privilege. That is were one party is baptised and the other is not. Someone will surely fill in the detail while I am at work.
 
Perhaps we’ve all gotten used to the idea of secular marriage - where filling out the government form is all that’s required.

But the reality is is that the Church declares when a marriage takes place, and under some circumstances, if someone goes through the motions of marriage outside the Church, then they really aren’t married to begin with.

Sort of like how I can’t pop over to the supermarket and by bread and wine and attempt to partake of the Eucharist on my own.

(Note: the proceeding may be Lutheran and not Catholic thought)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top