T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
All sacraments require proper matand form
All sacraments require proper matand form
Failure to understand Marriage Sacrament
- Thread starter farronwolf
- Start date
- Status
farronwolf
New member
Yep, it has been null from the beginning, which means it never existed. But the life lived while presumed to be married during a marriage which never existed aren’t considered in the same light as say two folks just living together, or in a marriage the Church doesn’t consider valid.
You thought you were married so no fornication took place, you thought you were married so your children aren’t illegitimate. Now you say you didn’t realize what you were doing, or were coerced, or whatever, and the marriage didn’t exist but no actions prior were wrong.
Having cake and eating it too.
A
Anesti33
Guest
A natural marriage requires the same matter and form.
R
Rau
Guest
That conclusion makes no sense to me. We cannot sin “by accident”. A knowing and free choice is required.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
No, valid natural marriage is not sacramental.
Neither or both may be unbaptized, valid natural marriage is not bound by form. An unbaptized atheist couple, a Jew and a Bhuddist, two pagans, as long as there is a man and woman who have no impediments, they can marry in the back yard by a JOP or in an Elvis chapel or in an underwater druid ceremony and result in a valid natural marriage
Neither or both may be unbaptized, valid natural marriage is not bound by form. An unbaptized atheist couple, a Jew and a Bhuddist, two pagans, as long as there is a man and woman who have no impediments, they can marry in the back yard by a JOP or in an Elvis chapel or in an underwater druid ceremony and result in a valid natural marriage
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right!
In this case, we’re giving the benefit of the doubt to two folks who putatively embarked on a valid covenant of marriage. Maybe one acted in good faith, maybe both did (and one or both were mistaken), but we recognize that, if everyone attempted to do their due diligence, then there’s a valid marriage present. A declaration of nullity recognizes the fact that this presumption was in error. But, that doesn’t mean – a priori – that one or both of the spouses is culpable of sin.
Legitimacy is a function of civil law, not canon law. If your marriage was civilly valid, then there’s no question of legitimacy of children, even if the marriage wasn’t canonically valid.
You say that in a tone that suggests that the person really did think that it was invalid from the start. That’s not the case – for each of the spouses – in a nullity proceeding. So… no: not “having your cake and eating it too.”
It’s more like “I thought I had cake, but it turns out that it was always a cow pie.”
P
Phemie
Guest
People keep saying that, but legitimacy of children is definitely addressed in the canons on Marriage.
Under the old code, illegitimacy was an impediment to Ordination. That impediment does not exist under the 1983 Code.
1
1ke
Guest
This isn’t accurate.
Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.
Not all civil marriages are valid or putative, for example those of a Catholic wed civilly without dispensation.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Two thoughts:
- “Under the old code”. Not since 1983.
- And… only with respect to ordination. With respect to the normative considerations of “legitimacy”, those were purely civil effects.
OK, then… what are the effects of “illegitimacy” (which is a status that the 1983 code doesn’t address)? Recall that anything in the 1917 code that’s not addressed in the 1983 code is abrogated…
B
Bernoulli
Guest
I have never really understood why a secret intention would invalidate consent. Consent doesn’t work that way in the civil law, in the civil law secret intentions are not accepted to invalidate an obligation.
The problem of secret intentions does not apply only to marriages, but also other sacraments like baptisms. There are stories where a priest intends secretly not to baptize, even if he performs the external rite correctly.
The problem of secret intentions does not apply only to marriages, but also other sacraments like baptisms. There are stories where a priest intends secretly not to baptize, even if he performs the external rite correctly.
P
Phemie
Guest
Note that the marriage Rite also doesn’t speak of “vows” but of “exchange of consent”.Vico:
I will grant that the Catholic Encyclopedia and the CCC both omit the word “vow” from their description of Matrimony, which would seem to be a curious lacuna, given the popular description of “marriage vows” exchanged in the Rite. I still do not see how a covenant is not a vow; either it is not solemn or it is not a promise, but to me a covenant seems like an especially solemn promise. This is the first time I have ever seen anyone deny that husband and wife indeed exchange vows. I suppose I am bound to believe Vico the expert, but this rocks my world.Anesti33:
No, Catechism
vow: solemn promise from Old French vow from Latin votum
covenant: mutual compact to do or not do something, a contract from Old French covenant from Latin convenire (come together, unite)
S
SerraSemper
Guest
Look up civil annulments due to immigration fraud. The person seeking citizenship or residency “marries” fraudulently. Last time I checked, that has to do with intention.
1
1ke
Guest
Yes they are. Civil law has annulment statutes.
Last edited:
B
Bernoulli
Guest
Annulment, yes, but not for mental reservations. This was actually considered by jurists who formed the Roman civil law, and it was unanimous that mental reservations cannot invalidate obligations. That would undermine the public trustworthiness of transactions.
The canon law was based on the Roman civil law, but their principles diverged here.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Thank you to all who contributed here, it has been an interesting and enlightening discussion. I want to comment on a minor issue that arose between @Anesti33 and @TheLittleLady that is nowhere near as significant as the rest of the conversation
Having the consent be both matter and form did not seem quite right to me, so I went looking for something about the matter and form of matrimony. The best I could find was from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I assume illustrates the thinking even if it has been rendered obsolete in the century since:TheLittleLady:
No. Baptism makes it sacramental; as for validity…
Ascension Press:
It helps me understand how the consent could be both matter and form, a minor diversion. We now return you to your more interesting discussions.
O
otjm
Guest
That is a bit of a snide comment.
Fornication is an intent to engage in a morally wrong act.
The Church does not hold that those who were incapable of forming a covenant relationship were automatically guilty of fornication. They may, under certain circumstances hold that there is moral guilt if there are the three factors of a sin: wrongful (immoral) act, knowledge, and intent .
Goiven that the vast majority of people approaching the altar do not know Canon law, Knowledge is lacking. Therefore no sin.
Get the book - not for my sake (I have it) but for your sake, as your comments are getting fairly close to judging the souls of others.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
My country doesn’t have civil annulments at all, but my understandning is that civil annulments in the USA is rare and hard to get. They seem to be reserved for very obvious cases of fraud.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nah… rather, it’s the case that divorces are easy to get. So… why bother with an annulment if you can easily divorce?
V
Vico
Guest
form = sign or words – what the consent consists of
matter = to perform – to actually give consent
For sacraments the form is the sacramental sign or the words that specify the function of the matter and confer on it the power of sanctifying whereas the matter is the part of a sacrament that is used to actually perform the sacramental rite. (See subjects in Modern Catholic Dictionary.)
Last edited:
- Status