V
Vico
Guest
A covenant is between two or more. A vow could be made to another without being reciprocated.Vico:
Marriage vows are not vows?
Failure to understand Marriage Sacrament
- Thread starter farronwolf
- Start date
- Status
A
Anesti33
Guest
A vow is a promise made to God. It cannot be made to another.Anesti33:
A covenant is between two or more. A vow could be made to another without being reciprocated.Vico:
Marriage vows are not vows?
O
otjm
Guest
Which misses the point. ;Marriage as a sacrament is not about a vow; it is about a covenant.
The covenant God made with the Jews - “I will be your God and you will be my people” did not require of them a vow. And whether one asserts that they made a vow or did not, they violated the covenenat, and repeatedly. The covenant however remains.
The Church as noted by Vico, requires that both people enter into a covenant. The marks of the covenant are fidelity (exclusivity), lifelong commitment (indissolubility), and openness to children (fruitfulness).
The vows said are the means of confecting the sacrament (the priest in the Roman Rite does not “marry” the couple - he is only the official observer. By saying the vows they confect (make) the sacrament, and the sacrament has three parties; - the husband, the wife, and God.
Vows can be made to another. God is not a necessary part - and vows can be made to God alone. But a vow can be made to another person, alone, and can be a vow by only one of the parties.
What is a vow? It is a solemn promise or assertion to another. The other may be God, or a person or entity; so when I enlisted fin the Army, I made the following vow:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Yes, it asks for God’s help, and an atheist could eliminate the last 4 words and still be making a solemn vow.
A
Anesti33
Guest
tl;dr: vows are vows then?
O
otjm
Guest
It really is not that long - try reading it.
Marriage as a sacrament is about a covenant relationship; the vows are the way to confect it. And the issue of a decree of nullity is that there was either an impediment (e.g. a prior marriage and the spouse is still alive) or an issue with consent. In both a valid and an invalid marriage, vows are said. Vows are not the issue; the sacrament - the covenant - is the issue.
V
Vico
Guest
vow (noun)Vico:
A vow is a promise made to God. It cannot be made to another.Anesti33:
A covenant is between two or more. A vow could be made to another without being reciprocated.Vico:
Marriage vows are not vows?
covenant (noun)
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Historically speaking, marriage meant free exchange of vows between two spouses and marital intercourse. That’s it. You said “I love you and I marry you”, slept together and it was done. It was usually followed by festivities and so on… but in reality this was enough to marry.
However, in Church history there came a turning point when Church had to exercise her authority to bind and loose. People started breaking marriages saying “well we never really married”… and as this became somewhat of a trend, people also started viewing marriage as something that can be ended anytime. This was something Church needed to combat.
Western Church therefore did not change Sacrament itself, but made it necessary for validity that there are witnesses. Later on, witness of the Church was needed. There still does not need to be Mass and Church can appoint local elder as Her witness (though as you can see, it isn’t norm at all
). This was done to stop people from abusing marriage (and because this abuse faded, so did notion that one can end marriage).
Eastern Church decided to view marriage differently. They mandated that Priest needs to bless the marriage for it to be valid. This had similar practical effect than Western practice, but changed minister of Sacrament to Priest from two people who are marrying each other. Mind you, it was during Scholasticism (millennium after all of this) that words like “minister of the Sacrament” and such theory even came.
However, in Church history there came a turning point when Church had to exercise her authority to bind and loose. People started breaking marriages saying “well we never really married”… and as this became somewhat of a trend, people also started viewing marriage as something that can be ended anytime. This was something Church needed to combat.
Western Church therefore did not change Sacrament itself, but made it necessary for validity that there are witnesses. Later on, witness of the Church was needed. There still does not need to be Mass and Church can appoint local elder as Her witness (though as you can see, it isn’t norm at all
). This was done to stop people from abusing marriage (and because this abuse faded, so did notion that one can end marriage).Eastern Church decided to view marriage differently. They mandated that Priest needs to bless the marriage for it to be valid. This had similar practical effect than Western practice, but changed minister of Sacrament to Priest from two people who are marrying each other. Mind you, it was during Scholasticism (millennium after all of this) that words like “minister of the Sacrament” and such theory even came.
You are completely right in theory… however, in practice being married to someone who is not married to you is somewhat difficult. Church has power to bind and loose outside Divine Law. Vows are not Divine Law. Church can therefore “loose” your vow so that you are no longer bound by it.
He is, if that was willful. There are even occasions that happily “married” couple discovers they have been “married” invalidly. They get another marriage and therefore are now married. Annulment isn’t a divorce (ideally). Annulment can happen to perfectly happy couple as it can happen to perfectly unhappy couple. It is understandable that only unhappy couples seek reasons for annulments… and who seeks finds more often than those who don’t.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
If I get where you’re coming from, yes, the promise to love and cherish is not dependent on the other person.
That’s why infidelity, for instance, is not a grounds for annulment.
However, a person may think in all good faith, that they can make this lifelong commitment, but in actual fact have a severe impediment, such as certain psychological diagnoses.
The two spouses in this case may be technically fornicating, but not have sinned because they sincerely thought they were married.
Pre Cana is supposed to reveal these impediments, but sometimes it doesn’t.
Also, people don’t always see themselves the way they are or recognize their own baggage.
I don’t lnow if you’re married, but if so, you probably found out your spouse had baggage you never dreamed of, and found out “stuff” about yourself. Not that anybody hid it “on purpose”, but that you just didnt realize.
A
Anesti33
Guest
Does a covenant agreement not have the character of a vow?
farronwolf
New member
Yes, been married for 27 years. Didn’t really find out anything I didn’t already know about her after marriage. We dated for over 4 years before getting married.
Heck my family said she didn’t have to marry me to be part of the family. They would take her over me any day. My dad, though jokingly I hope, told her if we ever had problems she was welcome to their house, but not me.
I don’t buy the not realizing what one is doing or finding out things that one can’t deal with during marriage, or years or decades later saying, well I really didn’t know what I was doing. I think that with today’s society, things being about “me” folks simply look for a way out of marriage to go onto something else.
Not much different in some minds as changing cars or houses, or jobs. Unfortunately, it seems the Church has went along with this in recent decades to keep people in the pews. But that is me, looking at what I see in the changes within our parish over the past 50 years or so.
V
Vico
Guest
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)
Note that an unconsummated but ratified valid sacramental marriage can be dissolved.
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
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)
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I don’t necessarily think this is what it says. While marriage is based on contract, one can not say that vows aren’t present. One might argue they aren’t absolutely necessary but in reality, this particular contract is formed before God (much like vow) … or so I remember. Haven’t been to many marriages that I remember honestly.
V
Vico
Guest
It is a solemn covenant established, but the difference between the words is single ended vs mutual. The covenant established in matrimony is a contract. The word vow is commonly used for promise when it comes to marriage, but there is a different meaning.
CIC “Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.”
Look at the original post:
So above you can see the misunderstanding that comes from using the word vow (single ended, not mutual).
@OrbisNonSufficit
Last edited:
farronwolf
New member
Is it true that as Catholics, before seeking divorce in the civil system, Catholics must get approval from the Church to do so?
This practice seems to never, ever happen. Does anyone know of this happening? Couples getting permission from the Bishop to seek civil divorce.
This practice seems to never, ever happen. Does anyone know of this happening? Couples getting permission from the Bishop to seek civil divorce.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
This canon lawyer, who holds a chair at a seminary, says that Church permission for divorce is not required in non-concordat nations such as the USA.
There is a list of the concordat nations at Concordat - Wikipedia . If you were in one of those nations then you might possibly have to seek church permission. However, it doesn’t appear to be definite that you’d absolutely have to seek permission even in those nations.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
No. There is no mention of divorce in canon law per se. Divorce is purely a civil legal undertaking to secure property, custody, and other rights.
What you may be thinking of are the canons pertaining to separation while the bond remains, which does involve the ecclesiastical authority.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P45.HTM
Canon 1151 discusses the duty towards conjugal living and that there must be legitimate cause to sever it.
Canon 1152 discusses separation for adultery specifically.
Canon 1153 deals with other grounds for separation.
These canons provide for an opportunity for pastoral action to attempt to effect reconciliation.
Canons 1692-1696 deal with the canonical process.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P6Q.HTM
In the English speaking world, you are correct the canons pertaining to separation are largely ignored by separating couples.
farronwolf
New member
That is one opinion. Other canon lawyers hold opposing views.
Canon does require that couples seek permission before stopping conjugal living does it not. I guess the goal with that is to try to help keep the marriage together.
Canon does require that couples seek permission before stopping conjugal living does it not. I guess the goal with that is to try to help keep the marriage together.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I have no idea where you’re getting this from, and if your position is, “Well, I can always find some canon lawyer out there who agrees with my own views”, then it’s pointless to discuss the matter, as you’re only interested in getting affirmation of your own view, not in what the actual correct answer might be.
1
1ke
Guest
Maybe.
There could be complementary norms or other provisions at the ecclesial province, conference, or diocesan level, approved by Rome per canon 1692, or rulings from Rome or decrees of the Pope promulgated after 1983 that provide otherwise.
Jurisprudence evolves with various rulings, subsequent legislation, and the authority of the bishops in their own diocese if canon law provides such latitude— which this one does.
- Status