marriage and divorce

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrhiggins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Check out the CCC 1649 it explains this physical separation. Hope that helps:D
 
rinnie said:
Now the other side of the coin, if I can prove to the Church it was never a marriage in the first place no true marriage existed it can be annulled. No marriage ever existed. So if you were never truly married you cannot be divorced. You have to have a marriage to have a divorce. You have to prove you never had a marriage to be annulled. Do you understand?

A wedding and saying I do does not mean a marriage. A wedding is not a marriage.
Click to expand...
From a technical, sacramental perspective, you are correct in a sense. No valid marriage means that there is nothing to be divorced from. But from a legal perspective, it’s a divorce the same as any other.

Now I’m thinking. I am curious as to whether any Church documents have made such a distinction between the divorce of validly married people and the “divorce” of invalidly married people. Would it be accurate to say that, any time the Church mentions “divorce”, She is only speaking of those cases where validly married people are divorced? That doesn’t seem right to me, but I would have to take a closer look.
 
Joe_5859 said:
From a technical, sacramental perspective, you are correct in a sense. No valid marriage means that there is nothing to be divorced from. But from a legal perspective, it’s a divorce the same as any other.

Now I’m thinking. I am curious as to whether any Church documents have made such a distinction between the divorce of validly married people and the “divorce” of invalidly married people. Would it be accurate to say that, any time the Church mentions “divorce”, She is only speaking of those cases where validly married people are divorced? That doesn’t seem right to me, but I would have to take a closer look.
Click to expand...
See Joe it all goes back to the bible. Moses permitted it because hardness of your hearts. Because your fathers could not bear the more excellent way.

I am on this same subject on another thread. SO Moses allowed it by political law, but political law did not fulfill Gods law. Read Mark 10:2-9

Jesus tells the pharaisees the law of moses permitted divorce because of hardness of hearts. But Jesus proceeds to proclaim permanence to be the divine intent from the beginning concerning marriage. He REAFFIRMS this teaching again in Luke, Matt Mark. etc.

He says it plain as day it is not Gods way.
 
rinnie said:
See Joe it all goes back to the bible. Moses permitted it because hardness of your hearts. Because your fathers could not bear the more excellent way.

I am on this same subject on another thread. SO Moses allowed it by political law, but political law did not fulfill Gods law. Read Mark 10:2-9

Jesus tells the pharaisees the law of moses permitted divorce because of hardness of hearts. But Jesus proceeds to proclaim permanence to be the divine intent from the beginning concerning marriage. He REAFFIRMS this teaching again in Luke, Matt Mark. etc.

He says it plain as day it is not Gods way.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure we are understanding each other here. I understand the theology of the Sacrament of Marriage as pertains to indissolubility and all that. I have no issues with that at all. The point I am making is that I do not believe I have ever seen a statement from the Church that would lead me to conclude that we should not use the term “divorce” in regards to legally ending invalid marriages.

The way I understood your post was that, the term “divorce” doesn’t even appply in those cases as the people weren’t married to begin with. Was this a correct assumption on my part?

Of course, the Church makes a distinction between valid and invalid marriages, but I just don’t see the same distinction in regards to divorce. At least, not the the extent that I would assume that when the Church speaks about divorce, it only means divorce from a valid marriage.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I’m not sure we are understanding each other here. I understand the theology of the Sacrament of Marriage as pertains to indissolubility and all that. I have no issues with that at all. The point I am making is that I do not believe I have ever seen a statement from the Church that would lead me to conclude that we should not use the term “divorce” in regards to legally ending invalid marriages.

The way I understood your post was that, the term “divorce” doesn’t even appply in those cases as the people weren’t married to begin with. Was this a correct assumption on my part?

Of course, the Church makes a distinction between valid and invalid marriages, but I just don’t see the same distinction in regards to divorce. At least, not the the extent that I would assume that when the Church speaks about divorce, it only means divorce from a valid marriage.
Click to expand...
Only if you are pertaining to it by the law. What I mean by this is this, divorce is never permitted in the Church. What God unites together it forever. Now civil divorce anotherwards the law is completely different then the Church.

Let me put it this way Joe if my husband would divorce me through the courts I am still bound to the CHurch.
 
joandarc2008 said:
You have hit the nail on the head between the lack of form anullment and a full anullment. The full anullment can take a year or more. The lack of form is a matter of paperwork to prove that it was just what the name implies - a lack of form. The main point are this:
  1. He was baptized Catholic
  2. He had a duty to get married in the Church
  3. He did not
  4. Due ot that there was no vaild marriage
Click to expand...
I’m still having trouble understanding you. Since “there was no valid marriage”, why would he need an annulment at all? In the eyes of the Church he was not married.
 
rinnie said:
Check out the CCC 1649 it explains this physical separation. Hope that helps:D
Click to expand...
CCC 1649 is not the Code of Canon Law. From what the way it is presented it could accommodate for non-sinful divorce in case of safety or security. CCC 1649 does not discuss the granting of legal separation by the Church. Legality in form is defined by the Canon Law not the CCC.
 
rinnie said:
It is Cristiano. Let me explain here is a quick example. Lets say I am married in Church and my husband and our marriage is valid. Thats it, no man can separate us. We are united as one flesh. Read mark 10:9-12.

Now if the Church says we do not have grounds for annulment and our marriage is valid I have a choice. I honor those vows or I don’t. Now lets say my husband gets a legal divorce from the law. I cannot stop him. But he has committed adultery and so did his girlfriend etc. But if I honor those vows and do not commit adultery and wait until my husband dies and live alone I did not commit adultery. In the eyes of the law we are no longer husband and wife, but in the church we are.

The church can not force my husband to keep his promise to God or me. the same as I can’t. But the Church can help me to accept that promise by living alone, and through prayer and the sacrament of communion get through this. Do you understand what I am saying?
Click to expand...
What about Canon 1151 to 1155? Here we are talking about the sinfulness of divorce. Divorce is not a religious matter anymore (as in regulated by the religious institution) it is a civil issue. Behaviors associated with divorce can be sinful, but the interruption of a civil contract does not automatically imply moral offense. However, just because someone is divorced that does not imply that they are not married in the eyes of the Church and proper behavior is mandated for both spouses. My take is that
 
Cristiano said:
CCC 1649 is not the Code of Canon Law. From what the way it is presented it could accommodate for non-sinful divorce in case of safety or security. CCC 1649 does not discuss the granting of legal separation by the Church. Legality in form is defined by the Canon Law not the CCC.
Click to expand...
Hold on the CCC is a fuller understanding of the teachings of our faith. Are you saying that the CCC and Canon Law are not in agreement of eachother?
 
Cristiano said:
CCC 1649 is not the Code of Canon Law. From what the way it is presented it could accommodate for non-sinful divorce in case of safety or security. CCC 1649 does not discuss the granting of legal separation by the Church. Legality in form is defined by the Canon Law not the CCC.
Click to expand...
1649 CCC yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practially impossible for a variety of reasons. In such case the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spuses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation the best soulution would be if possible reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons sive out their situation in a christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indisoluble.

That is what I am talking apart. Couples may live apart but still are married in the eyes of the Church.
 
The CCC goes on to say that Catholics who recourse to civil divorce and contract civil unions. The Church cannot validate that marriage if the first marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly they are commiting adultery.

Reconciliation through the sacrament of penance can only be granted to those who have repented for violating the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ and who are commited to living in complete continence.
 
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against the Church’s theology on the Sacrament of Marriage. We know that marriage is indissoluble and that the State does not have the power to dissolve a valid marriage. Those who are validly married and get divorced cannot remarry inside the Church.

It seems to me that we are getting hung up on semantics of when to use the term “divorce”. I don’t think there is a theological definition of “divorce”. As far as I know, when the Church uses the term “divorce”, they mean the same thing that secular society means by it: a couple who gets a civil divorce.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against the Church’s theology on the Sacrament of Marriage. We know that marriage is indissoluble and that the State does not have the power to dissolve a valid marriage. Those who are validly married and get divorced cannot remarry inside the Church.

It seems to me that we are getting hung up on semantics of when to use the term “divorce”. I don’t think there is a theological definition of “divorce”. As far as I know, when the Church uses the term “divorce”, they mean the same thing that secular society means by it: a couple who gets a civil divorce.
Click to expand...
But what we are talking about Joe is divorce vs annulment. They are not the same thing. That is what we are talking about. Many protestatants feel that annulment is the same as divorce we just have different names for it. Do you understand now what we are talking about.

An annulment means a marriage never existed. A divorce means a marriage is dissolved.
 
rinnie said:
But what we are talking about Joe is divorce vs annulment. They are not the same thing. That is what we are talking about. Many protestatants feel that annulment is the same as divorce we just have different names for it. Do you understand now what we are talking about.

An annulment means a marriage never existed. A divorce means a marriage is dissolved.
Click to expand...
But that’s not what we are talking about (at least, that’s not what I or the OP have been talking about). That is the discussion in the thread that you recently started (Protestant Marriages, Catholic Marriages). The OP in this thread is asking about the sinfulness of divorce. Nowhere in the OP are annulments even mentioned.

That there is a distinction between civil divorce and a declaration of nullity is a given (although, I wouldn’t way that a divorce “dissolves” a marriage).

I’m just trying to stay on topic. 😉
 
Joe_5859 said:
But that’s not what we are talking about (at least, that’s not what I or the OP have been talking about). That is the discussion in the thread that you recently started (Protestant Marriages, Catholic Marriages). The OP in this thread is asking about the sinfulness of divorce. Nowhere in the OP are annulments even mentioned.

That there is a distinction between civil divorce and a declaration of nullity is a given (although, I wouldn’t way that a divorce “dissolves” a marriage).

I’m just trying to stay on topic. 😉
Click to expand...
But see that is the protestant answer to my question. They say that we as Catholic do accept divorce just hide that fact and call it an annulment. They have accused the CC of the same as the protestant church. They say we just give divorce another name. They do not believe that an annulment means no marriage ever existed.
 
Joe_5859 said:
But that’s not what we are talking about (at least, that’s not what I or the OP have been talking about). That is the discussion in the thread that you recently started (Protestant Marriages, Catholic Marriages). The OP in this thread is asking about the sinfulness of divorce. Nowhere in the OP are annulments even mentioned.

That there is a distinction between civil divorce and a declaration of nullity is a given (although, I wouldn’t way that a divorce “dissolves” a marriage).

I’m just trying to stay on topic. 😉
Click to expand...
You are right Joe, and it is my mistake. I am on another thread on protestant and Catholic views and got confused. Again my mistake.
 
jrhiggins said:
I attended Mass 10/04 and the three readings where all centered on marriage, they where wonderful to hear.
Click to expand...
Hello jrhiggins -

This is the homily we heard at our parish that same weekend - it was OUTSTANDING. Perhaps this will help you understand the topic a little better from a priest who is rock solid in the Faith: Fr. Paul Ward - Homily on Divorce

Praying for you and your marriage.

~Liza
 
rinnie said:
You are right Joe, and it is my mistake. I am on another thread on protestant and Catholic views and got confused. Again my mistake.
Click to expand...
I’ve done that before. :o It’s often hard for me to remember which comments I read in which thread when I’m tracking several similar threads at the same time.
 
lizaanne said:
Hello jrhiggins -

This is the homily we heard at our parish that same weekend - it was OUTSTANDING. Perhaps this will help you understand the topic a little better from a priest who is rock solid in the Faith: Fr. Paul Ward - Homily on Divorce

Praying for you and your marriage.

~Liza
Click to expand...
That is Gods word in action if I ever heard it. Thankyou for sharing that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top