S
srferdave
Guest
Good point. In light of that, I might retract my humility. I will have to read the Pauline Privilege again. But I can’t do that now. I will be back later.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
srferdave
Guest
I think there is a difference between a valid marriage and a valid sacramental marriage after reading about pauline and petrine privilege. If you say that a valid non-sacramental marriage can be dissolved under rare circumstances than I will have to agree with you. But you say that valid sacramental can be dissolved I disagree. It is still very vague to what a valid marriage is. If someone can show me where the Church talks about what a valid marriage is that would be very helpful.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
From my understanding, the Petrine privilege covers the (rare) case where a sacramental marriage could be dissolved by the Church. See canon 1142.I think there is a difference between a valid marriage and a valid sacramental marriage after reading about pauline and petrine privilege. If you say that a valid non-sacramental marriage can be dissolved under rare circumstances than I will have to agree with you. But you say that valid sacramental can be dissolved I disagree. It is still very vague to what a valid marriage is. If someone can show me where the Church talks about what a valid marriage is that would be very helpful.
Please note, in case there’s any doubt, I am not advocating dissolution of marriage. I am merely trying to represent what I understand the Church to teach in this regard.
I don’t think it’s vague at all what the Church teaches about a valid marriage. The Canons in the Code of Canon Law are quite explicit about what conditions might invalidate a marriage. Consent is necessary for a valid marriage, that’s a primary starting point.
So, while it’s not vague, imho, I do agree that it’s confusing. There are more canons on Marriage in Canon Law than any other sacrament. I think this is due to the confusing history and legislation.
S
srferdave
Guest
1142 says if the marriage is non-consumated. Doesn’t that mean it is non-sacramental?From my understanding, the Petrine privilege covers the (rare) case where a sacramental marriage could be dissolved by the Church. See canon 1142.
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
Yes. Which is why there can be equivalent of 1142 when the marriage is valid and consummated.1142 says if the marriage is non-consumated. Doesn’t that mean it is non-sacramental?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No.1142 says if the marriage is non-consumated. Doesn’t that mean it is non-sacramental?
It means it’s non-consummated. That’s all.
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
There’s a reason it can only extend to non-consummated marriages. It’s not as if the restriction is there arbitrarily.No.
It means it’s non-consummated. That’s all.
S
srferdave
Guest
From everything that I’ve read a marriage does not become sacramental until it is consumated. That would imply that a non-consumated marriage is non-sacramental.No.
It means it’s non-consummated. That’s all.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I don’t see the Church teaching that in Canon Law, or the Catechism, or anywhere else. If you have some references please share.From everything that I’ve read a marriage does not become sacramental until it is consumated. That would imply that a non-consumated marriage is non-sacramental.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Yes. So?There’s a reason it can only extend to non-consummated marriages. It’s not as if the restriction is there arbitrarily.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.