Premarital Sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter schoolteacher68
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sky_River said:
No I meant the legal union.
Click to expand...
That’s as anachronistic as asking whether Adam and Eve are in hell 'cause they didn’t go to Sunday Mass. 😉

The requirements for marriage are in effect now, so they’re binding on Catholics alive today. Period.
 
Gorgias said:
That’s as anachronistic as asking whether Adam and Eve are in hell 'cause they didn’t go to Sunday Mass. 😉

The requirements for marriage are in effect now, so they’re binding on Catholics alive today. Period.
Click to expand...
Elaborate. This discussion is confusing.
 
Sky_River said:
Elaborate. This discussion is confusing.
Click to expand...
In Adam and Eve’s time, there was no Church, no court system. There was only them and God. There was no need for anything else.

They were married - naturally - committed to each other for life. They created and raised their children together. 🤷

I don’t see why that would be confusing at all.
 
Sky_River said:
Elaborate. This discussion is confusing.
Click to expand...
I think the confusion comes from the fact that you are trying to apply the modern construction of marriage to a non-modern setting.

“Legal union” has no meaning for Adam and Eve. Their marriage is given to them by God, who makes Eve FOR Adam. As the church develops and especially after Jesus is sent to teach us how to follow God, we come to understand the place and meaning of the sacraments (which is the important aspect for Catholics - that the marriage is sacramental) and moreover, how those sacraments are to be administered.

Rather than thinking in the context of a “legal union”, it is more helpful to think of it as a “valid marriage”. For Catholics, the only valid marriage is a sacramental marriage - you might be able to have a JP marry you civilly, but you are still obliged to be married in the church if you want your marriage to be recognized in the church. That is what our faith teaches. If you are Baptist, and your spouse is Baptist, then a church wedding may not be necessary to be considered valid in that faith (I’m not sure if this is true - I just used Baptist as an example). If neither you nor your spouse are baptized, then a civil ceremony creates a valid marriage.

So rather than looking for a “legal union”, look to see if the marriage can be considered valid, having regard for all the circumstances of the time and the individuals involved.
 
casslean said:
I think the confusion comes from the fact that you are trying to apply the modern construction of marriage to a non-modern setting.

“Legal union” has no meaning for Adam and Eve. Their marriage is given to them by God, who makes Eve FOR Adam. As the church develops and especially after Jesus is sent to teach us how to follow God, we come to understand the place and meaning of the sacraments (which is the important aspect for Catholics - that the marriage is sacramental) and moreover, how those sacraments are to be administered.

Rather than thinking in the context of a “legal union”, it is more helpful to think of it as a “valid marriage”. For Catholics, the only valid marriage is a sacramental marriage - you might be able to have a JP marry you civilly, but you are still obliged to be married in the church if you want your marriage to be recognized in the church. That is what our faith teaches. If you are Baptist, and your spouse is Baptist, then a church wedding may not be necessary to be considered valid in that faith (I’m not sure if this is true - I just used Baptist as an example). If neither you nor your spouse are baptized, then a civil ceremony creates a valid marriage.

So rather than looking for a “legal union”, look to see if the marriage can be considered valid, having regard for all the circumstances of the time and the individuals involved.
Click to expand...
So a legal union today exists as a substitute for what God did in Eden?
 
casslean said:
I think the confusion comes from the fact that you are trying to apply the modern construction of marriage to a non-modern setting.

“Legal union” has no meaning for Adam and Eve. Their marriage is given to them by God, who makes Eve FOR Adam. As the church develops and especially after Jesus is sent to teach us how to follow God, we come to understand the place and meaning of the sacraments (which is the important aspect for Catholics - that the marriage is sacramental) and moreover, how those sacraments are to be administered.

Rather than thinking in the context of a “legal union”, it is more helpful to think of it as a “valid marriage”. For Catholics, the only valid marriage is a sacramental marriage - you might be able to have a JP marry you civilly, but you are still obliged to be married in the church if you want your marriage to be recognized in the church. That is what our faith teaches. If you are Baptist, and your spouse is Baptist, then a church wedding may not be necessary to be considered valid in that faith (I’m not sure if this is true - I just used Baptist as an example). If neither you nor your spouse are baptized, then a civil ceremony creates a valid marriage.

So rather than looking for a “legal union”, look to see if the marriage can be considered valid, having regard for all the circumstances of the time and the individuals involved.
Click to expand...
A marriage between two Baptists or any non-Catholics would be considered valid according to the Church, too, including a marriage between unbaptized people. Only Catholics are bound to be married in the Church, and even that can be dispensed with depending on circumstances. If those Baptists or Muslims or atheists converted to Catholicism, they would not be required to “redo” the wedding in a Catholic church.

I believe the only non-Catholic Christians who require a church wedding for validity would be our Orthodox brethren, and perhaps other apostolic churches not in communion with Rome. Protestants can get married by a JP.

Yes, the structures we have today simply make recognition of the same aspects of Adam and Eve’s relationship.
 
The level of defiance of basic Catholic teaching in this thread is absurd. 😦
 
Sky_River said:
So a legal union today exists as a substitute for what God did in Eden?
Click to expand...
Not legal unions, no. But, as mentioned by others, marriage as the Church defines it creates valid unions, just as Adam and Eve’s was a valid union.

Look back at the history of marriage: the Church began to require a marriage in public, with witnesses, and with an official record in the Church registers only as a reaction to the practice of one spouse renouncing that the marriage ever occurred (in order to get into a better, more financially lucrative marriage), thus leaving the innocent spouse abandoned and without protection.

Prior to that time, the faithful were able to marry on their own, without any requirements of form and with no record of the marriage. The present form (in a church, before a deacon or priest, with witnesses, and official recording) came about as a reaction to prevent further sinful behavior.

But, to get back to the subject at hand: even before the Church set up its requirements of form for a valid marriage, it was already sinful to have sex before marriage.
 
Gorgias said:
Not legal unions, no. But, as mentioned by others, marriage as the Church defines it creates valid unions, just as Adam and Eve’s was a valid union.

Look back at the history of marriage: the Church began to require a marriage in public, with witnesses, and with an official record in the Church registers only as a reaction to the practice of one spouse renouncing that the marriage ever occurred (in order to get into a better, more financially lucrative marriage), thus leaving the innocent spouse abandoned and without protection.

Prior to that time, the faithful were able to marry on their own, without any requirements of form and with no record of the marriage. The present form (in a church, before a deacon or priest, with witnesses, and official recording) came about as a reaction to prevent further sinful behavior.

But, to get back to the subject at hand: even before the Church set up its requirements of form for a valid marriage, it was already sinful to have sex before marriage.
Click to expand...
What was marriage before the Church?
 
Sky_River said:
What was marriage before the Church?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking “what was the form of marriage before the Church’s institution of the (current) form?”…?

Or, are you asking whether marriage existed prior to the Church’s institution of the current form?

Or, are you asking whether marriage itself existed prior to the Church’s existence?

Or, are you asking something else?
 
Marriage is a sacramemt that is made between the husband and wife. The priest or deacon is only a witness. However, a willful move by a Catholic to marry outside the Church invalidates a marriage attempt. In the absence of the Church and the priesthood, say, in a wild frontier or in a nation where the Church is under serious persecution, a valid marriage can still be had in the absence of a Church, if the intent is to have it registered and blessed once an opportunity is available, but that’s not really the case today for most Catholics who marry outside the Church. This willful disobedience to marry outside the Church only applies to Catholics, serving as an impediment to a valid marriage. For those outside the faith, such an impediment doesn’t exist, though marriage is a lifelong committment and only first marriages are ever truly valid.

Prior to the Church, a marriage was also made by the husband and wife committing to each other. They were still the ordinary ministers of marriage, if you will, though certainly different cultures had different customs.

Marriage has always been between two people. The Church doesn’t make marriages, it really just witnesses them. What is “new” with the Church is that an impediment to valid marriages exists for members of the Church who willfully marry outside of it. And I don’t even just mean outside a physical church or just away from a priest, but am considering it in a broader sense that still includes but isn’t limited to all that structure.
 
Gorgias said:
Not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking “what was the form of marriage before the Church’s institution of the (current) form?”…?

Or, are you asking whether marriage existed prior to the Church’s institution of the current form?

Or, are you asking whether marriage itself existed prior to the Church’s existence?

Or, are you asking something else?
Click to expand...
Are civil unions marriages?
 
Sky_River said:
Are civil unions marriages?
Click to expand...
In the eyes of the church, no. Marriage, like baptism, is a sacrament. A civil union might recognize and convey a civil or legal standing upon the couple, but it does not impart any sacramental quality.
 
casslean said:
In the eyes of the church, no. Marriage, like baptism, is a sacrament. A civil union might recognize and convey a civil or legal standing upon the couple, but it does not impart any sacramental quality.
Click to expand...
This is not a accurate representation of Catholic teaching. An unbaptized couple, man and woman, who are free to marry and are not coerced, are considered married by the Church. It is not a sacramental marriage, but it is still a valid marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top