Questions on change in marriage teachings

[ST100]

i have heard two accusations against the Catholic Church concerning marriage…

1. Hadrian II (867-872), who declared civil marriages to be valid, and Pius VII (1800-1823), who declared them invalid

2. that Catholics were once forbidden to marry non-Catholics and it has changed recently to where it is allowed

one, are these accustaions true? if so, how is it explained that they do not contradict the idea of infallibility of pope and/or councils? also, does anyone know of any sites that explain these and other such contradictions?

thanks in advance

 

[MariaG]

1. I have no idea.
2. The rule of not marrying non-Catholics was just that a rule. Christ gave the Church the right to make and change the rules(Mt 16:19). This rule was changed. There is a difference between infallible dogma and practices. Practices may be changed. Dogma may not.

 

[Catholic2003]

1. Hadrian II (867-872), who declared civil marriages to be valid, and Pius VII (1800-1823), who declared them invalid

Don’t know about Hadrian, but it was the Council of Trent that declared the civil marriage of Catholics to be invalid.

2. that Catholics were once forbidden to marry non-Catholics and it has changed recently to where it is allowed

The rules for this were very intricate, and did undergo a significant amount of change. Pope Paul VI was responsible for a major loosening of the rules.

Catholics who married non-Catholics before a non-Catholic minister were automatically excommunicated during the first half of the 1900’s.

 

[Cosmo]

MariaG:

Practices may be changed. Dogma may not.

It seems reasonable to state that many current church practices are related to, or derived from, their dogma. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that altering their practices may very easily conflict with some of their dogma.

Where do you draw the line?

In Leviticus, Moses was given (by God) some very specific rules and guidelines about owning and treating slaves. Today, the church condemns slavery.

In many other places in the bible, homosexual marriage is decreed to be unjustifiable, and punishable by death in a number of gory ways (stoning, and so forth).

What is the difference between slavery and homosexual marriage? Will the church ever allow homosexual marriage? If so, how long will it take?

Keep in mind that five hundred years ago, very, very few people could ever see the church disallowing slavery at some point in the future.

 

[ST100]

well thats the reason i asked this…cuz i was wonderin what the explanation is for why changin laws on civil marriage or mixed marriage, marriage being a sacrament, would not be considered changing teaching? and also does anyone know where i can get a more detailed explanation to these? thanks

 

[Catholic2003]

ST100:

well thats the reason i asked this…cuz i was wonderin what the explanation is for why changin laws on civil marriage or mixed marriage, marriage being a sacrament, would not be considered changing teaching? and also does anyone know where i can get a more detailed explanation to these? thanks

Jesus put the Church in charge of the sacraments. Since marriage between two Christians is a sacrament, that means the Church can make (and change) ecclesiastical law governing marriages involving Christians.

Just as the Church can make (and change) ecclesiastical law about priestly celibacy since Holy Orders are a sacrament.

Here is a link to Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Letter Matrimonia Mixta, which changed the rules regarding mixed marriages. Hopefully it will explain to you the reasons for the changes. Near the end of the letter is an abrogration of canon 2319 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which contained some of the excommunications that I mentioned. (Other excommunications were U.S.-only from the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884.)

 

[Carol_Clamon]

I am Baptist. I have been married (first and only marriage) 23 years and have 2 grown sons. My husband was married once before. He is Baptist also. I am very interested in converting (my husband is not). Do you think my husband’s first marriage would have to be annulled before I could be accepted into the Catholic Church?

 

[Catholic2003]

Carol Clamon:

I am Baptist. I have been married (first and only marriage) 23 years and have 2 grown sons. My husband was married once before. He is Baptist also. I am very interested in converting (my husband is not). Do you think my husband’s first marriage would have to be annulled before I could be accepted into the Catholic Church?

In a word, yes. Sorry for the bad news.

It’s always a good idea to talk with a priest personally, perhaps from your RCIA class if you are attending, so that all the specifics of your situation are considered. (For example, I’m assuming that your husband’s first marriage ended in divorce, and that his ex-wife is still living. And that his ex-wife was not Catholic, or if she was, that they married in the Catholic Church. And so on.)

 

[MaggieOH]

Carol Clamon:

I am Baptist. I have been married (first and only marriage) 23 years and have 2 grown sons. My husband was married once before. He is Baptist also. I am very interested in converting (my husband is not). Do you think my husband’s first marriage would have to be annulled before I could be accepted into the Catholic Church?

You need to address this question to your priest or someone who is familiar with either canon law of the marriage tribunal of the Church.

MaggieOH

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

ST100:

i have heard two accusations against the Catholic Church concerning marriage…

thanks in advance

1. Hadrian II (867-872), who declared civil marriages to be valid, and Pius VII (1800-1823), who declared them invalid

If these papal documents actually do exist. You need to find them, read the whole document, read and understand the “times” in which they were written. Understand who they were written to and what prompted them to be written.

For example: Civil marriages between who? Under what circumstances? Second marriages? Without Church involvement? Mixed marriages? Arranged marriages?
The Catholic Church today condemns forced Marriages.

2. That Catholics were once forbidden to marry non-Catholics and it has changed recently to where it is allowed.

When was it forbidden and why was it forbidden? **Non-Catholic also includes non-Christian! The current Canon Law of the Church also declares a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Baptized person to be invalid. Nothing has changed there. Or are we talking about a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian marriage. This although not automatically invalid, does require the Bishops permission to be recognized by the Church.

one, are these accusations true? if so, how is it explained that they do not contradict the idea of infallibility of pope and/or councils? also, does anyone know of any sites that explain these and other such contradictions?

If your friend is asking these, you need to ask him to see the documents he looked at. And no a quote or page number from Bottener’s Catholicism is not sufficient. Tell him you want to see his research into these claims.

 

[chevalier]

1. Hadrian II (867-872), who declared civil marriages to be valid, and Pius VII (1800-1823), who declared them invalid

2. that Catholics were once forbidden to marry non-Catholics and it has changed recently to where it is allowed

one, are these accustaions true? if so, how is it explained that they do not contradict the idea of infallibility of pope and/or councils? also, does anyone know of any sites that explain these and other such contradictions?

Re 1. As you can see from the dates, there was a controversy going on. The early church didn’t have as much of a detailed marriage teaching resting on two millennia of fathers, doctors, councils and popes as we have.

In fact, marriages were left to secular authorities. If the couple wanted, it could report to a cleric in a church for the marriage to be blessed, but it wasn’t required for validity. The Church still didn’t recognise some forbidden unions and remarriage after divorce. The effect is comparable to what you have today with a dispensation from canonical form - you can go to a civil magistrate (who may be a practicing whatever-ian, believe in polygamy and divorce), take a witness with you (the magistrate makes the second witness per Canon Law, together making two which is the minimum for validity with such a dispensation from form), and it will be a valid and even sacramental marriage.

If a dispensation from canonical form is given to a certain populace in general, they contract valid sacramental marriages before civil magistrates whenever they attempt marriage before one unless it’s invalid for other reasons, such as insufficient number of witnesses - I’ve seen a case where such a marriage somewhere in the former USSR was annulled because the magistrate was the only witness while two are required for the non-canonical form.

I remember it was very hard for me to grasp the idea that the difference between one or two witnesses as prescribed in the Canon Law can make the difference between a sacrament and lack thereof. Of course, the Church is wiser than I am and the judges in ecclesial tribunals are wiser than a simple civil law student, but nonetheless, I would have more peace of mind without reading about such things.

Question to clerics, theologists, canon lawyers etc present: how does it happen that such a tiny little orderly rule in Canon Law decides if God bestows the sacrament or not as the couple attempts to minister it to each other?

Re 2. It’s a discipline thing. In the beginning, there were not enough Christians for one, and it was a plausible goal to attempt to convert a spouse, for another. Later on, the Church decided that it was better for people to stick to fellow Christians or Catholics, but I’m not aware of any absolute ban. Ask your friend when it was in place. Royal marriages with Orthodox and later also Protestant royalty are perfectly documented. Always dispensation was required, so you could say marriage was forbidden without dispensation, but it wasn’t forbidden unconditionally.

 

[BibleReader]

I “Google-ized” the allegation with as much wisdom as I could, and the best I could come up with, as the originator of this nonsense, is Woodrow, Ralph, Babylon Mystery Religion. There, it is un-footnoted.

It is interesting how much the un-footnoted anti-Catholic rantings of anti-papist zealots spread through the quarters of “respectable” Bible commentators.

Probably, the allegation is based on some kind of contrast between Church marriage rules in Hadrian’s reign; and a decision of Pius VII on Jerome Bonaparte’s divorce from Betsy Patterson and subsequent remarriage, or Napoleon’s divorce from Josephine and subsequent remarriage.

There really is nothing critical, here. In “missionary countries,” where priests are scarce, the Church has long approved marriage between two Catholics in the absence of a priest, so long as there is subsequent ratification before a priest. To the best of my knowledge, in a “missionary country,” a marriage between two Catholics before a judge, a witch doctor or a muskrat is perfectly valid, so long as the Catholics intend a Catholic bond.
**
Where conditions change, the Church’s regulations can change. So, I believe that the U.S.'s “missionary country” status was revoked in 1910.

No matter what the basis for the allegation, relax. The Church’s rules on marriage do change, and it’s not un-Biblical, and it’s not a contradiction of infallibility.

 

[Catholic2003]

BibleReader:

There really is nothing critical, here. In “missionary countries,” where priests are scarce, the Church has long approved marriage between two Catholics in the absence of a priest, so long as there is subsequent ratification before a priest. To the best of my knowledge, in a “missionary country,” a marriage between two Catholics before a judge, a witch doctor or a muskrat is perfectly valid, so long as the Catholics intend a Catholic bond.

Canon law provides for an “extraordinary” form of marriage as follows:

Canon 1116 §1 If one who, in accordance with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses only:

1° in danger of death;

2° apart from danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this state of affairs will continue for a month.

§2 In either case, if another priest or deacon is at hand who can be present, he must be called upon and, together with the witnesses, be present at the celebration of the marriage, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage in the presence of only the witnesses.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is a link to the Council of Trent document that invalidated marriage outside the Church. Look for “DECREE ON THE REFORMATION OF MARRIAGE”.

 

[stbruno]

Got any marriage questions, check out this new website. It is terrific!
www.inthespiritofcana.org