Quick question about annulment/divorce

[mamaslo]

I think you are exactly right. But lets go back to what I first objected to. It was stated Marriage always receives the favor of law, and is presumed valid until proven otherwise. This is what I objected to. It is only true for Catholic who have married according to Church Law. To non-catholics who were free to marry and committed themselves to each other either in a religious ceremonly or by the state, judge, justice of the peace, etc. but it is not accorded to those who are Catholic and marry outside the authority of the Church.

I am not saying I agree with the argument Texas Roofer is trying and trying and trying and trying and trying to get at. I wish he would just say what he has to say instead of talking around it.

it feels as though I am in the middle of an Episcopalian argument. They are very good at that by the way, but I am not on top of my debate game.

I know how I have been walking and I know how others have talked to me…almost like they agree with him about the idea that i chose whomever and regardless of wether or not the other person chose someone before and unchose them now chooses me and still we choose each other eventhough the first one was a lie we still chose each other and gave consent and thus and so we must define what natural marriage is and what unnatural marriage is and putative marriage is and sacramental marriage is and matrimonial sacrament is…sorry Texas Roofer I wish you would just say what you need to say instead of trying to teach the whole world that we are wrong.

utterly frustrating!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not saying I agree with the argument Texas Roofer is trying and trying and trying and trying and trying to get at. I wish he would just say what he has to say instead of talking around it.

it feels as though I am in the middle of an Episcopalian argument. They are very good at that by the way, but I am not on top of my debate game.

I know how I have been walking and I know how others have talked to me…almost like they agree with him about the idea that i chose whomever and regardless of wether or not the other person chose someone before and unchose them now chooses me and still we choose each other eventhough the first one was a lie we still chose each other and gave consent and thus and so we must define what natural marriage is and what unnatural marriage is and putative marriage is and sacramental marriage is and matrimonial sacrament is…sorry Texas Roofer I wish you would just say what you need to say instead of trying to teach the whole world that we are wrong.

utterly frustrating!

Let me explain to you why this “no marriage” interpretation is incorrect and what the substantial difference is. God created marriage when he created Eve, this is recorded in scripture. The Catholic Church has always acknowledged this and preaches and teaches such. Men and Women have entered marriage all through history. None of those marriages were created nor ended by the Catholic Church. Catholic priests speak of this very issue in practically ever if not every Catholic wedding. . This same issue is repeated in catholic writings, teachings and canons. About 1300 years ago the Catholic Church granted a sacrament to those who enter these marriages through the Catholic Church. Additionally, the Catholic Church granted a blanket sacrament to non catholic Christians who also enter the marriage properly. Some marriages are blocked from that sacrament, which include Natural Marriages, disparity of cult when not pre-dispensed by a bishop, mixed marriages with lack of proper form when not pre-dispensed by the bishop. This blocking from a sacrament is called an impediment. In this thread and in millions of cases the marriages which are blocked can be reconciled with the Church if desired by the participants. The specifics of the impediments can vary. In no case can the church remove the god granted authority to the couple, nor is there any reason to. Blocking of the sacrament is completed under the authority of the Catholic Church. Marriage is completely under the authority of the couple. The term “valid” has colloquial meaning and non-colloquial meaning. In the non colloquial meaning it applies to improperly presenting oneself for a sacrament. Which is often moot here as in many cases no request for a sacrament has ever been made. However the impediment continues should one later request any sacrament. In the colloquial meaning it means false in representation. When the colloquial term is used and elevated to an injustice via dropping all references to a sacrament the speaker creates an unjust offense against his neighbor.

 

[mamaslo]

Let me explain to you why this “no marriage” interpretation is incorrect and what the substantial difference is. God created marriage when he created Eve, this is recorded in scripture. The Catholic Church has always acknowledged this and preaches and teaches such. Men and Women have entered marriage all through history. None of those marriages were created nor ended by the Catholic Church. Catholic priests speak of this very issue in practically ever if not every Catholic wedding. . This same issue is repeated in catholic writings, teachings and canons. About 1300 years ago the Catholic Church granted a sacrament to those who enter these marriages through the Catholic Church. Additionally, the Catholic Church granted a blanket sacrament to non catholic Christians who also enter the marriage properly. Some marriages are blocked from that sacrament, which include Natural Marriages, disparity of cult when not pre-dispensed by a bishop, mixed marriages with lack of proper form when not pre-dispensed by the bishop. This blocking from a sacrament is called an impediment. In this thread and in millions of cases the marriages which are blocked can be reconciled with the Church if desired by the participants. The specifics of the impediments can vary. In no case can the church remove the god granted authority to the couple, nor is there any reason to. Blocking of the sacrament is completed under the authority of the Catholic Church. Marriage is completely under the authority of the couple. The term “valid” has colloquial meaning and non-colloquial meaning. In the non colloquial meaning it applies to improperly presenting oneself for a sacrament. Which is often moot here as in many cases no request for a sacrament has ever been made. However the impediment continues should one later request any sacrament. In the colloquial meaning it means false in representation. When the colloquial term is used and elevated to an injustice via dropping all references to a sacrament the speaker creates an unjust offense against his neighbor.

Very often I hear the same kind of argument from protestants saying that we promoted the Pope to infallibility in the 1800s (their definition meaning we think everything that comes out of his mouth is from God). My guess is that in the 1300s there was some kind of major council that actually pronounced the things you wrote, when actually the Church Fathers probably already wrote and preached about this because it was already practiced, just like the Pope has been seen as our guide when speaking ex cathedra.

We were given the Church to define in written form to protect the deposit of faith. Whatever the church pronounces in written form from councils etc would reiterate what is already true and defining in written form things that are already true.

If they say it’s a sin for me to attempt marriage without proper consent, then it is. they have documents that tell me how this is to be carried out. If there are children involved to consider they need both a father and a mother, even if we may never be allowed to be married. Jesus said it would be adultery if the my children’s father was truly married before. So they investigate it. They are our guide. Why are we dickering over consent when he gave his consent to his first wife…or maybe not really because the Church has the process…and if he isn’t willing to do this for me, then who is he married to exactly?

 

[dans0622]

… And there it is, this unknown author writes the marriage is “valid” of course it does not answer the question of any authority to use the word “valid” nor the colloquial verses non colloquial meaning. Because this is repeatedly occurring lets stray long enough to give an ill-advised analogue. … But who has authority to define “valid” in Natural marriage? …

In summary I find no deviations from this article (author unknown) as posted by the Arch Diocese of Atlanta. I also find no statement of authority over natural marriage, which is something I personally have looked for years. …

Hello,

Since the basic nature of marriage is that it is a contract/covenant, of course one can use the terms “in/valid” to describe a particular marriage, sacramental or otherwise. The law uses the valid/invalid in many different areas, not just in regard to the Sacraments: most pertinently, in the section on juridic acts (cc. 124-126). The act of consenting to marriage is a juridic act. That’s why those canons (esp. 124) are applicable.

It is certainly true that marriage existed long before the Church and is a vocation that is in accord with human nature. Marriage was created by God, with essential properties and elements. In the section of canon law on marriage, the subject matter is “marriage.” Whether or not a marriage could be sacramental is not important–the essential elements and properties of marriage are the same in either case. A “natural marriage” is indissoluble, faithful, exclusive and ordered to procreation and the good of the spouses. All of these things are based on divine law and apply to all marriages.

A marriage is only brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of the parties. The “lawfully manifested” aspect is where the issue of “form” comes into play. A Catholic must observe canonical form as well as the form required by civil law. A non-Catholic must observe whatever form is required by civil law and (if applicable) his/her Church. This aspect is one where civil and ecclesial authorities “control” the exercise of the right to marry.

The parties must also be “qualified” to marry. This means that there must be no impediments. For anyone, Catholic or not, a prior bond impedes another valid exchange of consent, as does impotence and some blood relationships. These impediments are of the divine law.

These are some of the areas that show how the Church can examine all marriages. A clear statement that the Church does have this authority can be found in Dignitas connubii: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20050125_dignitas-connubii_en.html

"Art. 3 – § 1. The matrimonial causes of the baptized pertain by right to the ecclesiastical judge (can. 1671).

§ 2. However, an ecclesiastical judge hears only those causes of the nullity of marriage of non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, in which it is necessary to establish the free state of at least one party before the Catholic Church, without prejudice to art. 114 (which states that the couple can impugn the presumed validity of their marriage).

§ 3. Causes concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate, …

Art. 4 – § 1. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage of baptized non-Catholics:

1o in regard to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the celebration of the marriage, art. 2, § 2 is to be observed;

2o in regard to the form of celebration of marriage, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or accepted in the Church or ecclesial community to which the parties belonged at the time of the marriage, provided that, if at least one party is a member of a non-Catholic Eastern Church, the marriage was celebrated with a sacred rite.

§ 2. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage contracted by two unbaptized persons:

1o the cause of nullity is heard according to canonical procedural law;

2o however, the question of the nullity of the marriage is decided, without prejudice to divine law, according to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the marriage."

Canon 1075 also is a statement of the authority of the Church regarding marriage in general: “Can. 1075 §1. It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to declare authentically when divine law prohibits or nullifies marriage.” In general, it seems the Catechism would say more about the authority of the Church in terms of defining and clarifying the dictates of natural law, upon which natural marriage is based.

Thank you for your time.
Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thank you dan0622

I find this post rather puzzling but I am happy to review it. The puzzling part is the document is not only a rather taxing read but on the subject at hand could be summarized as “follow the catholic cannons”, which have already been discussed at length in this thread. Should another view this post let me explain the document is long as it deals with the standards for operation of a tribunal. The additional part of the puzzle is posting what appears to show a lack of authority over Natural Marriage as a reference for authority over Natural Marriage? I’ll show a detailed example below, and it for that purpose I will cut up the post.

Dan0622, I hope you find a misunderstand or misinterpretation which can make his document useful.

Hello,

Since the basic nature of marriage is that it is a contract/covenant, of course one can use the terms “in/valid” to describe a particular marriage, sacramental or otherwise. The law uses the valid/invalid in many different areas, not just in regard to the Sacraments: most pertinently, in the section on juridic acts (cc. 124-126). The act of consenting to marriage is a juridic act. That’s why those canons (esp. 124) are applicable.

It is certainly true that marriage existed long before the Church and is a vocation that is in accord with human nature. Marriage was created by God, with essential properties and elements. In the section of canon law on marriage, the subject matter is “marriage.” Whether or not a marriage could be sacramental is not important–the essential elements and properties of marriage are the same in either case. A “natural marriage” is indissoluble, faithful, exclusive and ordered to procreation and the good of the spouses. All of these things are based on divine law and apply to all marriages.

A marriage is only brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of the parties. The “lawfully manifested” aspect is where the issue of “form” comes into play. A Catholic must observe canonical form as well as the form required by civil law. A non-Catholic must observe whatever form is required by civil law and (if applicable) his/her Church. This aspect is one where civil and ecclesial authorities “control” the exercise of the right to marry.

The parties must also be “qualified” to marry. This means that there must be no impediments. For anyone, Catholic or not, a prior bond impedes another valid exchange of consent, as does impotence and some blood relationships. These impediments are of the divine law.

These are some of the areas that show how the Church can examine all marriages. A clear statement that the Church does have this authority can be found in Dignitas connubii: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20050125_dignitas-connubii_en.html

"Art. 3 – § 1. The matrimonial causes of the baptized pertain by right to the ecclesiastical judge (can. 1671).

It appears to me all the above is a repeat of the “follow canon law”, which applies to catholics, and those converting to catholic but is not binding outside of catholics. If I have missed something please point it out

[post break ]

 

[Texas_Roofer]

[post resumed}

§ 2. However, an ecclesiastical judge hears only those causes of the nullity of marriage of non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, in which it is necessary to establish the free state of at least one party before the Catholic Church, without prejudice to art. 114 (which states that the couple can impugn the presumed validity of their marriage).

§ 3. Causes concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate, … so again one is either catholic, desiring to be catholic, or desiring the Catholic Church recognize their marriage. So again where is the authority to include the rest. Please consider the rest are the majority of people in the world.

Art. 4 – § 1. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage of baptized non-Catholics:

1o in regard to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the celebration of the marriage, art. 2, § 2 is to be observed;

2o in regard to the form of celebration of marriage, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or accepted in the Church or ecclesial community to which the parties belonged at the time of the marriage, provided that, if at least one party is a member of a non-Catholic Eastern Church, the marriage was celebrated with a sacred rite.

§ 2. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage contracted by two unbaptized persons:

1o the cause of nullity is heard according to canonical procedural law;

2o however, the question of the nullity of the marriage is decided, without prejudice to divine law, according to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the marriage."

In Article 4 we have several things which include “must decide” so is there a driving reason other than those addressed in article 3, it would appear not. So again where is the authority said to extend past those who come to the Catholic Church? Please note the “without prejudice to divine law” I do not wish to read too much into this statement but its importance is rather significant. Since devine law and Natural Law cannot contridict each other. I’ll post a more direct address of that issue from the article below. …

Canon 1075 also is a statement of the authority of the Church regarding marriage in general: “Can. 1075 §1. It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to declare authentically when divine law prohibits or nullifies marriage.” In general, it seems the Catechism would say more about the authority of the Church in terms of defining and clarifying the dictates of natural law, upon which natural marriage is based.…….

An interesting interpretation and well worth spending time on. The problem again is canon law only applies to catholics. The canons require married catholics to be sacramentally married and since the Church owns the sacraments this condition for catholics can only be met with cooperation of the Church. However the same issues remain where is the authority over non-sacramental marriages namely marriages in Natural Law? Please bear in mind the Church issues pre and post dispensations to catholics to enter into non sacramental natural law marriages.

To follow up on the earlier mention section in this article ;
*Art. 114 – A judge cannot hear a cause unless a petition has been proposed by one who in accordance with artt. 92-93 enjoys the right to challenge the marriage (cf. can. 1501). *Which would seem to ban the tribunal from casting a judgment of any type concerning Natural Marriages outside the catholic until a participant in that marriage choses to surrender an acknowledgement of authority to the Catholic Church. This would support the claim that the Church has no inherent authority over the Natural marriage.

Thanks

 

[Texas_Roofer]

[post resumed}

§ 2. However, an ecclesiastical judge hears only those causes of the nullity of marriage of non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, in which it is necessary to establish the free state of at least one party before the Catholic Church, without prejudice to art. 114 (which states that the couple can impugn the presumed validity of their marriage).

§ 3. Causes concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate, … so again one is either catholic, desiring to be catholic, or desiring the Catholic Church recognize their marriage. So again where is the authority to include the rest. Please consider the rest are the majority of people in the world.

Art. 4 – § 1. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage of baptized non-Catholics:

1o in regard to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the celebration of the marriage, art. 2, § 2 is to be observed;

2o in regard to the form of celebration of marriage, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or accepted in the Church or ecclesial community to which the parties belonged at the time of the marriage, provided that, if at least one party is a member of a non-Catholic Eastern Church, the marriage was celebrated with a sacred rite.

§ 2. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage contracted by two unbaptized persons:

1o the cause of nullity is heard according to canonical procedural law;

2o however, the question of the nullity of the marriage is decided, without prejudice to divine law, according to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the marriage."

In Article 4 we have several things which include “must decide” so is there a driving reason other than those addressed in article 3, it would appear not. So again where is the authority said to extend past those who come to the Catholic Church? Please note the “without prejudice to divine law” I do not wish to read too much into this statement but its importance is rather significant. Since devine law and Natural Law cannot contridict each other. I’ll post a more direct address of that issue from the article below. …

Canon 1075 also is a statement of the authority of the Church regarding marriage in general: “Can. 1075 §1. It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to declare authentically when divine law prohibits or nullifies marriage.” In general, it seems the Catechism would say more about the authority of the Church in terms of defining and clarifying the dictates of natural law, upon which natural marriage is based.…….

An interesting interpretation and well worth spending time on. The problem again is canon law only applies to catholics. The canons require married catholics to be sacramentally married and since the Church owns the sacraments this condition for catholics can only be met with cooperation of the Church. However the same issues remain where is the authority over non-sacramental marriages namely marriages in Natural Law? Please bear in mind the Church issues pre and post dispensations to catholics to enter into non sacramental natural law marriages.

To follow up on the earlier mention section in this article ;
*Art. 114 – A judge cannot hear a cause unless a petition has been proposed by one who in accordance with artt. 92-93 enjoys the right to challenge the marriage (cf. can. 1501). *Which would seem to ban the tribunal from casting a judgment of any type concerning Natural Marriages outside the catholic until a participant in that marriage choses to surrender an acknowledgement of authority to the Catholic Church. This would support the claim that the Church has no inherent authority over the Natural marriage.

Thanks

 

[dans0622]

… Which would seem to ban the tribunal from casting a judgment of any type concerning Natural Marriages outside the catholic until a participant in that marriage choses to surrender an acknowledgement of authority to the Catholic Church. This would support the claim that the Church has no inherent authority over the Natural marriage.

Hello,

Certainly, the Church will not presume to render a decision on the validity of a marriage unless and until one of the Parties asks the Church (tribunal) to do so. It does not matter if the person is Catholic or not or the marriage is sacramental or not–no judgment can be made until someone asks for it. The “authority” of the Church is the same, no matter who the spouses are. Once one of them asks for a judgment, the Church is qualified to give an answer, based on the precepts of the applicable law, whether it is divine law or ecclesiastical law or both.

Not only is the Church qualified, but since the spouses have the right to ask that their marriage be examined, the tribunal is obligated to honor that right and render a decision. Judges in tribunals have to make judgments on non-Catholic marriages all the time. I am not sure about “inherent authority” or what that means exactly. But, the authority is present and is utilized every single day in tribunals everywhere.

Dan