What does Divorce do to the Sacrament of Marriage?

[Vico]

…

Yes, those saved receive a glorified body. Both the saved and damned will have incorruptible bodies. 1 Corinthians 15:52): “The dead shall rise again incorruptible”

Provided there is final impenitence, baptism of desire, blood, or water constitutes salvation. We do not know what will happen to the unbaptized infants.

Catechism

997 What is “rising”? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection.

 

[jzea1992]

Try having parents who never married in the first place

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

#1
You are saying, thus, the Marriage of Christ to His Church is “a figure of speech.” Or as described, a metaphor. And as you’ve stressed, it’s marriage on human terms you are referring. But alas! It’s not on human terms. But God’s. Or it wouldn’t be a Sacrament at all.

Again, as I’ve said over and over before. The Marriage that Christ holds to the Church, is Covenant and Communion Marriage. That is not a metaphor. It’s not even a figure of speech. It is the Truth about God, His nature, which is Love (Saint John’s Gospel.)

What you are doing, is observing marriage from, (to use the metaphor of the Cross.) You are looking at marriage from the horizontal of the Cross, rather than the Ascent (Vertical.)

Christ’s union with man is in Covenant and Communion. Because, that is love. Upon the Vertical Ascent of the Cross, which because it holds Christ’s Body, it is thus the Crucifix.

In that love and aspiration does Christ hold to man, in His Church, the effeminate Bride.

Which means, not metaphorically. But in Covenant. His Marriage is with humanity. That is the Seventh Day wherefore God rested (Genesis.)

That’s precisely what Christ said and hinted at the Wedding Feast at Cana: “it is not my time yet.”

Which I mentioned before.

In my opinion, you are watering down the Sacrament. You are legally placing prose, by referring to Canon Law in as much as the Scribes did at the time of Christ.

The metaphor I would use is this. When you water down the Sacrament, you no longer have the best wine. But, you’ve tried to extend the Sacrament with water. And thus for the plight of men. To thin it out. And thus lose the brilliance before you as the table is set at the Banquet and Feast. Here is what I mean:

The water that was left, and wine which ran out. Was the water for washing feet. Which, when Mary brought Christ’s attention to the fact the Bridegroom and Bride ran out of wine. All that was left (in other words, the water in drinking jugs was also out.) Which should not be missed in the Gospel. And when the matter of wine being ran out was brought to Christ’s attention, where He presented both His Passion and Sacrifice to Our Lady, saying, “it is not my time yet.” Which, then Mary said to the servants: “do what He tells you.” And thereby, He directed them to use the water for washing feet. And turned the water into wine. The best wine too!

Thus, Christ refers to His Marriage upon the Ascent of the Cross, wherefore pointing to the Resurrection after His Death. And, instead of watering down the Wedding Feast at Cana. He rather held up Marriage to a higher order: Laying down one’s life for their Bride.

That is the Wedding Feast at Cana. That’s what He was pointing out to His Mother, Mary, Our Lady. The horizontal of the Cross is on the plane surface. The uniting of two spouses. But once they are in One Flesh in God’s grace, image, and after His likeness (i.e. the Blessed and Holy Trinity.) They become a family. Thereby, their Marriage now arises upon the Ascent, dying to one’s self. Laying one’s life for their Bride. Which Christ did.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

#2
Now, Saint Paul, when he referred in Ephesians about husbands honoring wives. And wives honoring husbands. Was not a metaphor of the illustration of Christ’s “figure of speech” marriage. It would not had been a model example. Since Christ died. And hence, if you took just the horizontal meaning of that view of marriage. Then it would not have its’ ascent from the Cross: Dying to one’s self, and given to Eternal life. However, since Saint Paul who had Christian’s stoned to death, was brought down by a startling light, and Christ’s voice. Saint Paul knew that the Lord Who suffered in Calvary, was also suffering persecution through His Church (His Bride.) Thus, Sacramentally.

In Revelation. Saint John (I believe it is the Apostle. Some would argue it wasn’t.) Either way, the Saint John on the Isle of Patmos, saw imagery in the vision he was given. In that image, was the Wedding Feast. In that image was the Slain Lamb.

Here is where I will take a interesting note when you refer to metaphors. First, let’s look at Christ’s body in the Blessed Sacrament. Is the Sacrament a metaphor, or literally His Body?

I imagine you will say that is literally His Body. And yet, it is the form of bread. But that is in appearance. Then, was Christ really a Lamb? Or was that a metaphor used?

Christ was not an animal. And, the bread, however, did become His Body. Did Jesus change?

The Lamb has meaning because of Passover. And, the Lamb that was slain in the previous Passover feasts were unblemished. But how come those unblemished lambs did not appease God? Reparation and atonement for sin?

Simple. Because, the lamb could not fulfill Mercy. The lamb could not advocate for man. But Christ could, by the Holy Spirit (the paraclete.)

Christ became the Lamb. Because it was as Saint Thomas Aquinas’s hymn for Sacred Adoration states of Newer Rites prevailing the Older Rites. Thus, the Lamb of God (His Only Begotten Son) fulfills and succeeds. Jesus becomes the Jewish Feast and Passover. Thus, He becomes the Lamb.

Again, it is a figure of speech. But He is the literal Sacrifice which He does become our food, as which the Lamb was eaten. Are we then to call ourselves Cannibals because we eat His Body?

And, therefore you would have to break down the metaphor, and thus draw the literal.

It is His body, literally. Though in the appearance of bread, it is His body and “real food.” If it is “real food”, and it is His body. And not just the appearance of bread. Then, if we’re not cannibals. Wherefore do we say we eat? The Lamb. Christ takes the appearance of bread, which thus becomes His True Body. And thus also is the Lamb at Passover.

The reality is you enter in Communion in His Body. Though initially through Baptism. But to receive Him in flesh is receiving Him, where you gain Eternal life. Thus, becoming His Body in the Sacrament of Communion.

You therefore are not in a metaphorical body of Christ either. But the literal.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

#1A
I have to quip with this one. If I said “Canon Law is…to safeguard the Sacraments”, how do you conclude you are making correction in saying: “The Church (has - I think you meant has) the authority to regulate Her Sacraments.”

That conclusion does not seem like a counter to what I said. If anything, it’s an agreement. “regulation” and “safeguard”, fairly sum up the same intent.

I think when you say “The Church” in saying: “…seem to be saying that the Sacraments have authority over the Church!”

Hmmmm… I don’t really think that is logically sound.

First, the Church has Her authority from Christ. Which, betoken through Her, In Her, by the Apostleship and their successor’s. That means, the Sacraments are Christ’s, and beholden to Him.

The Holy Spirit brings these out in more sharper form through the years of the Church’s life. Her authority is through Christ’s Sacrifice. She was and always will be the attentive witness. For the Queen of Apostleship belongs to Mary. Who was, and is still the steadfast witness of Christ;s: Birth, Life, Passion and Death, and Resurrection. Unfailing witness too!

But, to your point in saying that it seems I’m saying the Sacraments have authority over the Church.

Would be the wrong reflection.

The Sacrament is binding to Christ Himself. And, those who are bound to Him in His Body. For the keys that we’re given to Saint Peter and the Apostle’s. And thus pass down through their successor’s. In the Apostleship, they we’re given the authority to loose and to bind.

Was it arbitrary authority? Or was their authority binding to Christ as well?

The Sacraments do not have authority over the Church. But, Christ Himself. However, since the Church is made up of man, in as much as Our Lady was (though with the special gift of being born Immaculate - Full of Grace) and has free will (in other words, God did not make Mary purposely to suit His wishes to save man. In other words, He did not program Her to do so. And likewise, He did not program His Church to operate the way He wants. However, He leaves Her binding upon a Covenant. His Bride has free will to reject Him (in as much as the Israelies and all of Judea had.) There is a freedom.But the effeminate lady (the image of man) rejects Christ. Would then not be His Bride. Only the Bride after many suitors that have come Her way. Has She turned them all down for Him (this is the life of the saints.)

But what is the Church? The Church is made up of man who, like Mary (and thus as the Saints did) give over their mind, heart, body, will, and soul. Though not Immaculately Conceived, however, through Baptism, and dying in the state of Grace (a little less than Mary’s Assumption.) Does the Church become the Bride of Christ (which She did by Christ’s blood - the Early Christians.) And has since perpetuated since that time, at all times.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

The Sacrament is not defined by Canon Law. Nor does the Sacrament take it’s presence through Canon Law. Canon Law, however, is to safeguard the Sacraments (the life of the Church.)

#1B

Therefore, the Sacraments hold to Christ’s will. His Body. What He said and did, and so directed. And, the Church, who has held to this uncompromising authority as the witness since (wherefore Mary is the first witness of the Church.) Here is where the Sacramental authority resides in the Church. In Her Magisterium. Wherefore Christ gave the keys to loose and to bind (Sacramental binding and Covenant authority.) However, it wasn’t arbitrary.

In other words, Christ gave that authority to the Church on the basis of men who gave their lives to Him, fully as Mary did. Thus, becoming the effeminate Bride. Meaning, out of obedience. Being as the lowly handmaid like Mary.

Therefore, the Church beholds an authority begotten to Christ. Not Her own authority, but His.

And as I’ve illustrated with the Wedding Feast at Cana. And the Passion, and to the Resurrection. And in which therefore I referred to Saint Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians where he exhorted husbands honoring their wives. And thus wives honoring their husbands. Including Revelation: The Marriage Feast ans the Slain Lamb. Nothing I referred to outside of Christ. Which thus means, nothing which fell outside of the Church (His Bride, His Body.)

You cannot then say that I believe or said the Sacraments have authority over the Church. But, Christ does. Because the authority He had given Her instructions on using: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Was granted Her that authority out of faithfulness and Holy obedience. Not servile obedience. But in the same obedience of Charity and Love, as Our Lady said to the Angel: “Be it done onto me according to your word.”

That’s the authority the Church has and shares in. The reality of the Sacraments is the reality of Christ Himself. His True and Holy Presence. And, as I pointed out with the Sacrament of Marriage, that is forever binding upon Him. Since He instituted that Sacrament at the Wedding Feast at Cana. Hinting to His Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

 

[Gorgias]

You are saying, thus, the Marriage of Christ to His Church is “a figure of speech.” Or as described, a metaphor.

It is not a marriage in the way that a sacramental (or even natural!) marriage between two persons is – correct!

In my opinion, you are watering down the Sacrament.

No, I’m describing the Sacrament as the Church teaches it and as both Jesus and St Paul referred to it.

The metaphor I would use is this. When you water down the Sacrament, you no longer have the best wine. But, you’ve tried to extend the Sacrament with water.

The metaphor I’d use, then, is that you’ve taken wine and turned it into something else, and in doing so, you’re not dealing with wine anymore.

Either way, the Saint John on the Isle of Patmos, saw imagery in the vision he was given. In that image, was the Wedding Feast. In that image was the Slain Lamb.

Yes! Thank you! And, what’s the literary genre of Revelation? Apocalyptic! It’s chock-full of signs, symbols, and metaphors! And sure enough, we get “wedding” imagery – which, itself, is a sign rather than a literal wedding!

Or was that a metaphor used?

Here we go. An assertion is made that someone’s taking a metaphor too literally and suddenly, it’s a review of everything in the Bible? “Is this a metaphor, then? Is that? Well, then … if not those things, then not this thing I’m talking about, either…!”

But, to your point in saying that it seems I’m saying the Sacraments have authority over the Church.

Would be the wrong reflection.

You sure about that? Let’s look, again, at what you wrote:

The Sacrament is not defined by Canon Law. Nor does the Sacrament take it’s presence through Canon Law.

Umm… ok. Sure looks like that’s what you’re saying!

BTW, I just noticed that you also said this:

Therefore, Canon Law does not dictate whether a Sacrament ceases to be.

That’s incorrect. From the canons:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

So, yeah… canon law does define when a marriage ceases to be.

 

[LilBiddyLeah]

I am divorced in the eyes of the state of Maryland (his doing, not mine). Though I have not seen my husband in several I am still married in the eyes of Christ. I’m not an adulterer. I do not engage relationships with others as I consider myself a married woman.
This is a dilemma as I am interested in becoming a sister of the Catholic Church. I have no doubt the church would approve a divorce but…would Jesus?

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

You are saying, thus, the Marriage of Christ to His Church is “a figure of speech.” Or as described, a metaphor.

#1
Read: Sacraments | Catholic Answers

Outward sign of an inward grace. Then, what is Covenant?

Read: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...sma__covenant_in_oxford_encycl_of_bible-2.pdf

The Covenant is an act of Mercy.

Thus, the Sacraments (the outward sign of an inward grace) were God’s pact in Mercy with man, through the Church as Christ endowed. Which they never cease. Because God’s Covenant is forever. The law is love.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

#2
What you believe is the Sacrament of Marriage on human terms. And hence, why you refer to Canon Law. I did say that Canon Law does not “dictate” the Sacraments. The word dictate means that Canon Law cannot tell a Sacrament what to do, or how to be. Meaning, Canon Law cannot make something a Sacrament which it is not. Nor can it dictate a Sacrament to be or not to be (I suppose that’s Shakespearian Theology )

Thus, the Sacraments are not dictated by Canon Law. However, Canon Law is to serve the Sacraments. To use the analogy: The Rules, By–Laws, Protocols, and Codes in a Hospital are to ensure patient health and safety, Especially when care in handling medicine, and applying them. That’s essentially the purpose of Canon Law. Or as Christ Himself said, that the Sabbath was made for man. Not man for the Sabbath.

In the purpose of Canon Law, it is not Theological in and of itself. However, it must be bound to Theological virtue. That is bound in Obedience. That Obedience is to serve the Sacraments, as Christ instituted in His Church (His Bride - there is no metaphor here - She is the Sacramental Organism.)

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

You are saying, thus, the Marriage of Christ to His Church is “a figure of speech.” Or as described, a metaphor.

#3
The Church, the Apparition of man (inclusive, women too.) Is the effeminate character of man being as Our Lady (be it done onto me according your word…I am the lowly handmaid.) Essentially in being a saint. Christ marries Her (the Church, thus being His Body, the Consummation of One Flesh, One Union. And Marriage takes place in the Sacramental nature.) It’s not a metaphor.

You are presenting the Sacraments, yes, in a watered down way. For, the parting of one soul, who had participated in the Sacrament of Marriage has an indelible mark on their soul. That is incumbent of having children. That is not erased. Rather, it is elevated. The state of that person’s soul so magnified the Church, in the Body of Christ. As what it was known of the inward grace, and outward sign in marriage. Full and intact.

When the spouse leaves the life here. And enjoins themselves at a higher platitude in that life (Baptized, State of Grace.) This goes into a Higher Order. Wherefore Christ says “Well done my good and faithful servant.” He will recount and give judgement to all. And yes, their marriage.

If the man and woman beget the Sacrament of Marriage between them, being in One Flesh. Dare they say the children parted in being in the Sacrament as well? Because the spouse passed away? Thus, do the children cease to be brothers and/or sisters in that Union? You would have to echo that as well. If the man’s Sacrament to his wife ceased on her passing, can Canon Law rectify apart from a blood relation, that the Sacrament of the family also ceased (thereby parting them from being One Flesh)?

Your reference to Canon Law has an ontological obstruction to the Truth.

Because, you would have to say the Sacrament dissolved between that man and woman. Therefore, you would have to deface the whole Sacrament of the family therewith. Because, when you say they are “One Flesh.” That is further denoted when children are born. In fact, when children are born from the consummation of that Union, that then they (the man and woman) become “One Flesh.” Which thus they fulfill the Sacrament of Marriage. Therefore, the children exist still, as children of the father and the mother, because they are in the fulfillment of the Sacrament. Thus, it never dissolved.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Canon Law states that only by death does the Sacrament dissolve. But, would the Law neglect that the person who was then elevated to and in that Union, being One Flesh with their spouse, had an experience which he or she can never forget? Let alone, the growth which they attained in that Union? Would then that the Sacramental state of that Union have also dissolved, being in One Flesh by the Consummation and Fulfillment in that Union having children? Would the father (supposing his wife passed away(, say, the children are no longer tied in the Sacrament of that Union which they were fulfilled in being?

The power of death actually has no power over that Union either. For it was that Christ though died, conquered death. And since by way of Him, it is the Sacrament of Marriage, though be it through death He laid down His life for His Bride. The Church, thus through His Death and Resurrection, became Consummated in that Union. It was the Celebration of His Wedding Feast, that becomes the Celebration around Pentecost. The Confirmation of the Holy Spirit, was in this way and to that end. The Consummated Union of the Church in Whole. Wherefore as the life breathed into Adam. Thus, the Holy Spirit breathed life into the Church as the Consummated end, as the same Holy Spirit which overshadowed Mary, and Christ was born. This is the fulfillment of that Union. The Apostle’s become like Christ. Saint Peter does not deny, but upholds (Act of the Apostle’s.) He does not detract, but lives as Christ in being nailed to a Cross, even upside down. The Martyrs then exist.

By the way, to note, Canon Law can change. And that does not mean Canon Law is without error.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...-for-religious-who-desert-the-community-60624

That is not to question the authority of the Church either. However, the Church has a problem with marriage, because people tend to abuse the Sacrament. People who are co-habitating. Having sex before marriage and not going to Confession. And, yes, people who want to endorse homosexual unions, and what not. In other words, people can change Canon Law. And that is where it is prone to error. Will it change? I hope not. However, it can.

Thus, Canon Law by and in of itself cannot dictate nor define a Sacrament. Canon Law must beholden to what Christ said, did, and taught. And that also means bearing upon Judaic roots and origins as well. From the Patriarchs of Our Faith, and the Fathers of the Church.

If the Church had the moral heresy of moral relativism. And should priests and Bishops, and Cardinals (and Pope) fall into being moral relativists. And chose to change Canon Law to fit the times. Then, it is prone. You therefore cannot posit that Canon Law and in/of itself has the final authority and word if it fails to hold up to the Sacraments>

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Either way, the Saint John on the Isle of Patmos, saw imagery in the vision he was given. In that image, was the Wedding Feast. In that image was the Slain Lamb.

It’s a Literal Wedding on God’s terms.

Saint John the Apostle did not write creatively, thinking imagery. He described what he saw. And he saw a Wedding. What you and I cannot fathom is what that Wedding is like, and how it is going to take place. For God’s ways are above ours.

The Wedding is a Marriage of Covenant (pact of love, mercy, and hope - what awaits us on our death.) Wherefore, as God rested on the Seventh Day of creation. Except, the devil came in during that time. Because, Eve and Adam could not stay awake for even one hour during that temptation with the devil (this is pre-cursor of Christ’s Passion in the Garden.)

Thus, when sin entered into the world, and brought forth death between Adam and Eve. You could also use Canon Law 1141 as “the death” which dissolves their martial union and embrace to each other (being One Flesh. Or as Adam put it: "Alas! Bone of my bones. Flesh of my flesh.)

You therefore would have to say that sin, by default being death, would dissolve even a Sacramental union. Of course, Canon Law does not refer to death by sin, but the physical death. However, then Canon Law is therefore neglecting (especially here and now in our time), Canon Law neglects, to describe clearly that death of sin cannot dissolve that union no more than a physical death could. Which is greater, physical death? Or death by sin? Sin results, after our physical death, to be everlasting Hell. Satan, his pride, his brood of vipers, and all the fallen angles go.

Therefore, the Sacrament, which was brought by Christ’s Blood and Sacrifice cannot be won over by even death by sin. No more by physical death, which has less power than death by sin.

Canon Law, on marriage, can be better written and expressive on this account.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Most people have divorces (not everyone.) But most who divorce, do so to have marital relations with someone else other than the original spouse they were married to.

In your case, you have been faithful. Which is a great deal of suffering. You bear a Cross, heavy set on your shoulders being a faithful spouse. And still do. Which is actually saintly. Living out as a saint.

 

[Dovekin]

Pope Francis wrote a letter on the Family sometime ago. I did not really read it.

I recommend it. It addresses many of the issues you raise. It might be quite helpful to you.

It would make reading your comments here more meaningful if you were informed on what the Pope teaches. We might have a better grasp on what you mean if you were not struggling to express what has already been expressed by Francis.

 

[Gorgias]

You are presenting the Sacraments, yes, in a watered down way.

That’s your opinion. I say I’m presenting the sacrament of marriage in the way the Church does. And, if you are claiming that you know better than the Church, then you’re doing a poor job of being “the lowly handmaid.” Or, do you think that Mary taught theology to Jesus?

If the man and woman beget the Sacrament of Marriage between them, being in One Flesh. Dare they say the children parted in being in the Sacrament as well? Because the spouse passed away? Thus, do the children cease to be brothers and/or sisters in that Union?

Now you’re grasping at straws.

By the way: children are never part of the Union of Marriage of their parents. They are the offspring of that union.

Your reference to Canon Law has an ontological obstruction to the Truth.

Because, you would have to say the Sacrament dissolved between that man and woman.

Take it up with the Church. It is she, in her authority, who has declared that marriage is dissolved by death.

But, would the Law neglect that the person who was then elevated to and in that Union, being One Flesh with their spouse, had an experience which he or she can never forget? Let alone, the growth which they attained in that Union?

‘Experience’ or ‘memory’ isn’t in play here. And, if you draw on those concepts, you’re no longer arguing for marriage, but for its effects.

The power of death actually has no power over that Union either.

The Catholic Church disagrees with you. And, I think I’ll take her word over yours.

Saint John the Apostle did not write creatively, thinking imagery. He described what he saw.

Right. He saw a vision. He wrote a book of apocalyptic. It’s imagery. Not literal. I mean, do you think that Christ literally has a sword coming out of his mouth? C’mon, now…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am divorced in the eyes of the state of Maryland (his doing, not mine). Though I have not seen my husband in several I am still married in the eyes of Christ. I’m not an adulterer. I do not engage relationships with others as I consider myself a married woman.
This is a dilemma as I am interested in becoming a sister of the Catholic Church. I have no doubt the church would approve a divorce but…would Jesus?

Jesus doesn’t have opinions at odds with His Own Catholic Church on doctrinal matters.

The stuff the OP is posting in this thread is largely his own opinion and his own interpretation.

If by “Sister of the Catholic Church” you mean you want to join a religious order, then you need to talk to the vocations director of the order you want to join. They are the only ones that can advise you on this. Religious orders may have particular requirements due to the charism of their order, that are not requirements for members of the Church at large.

 

[acanonlawyer]

…Because, you would have to say the Sacrament dissolved between that man and woman. …

I think I understand your point, but… So, when my dad dies and if he meets my mother in heaven, will they recognize each other and know that they were married? I certainly think so. Their relationship in heaven, though, will not be a continuation or a resumption of the one they had on earth. It should be much better than that (and they had a good one here below, by the way), shouldn’t it?

Dan