When does a marriage end?

[Vico]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t grant such dissolutions of a marriage for two living spouses

Yes (for sacramental). Also note though that The Roman Catholic Church does grant such dissolutions of a sacramental marriage for two living spouses when it has not been consummated.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, I see that, but again, this is way off topic from the OP’s original question.

OP asked about remarriage after death. I’m not even sure how all this other stuff came up, but it’s creating a lot of confusion for the person who is simply asking a question about remarriage After Death.

 

[Vico]

Yes my understanding from my priest is that in orthodoxy marriage does not end with the death of your spouse, does anyone know if the various Eastern Catholic Churches hold this belief? I assume that they do, although I don’t know.

I am Byzantine Catholic. We have the same canonical practice as the Latin Catholic church with respect to remarriage. (CCEO Canon 853 - The sacramental bond of marriage for a consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power nor by any cause other than death.)

 

[Vico]

Yes, I see that, but again, this is way off topic from the OP’s original question.

OP asked about remarriage after death. I’m not even sure how all this other stuff came up, but it’s creating a lot of confusion for the person who is simply asking a question about remarriage After Death.

It came up because I posted what the commission stated about penitential marriage and you responded on dissolution:

…this statement refers to the Roman Catholic Church granting a “dissolution” for two civilly divorced spouses who are both still alive

 

[Elf01]

Yes. Also note though that The Roman Catholic Church doe grant such dissolutions of a marriage for two living spouses when it has not been consummated.

In the case of a non Sacramental marriage it may also be dissolved via Petrine/Pauline privilege.

 

[lilypadrees]

Marriage ends with the death of one spouse or both if they happen to die at the same time.

Not only is the Bible clear about this but it is also clear that that if you get divorced, you are not to marry again while your ex is still living.

 

[dochawk]

Off subject somewhat, but regarding divorce even though Eastern Catholic worship in the same manner as Orthodox and adhere to most of the same teachings , an Eastern Catholic divorce would not allow for a 2nd or 3rd marriage as in Orthodoxy. They would have to obtain An annulment to remarry, same as in the western church. Correct me if this is in error.

Recently, this is the case, due to the improper imposition of the Eastern Code of Canon Law by the Colonial Office. Until then, Eastern practice was followed.

In all seriousness, the EC churches should send the code back to Rome with a note saying, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Not over this specific issue, but because it simply should not exist.

 

[Flopfoot]

If you get civilly divorced and later hear that your ex has died, what proof of their death would you need to bring before the Catholic Church would let you remarry?

 

[acanonlawyer]

While it true that the Roman Catholic Church does not grant dissolution of the bond of a consummated sacramental marriage, it remains a question among theologians whether this is founded on a prudential judgment or on the Church’s perception that it lacks the power to dissolve such a bond

On the contrary, it should not really be a question:

The Roman Pontiff in fact has the “sacra potestas” to teach the truth of the Gospel, administer the sacraments and pastorally govern the Church in the name and with the authority of Christ, but this power does not include per se any power over the divine law, natural or positive. Neither Scripture nor Tradition recognizes any faculty of the Roman Pontiff for dissolving a ratified and consummated marriage; on the contrary, the Church’s constant practice shows the certain knowledge of Tradition that such a power does not exist. The forceful expressions of the Roman Pontiffs are only the faithful echo and authentic interpretation of the Church’s permanent conviction.

It seems quite clear then that the non-extension of the Roman Pontiff’s power to ratified and consummated sacramental marriages is taught by the Church’s Magisterium as a doctrine to be held definitively, even if it has not been solemnly declared by a defining act. This doctrine, in fact, has been explicitly proposed by the Roman Pontiffs in categorical terms, in a constant way and over a sufficiently long period of time. It was made their own and taught by all the Bishops in communion with the See of Peter, with the knowledge that it must always be held and accepted by the faithful.

In this sense it was reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Besides, it is a doctrine confirmed by the Church’s centuries-old practice, maintained with full fidelity and heroism, sometimes even in the face of severe pressures from the mighty of this world.

The attitude of the Popes is highly significant; even at the time of a clearer affirmation of the Petrine primacy, they show a constant awareness that their Magisterium is at the total service of the Word … and, in this spirit, they do not place themselves above the Lord’s gift, but endeavour only to preserve and administer the good entrusted to the Church.
To members of the Tribunal of the Sacred Roman Rota (January 21, 2000) | John Paul II , at n. 8

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

In all seriousness, the EC churches should send the code back to Rome with a note saying, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Not over this specific issue, but because it simply should not exist.

“In all seriousness”?

Dan

 

[dochawk]

Yes, in all seriousness.

Its existence and imposition makes a mockery of the terms of Brest, Uzrhod, and so forth, and is a latin-style “solution” to something that wasn’t a problem in the first place in the East.

That code just shouldn’t exist, expect perhaps for the handful of churches not large enough to have their own bishops.

 

[tafan2]

I cannot answer the poll, as none of the answers reflect my position. I would likely say that marriage ends after death, but I am not 100% sure. On the other hand, I certainly believe that remarriage should be permitted, although I do not think one can say that it should be either encourage or discouraged.

As usual, I appreciate @dochawk 's views on the subject (and related matters) from an Eastern perspective. Always good to learn more about Eastern theology and legal matters.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Its existence and imposition makes a mockery of the terms of Brest

Such as?

Dan

 

[dochawk]

Such as?

Rather than keeping our traditions and practices, as promised, it was imposed by Rome on all Eastern churches.

The Eastern Catholics should be governing themselves in the way they and the Orthodox have done for millennia, but this code takes that away.

This is exactly the type of Roman overreaching that concerns the orthodox.

hawk

 

[tafan2]

Where is the Bible clear about this? If it is the words of Jesus, I do not believe the interpretation which we all assume, is definitely clear. People don’t get married in heaven, that is clear. That some sort of marraige bond would not survive into heaven is not as clear. Jesus never answered that question directly, which was how He often handled trick questions.

Please note, I tend to think you are correct, but I am not positive. This recently came up on another thread and I asked for a definite teaching or interpretation if the relative passage, none was forthcoming. If you have one, I would be more than open to correction.

 

[TheLittleLady]

A simple copy of the death certificate.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Could you give a specific example, citing Brest and the Eastern Code?

Dan

 

[Rau]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as I would assume (?) eastern Catholic Churches remarriage after the death of a spouse is allowed only if approved by the Bishop.

You’d wonder what criteria would be applied ?

 

[dochawk]

Could you give a specific example, citing Brest and the Eastern Code?

I don’t have Brest at hand, but the easiest would be retention of self governance and self selection of clergy, and the provision of the Pope having to approve of their Patriarch–whoops, not even patriarch per Rome.

But the code in and of itself is the imposition, not any particular term of it. It just plain should not exist for a church that governs itself by the ancient canon. Even were the code to exactly implement all canon used by a particular church, it would remain wrong for the code to exist. And when it comes to Roman appointment of bishops, metropolitans, and “major archbishops”, well . . ,

 

[tafan2]

@dochawk, I am not disagreeing with you, but want to better understand. So are you saying the Pope should have no governing authority over Eastern Church’s? If that is not what you are saying, how should authority be exercised?