|
Post by mithrandylan on Sept 19, 2017 8:58:53 GMT -5
When I said "Old Catholic" I meant it in the sense used by the OP who said "Old Catholic line priest." I took her to describing a marriage which was officiated by a man claiming to be a Catholic priest whose holy orders were received from Old Catholics. I did not take it to mean that the couple's wedding was officiated by a man who didn't even claim to be Catholic, or in a ceremony that was clearly not Catholic. Ne Temere complicates things, because it raises the question about the extent to which the couple's intent to marry according to form qualifies and "supplies" for the lack of form. As I read the commentators, requisite form seems more or less controvertible with "being married by your pastor," or at least being given permission from him to be married " by someone else." When's the last time a Catholic was married by their pastor? If it really means this (and I think it does), most Catholic marriages today are valid by virtue of Canon 1098 (i.e., marriage with witnesses due to lack of a pastor for a month), or by supplied jurisdiction according to canon 198 (either "in" the Novus Ordo, most likely, or before a traditional priest). I don't think so. Canon 1098 would apply to them, too. To the OP: These types of questions remind me of this short video clip: (If it ain't, it'll do til the mess gets here!) Marriage always enjoys the favor of the law. That means that any time doubt is experienced about a marriage's validity-- no matter how serious or frivolous the doubt-- the marriage enjoys the presumption of validity except, unless, and until it is proven invalid. It's a unique sacrament, in that regard, since all others are presumed doubtful if there is legitimate doubt about their validity. But not marriage. It doesn't sound like, as it stands, there's enough information for anyone to move beyond doubt.[/a]
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2017 9:43:09 GMT -5
When I said "Old Catholic" I meant it in the sense used by the OP who said "Old Catholic line priest." I took her to describing a marriage which was officiated by a man claiming to be a Catholic priest whose holy orders were received from Old Catholics. I did not take it to mean that the couple's wedding was officiated by a man who didn't even claim to be Catholic, or in a ceremony that was clearly not Catholic. Ne Temere complicates things, because it raises the question about the extent to which the couple's intent to marry according to form qualifies and "supplies" for the lack of form. As I read the commentators, requisite form seems more or less controvertible with "being married by your pastor," or at least being given permission from him to be married " by someone else." When's the last time a Catholic was married by their pastor? If it really means this (and I think it does), most Catholic marriages today are valid by virtue of Canon 1098 (i.e., marriage with witnesses due to lack of a pastor for a month), or by supplied jurisdiction according to canon 198 (either "in" the Novus Ordo, most likely, or before a traditional priest). I don't think so. Canon 1098 would apply to them, too. To the OP: These types of questions remind me of this short video clip: (If it ain't, it'll do til the mess gets here!) Marriage always enjoys the favor of the law. That means that any time doubt is experienced about a marriage's validity-- no matter how serious or frivolous the doubt-- the marriage enjoys the presumption of validity except, unless, and until it is proven invalid. It's a unique sacrament, in that regard, since all others are presumed doubtful if there is legitimate doubt about their validity. But not marriage. It doesn't sound like, as it stands, there's enough information for anyone to move beyond doubt. [/a][/quote] In this case, the validity of the Old Catholic priest's orders is really not at issue. Old Catholics are known sectarians, so to go to one for a wedding is to go outside of the Church. I agree with your other point, as I said above, that since Latin rite Catholics cannot find a priest within 30 days, they are free to marry each other without a priest. In this same situation, since an authorized priest cannot be found, recourse could be had for an unauthorized Catholic priest.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Sept 19, 2017 10:05:40 GMT -5
If that's what's happening. It didn't seem to me that the OP was describing an "Old Catholic priest" but a "Catholic priest" who got his orders from Old Catholics.
In principle, there's really no difference between a CMRI, SGG, or SSPX priest, and a priest who doesn't belong to any of these groups--right? Suppose the Old Catholic orders for this man in question are valid (some are, just like some Thuc orders are dubious). Unauthorized is unauthorized. There aren't gradations of unauthorization. A man who was ordained by an Old Catholic (again, supposing he really WAS ordained) isn't any more or less authorized than Fr. Cekada or Bishop Fellay.
The requirement of 1098 for two witnesses does not require the witnesses be Catholic. If we say that Catholics today will often be marrying validly by virtue of Canon 1098 (perhaps you disagree), then it seems to follow that there is some latitude in regards to who officiates the wedding. If proper form is really incumbent on the pastor (or a deputy of his) being present, then no other person-- ordained or not-- would satisfy the required form.
(If we insist that the required form is simply the presently legislated nuptial rite irrespective of WHO officiates it, we run into quite a few problems, I think, especially for those who marry in a Novus Ordo ceremony)
I'm not saying that this necessarily gives license for Catholics who "know better" to run off and get married in Lutheran Churches, but I don't see where you clearly draw the line in our present situation.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2017 10:43:43 GMT -5
If that's what's happening. It didn't seem to me that the OP was describing an "Old Catholic priest" but a "Catholic priest" who got his orders from Old Catholics. In principle, there's really no difference between a CMRI, SGG, or SSPX priest, and a priest who doesn't belong to any of these groups--right? Suppose the Old Catholic orders for this man in question are valid (some are, just like some Thuc orders are dubious). Unauthorized is unauthorized. There aren't gradations of unauthorization. A man who was ordained by an Old Catholic (again, supposing he really WAS ordained) isn't any more or less authorized than Fr. Cekada or Bishop Fellay. The requirement of 1098 for two witnesses does not require the witnesses be Catholic. If we say that Catholics today will often be marrying validly by virtue of Canon 1098 (perhaps you disagree), then it seems to follow that there is some latitude in regards to who officiates the wedding. If proper form is really incumbent on the pastor (or a deputy of his) being present, then no other person-- ordained or not-- would satisfy the required form. (If we insist that the required form is simply the presently legislated nuptial rite irrespective of WHO officiates it, we run into quite a few problems, I think, especially for those who marry in a Novus Ordo ceremony) I'm not saying that this necessarily gives license for Catholics who "know better" to run off and get married in Lutheran Churches, but I don't see where you clearly draw the line in our present situation. The OP statement was ambiguous, it seems I took it one way, you another. If a man is Catholic but has gotten himself ordained by a bishop of a sect, or the line that descended from that, then that changes things. The marriage, in my opinion would be valid, at least in regards to this point, not due to whether this priests orders are valid, but because of the 30 day rule, and I am presuming that they intended to marry for at least 30 days. The priest in this case did not need to be there at all, the couple had the power given them by the Church to marry themselves. I still belive however, based on Ne Temere which was followed by the Code, that if a Catholic goes outside of the Church to marry, that it is certainly invalid. If we trust the law of the Church, we realize that every traditionalist priest is a priest under censure. It is clear that Catholics who cannot locate their pastor or other local clergy in their area (as they don't exist?) could ask a suspended Catholic priest to officiate the wedding. Canons 1098, 2261, and 2284 make this clear, at least in my opinion. I think those who go to traditionalist chapels for marriages in our present situation are on safe ground. I would also say, however, that they have no need to go to such chapels and are perfectly free to marry themselves with two witnesses. The Novus Ordo marriage does present a problem, but in their situation, whether the couple involved realize it or not, they lack pastors and local clergy, therefore the 30 day rule applies to them. In my opinion, for fwiw, the Novus Ordo presbyter does nothing in this case, and the couple marries themselves. I do not think it can be argued that the Novus Ordo is a condemned or a generally known and recognized sect, and secondly it presents to most people a convincing claim to being the Catholic Church, therefore I do not believe it can be presumed that Catholics in this situation are marrying outside the Church, as they would certainly do if they married in a Lutheran or Old Catholic church, for example.
|
|
Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Sept 19, 2017 10:44:41 GMT -5
|
|
Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Sept 19, 2017 10:54:32 GMT -5
Here's a pertinent part of the analysis I posted. The supporting quotes from approved sources can be found in the appendix using the designators at the end of each claim.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Sept 19, 2017 11:21:26 GMT -5
Caillin,
My understanding is the same as yours, which is essentially that once canon 1098 kicks in, validity is satisfied by two witnesses, even if they happen to be non-Catholic religious officials.
It sounds like Catholics are then "given license" to marry outside the Church, but the exceptional circumstances don't so much give that license as they do simply remove the burden to marry according to a certain form. And without that burden, although marrying in front of a non-Catholic religious official may be sinful, it no longer disrupts or disturbs the validity.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Sept 19, 2017 11:54:58 GMT -5
I mean, if you think about it (whether pre or post Ne Temere), what is Canon 1098 except a codified dispensation from the required form of marriage when certain objective criteria are met?
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 19, 2017 12:55:01 GMT -5
I took her to describing a marriage which was officiated by a man claiming to be a Catholic priest whose holy orders were received from Old Catholics. I thought all priests with orders from Old Catholics claim to be catholic. I presume then that the groom's first marriage would be valid, since the issue of whether it was two baptized persons or two unbaptized persons has not been confirmed. Is this correct? Therefore, the second marriage would have to be invalid since the groom is presumed married. That is the way I see it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2017 13:18:29 GMT -5
I mean, if you think about it (whether pre or post Ne Temere), what is Canon 1098 except a codified dispensation from the required form of marriage when certain objective criteria are met? The question would still remain if after Ne Temere, this would apply to Catholics who after 30 days of not finding their pastor or lawful local clergy and approach a sectarian minister, if this is still a cause of invalidity. You bring up a good point, I will see what I can find. It's very possible that cases such as this happened before the crisis, so we may be able to find the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2017 13:23:38 GMT -5
I took her to describing a marriage which was officiated by a man claiming to be a Catholic priest whose holy orders were received from Old Catholics. I thought all priests with orders from Old Catholics claim to be catholic. I presume then that the groom's first marriage would be valid, since the issue of whether it was two baptized persons or two unbaptized persons has not been confirmed. Is this correct? Therefore, the second marriage would have to be invalid since the groom is presumed married. That is the way I see it. Marya, The Old Catholic sect is still going, and can be found in Europe and in North America. They are small and dying out, but still around. Some misguided Catholics have looked to the Old Catholics for holy orders during this crisis. This is a gravely sinful and to be blunt, a stupid thing to do. Now we have men with questionable orders roaming around acting as though they have certain holy orders. The same can be said about the orders that came from the Duarte-Costa line. IMO, avoid them like the plague.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Sept 19, 2017 13:54:37 GMT -5
I took her to describing a marriage which was officiated by a man claiming to be a Catholic priest whose holy orders were received from Old Catholics. I thought all priests with orders from Old Catholics claim to be catholic. I presume then that the groom's first marriage would be valid, since the issue of whether it was two baptized persons or two unbaptized persons has not been confirmed. Is this correct? Therefore, the second marriage would have to be invalid since the groom is presumed married. That is the way I see it. . Old Catholics claim to be Old Catholic. They'll (of course) claim to be truly Christian, or truly Catholic, but the actual name Old Catholic is accepted by them. And yes, presume the ("first") marriage as valid. Except and unless there is abundantly clear evidence-- think, if-your-spouse-dies-you-are-eligible-to-marry-immediately- despite-the-fact-that-a-death-certificate-hasn't-been-issued kind of evidence-- the marriage must be treated as valid. IMO, the sort of evidence required would need to be something like a clear proof that one party wasn't baptized. Or, that one party attempted to enter in the marriage although they were already married to someone else. That type of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 20, 2017 7:17:02 GMT -5
Some misguided Catholics have looked to the Old Catholics for holy orders during this crisis. This is a gravely sinful and to be blunt, a stupid thing to do. Now we have men with questionable orders roaming around acting as though they have certain holy orders. The same can be said about the orders that came from the Duarte-Costa line. IMO, avoid them like the plague. Oh, I see. They get ordained by Old Catholics but then don't tell people who did they're ordination or act as though they didn't. The priest I was talking about doesn't hide his orders but he does act like he is the "true" Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 23, 2017 5:57:52 GMT -5
Ok, I found it, in an old Bellarmine Forums thread, this very issue was discussed, and poster "Joe Cupertino" found a source. For those wanting to read more, the entire BF thread is worth a read: sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1356
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 25, 2017 1:03:17 GMT -5
So if I understand correctly, if we had lawful pastors today (the Church being in order), to go to someone other than your parish priest or bishop would result in an invalid marriage. But since the Church is in the state it is, the same action today would be a valid marriage. Correct? Would they have sacramental Matrimony?
|
|