|
0 members (),
344
guests, and
39
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,393
Posts416,749
Members5,993
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
"As stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses."
...
Anyhow, I fail to understand exactly what you're trying to get across. Read the quote, "Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal." He says "both being in Christ [that is, baptized]." In the excerpt he does not distinguish or differentiate Catholic and non-Catholic. As presented his appraisal applies to all marriages between baptized spouses. Consequently, "(a)s stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses." Yes, it would apply to protestants as well. However, I am still confused by your statement. Why wouldn't it apply to Catholics?
Last edited by RomCatholic; 12/21/15 03:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
"Do those words meed any witnessing beyond the participation of the spouses?"
If you actually read his book, you'll find an answer to all of your questions. Now what kind of an answer is that? The dynamic of this forum and this discussion is to present relevant arguments, here and explicitly. "read his book" is not a relevant argument but a dismissal. Having presented a reference it is incumbent on you to interpret it -- or not if you simply choose to decline -- as required. I am not here to spoon feed you answers. I have better things to do. But to answer your question: Theologically speaking, no. Witnesses are not required or even essential to the sacrament of matrimony. You are here I would hope to answer questions put to you. If you see yourself doing that with a spoon then fine. I can't read a passage and understand it with your mind so you must answer and provide details as I require if we are to have a productive and respectful dialog.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
"As stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses."
...
Anyhow, I fail to understand exactly what you're trying to get across.
Consequently, "(a)s stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses."
Yes, it would apply to protestants as well. However, I am still confused by your statement. Why wouldn't it apply to Catholics? I did not ask about Protestants or any others, only Catholics. So by "Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal" as given: 1.)Two Catholics marry before a Judge or privately without witnesses or clergy: it is a sacrament. 2.) Any baptized man and woman marry: it is a sacrament. 3.) Baptism alone -- just being baptized -- gives to the Christian complete autonomy to marry, to accomplish a marriage that is a sacrament.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
"As stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses."
...
Anyhow, I fail to understand exactly what you're trying to get across.
Consequently, "(a)s stated, Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal would also apply to two believing Catholic spouses."
Yes, it would apply to protestants as well. However, I am still confused by your statement. Why wouldn't it apply to Catholics? I did not ask about Protestants or any others, only Catholics. So by "Msgr. Cormac Burke's unqualified appraisal" as given: 1.)Two Catholics marry before a Judge or privately without witnesses or clergy: it is a sacrament. 2.) Any baptized man and woman marry: it is a sacrament. 3.) Baptism alone -- just being baptized -- gives to the Christian complete autonomy to marry, to accomplish a marriage that is a sacrament. Precisely. That is why I found your statement odd.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
Precisely. That is why I found your statement odd. Reconcile 1.)Two Catholics marry before a Judge or privately without witnesses or clergy: it is a sacrament. with: "3. What is the status of two Catholics who marry before a non-Catholic minister without dispensation and do so: (i) secretly/privately; (ii) openly/publicly?"
Well, why would two Catholics be getting married outside of the Church in the first place? Anyhow, it would be invalid under both circumstances. Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case? [emphasis added] "Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case?"
Firstly, there is no reason why two Catholics would be getting married outside the Church in the first place. Nor would a bishop grant a dispensation to two Catholics. It simply doesn't make any sense. The only reason a dispensation would be given, is in the case of a mixed marriage. Since Catholics are bound to the Church's laws, a dispensation must be granted for a marriage to be considered valid. [emphasis added]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
Every valid marriage between Christians has full religious value, in that it involves "marrying in Christ." The marriage of two protestants who exchange valid natural consent before a civil registrar is a religious marriage and a sacrament. Hence, while one can draw a contrast between "Christian" and "natural" marriage, one cannot in all propriety do so between "religious" and "civil" marriage -- nor are "religious" and "sacramental" marriage necessarily the same thing. Common parlance may understandably fall into looseness of expression in these points, but theological or canonical discourse should avoid it.
To suggest that, without the presence of witnesses, there is no sacrament because there is no essential reference to the church is to mistake the theological nature of marriage. I therefore cannot agree that "the presence of the priest and of the community in the celebration of marriage is the expression and the cause of the very presence and action of Christ," on the ground that while the spouses are ministers they are not such "independently of the apostolic function that links them to the risen Savior, nor separate from the fraternity into which they have been incorporated." To posit that the presence of the Christian community -- represented at least by the witnesses and by the officiating priest -- is necessary in order to achieve the "complete sacramental structure" of matrimony is an attempt to develop a theological thesis based on an accidental juridic requirement.
In short, then, with regard to marriage of Christians, one must distinguish between canonical (or liturgical form, and sacramental form. The sacramental form is the same as in natural marriage (the expression of consent), as is the essential rite (matter and form combined). Bellarmine criticizes Melchor Cano's error in this respect, which was precisely to claim that "if matrimony is truly a sacrament, then, besides the civil contract, it should have some sacred form, as well as an ecclesiastical minister." It is important to realize that the question of canonical form is completely irrelevant to the theological consideration of marriage and concretely of its sacramentality. Much of the confusion concerning this matter that has developed over the past few decades must be attributed to theologians allowing the question of form to be invoked as if it had theological relevance.
At times it has been suggested that the church should drop the requirement of canonical form and simply recognize marriages celebrated according to civil law. Where there are significant difficulties to this suggestion, they are of a merely socio-juridical or pastoral-practical nature. There are, in other words, no theological difficulties to be advanced against the possible legislation of such a change. Marriages thus celebrated between two Christians would be just as sacramental as those celebrated "in church." More accuratley, to insist on what we havesaid, such civil marriages would -- in the theological, though not in the merely human-social sense -- be celebrate "in church."
From "Theology of Marriage," pp 8-10
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
The portion you highlighted is in reference to mixed marriages. A dispensation wouldn't be granted to two Catholics getting married.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
Every valid marriage between Christians... be celebrate "in church."
From "Theology of Marriage," pp 8-10 This rounds out Msgr. Cormac Burke's view and explains a lot. And it qualifies what is in the first quote from page 11 and your misleading if not actually incorrect response of "[p]recisely." So by Msgr. Cormac Burke's appraisal as given on pages 8-11 of The Theology of Marriage for the following (with minor editing of my original questions for clarity): 1.a)Two Catholics marry before a Judge: it is a sacrament. No. 1.b)Two Catholics marry ... privately without witnesses or clergy: it is a sacrament. Most likely? 2.) Any baptized man and woman marry: it is a sacrament. i.)Yes if they are not Catholic. ii.)Not always if they are Catholic. 3.) Baptism alone -- just being baptized -- gives to the Christian complete autonomy to marry, to accomplish a marriage that is a sacrament. [emphasis added] No by 1.a and 2.)ii.) above. So as you interpret Msgr. Cormac Burke, how would you answer?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
1.a)Two Catholics marry before a Judge: it is a sacrament.No. It would be a sacrament, theologically speaking. 1.b)Two Catholics marry ... privately without witnesses or clergy: it is a sacrament.Most likely? No, a sacrament. 2.) Any baptized man and woman marry: it is a sacrament.i.)Yes if they are not Catholic. ii.)Not always if they are Catholic. False. 3.) Baptism alone -- just being baptized -- gives to the Christian complete autonomy to marry, to accomplish a marriage that is a sacrament. [emphasis added] No by 1.a and 2.)ii.) above. So as you interpret Msgr. Cormac Burke, how would you answer? [/quote] Both baptism and consent. However, you would have to specify what you mean by "complete autonomy".
Last edited by RomCatholic; 12/22/15 10:03 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
2.) Any baptized man and woman marry: it is a sacrament.i.)Yes if they are not Catholic. ii.)Not always if they are Catholic. False. Why false especially for i.)? "Both baptism and consent" as you say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
The portion you highlighted is in reference to mixed marriages. A dispensation wouldn't be granted to two Catholics getting married. But it could be. It is arbitrary according to Msgr. Burke: At times it has been suggested that the church should drop the requirement of canonical form and simply recognize marriages celebrated according to civil law. Where there are significant difficulties to this suggestion, they are of a merely socio-juridical or pastoral-practical nature. There are, in other words, no theological difficulties to be advanced against the possible legislation of such a change. Marriages thus celebrated between two Christians would be just as sacramental as those celebrated "in church." More accuratley, to insist on what we havesaid, such civil marriages would -- in the theological, though not in the merely human-social sense -- be celebrate "in church."
From "Theology of Marriage," [emphasis added] I have many, many issues with the theological ramifications of what Msgr. Burke writes. To do him justice, I should read his entire book but on the basis of what has been quoted here it would be a waste of my good money. Considering his impressive credentials and especially his authority I find his writing here (including some incidental remarks that I intent to explore) theologically benighted and frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
2.) Any baptized man and woman marry: it is a sacrament.i.)Yes if they are not Catholic. ii.)Not always if they are Catholic. False. Why false especially for i.)? "Both baptism and consent" as you say. It is true for i., but not for ii.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
1.a)Two Catholics marry before a Judge: it is a sacrament.No. It would be a sacrament, theologically speaking. The two Catholics in 1.a) after several years divorce. One wants to remarry another who is Catholic. What says the Church: 1.) They marry before a Judge. 2.) They request a wedding in a Catholic Church from their Pastor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
Let's return to the USCCB document, A Pastoral Statement on Orthodox/Roman Catholic Marriages, and compare with Burke's assessment. The USCCB document has a narrower focus than Msgr. Burke's much more general assessment which, because it is so general, impacts what is in the Pastoral Statement. Msgr. Burke's assessment: At times it has been suggested that the church should drop the requirement of canonical form and simply recognize marriages celebrated according to civil law. Where there are significant difficulties to this suggestion, they are of a merely socio-juridical or pastoral-practical nature. There are, in other words, no theological difficulties to be advanced against the possible legislation of such a change. Marriages thus celebrated between two Christians would be just as sacramental as those celebrated "in church."[/b] More accurately, to insist on what we have said, such civil marriages would -- in the theological, though not in the merely human-social sense -- be celebrate "in church."
From "Theology of Marriage," [emphasis added] USCCB In the teaching of our churches, a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners and God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church. At the present time, there are differences in the ways by which this ministry is exercised in order to fulfill the theological and canonical norms for marriage in our churches. ...
We do not wish to underestimate the seriousness of these differences in practice and theological explanation. We consider their further study to be desirable. At the same time, we wish to emphasize our fundamental agreement. Both our churches have always agreed that ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage. Within this fundamental agreement, history has shown various possibilities of realization so that no one particular form of expressing this ecclesial context may be considered absolutely normative in all circumstances for both churches. [emphasis added] How is this to be reconciled with Msgr. Burke's assessment? The USCCB document continues: In our judgment, our present differences of practice and theology concerning the required ecclesial context for marriage pertain to the level of secondary theological reflection rather than to the level of dogma. [emphasis added] Are they, the Joint US Committee of Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bishops, not aware of Msgr. Burke's assessment?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357 Likes: 30 |
Without abandoning the discussion of Msgr. Burke's assessment some information in the CCC should be considered as to the thought of the Church and consistencies and inconsistencies, official documents versus the private writings of theologians and canonists. The Latin text of the CCC: 1623 Secundum traditionem latinam, sponsi, tamquam ministri gratiae Christi, sibi mutuo Matrimonii conferunt sacramentum, suum consensum coram Ecclesia significantes. In traditionibus Ecclesiarum Orientalium, sacerdotes — Episcopi vel presbyteri — testes sunt consensus mutuo ab sponsis praestiti, 275 sed etiam eorum benedictio ad validitatem sacramenti est necessaria. 276 [ vatican.va] 1623 English translation: 1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125 [ vatican.va] However, if one enters the Vatican website at the home page in English and then navigates through links provided, http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htmhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htmhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTMhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P52.HTMthe English of the CCC reads: 1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called "Crowning") is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant. All the quotes above are on the Vatican website. Also regarding another USCCB publication and the alternate English of CCC 1623: ============================ EWTN Catholic Q&A Minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony Question from John on 05-03-2001: Dr. Carroll, The Catholic Church holds that the Eastern Church's teaching that the priest confers the sacrament of Matrimony upon the the couple is a valid Catholic opinion. The NCCB's document, "Eastern Catholics in the United States" says, " Marriage in the Eastern Church is a sacrament confered by the priest by means of the "crowning" and nuptual blessing, not by the couple as in the Latin Church." It was authored by my bishop, Andrew Pataki. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "1623. "In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called 'Crowning') is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant." It is therefore an error to dismiss the Orthodox view as heretical because the Magisterium has ratified it as a valid opinion. ,John Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 05-05-2000: I am now aware of this fact, which as you say is in the Catholic Catechism. - Dr. Carroll COPYRIGHT 2002 www.ewtn.com [ ewtn.com] ======================== [emphasis added] link [ ewtn.com]
|
|
|
|
|
