Whatever you do, think not of yourself, but of God. --St. Vincent Ferrer
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM2)Since virginity is more meritorious than married state ..., does that mean a married person can never reach the same highest potential level of merit in heaven itself as the highest potential level of merit in heaven for a celibate person or consecrated virgin?No, they can. See Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 4 ad 2:
QuoteThough virginity is better than conjugal continence, a married person may be better than a virgin for two reasons. First, on the part of chastity itself; if to wit, the married person is more prepared in mind to observe virginity, if it should be expedient, than the one who is actually a virgin. Hence Augustine (De Bono Conjug. xxii) charges the virgin to say: "I am no better than Abraham, although the chastity of celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage." Further on he gives the reason for this: "For what I do now, he would have done better, if it were fitting for him to do it then; and what they did I would even do now if it behooved me now to do it." Secondly, because perhaps the person who is not a virgin has some more excellent virtue. Wherefore Augustine says (De Virgin. xliv): "Whence does a virgin know the things that belong to the Lord, however solicitous she be about them, if perchance on account of some mental fault she be not yet ripe for martyrdom, whereas this woman to whom she delighted in preferring herself is already able to drink the chalice of the Lord?"Our perfection consists chiefly in our degree of charity (cf. Theology of Christian Perfection by Royo Marín, O.P.). Marriage is a means toward this end, and continence/virginity/celibacy is a better, safer, more effective means toward this end.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 07, 2018, 11:40:17 AM(or the sacrament of Matrimony as such too?)See St. Robert in De Matrimonio p. 788:
Quotealiud est comparare statum cum statu, aliud, statum cum sacramento. Status continentiæ altior est statu Matrimonii et majoris gratiæ et meriti: Qui enim nubit, bene facit: qui non nubit, melius facit, 1. Corinth. 7. Sacramentum tamen semper auget gratiam, in quocumque statu suscipiatur. Quare continens dum Matrimonium contrahit, in gratia crescit sed si idem continens propter Deum nuptias humanas contempsisset, plus gratiæ apud Deum invenisset
it is one thing to compare a state with a state, another to compare a state with a sacrament. The state of continence is higher than the state of Matrimony and of greater grace and merit: For he who marries [i.e., "giveth his virgin in marriage"] does well: he who does not marry [i.e., "giveth her not" "in marriage"] does better, 1 Corinth. 7[:38]. But a sacrament always increases grace, in whatever state it is received. Wherefore when a continent person contracts Marriage, he grows in grace, but if this same continent person had contemned human marriage for God's sake, he would have found more grace with God
QuoteVirginity is good, I acknowledge this. And, furthermore, it is better than matrimony; I also acknowledge this. And if you like, I will add even more to this: Just as the heavens are to the earth, so are the angels to men. And it is necessary to add something further.
After all, the angels, since they do not take wives nor husbands, they are not made up of flesh and blood nor do they live on earth; they do not feel the stimuli of sensuality, they do not need to eat nor drink, they do not experience the attractiveness of sensual music nor the charm of beautiful bodies, nor other similar things. But just as the sky free from clouds shines magnificently at midday, so also the angelic nature, free from all concupiscence, necessarily remains lucid and radiant.
But the human lineage, although inferior to those spirits by nature, puts its own energies into play and strives with effort, as much as it can, to emulate them [the angels]. In what way? The angels do not marry. Neither does the virgin...
You see how excellent virginity is, and how it makes the dwellers of this earth similar to those citizens of heaven. And with the aid of non-material virtues, it does not permit the defeat of those who are clothed with flesh, making even those who are men emulators of the angels.
To you [heretics], the lot of the evil servants awaits you, while the virgins of the Church have reserved for themselves many and great possessions, which no eye as seen nor ear has heard, and no human understanding has grasped.
QuoteX. The detractor of marriage does harm to virginity.
3. Is virginity a good? Yes, I fully agree. But is it better than marriage? I agree with this, too. If you wish, I will illustrate the difference like this: virginity is as much superior to marriage as heaven is to earth, as the angels are to men, and, to use far stronger language, it is more superior still.
For the angels, if they do not marry and are not given in marriage, [cf. Matt 22:30 and Luke 20:36] are not a mixture of flesh and blood. They do not pass time on earth and endure trouble from the passions. They require neither food nor drink. Sweet song cannot appease them, nor can a radiant face win them over, nor any other such thing. Their natures of necessity remain transparent and brilliant, with no passion troubling them, like the heavens at high noon clear and undisturbed by any cloud.
XI. Virginity makes angels out of men who sincerely pursue it.
1. But mankind, inferior in its nature to blessed spirits, strains beyond its capacity and, in so far as it can, vies eagerly to equal the angels. How does it do that? Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage; [Matt. 22:30] this is true of the virgin. [...]
2. Do you grasp the value of virginity? that it makes those who spend time on earth live like the angels dwelling in heaven? It does not allow those endowed with bodies to be inferior to the incorporeal powers and spurs all men to rival the angels.
But this applies in no way to you [heretics], who dishonor so great a virtue, who slander the Lord and call him wicked. The punishment of painful slavery will await you; but the virgins of the Church will meet with many magnificent blessings that will surpass the comprehension of the human eye, ear and thought.
QuoteOnce this universe was created and disposed as much as possible for our respite and benefit, God shaped man, for whom He had created everything. Once man was formed, he lived in Paradise and while in that place there is no mention of marriage whatsoever. He needed a companion, so woman was given to him. But even so, matrimony still did not seem necessary. It still did not exist and they lived very happily in Paradise as if it were Heaven, without knowing marriage, rejoicing in the familiar treatment with God.
Far from their souls was the ardor of concupiscence, the desire for conception, the pains of birth and any lascivious thought; rather, they lived their lives adorned with virginity as if it were a transparent stream that flowed from a crystalline spring....
However, after that first period, they disobeyed the command of God and were transformed to dust and ashes. They also lost that happy life and the charm of virginity, which left them, abandoning them as God also abandoned them. When they were free from the slavery of the Devil and adored their Lord, they rejoiced in their virginity, which served as a greater adornment than the crowns and gilded robes of kings.
But, after falling captive, stripped of their regal garments and divested of their sacrality, they received as punishment the corruption of death, divine wrath, pain, a life of misery and, together with this, marriage appeared, this vesture of slavery and death. For, as St. Paul says, 'the man who has a woman must concern himself with the things of the world' (1 Cor 7:33) .
Quote3. When the whole world had been completed and all had been readied for our repose and use, God fashioned man for whom he made the world. After being fashioned, man remained in paradise and there was no reason for marriage. Man did need a helper, and she came into being; not even then did marriage seem necessary. It did not yet appear anywhere but they remained as they were without it. They lived in paradise as in heaven and they enjoyed God's company.cf. J. Duchassaing's French translation.
Desire for sexual intercourse, conception, labor, childbirth and every form of corruption had been banished from their souls. As a clear river shooting forth from a pure source, so were they in that place adorned by virginity.
5. [...] Nevertheless, nothing either thwarted or hindered that happy life, which was far better than this. But when they did not obey God and became earth and dust, they destroyed along with that blessed way of life the beauty of virginity, which together with God abandoned them and withdrew.3 As long as they were uncorrupted by the devil and stood in awe of their master, virginity abided with them. It adorned them more than the diadem and golden raiments do kings.
However, when they shed the princely raiment of virginity and laid aside their heavenly attire, they accepted the decay of death, ruin, pain, and a toilsome life. In their wake came marriage: marriage, a garment befitting mortals and slaves.
6. "But the married man is busy with this world's demands." [1 Cor. 7:33]
|Summus autem Pontifex [Gregorius XI] ea visa gavisus est, voluitque coram Cardinalibus, qui tunc aderant, quod verbum faceret exhortationis, potissime propter schisma, quod tunc incipiebat.||The Supreme Pontiff [Gregory XI] was clearly delighted to see her again and asked her to say a few words of encouragement to the Cardinals, especially with regard to the Schism, which had then just begun.|
|Quod et perfecte fecit, animando unumquemque eorum ad fortem constantiam verbis et sententiis plurimis, ac ostendendo divinam providentiam semper adesse cuilibet, sed potissime cum sancta Ecclesia patitur: et concludendo, quod propter inchoatum schisma in nullo trepidare deberent, sed agere quæ Dei sunt, et nullum timere.||[She] urged them with many arguments, which she expressed most felicitously, to be strong in constancy. She showed that divine providence is always with us, above all when the Church has to suffer, and ended by telling them not to be afraid of the schism that had just begun and to do the things of God and to fear no one.|
|[dixit Pontifex:] hæc muliercula nos confundit. Mulierculam autem voco, non in contemptum ejus sed in expressionem sexus feminei, naturaliter fragilis, et ad nostram instructionem.||[The Pope said:] A mere woman puts us to shame. I call her a 'mere woman', not out of disrespect, but with reference to her sex, which in itself is weak, and also for our own instruction.|
Quote5. Immaculatam semperque Virginem Mariam, Dei Genitricem hominumque Matrem*, ab Ecclesia singulariter colendam testificor, eiusque cultu genuino cultum Dei et Iesu Christi, non minui, immo potius augeri declaro.*Interesting he doesn't say "hominumque omnium Matrem" here, but he doesn't exclude it.
Quote3. Ac primum profiteor Deum personalem, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali rationis lumine, per ea quae facta sunt, tamquam causam per effectus, certo cognosci adeoque demonstrari posse, eundemque ut Dominum supremum non tantum a singulis hominibus,* sed etiam a civili societate esse agnoscendum.***Against today's radical individualism!
QuoteI acknowledge with sincere faith original sin, through which all men have sinned in their first father, Adam, (as a) sin strictly speaking that is transmitted by generation and belongs to each individual.--and the Preparatory Commission's excellent On defending intact the deposit of faith ch. 8 on original sin, Vatican II only mentions original sin 3×, once each in Inter mirifica, Lumen gentium, and Apostolicam actuositatem, and in no cases does it actually say what original sin is!
I acknowledge as absolutely certain signs the external proofs of revelation, and first of all the miracles and the prophecies, through which without any doubt it is demonstrated that the Christian religion has a divine origin, and I maintain that even today it is suited to the human intellect. I also maintain that the Church itself, considered per se, on account of its universal unity, its sublime holiness, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things, its marvelous diffusion, and its invincible firmness, is a perpetual reason for belief and an indisputable testimony to its divine inheritance.
I sincerely accept the doctrine of the faith handed down to us by the apostles by way of the orthodox fathers with the same meaning and with the same expressions. Therefore, even though the Church grows in its understanding of revealed truth, I nevertheless reject as heretical the opinion of the evolution of dogmas which with the passage of time take on a different meaning from the one that the Church taught once and for all.
I hold that the deposit of faith, that is to say, the word of God written or handed down by the apostles, is complete. I firmly hold that sacred scripture, free of all error, must be explained with the guidance of the magisterium of the faith, according to the norm of tradition and according to the analogy of the faith.
I profess that faith is not just an obscure religious sentiment or just an opinion of the mind, but a true assent of the intellect to the truth, received from outside by hearing, through which we believe what has been revealed and testified by a personal God, because of the authority of God who is supremely truthful, and in believing in him we offer the full submission of our intellect and will, with the inspiration and the help of God's grace.
I profess without any doubt all of the other truths defined and proclaimed by the ecumenical councils and above all by the sacred Council of Trent and the First Vatican Ecumenical Council, particularly with regard to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff and his infallible magisterium, and so I condemn and reject what has been condemned and rejected in those same councils and in the encylical letters, especially Pascendi and Humani generis.
This true Catholic faith, apart from which no one can be saved, I now profess freely, and I sincerely uphold it, and I will strive so that it may be preserved whole and inviolate by me and by those who are subject to me, until the final breath of my life, with utmost firmness and absolute constancy, with the help of God.
And so I myself, N., in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ, who will judge me worthy of eternal life or everlasting punishment, do promise, vow, and swear.
Quote from: Mithrandylan on November 09, 2017, 10:19:10 AMThis is not an authoritative source, but merely a table of possible spousal combinations and places/conditions of marriage, along with a corresponding note of validity and lawfulness for each scenario. The table itself was initially designed by Geremia here and I filled it in. The version hosted here contains the same content, but has been reformatted for much easier readability. I intend to post a .pdf version eventually, too.(source)
 [Civil Marriage] "Marriage between unbaptized persons is subject to the civil power, and in the case of these marriages the civil law has the right to determine the condition of the validity as well as the liceity of these marriage contracts. However, the civil power is bound to respect the divine law on marriage, and all civil laws which contradict the divine law are necessarily null and void" (Woywod vol. 1, p. 647 1957 ed.).
 [Marriage outside the Catholic Church] Canon 1094: "General Principle: Church Law requires for the validity of marriage that it be celebrated in the presence of the pastor or Ordinary of the place, or of a priest delegated by either of these, and at least two witnesses...
..."The Following Persons are obliged to observe the form above prescribed:
1) All who are baptized in the Catholic Church or who have been converted to it from heresy or schism, even though the former or the latter may later have left the Church, whenever the contract marriage among themselves;
2) The same persons above mentioned, if they contract marriage with non-Catholics, either baptized or not baptized, even after obtaining a dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion or disparity of cult" (Bouscaren and Ellis, 1946, C. 1094, p. 516).
 [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Valid and Licit] "If the civil law demands it, the Church does not censure parties for appearing even before a non-Catholic minister who is acting merely as an official of the government, provided that their purpose is solely to comply with the civil law and to get civil recognition of their marriage" (Woywod., p. 704).
 [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Valid and Licit] "Also note that Canon 1098 provides for Catholics who, if their pastor is unavailable to witness their marriage for the foreseeable future (a month), they are allowed to validly marry before witnesses only, and the canon does not require that these witnesses be Catholic. So in such a situation, a civil ceremony would suffice" (Woywod p. 705). [Also see "Regarding Canon 1098" at the end of the notes].
 [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Invalid and Illicit] It would be invalid and illicit, taking into account the principles from  and the details of canon 1099, if the couple forewent the religious ceremony in favor of the civil ceremony. Note that the civil officiation of the marriage does not make it valid or licit, but only under certain conditions simply makes it allowable, provided that canon 1094 is followed.
 [Marriage by two Catholics in the Catholic Church without the Bishop's Permission] Does not seem possible; the bishops permission is not required except inasmuch as the couple are to be married in front of their pastor who is deputed by the bishop to act on his behalf. So in the rare and unusual instance that a couple, though free to marry, are for some reason forbidden by their pastor from marrying (something he does not, to my knowledge, have the power to do), and they go and get married in a different parish, one might perhaps face this instance. But it would still seem valid and lawful.
 [Marriage between two Catholics outside the Catholic Church with Bishop's Permission] Does not seem possible at all.
 [Marriage between two Catholics outside the Catholic Church without Bishop's Permission as invalid and illicit] See Note . Also, regard later notes re: C. 1098
 [Civil Marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic as invalid and illicit] It depends on whether or not the baptized non-Catholic was baptized in the Catholic Church. See note  and notes [3-5]
 [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic in the Catholic Church with the Bishop's Permission as valid and licit] The impediment of mixed religion may be dispensed from, rendering the marriage lawful and valid. Note that mixed religion never (by itself) renders a marriage invalid (Woywod, p. 670). The conditions for the dispensation to be granted is moral certainty on the part of the bishop that the non-Catholic party will at least not interfere with the upbringing of Catholic children and will not interfere with the Catholic life and duty of the family.
 [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic in the Catholic Church, without the Bishop's permission as valid and illicit] "Canon 1060. The Church everywhere most severely forbids the contracting of marriage between two baptized persons of whom one is a Catholic whereas the other is a member of a heretical or schismatical sect; and if there is danger of perversion for the Catholic party and the children, the marriage is forbidden also by the divine law itself" (Bouscaren and Ellis, p. 458 ).
My comment: without a dispensation (i.e., the permission of the ordinary), the marriage would be unlawful.
 [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church with the Bishop's permission as valid and licit] This would require not only a dispensation from the impediment but also a dispensation to the Catholic party to dispense them from observing the Catholic form of marriage.
 [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church without the Bishop's permission as valid and licit] Theoretically lawful and valid according to canon 1098. [See also note  and "Regarding Canon 1098" at the end of the notes].
 [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church without the bishop's permission as valid and illicit] Theoretically valid but unlawful according to canon 1098 depending on why the bishop's permission was not given-- was he appealed to? Could he be appealed to? etc. This note is not substantially different from the previous note. It's a very complicated situation. [See also note  and "Regarding Canon 1098" at the end of the notes].
 [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church, without the Bishop's permission as invalid and illicit] Without any extenuating circumstance (such as one which would make canon 1098 applicable), the marriage would be invalid for wont of form and the lack of dispensation allowing the Catholic to marry elsewhere.
 [Civil Marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized as valid and licit] This is the impediment of disparity of cult (C. 1070), which renders a marriage invalid unless dispensed from (Woywod p. 712, see note ). So if this couple marries civilly without sufficient reason/dispensation, it is an invalid marriage. If, however, a dispensation is granted and the marriage before civil authorities is simply to gain civil benefits and recognition while the couple intend to or already have married in the Church with the proper dispensation and form, see note .
 [Marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized without the Bishop's permission, regardless of place] Marriage between a person baptized in the Catholic Church, or received into the Church from heresy or schism, and an unbaptized person is null and void" (Woywod p. 712, C. 1070)
 [All marriages where both parties are not baptized] The Church's law does not govern infidels. Such persons are capable of contracting natural marriages that are valid and lawful inasmuch as they meet the conditions established for validity and liciety according to whatever governing body to whom they answer.
Regarding Canon 1098: Canon 1098 is, in my opinion (so take it for what it's worth), a law which dispenses parties from the requirement to observe the proper form of marriage, i.e., it dispenses from the requirement to marry in front of one's pastor under pain of invalidity.
My opinion is based on the fact that the canon itself makes no requirement regarding the quality of witnesses (that is, it does not require them to be Catholic), nor have I ever read any commentators who require such a thing--indeed, most who write about the canon presuppose that this is not the case (i.e., when a couple to whom canon 1098 applies decide to marry in front of a civil official).
If that is the case, and I believe it is, then as a general (though exceptional) rule given the current ecclesiastical crisis, we can view the marriages between Catholics who marry outside the Church, and between Catholics and the baptized non-Catholics who marry outside the Church, as valid.
This study goes into great detail on the matter and echoes my own view about it.
Presumption of Validity: To bolster that contention, I would point out that marriage is a unique sacrament because it enjoys the favor of the law. That means that regardless of the type of doubt which may occur after the attempted contracting of marriage, marriages are presumed valid until and unless they are proven invalid.
Baptized in the Catholic Church: This term causes some confusion. It is not a colloquial expression, but a technical term in canon law. In principle, it has nothing at all to do with the actual minister or even the place of baptism but with the intent of the person who is seeking baptism (or in the case of infants, the intent of the parents who seek to secure baptism for their child).
Here is Woywod on the term:
Quote"The term 'baptized in the Catholic Church' creates some difficulty, especially in cases of baptism administered by lay persons. In the first place, if the father and mother, or at least one of them, are Catholics and adhere to the Church, the infant baptized at the request of the Catholic party by a non-Catholic doctor or nurse in a case of emergency may still be considered baptized in the Catholic Church, for there is but one baptism, and whether the reception of that baptism means the joining of the Catholic Church or of some non-Catholic denomination depends on the will of the person who has the right and duty to care for the welfare of the infant. If neither parent adheres to the Catholic Church (i.e., if both are Protestants or apostate Catholics), but one of them consents to have the infant baptized by a Catholic priest, one must know whether some guarantee was given of the Catholic education of the child; if so, the child was by the will of the parent legitimately enrolled in the Catholic Church. If such guarantee was not given, no Catholic priest or layman had the right to baptized the child, and it was not legitimately enrolled in the Church Church, except in urgent danger of death... The Committee for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code declared on April 29, 1940, that persons born of non-Catholics and baptized in the Catholic Church, but not raised as Catholics, are subject to the impediment of disparity of cult according to Canon 1070 when they marry unbaptized persons" (Woywod p. 713-14).
Again, "baptized in the Catholic Church" is not a "common sense" term, not a general colloquialism, or anything of the like. It is a technical term with an intended legal meaning and legal consequences in this context. Apostates, for instance, would be "baptized in the Catholic Church" and despite their current-non-membership and rejection of the Church, they would be bound by this law. The Church normally governs only members in the sense that most of her laws apply only to members, but by divine right she has jurisdiction over all the baptized, and it is her jurisprudential prerogative to decide the extent to which she imposes her laws on them.
Purpose of Table: This is all my own opinion based on the sources provided. It's not uncommon for questions about marital validity to pop up around the forums, so I thought having this table would be useful. The table itself was designed by Geremia and posted on CI a while back, with a request for someone to fill it in. I am more than happy to receive any corrections or additions to the table if I've got something wrong.
Please also note that when I reference a marriage as lawful, that doesn't necessarily mean that either party attempting the marriage is free of all guilt. For instance, while I believe that the marriage between two Catholics in front of a Lutheran minister can be lawful, I do not mean to imply by this that the parties necessarily act with all moral uprightness in so marrying, only that the marriage itself is not unlawful. Other Catholic and moral principles that are distinct from marriage law still apply to all individuals.
Furthermore, a note of validity assumes that parties are free to marry and that there are no other impediments which would render the marriage invalid. In cases where other diriment impediments are present, those can of course render a marriage null regardless of who the parties are and where (and in front of whom) they marry.
Quote from: De Matrimonio ch. 2 (Burke p. 38n19)Marriage could not signify that [the union of Christ and the church], unless between husband and wife, over and beyond the civil contract, there were also a spiritual union of souls. ... If God joins man and woman for this purpose, that by their spiritual union they should signify the spiritual union of Christ and the Church, he then doubtlessly gives them the grace without which they could not achieve that spiritual union.
Quote from: De Matrimonio ch. 5 (Burke p. 84n29)[Matrimony] is a union that consecrates and sanctifies souls [unio sacrans, et sanctificans animas].
Quote from: De Matrimonio ch. 6 (Burke p. 34n6 & Pius XI's Casti Connubii §110)The sacrament of matrimony can be regarded in two ways: first, in the making, and then in its permanent state. For it is a sacrament like that of the Eucharist, which not only when it is being conferred, but also while it remains, is a sacrament; for as long as the married parties are alive, so long is their union a sacrament of Christ and the Church.
Quote from: De Matrimonio ch. 6 (Burke p. 200n47)The third end is that marriage be a remedy against concupiscence [Tertius finis est ut sit coniugium in remedium contra concupiscentiam].
Quote from: De Matrimonio ch. 7 (Burke p. 7n8)The Council [of Trent] does not acknowledge any difference between Matrimony in ancient times, whether before or after the sin of Adam, and Matrimony as it is a Sacrament of the new law, insofar as concerns the rite. It places the distinction in that the latter is a cause of grace, while the former was not. According to the Council of Trent therefore, the matter, form and minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the same as they were in the Marriages of the ancients, which were not Sacraments.
Quote from: De Matrimonio ch. 14 (Burke p. 9n14). St. Robert summarizes the erroneous claim of Melchior Cano, O.P., that a priest's blessing constitutes the form of matrimonyif matrimony is truly a sacrament, then, besides the civil contract, it should have some sacred form, as well as an ecclesiastical minister.