Matrimony

[Philip G.]

Start listening at minute 12:30 through 14:30, with the focus being what is said at minute 14:00.  You will see there is a problem regarding the concept of "witness".  The ASL community admits they need a "team" of interpreters to bridge these two different "worlds".  It would be one thing for catholics to be required to marry before a priest while non catholics were required to marry before a likewise lay "witness" singular of theirs.  But, the pope doesn't even grant us that with the clandestine approval that surfaced around the same time as this bit regarding the deaf/dumb.  And, with this deaf/dumb papal approval, it runs into the problem of by their own admission interpretation not being "sufficient" by way of one/singular person.  That is a "consent"ual problem.  Because, who is to judge whether there is consent?  Are "two consenting adults" required to judge "consent"?  The pope offers a losing proposition.  Among catholics, the witness/judge of consent is the priest.  Among non catholics, it must at the very least theoretically be a competent witness in the singular, not plural.  Anything short of this is a double standard, be it off to the left or the right.

[Philip G.]

And, don't act like "witness" in the singular verses the plural is a non issue.  It happens to be a contemporary issue.  Think of current sspx marriages with the novus ordo priest present.  If I am not mistaken, the novus ordo priest receives the vows, while the sspx priest stands by until he can say the traditional latin mass following.  At least that is how it occurred initially.  Perhaps now the situation has changed.  As a result, some sspxers were upset.  Don't you think if the "witness" could be plural, meaning both priests "equally" preside over the marriage, it would be done?  That would certainly solve the problem of having some potentially "doubtfully valid" novus ordo priest preside over the sacrament.  This idea of "two consenting adults"/"witnesses" certainly fits with modern novus ordo concelebrations, just not with tradition.  Unless, perhaps tradition is as that one fat pope said it is, "I am tradition". 

[Michael Wilson]

PhillipG. Stated:

Just as +Lefebvre rejected the new code, which was codified by a successor of Peter, canon law, even past canon law, is not above scrutiny.

It certainly is; the universal laws of the Church for example those of the Code of Canon law are “above scrutiny”; the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Pius VI in “Auctorem Fidei” prop. 78:

78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

Msgr. Lefebvre began to publicly express doubts about the legitimacy of J.P.II because of the errors and harmful discipline in the new Code. He could not reconcile the fact of harmful discipline with a legitimate Pope.
As to the “Matter” and the “Form” of Holy Matrimony consists essentially in the matrimonial contract itself. Here is “Sacrae Theologiae Summa” IVB pg. 183:

196. Doctrine of the Church. The Church has often defended the teaching of this thesis (Matrimony Consists essentially of the matrimonial contract itself); when the occasion demanded it. Nicholas I, responding to some questions of the Bulgarians, explains the ceremonies used by the Roman Church in the nuptial blessing, and he concludes: “Such a great lack of resources sometimes limits them, so that in preparation for the marriage they have almost nothing; and because of this according to the laws the consent alone of those who wish to get married suffices. And if, by chance, this consent alone is lacking in the marriage, everything else is vain, even if solemnized by intercourse.”

So it is the mutual consent of the spouses to enter into the contract that is the essence of the sacrament; the priest does not play any role in the sacrament except as an official witness to the contract and to bless the marriage.

Meaning, the priest and the couple are incumbent on satisfying the intention... If the priest is incumbent on the matter and the intention of the sacrament of matrimony.  I refuse to believe that intention has been "declared" by the deaf and the dumb.

The priest is not part of the Sacrament. So the consequence does not follow.

This is not to say that the deaf and the dumb cannot constitute/satisfy a clandestine marriage.  But, the church does not perform clandestine marriages.  The church simply doesn't invalidate them

If the deaf and dumb can contract a clandestine marriage, they most certainly contract a marriage before a priest.

Presumption of validity seems a word proximate to probability.  You would think there would be confession of belief as to validity.  Also, does it not seem false that "desire" is the considered the matter of this sacrament?  Who is to judge the desire?  Who is to judge whether the consent was legitimate?  Who is to judge whether there is an intention to consummate the marriage?   I will tell you.  The priest is to judge.  And, that makes the priest the actual "matter" of this sacrament.  The priest is the physical substance.

The church does not judge interior intentions only the exterior acts and words; marriages in which the couple have complied with the laws of the Church are “presumed” valid and have the force of law until there is sufficient proof proving the contrary.
re. “Desire, is the matter of the sacrament”; The free will expressed consent to enter into the Marriage is what constitutes the “matter”.
Again, the priest has no part in the Sacrament.

Just as in the mass, when the words are spoken, which is the form, the bread/body is raised and the faithful are encouraged to adore.  Yet, the words have not yet been spoken over the chalice, and neither has yet been consumed, which is required for validity.  Yet, we adore.  These are many separate moments, yet they make one heavenly moment.  Likewise, in matrimony, the form can be the words from the spouses, while the physical matter is the priest.  And, the intention is dependent on all of these parties. 

Yes, because at the moment that the words: “This is my Body” are pronounced, the bread becomes the Body and Blood of Our Lord even before the words of the consecration of the wine. The twofold consecration and the consumption of the species is necessary for the validity of the Mass; but a Mass interrupted involuntarily at the consecration of the Bread, would have to be finished by the priest; but the words of consecration of the bread would not have to be.

[Michael Wilson]

PhillipG.

n the same respect, but on the subject of orders, prospective candidates to the priesthood are held hostage by their superiors as the sacrament is dangled over them until they get out of the seminarian exactly what type of candidate/character they want.  And, most of the time it is the wrong type of candidate with the wrong type of character.   With that said, should a deaf person be admitted to the priesthood?  Should a dumb person be admitted to the priesthood?  I think we know the answer.  But, when it comes to matrimony, there is no apprehension at all.

The scrutiny involved in candidates for the priesthood involve judging of their moral and intellectual fitness for the important position that they are destined to fill; even so, unworthy candidates still go through. The fact of being deaf or dumb automatically excludes one from the priesthood, not because of moral or intellectual unfitness, but because of physical unfitness; a deaf priest cannot hear Confessions and a mute priest cannot confect valid sacraments. This is not the case with the dumb person; who can express their outward consent to the sacramental contract, just like in civil law a dumb person can validly enter into a legal contract by outward sign or writing. 

[Philip G.]

Michael Wilson - Thanks to the modernists and Francis, your appeal to papal authority doesn't work as you would like.  Popes have been contradicting popes for centuries.  Try again. 

Concerning your #196 and the bulgarians, the "suzerain" pope nicholas 1st is not on my good list. And, it is a prime example of the exception becoming the rule.  The pope does have the keys.  But, it is a door we have to fit through.  It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. 

Fail.  Your response about deaf/mute contracting clandestine marriage reveals that my argument went right over your head.  Because, I said no such thing. 

You cannot have it both ways.  If "the church does not judge interior intentions, only exterior acts and words", then desire is not the matter of the sacrament, which I have said from the beginning.  For both matter and form can be judged, and desire is not an exterior action or word.  The pagans who tear out the heart of a maiden might believe desire can be judged.  But, not us.  The marital bed remains un-defiled, even from prying "eyes".  The matter, which is physical, of the sacrament, is the physical priest.  Instead of desire being judged, a type of "anti desire/opposite" is judged.  And, that is possible because "nobody""desires" to commit sacrilege.  That is how the priest is the matter.  The priest is a sacred person, and matrimony is a "sacrament". 

Regarding an involuntary interruption, that the bread is now the body is a speculative probabil(ior)ist theological opinion.  It is not doctrine.  If you are for such a position, how can you per say be against con-celebration?  As a sedevacantist, surely you are against the practice of novus ordo priests all raising their hands and speaking in unison the words of consecration.  I have from day one in my profile stated that I am a rigorist.  I do not embrace the speculative opinion that if a priest dies after having said the words over the bread but before uttering the words over the chalice that the bread is the body. 

[Philip G.]

More strength to my position is that perfect divorce is possible in a marriage that is sanctioned only(not consummated), when done by a solemn profession(entry into religious life).  The priest can undo a marriage, but plays no role in its uniting?  The consummation is the part that is done solely by the spouses.  The priests and the church don't observe the consummation and speculate, is there desire?  "It appears there is desire".   No.  Desire as such, which is unto the end of matrimony, is not judged at the time of consent.  Desire not to commit sacrilege is judged, and that is impossible without a sacred person in the singular.  In our case as catholics it is the priest.

[Michael Wilson]

PhilipG:

Michael Wilson - Thanks to the modernists and Francis, your appeal to papal authority doesn't work as you would like.  Popes have been contradicting popes for centuries.  Try again.

Phil, my appeal is to the "Negative Infallibility" of Church discipline; the contrary position (yours); has already been condemned.
My objection stands.
More to follow, but it doesn't look good for you from any Catholic aspect.

[christulsa]

With all due respect Phillip, your penchant for questioning centuries old, established Church teaching is concerning to me, especially when weighed against your otherwise pious, helpful observations on other subjects.   It sounds almost as if you subscribe to some kind of gnostic Catholic theology like Jansenism.  That or I hope you are not flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy?  It must be something along those lines.  To claim the Church for 1000 years has been modernist, or that the Church for 1000 years has shifted towards worship of Mary, or that the deaf and mute can't contract a valid Catholic marriage in the Church, etc, etc.  I prefer not to engage these kinds of debates which belong more in the Non-Catholic forum because, to be truthful, you are essentially calling into question the Catholic Church itself.  Is that your intention?   

[Philip G.]

Michael Wilson - says the sedevacantist. 

Christulsa - I could care less about deaf/mute politics/culture or clandestine politics.  They are symptoms of the problem.  Do you really think that the deaf/mute or the "clan"destine are concerned about church politics? They are a tool in this regard, just as amazonians are, which I will say regarding this is no fault of their own.  The crux of this matter is twofold.  One, the matter of the sacrament of matrimony has been changed.  Two, the church has no business validating the marriages of the clandestine(which includes in the extreme the deaf/mute).  They have business not invalidating them.  The church has no such business just as the USA has/had no business favoring those in the married state over those of the lay state.  This is to be laid at the feet of the bishops and the pope.  Just as the deaf were useful to the modernists, they will be an opportunity for me.  Or, as Christ would say, "neither he nor his parents sinned, he was made blind so that I could heal him". 

And, the subscription you are thinking of is fiftiesism.  Except, I am not the one subscribing to it.   

[christulsa]

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Ditto.  And I tried. 

[Michael Wilson]

PhillG.

Concerning your #196 and the bulgarians, the "suzerain" pope nicholas 1st is not on my good list. And, it is a prime example of the exception becoming the rule.  The pope does have the keys.  But, it is a door we have to fit through.  It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. 

"not on your good list" has absolutely no weight in a discussion about the teaching of the Church.
"the exception becoming the rule": The "rule of faith" is the teaching of the Magisterium, i.e. The Pope and the bishops in union with him.

[Michael Wilson]

PhillG.

Fail.  Your response about deaf/mute contracting clandestine marriage reveals that my argument went right over your head.  Because, I said no such thing. [size]

Vs.

This is not to say that the deaf and the dumb cannot constitute/satisfy a clandestine marriage.  But, the church does not perform clandestine marriages.  The church simply doesn't invalidate them

If to "constitute/satisfy a clandestine marriage" isn't to contract a marriage, then English in your hands has lost its meaning.

You cannot have it both ways.  If "the church does not judge interior intentions, only exterior acts and words", then desire is not the matter of the sacrament, which I have said from the beginning.  For both matter and form can be judged, and desire is not an exterior action or word.

I'm not "having it both ways"; the Church doesn't judge interior intentions except as we exteriorly manifest them such as in Confessing our sins in Confession or the priest in pronouncing the words of the form of a Sacrament.
Leo XIII "Apostolicae Curae"

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.

in application of the outward consent given to the Marriage Contract, the Church assumes that the vows are taken freely and the couple understands the obligation of the vows. This is the case with those who can speak so also with those who can't but give their assent non-verbally.
Therefore the Church accepts the validity of the Confession of mutes who communicate their sins through signs or writing or of Confession in a language that one doesn't speak to a foreign priest, also by signs or indicating the sins on a card with the sins on them.

[Michael Wilson]

PhillG.

The matter, which is physical, of the sacrament, is the physical priest

This absolutely wrong; you cannot find any official Catholic source that will substantiate your claim.

Regarding an involuntary interruption, that the bread is now the body is a speculative probabil(ior)ist theological opinion.  It is not doctrine.  If you are for such a position, how can you per say be against con-celebration?  As a sedevacantist, surely you are against the practice of novus ordo priests all raising their hands and speaking in unison the words of consecration.  I have from day one in my profile stated that I am a rigorist.  I do not embrace the speculative opinion that if a priest dies after having said the words over the bread but before uttering the words over the chalice that the bread is the body.

Yes, the Church teaches that immediately after the pronouncing of the words of Consecration over the bread, transubstantiation occurs and therefore she requires (In the TLM) adoration given to the consecrated bread immediately after the pronouncing of the form by both the celebrant and the faithful, even before the consecration of the wine.
"The Con-celbration": Only one priest actually effects consecration, no matter how many priests pronounce the words; so the N.O. Practice of Con-celebration is useless and detrimental because it gives the false impression that as many con-celebrants are at the altar, there are as many Masses being celebrated. 
Your opinions as well as mine are worthless in a discussion about the teaching of the Church. So if you want to discuss the "matter" or "form" of a Sacrament or Sacramental theology, the last thing you should do is introduce your own opinions as you have done on this thread and thrown out the teaching of the Popes and theologians; rather the reverse would be the correct procedure. 

[Michael Wilson]

PhilG.

The crux of this matter is twofold.  One, the matter of the sacrament of matrimony has been changed.  Two, the church has no business validating the marriages of the clandestine(which includes in the extreme the deaf/mute).  They have business not invalidating them.  The church has no such business just as the USA has/had no business favoring those in the married state over those of the lay state.  This is to be laid at the feet of the bishops and the pope

1. There has been no change in the "matter" of the sacrament of matrimony. There has been a controversy in the Church at times as to what constitutes the "matter"; in reading up on this I did not find any theologian upholding your opinion that the "priest is the matter of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony"; this is totally bizarre; which happens when somebody goes about entering into speculation about the teaching of the Church by throwing out "the teaching of the Church".
2."The Church has no business validating the marriages of the clandestines and deaf mutes". It  is precisely the Church's business to regulate the discipline and doctrine regarding faith, morals and the sacraments.
3."Just as the U.S.A. Has no business"; The state has no power over the sacrament of Holy Matrimony as opposed to the Church whose power was granted by Christ Himself.
4. "This has to be laid at the feet of the bishops and the Pope":
[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
[16] He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

[Philip G.]

Michael Wilson - If I wanted to dialogue with sedevacantists, I would not be a member of this forum.  I am as much opposed to your orientation as I am that of Pope Francis.  You can cite your popes and your probabil(ior)ists all you want, it wont become coherent or convincing.  At this point, I wager that those I am interested in are more primed for a reasonable argument than a syllogistic appeal to authority. 

You look so bad on this point.  That an involuntary interrupted consecration is valid is based on the opinion that consecration outside of mass is valid(you know, consecrate all the bread in the bakery), which is not a doctrine of the church.  Despite disagreement on a single particular, Canon Hesse discusses this very thing.  And, I am free to dissent because as Fr. Hesse concludes, consecration outside of mass is not church teaching.  That is not to say that an interrupted consecration is invalid.  It is doubtful.  That is the teaching of the church.  It is therefore treated as invalid in the practical order(I prefer +Kelly to +Thuc).  Apply that "properly" to our discussion, which discusses consecration "outside of mass" as a result of its lack of completion, and you cannot conclude that transubstantiation occurs as it does under normal circumstances.  The circumstances have changed.  It is pathetic for you to claim the higher ground when you fail to even acknowledge the principles at play. 

My "opinion" is not "worthless".  "Your opinion" may be, as you yourself state.  But, that is from your mouth.  Don't speak for me.