Bunny Trails

[MaxPC]

Max, as I recall you've had training in Second Amendment law. Is it a fair summary that the church can ignore scripture, and the lay members can ignore the church?

Shooting from the hip, I am guessing you mean Canon Law?

Those with degrees in Canon Law are diverse: there are both clergy and laity with said degrees.

That said, the prime consideration within the Magisterium (teaching body of the RCC) is whether a proposed interpretation or practice is consistent with the Deposit of the Faith which is considered immutable and unchangeable. The Deposit of the Faith is comprised of the Bible and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

Panels and committees made up of clergy, religious, and laity spend a great deal of time and consume large quantities of coffee in their discussions regarding the validity of said practices and proposals in the context of that DoF. Some of these deliberations can take literally take decades. A few have been discussed for centuries.

To sum up, no the RCC cannot ignore Scripture as it is a part of the Deposit of the Faith. Whether or not laity ignore the RCC, well that is a matter between them and God. I choose to avoid judging another's actions as my own life keeps me quite busy; plus the Bible tells me to take care of my walk so that it witnesses to Christ.

[Ken]

Conversely, a minister could perform a completely religious marriage ceremony with no marriage license or civil contract involved. And then later the couple could go to the local courthouse to do a legal civil marriage.

Or a couple could just do one or the other and not both. Just a civil marriage at the courthouse. Or just a religious ceremony in a church or elsewhere.

The law only applies to the civil aspects of marriage, not the religious aspects.

Could - yes. May - no.

I've noticed that criminals can take a gun to a bank and get money. That doesn't mean it's legal.

I think you will find that if a couple wanted to do exactly what I just described. Namely separate the civil and religious aspects of a marriage into two separate processes. Then that marriage would be perfectly legal. And under those circumstances there would be no law governing any aspect of the religious ceremony including the participation of any minister or anyone else.

[Josh]

I think you will find that if a couple wanted to do exactly what I just described. Namely separate the civil and religious aspects of a marriage into two separate processes. Then that marriage would be perfectly legal. And under those circumstances there would be no law governing any aspect of the religious ceremony including the participation of any minister or anyone else.

That's nice that you think that. However, let's keep the goalposts right where you set them.

You claimed that it is perfectly legal for a minister to marry a couple without the couple getting a marriage licence first. I maintain that it is indeed not legal based on a rather simple reading of the law.

[Ken]

I think you will find that if a couple wanted to do exactly what I just described. Namely separate the civil and religious aspects of a marriage into two separate processes. Then that marriage would be perfectly legal. And under those circumstances there would be no law governing any aspect of the religious ceremony including the participation of any minister or anyone else.

That's nice that you think that. However, let's keep the goalposts right where you set them.

You claimed that it is perfectly legal for a minister to marry a couple without the couple getting a marriage licence first. I maintain that it is indeed not legal based on a rather simple reading of the law.

Again, it depends on your definition of marriage doesn’t it? If you are defining marriage as a civil contract licensed and recognized by the state then yes, you are perfectly correct. Because that is the law that you are reading. It applies to the solemnization of civil marriage contracts.

[Josh]

Again, it depends on your definition of marriage doesn’t it? If you are defining marriage as a civil contract licensed and recognized by the state then yes, you are perfectly correct. Because that is the law that you are reading. It applies to the solemnization of civil marriage contracts.

I guess it depends on your definition of "raw milk", "employee", "income", "sovereign citizen"...

The law applies to anything that calls itself marriage. A minister may not marry people without a marriage licence. It does not have some exception in it "Unless the minister decides this isn't a civil marriage, then he can marry two people without a marriage licence."

[Ken]

Again, it depends on your definition of marriage doesn’t it? If you are defining marriage as a civil contract licensed and recognized by the state then yes, you are perfectly correct. Because that is the law that you are reading. It applies to the solemnization of civil marriage contracts.

I guess it depends on your definition of "raw milk", "employee", "income", "sovereign citizen"...

The law applies to anything that calls itself marriage. A minister may not marry people without a marriage licence. It does not have some exception in it "Unless the minister decides this isn't a civil marriage, then he can marry two people without a marriage licence."

So, hypothetical example in your church.

A young couple join your church who were previously married in some courthouse before they became Christians. They already have civil marriage license but never did a religious ceremony.

If they wanted to have a religious marriage ceremony in your church what would they be told? That such a thing was impossible? That they had to go and get a second marriage license and file a duplicate marriage license with the court? Or would your church perform a religious ceremony without duplicating the civil marriage aspects since the couple already had a civil marriage?

[Josh]

So, hypothetical example in your church.

A young couple join your church who were previously married in some courthouse before they became Christians. They already have civil marriage license but never did a religious ceremony.

If they wanted to have a religious marriage ceremony in your church what would they be told? That such a thing was impossible? That they had to go and get a second marriage license and file a duplicate marriage license with the court? Or would your church perform a religious ceremony without duplicating the civil marriage aspects since the couple already had a civil marriage?

It's not for legal reasons but in our church circles such a religious ceremony would be seen as unnecessary. We consider people validly married outside of our church to be, well, validly married, and they don't need a second ceremony to somehow make it valid.

In Brazil or Mexico the civic marriage is rather complicated so couples often get it a month or two ahead of the wedding, with the understanding they are not actually married until the church wedding happens. This is something discerned by the local brethren who understand the prevailing local customs the best.

In some African countries, some people don't ever bother with a legal marriage; often just moving in togther and then being de facto marriage. Our church's stance in such cases is to encourage such a couple to get properly get a legal marriage taken care of.

[ohio jones]

Max, as I recall you've had training in Second Amendment law.

Shooting from the hip, I am guessing you mean Canon Law?

Yeah, the 2A reference was triggered by the multiple mentions of cannon law. Thanks for the explanation of how things work in the Catholic world.

[MaxPC]

Max, as I recall you've had training in Second Amendment law.

Shooting from the hip, I am guessing you mean Canon Law?

Yeah, the 2A reference was triggered by the multiple mentions of cannon law. Thanks for the explanation of how things work in the Catholic world.

That spell check feature creates some explosive rhetoric.

[JayP]

Max, respectfully I think your representation of being a Plain Catholic is extremely distorting and portrays and unrealistic situation.

There is no such thing as Plain Catholics, not in the sense that there are Byzantines, or Latin Mass traditionalists. Or various orders off clergy. Plain Catholic is a hobby, an interest and not a movement within the church if notable influences, such as Charasmatics once were.

That does not mean you are not Catholic, nor your other explanations of Catholic practice or rules is wrong.
Or that you or others seeking to be Plain Catholics are bad.

But no, tell me your priests or bishop operate outside normal diocesan mechanisms? If they do they are not licit.