|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 13, 2023 3:48:08 GMT
My Catholic mama taught me that the purpose of marriage was for each spouse to help the other one get to heaven. Sounds reasonable to me. Yes, that's the first reason listed in the Baltimore Catechism. From BC#3: Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are: (1) To enable the
husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their
souls; (2) To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by
bringing children into the world to serve God; (3) To prevent sins
against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the
marriage state.I'm not clear that these are necessarily in order of importance, though just from a sensus catholicus, (3) would seem to be, indeed, the least important of the three.
|
|
|
Post by copper on Jul 13, 2023 5:24:00 GMT
That's why I'm wondering why unity and procreation are held as equal purposes in today's teaching.
Also, traditionally marriage wasn't about love even though many Catholics think that's what the sacrament is about. When people get married they enter a different office or vocation of life, and the one vocation that allows the conjugal act.
Why does the Church take a different approach now? I assume that current teaching is building on prior, doesn't it? The 1907 Code of Canon is still in force, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by RN69 on Jul 13, 2023 8:09:54 GMT
My Seton Hall educated Catholic father taught me that the marriage act was for both procreation and recreation. And that God made conjugal love pleasurable for us so we would desire to engage in the procreation process with Him. My father's education came well before VII but here is an excerpt from post VII 2nd edition of the Catechism that validates what he learned way back then.
Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: "The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation."
My Catholic education occurred before, during and after VII. It instructed me that because marriage is a sacrament, God's grace is bestowed on a couple who engages in the marital act which is an outward sign of this sacrament. So I think that the Catholic Church's teaching today isn't a different approach but is a building on its prior teaching. I'm not by any means a scholar religious or otherwise. This is just my own opinion.
Taken from CNA 6/20/2023 Lesson 26: On marriage Q. 1009 What is the outward sign in the Sacrament of Matrimony, and in what does the whole essence of the marriage contract consist?
A. The outward sign in the Sacrament of matrimony is the mutual consent of the persons, expressed by words or signs in accordance with the laws of the Church. The whole essence of the marriage contract consists in the surrender by the persons of their bodies to each other and in declaring by word or sign that they make this surrender and take each other for husband and wife now and for life.
BTW the Code of Canon Law was from 1917 and it was annulled when a new code was issued in 1983. The Code from 1917 was written in Latin and it was forbidden to translate it. I am unfamiliar with either so don't know what changes may have been made.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 13, 2023 15:17:08 GMT
That's why I'm wondering why unity and procreation are held as equal purposes in today's teaching. Also, traditionally marriage wasn't about love even though many Catholics think that's what the sacrament is about. When people get married they enter a different office or vocation of life, and the one vocation that allows the conjugal act. Why does the Church take a different approach now? I assume that current teaching is building on prior, doesn't it? The 1907 Code of Canon is still in force, isn't it? No, it's not, and not to nitpick, but it is the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not 1907. The 1983 Code superseded it.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 13, 2023 15:23:14 GMT
My Seton Hall educated Catholic father taught me that the marriage act was for both procreation and recreation. And that God made conjugal love pleasurable for us so we would desire to engage in the procreation process with Him. My father's education came well before VII but here is an excerpt from post VII 2nd edition of the Catechism that validates what he learned way back then. Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: "The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation." My Catholic education occurred before, during and after VII. It instructed me that because marriage is a sacrament, God's grace is bestowed on a couple who engages in the marital act which is an outward sign of this sacrament. So I think that the Catholic Church's teaching today isn't a different approach but is a building on its prior teaching. I'm not by any means a scholar religious or otherwise. This is just my own opinion. Taken from CNA 6/20/2023 Lesson 26: On marriage Q. 1009 What is the outward sign in the Sacrament of Matrimony, and in what does the whole essence of the marriage contract consist? A. The outward sign in the Sacrament of matrimony is the mutual consent of the persons, expressed by words or signs in accordance with the laws of the Church. The whole essence of the marriage contract consists in the surrender by the persons of their bodies to each other and in declaring by word or sign that they make this surrender and take each other for husband and wife now and for life. BTW the Code of Canon Law was from 1917 and it was annulled when a new code was issued in 1983. The Code from 1917 was written in Latin and it was forbidden to translate it. I am unfamiliar with either so don't know what changes may have been made. Sorry, I didn't see your comments when I wrote mine. There were commentaries on the 1917 Code, and I have one of them, Woywod and Smith. It makes for very interesting reading, if you like that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Jul 13, 2023 16:06:12 GMT
It is essential in any marriage to occasionally allow your husband access to the adult day care facility run for husbands or some equivalent of this:
|
|
|
Post by copper on Jul 13, 2023 16:43:22 GMT
That's why I'm wondering why unity and procreation are held as equal purposes in today's teaching. Also, traditionally marriage wasn't about love even though many Catholics think that's what the sacrament is about. When people get married they enter a different office or vocation of life, and the one vocation that allows the conjugal act. Why does the Church take a different approach now? I assume that current teaching is building on prior, doesn't it? The 1907 Code of Canon is still in force, isn't it? No, it's not, and not to nitpick, but it is the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not 1907. The 1983 Code superseded it. Oh, I always thought that everything from 1917 was still in force. Mostly due to debates regarding the requirement of women covering during Mass.
|
|
|
Post by copper on Jul 13, 2023 16:55:34 GMT
My Seton Hall educated Catholic father taught me that the marriage act was for both procreation and recreation. And that God made conjugal love pleasurable for us so we would desire to engage in the procreation process with Him. My father's education came well before VII but here is an excerpt from post VII 2nd edition of the Catechism that validates what he learned way back then. Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: "The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation." My Catholic education occurred before, during and after VII. It instructed me that because marriage is a sacrament, God's grace is bestowed on a couple who engages in the marital act which is an outward sign of this sacrament. So I think that the Catholic Church's teaching today isn't a different approach but is a building on its prior teaching. I'm not by any means a scholar religious or otherwise. This is just my own opinion. Taken from CNA 6/20/2023 Lesson 26: On marriage Q. 1009 What is the outward sign in the Sacrament of Matrimony, and in what does the whole essence of the marriage contract consist? A. The outward sign in the Sacrament of matrimony is the mutual consent of the persons, expressed by words or signs in accordance with the laws of the Church. The whole essence of the marriage contract consists in the surrender by the persons of their bodies to each other and in declaring by word or sign that they make this surrender and take each other for husband and wife now and for life. BTW the Code of Canon Law was from 1917 and it was annulled when a new code was issued in 1983. The Code from 1917 was written in Latin and it was forbidden to translate it. I am unfamiliar with either so don't know what changes may have been made. Here's an article that summarizes some of the thoughts I had when reading the documents: crisismagazine.com/opinion/procreation-still-primary-end-marriageI did find the 1944 document and read it, and it was that document which started my questions. This is also an essay arguing why the primary purpose of marriage is procreation: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5822
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 13, 2023 17:04:25 GMT
No, it's not, and not to nitpick, but it is the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not 1907. The 1983 Code superseded it. Oh, I always thought that everything from 1917 was still in force. Mostly due to debates regarding the requirement of women covering during Mass. Some of those debates are fueled by sedevacantists who recognize the 1917 CIC as still having binding force (the 1983 CIC being, in their eyes, illegitimate), as well as the scriptural admonition for women to cover their heads in church. Any woman may choose either to veil, or not to veil. More traditionally-minded Catholic women generally do, even at the Novus Ordo. It's their free choice.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jul 13, 2023 18:15:20 GMT
There's not been any requirement of women covering their heads in church since Vatican II.
Women may choose to do this as a practice they feel is reverent or spiritually helpful. I will usually do it when I attend TLM because the point of TLM for me is to have Mass the way it would be in 1962, and women would have worn a veil or a hat to church then. But women are allowed to attend TLM with no head covering and many do. Similarly, women are allowed to cover their head at OF or other non-traditional services if they want, but are not required to do so or not do so (except in some exceptional cases where a woman is serving in some ministry at Mass such as lector, EMHC, or musician, and the pastor has a dress code for Mass ministry that addresses head covering or lack thereof).
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 13, 2023 21:21:45 GMT
There's not been any requirement of women covering their heads in church since Vatican II. Women may choose to do this as a practice they feel is reverent or spiritually helpful. I will usually do it when I attend TLM because the point of TLM for me is to have Mass the way it would be in 1962, and women would have worn a veil or a hat to church then. But women are allowed to attend TLM with no head covering and many do. Similarly, women are allowed to cover their head at OF or other non-traditional services if they want, but are not required to do so or not do so (except in some exceptional cases where a woman is serving in some ministry at Mass such as lector, EMHC, or musician, and the pastor has a dress code for Mass ministry that addresses head covering or lack thereof). At the diocesan TLM I attend (cannot go at this time due to distance and my mother's infirmity), head covering or not is at each woman's discretion. I think they have courtesy veils available, but there is no expectation one way or the other. Regular attendees usually do veil. Nobody gives it a second thought one way or the other. SSPX and other such venues (whether sedevacantist or not) might have different expectations, but I don't think anyone would ever be turned away on account of it. At most, the priest or one of the ladies might say something like "women usually wear head coverings here", as a word to the wise for next time, but no judgment, no condemnation.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jul 13, 2023 21:40:39 GMT
SSPX and sedes are technically still separate from the Church. Some of them have other rules like no TV. I appreciate that SSPX might at this point have some valid sacraments, but I don’t look to them for guidance on church teachings, what to wear or not wear to Mass, or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by copper on Jul 14, 2023 4:03:32 GMT
Oh, I always thought that everything from 1917 was still in force. Mostly due to debates regarding the requirement of women covering during Mass. Some of those debates are fueled by sedevacantists who recognize the 1917 CIC as still having binding force (the 1983 CIC being, in their eyes, illegitimate), as well as the scriptural admonition for women to cover their heads in church. Any woman may choose either to veil, or not to veil. More traditionally-minded Catholic women generally do, even at the Novus Ordo. It's their free choice. Aren't the other Church documents and teaching still in force? The 1917 CIC isn't but that's not to say that Casti Connubii isn't.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 14, 2023 4:26:23 GMT
Some of those debates are fueled by sedevacantists who recognize the 1917 CIC as still having binding force (the 1983 CIC being, in their eyes, illegitimate), as well as the scriptural admonition for women to cover their heads in church. Any woman may choose either to veil, or not to veil. More traditionally-minded Catholic women generally do, even at the Novus Ordo. It's their free choice. Aren't the other Church documents and teaching still in force? The 1917 CIC isn't but that's not to say that Casti Connubii isn't. Canon Law is disciplinary, not doctrinal. Church discipline can and does change with changing times and circumstances. Casti connubii, on the other hand, is doctrinal pertaining to morality. Doctrine can develop but cannot change, such that what was true yesterday is false today, or what was bad yesterday is good today (and vice versa for both). Humanae vitae expanded upon Casti connubii and addressed the issue of birth control pills, which didn't exist in 1930. Moreover, in that the doctrine was under attack in the 1960s, Paul VI dissected the whole issue of contraception, and explained with reference to natural law precisely why contraception is gravely immoral. The Church often responds to attacks upon her doctrine with more developed and more highly elaborated reasons and justifications, and this was one of those cases. But nothing was "changed".
|
|
|
Post by copper on Jul 14, 2023 4:43:08 GMT
If nothing was changed, then why did teaching shift from marriage's primary purpose being procreation to procreative and unitive? Were they always held as equal?
|
|