Now very few people on unassumingly lazy, more prokrastiniruyut as last hipsters
not finished . Am I worse than everyone? I, too, procrastination tortured to death. Instead of starting to write a plan of the thesis on a boring topic about taxation, I go through all sorts of exciting moments of half-forgotten canon law in my head. And do not care that the exam has already been passed and that even the professor has forgotten me like a bad dream, despite my emphasis and monstrous language errors, as well as comments like “And I, by the way, are from Russia, and we have Today, January 7th, Christmas is celebrated. ” Anyway, about the intricacies of concluding a Catholic marriage, thinking is much more interesting than doing things. And who suffers? Right, blog readers. Well, then I started a blog so as not to suffer in one person.
The topic of the marriage union concluded in the Catholic Church, I have already touched on the example of the writers of the Spanish Princess series , even if they are not remembered by night. But most of all on this issue I worry about the English king Edward IV – of course, there is no one else to worry about, only this foreign citizen who died more than five hundred years ago. It would seem that let Benedict Cumberbatch worry about him, since he is a relative to him through Richard III . But no, it’s a shame for me how it Edward so crap with his marriage to Eleanor Butler and Cumberbatch, maybe this fact does not shake at all because of his, fact, low significance. How was it possible to consciously allow natural bigamy when you, for a moment, the king? Consciously – because I didn’t know what legal consequences the exchange of vows in the presence of a peasant in a cassock gives rise to – it was absolutely necessary that there had been a severe frost out of the forest , having spent about the entire previous life there in the forest.
In early Christianity, everyone married according to the laws of the Roman Empire. Even though you are a Christian, a pagan, please observe the rules of Roman law, which are one for all. Moreover, the church at that time was something like a spontaneous popular movement: neither a rigid hierarchy, nor your own laws and binding rules, nor a repressive apparatus and sanctions for unconscious elements. Sheer confusion and vacillation, where can I introduce my own marriage procedure? Already at the time of Emperor Constantine, when Christianity was legalized and practically became a state religion, the church began to resemble an organization: a hierarchy appeared, its property began to be acquired, the authority of bishops began to strengthen. Things went off somehow. But they got married anyway the old fashioned way. The newlyweds themselves remained the main participants in the marriage ceremony,
Then the Roman Empire was covered with a copper basin, and the church, on the contrary, survived. And in the harsh times of the Middle Ages, she began to position herself as the heiress of the deceased empire. Like, only we have preserved cultural and religious values, without us, in general, everyone would have buried it not clearly where. And in the wake of nostalgia for the bright times of great Rome (such as “Oh, what a country they ruined!”), The influence of the church began to increase. The Christian church grew stronger and entered many areas of life. Here, for example, the conclusion of marriage to supervise the beginning. We, they say, we will bless your marriage unions, for this we have a license from Himself. And the fact that you walk like fools, without our blessing. So completely gird out for long. What other opium is for the people? Do you feel sorry if the bishop waved his hands a little above your head at the solemn moment of marriage and said a few words for edification? Here you go,
Nevertheless, the clergy never denied that marriage was part of private law and that the main participants in the event were still newlyweds expressing their consent. However, they, of course, and from the barbarians gathered all. For the barbarians, everything was much simpler; they didn’t bother with all sorts of vulgar voluntary consent, especially for the bride. “And who ever asks the bride? A bag on his head – and fuy! ”(C) Because the bride is the goods that her dad passes to his business partner – the groom. And the moment of transfer of ownership of the goods is the consummation of the marriage. That is, he had sex on the first wedding night – anyway, he signed the act of acceptance. After the claim to the defective product will not be accepted. Eyes had to be pulled out on time and not signed to summarize anything.
Some church fathers vigorously endorsed this barbaric – in the most direct and pristine sense – approach. And they considered the sexual act as a condition for the validity of marriage. So Catherine of Aragon insisted on this : she had nothing with her first husband – that means he was not a husband, and so, understand who the hell. But basically they considered marriage as valid if the newlyweds expressed their consent. And consummation just made the marriage indissoluble.
And again, this strange word is “consent.” With the consent of the newlyweds, the church theoretically rushed about as with a written bag, which did not stop in practice from hammering a big bolt on the wishes of the bride and groom. That is, in fact, the lion’s share of marriage unions could be annulled, since consent did not come from the depths of the soul and was not a product of free will, but was given because dad, for example, threatened to kill with logs. Or deprive the inheritance, and here it would be better to be log . But the official position of the church has always been that the will of dear marriages is a fundamental element of church marriage.
That is, you, first of all, must understand where you enter with an unshakable foot. To realize what marriage is, its characteristics, goals and objectives. The goals were simple and definite: the birth and education of offspring plus retention within the framework of their libido. If you marry this chuchundra in orange blossom and creepy roses, not having the intention to remain faithful to her and raise joint children, but simply hope that her dad will make you the financial director in his company, then your marriage, I’m sorry, is fictitious. If you went to the altar with a young millionaire of about 96 years old, hoping to remain a young rich widow in the near future, I have bad news for you: your marriage is not registered in the heavenly office, although you have a heavenly office with such an approach to life!
There are other defects in consent that call into question the inviolability of your marriage. A mistake, for example, regarding the personality of your intended second half. For example, you swear eternal love and fidelity to your beloved Vasily Bartolomeo Montecchi, and you do not notice with a swarm that Bartolomeo is standing next to you, but, on the contrary, Capulet. But you, for example, care. Perhaps you do not want to marry Capulet for reasons of principle, and if you wore glasses in time, you would never have given your consent. And after the wedding, your question naturally arose: “Did I give the Promise to love to that?” (c) In this case, you can safely reject the marriage or even recognize it as non-existent. But if you made a mistake, say, in the financial situation of the chosen one, believing that he has in his account with Sberbanka couple of ten million dollars, but in reality, he had so much, only debts to the same Sberbank – well then, in grief and joy, as they say.
And here’s another psychological abuse may be. This is when your mother clutches at the neckline with a cry: “You are no longer my son!” and threatens to die right now right from a heart attack if you do not marry the Daughters of Mom’s Friend – the queen of a neighboring state with a dowry in the amount of this very state. A dowry of this size will certainly comfort you a little, but it will not cancel the fact that your own free will did not participate in the decision to live specifically with this woman. Moreover, psychological violence does not always accompany money and territories.
Or physical abuse. Well, that’s all! Remember the movie “Queen Margot” with Isabelle Adjani? There, the heroine categorically refused to answer “yes” to the priest’s obsessive questions about whether she accidentally wants to take this man as her legitimate husband, and was silent like a fish on ice, thereby sabotaging the fulfillment of the agreement that her relatives had so successfully concluded. Then her brother crept up behind and pushed his sister’s head, so that she swung forward with a strangled sound. Nevertheless, the priest, with a clear conscience, counted this involuntary movement as an expression of consent. Because, as I said, in reality, the goodwill of the spouses and their relatives and the church did not give a damn. Although in a good way a marriage made with the use of physical violence is not only subject to annulment, but does not exist at all,
But if the bride and groom agreed, then they could express it in any form. No one limited them to some obligatory texts, obligatory actions, or even the obligatory composition of the ceremony participants. Actually, the presence of the newlyweds themselves was enough. There is a priest who is ready to bless — this is good, but it was possible, in principle, to bring marriage vows to each other in a clean field and in any form, if only intentions could be traced unambiguously. And that’s all, you are married, and the church will have to admit it.
This bench was covered by the Trent church church, the beginning of which dates back to 1545 (that is, 62 years after the death of Edward IV, whom I worry about). His main goal was to give our answer to Chamberlain, that is, to all sorts of Lutherans and other Protestant counters. Show that the church is ready to rally around the pope and confirm, or even tighten, the main provisions of its doctrine. In particular, it was at the Council of Trent that the church appropriated everything related to the conclusion of a Catholic marriage. The newlyweds were still considered the main participants in the ceremony (and are still considered), and the priest was only an assistant, but now it was impossible to do without this assistant.
The marriage was recognized as a sacrament and thereby transferred it from the sphere of private law to the sphere of public law. That is, it is no longer your private affair; how did you plan to get married, now, dear, this is a public affair. No, now it’s impossible in the open field. Now only in the church, with an authorized priest, with two witnesses, according to the procedure established by the church. Only then is the marriage valid. So we ask you, comrades, to be very serious in fulfilling the established requirements! So that means, as the hero of Vitsin: “I, perhaps, in a month prepared for the sacrament of marriage! Maybe in six months, I went to the hairdresser, the bathhouse! ” Now it’s not up to spontaneous oaths no one knows where.
I must say, the church fathers came up with these changes not from the bulldozer, but because of the strict necessity. Because the Protestants divorced like dogs. And if they are not stopped, they will, well, begin to marry Catholics. Just look away, the Catholic and the Protestant will go around the corner and make marriage vows to each other, and if you please recognize them as valid. How do you admit it? And how to save souls in such conditions? And how to separate those who are saved from those who have a direct road to hell? And how can a Catholic call for order and powder his brains when he is married to a heretic before God, that is, he has become one flesh with her and shared his fate with her?