Should We Forget the Word "Marriage" & Use "Holy Matrimony" Instead?
#11
Good stuff JoniCath.

I hear so much from the world and even Catholics about marriage that even I am afraid to take the plunge if the day ever comes. Most make it seem like a bad holiday with some good food to make up for the horrible destination. I hope it isn't like that. I'm pretty awesome but hopefully if God wills I get married I meet someone of equal awesomeness.
Reply
#12
I have to respectfully disagree with the Monsignor. We are not Nominalists. "Marriage" refers to a reality that is not only sacramental, but also a reality that is embedded in society's very nature since the beginning of time. It's not just a term we can fork over. The State has the obligation before God to recognize what marriage really is. And even when it fails to live up to that, it is the Church's job to call society back to what it means.

What the Monsignor is basically proposing we say is this: "we Catholics have our own view of marriage we'll call from now on "holy matrimony"; while "marriage" can mean whatever the hell you guys want". No! Marriage is a life long union between one man and one woman. This can happen on a natural or a sacramental level. Both of which the State has no authority to change.
Reply
#13
Quote:Marriage is a life long union between one man and one woman. This can happen on a natural or a sacramental level. Both of which the State has no authority to change.
Not sure I'd go quite so far. How do we get lifelong, monogamous unions from natural law? Every society, or at least almost all of them, has deemed it wise to recognize divorce; the Church of Rome is the single religious institution which prohibits it.
Reply
#14
I'm down! Holy Matrimony it is! When people ask if you are married you can tell them "no.....I'm in a life long commitment with a member of the opposite sex that cannot be undone. I call it holy matrimony." It's a shame we have to do this but it's also a shame Jesus had to die for us. We just couldn't keep the hands off the apple!

I agree that the state should no longer issue "marriage licenses" rather "civil unions." I think that's how they do it in France....
Reply
#15
(06-30-2013, 07:02 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
Quote:Marriage is a life long union between one man and one woman. This can happen on a natural or a sacramental level. Both of which the State has no authority to change.
Not sure I'd go quite so far. How do we get lifelong, monogamous unions from natural law? Every society, or at least almost all of them, has deemed it wise to recognize divorce; the Church of Rome is the single religious institution which prohibits it.

Even the Church of Rome recognizes divorce in certain circumstances (just not re-marriage after). She also recognizes her authority to dissolve natural marriages (the Pauline Privilege).

By "life long", I mean that society has always regarded marriage as something you get into for the long haul. The State having no authority to tamper with that by introducing things like no-fault divorce.

The Catholic Encyclopedia...
Quote:No Catholic can doubt that even according to the natural law of marriage is in a certain sense indissoluble. The following proposition is condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX (Proposition LXVII): "According to the natural law, the bond of marriage is not indissoluble, and in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority." The meaning of this condemnation is clear from the document whence it has been taken. This is the papal Brief ("Ad apostolicæ sedis fastigium", 22 August, 1851, in which several works of the Turin professor, J. N. Nuytz, and a series of propositions defended by him were condemned, as is expressly said, "deApostolicæ potestatis plenitudine". A certain dissolubility of marriage whenever contracted must therefore be admitted, even according to the natural law, at least in the sense that marriage, unlike other contracts, may not be dissolved at the pleasure of the contracting parties.
Reply
#16
(06-30-2013, 12:22 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: It has merit until one simply looks up the etymology of marriage, which is holy matrimony. We don't get to desynonymize something because we lack the enduring fortitude necessary to fight falsity. It is right to call marriage as it is, holy matrimony. "Marriage" not-holy-matrimony is not-marriage. What needs to be done is the stopping of calling civil unions as marriage, as if any moron that can Google map the courthouse, or find their drunken way through Vegas, and sign their name to a piece of fiat currency in the shambled economy of love can claim such a title as "married".

Half-wits and homeless are not semi-geniuses and in between domiciles; jailhouse lawyers do not hold juris doctorates; and frankly, there're a bunch of people who simply are not married, despite their claim to such a state in life. Continuing to agree they are is not to be helped by abandoning them to their delusions. And certainly to redraw, in retreat, the front lines of this fight will not do anything but bring the assault to the front-as-redefined.

What is then done when that becomes the battlefield, surrender?

Retreating is the first act of surrender.

We must instead harken back to the words of the French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, brother of a Jesuit, who at the battle of the Marne is attributed the saying, "My center is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking."

Quote:marriage (n.)
c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje. Meaning "a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c.; that of "wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married" is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.
[W]hen two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part. [G.B. Shaw, preface to "Getting Married," 1908]
Marriage counseling recorded by 1939. Marriage bed, figurative of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1580s.
Data from www.etymonline.com
2001-2010 Douglas Harper

I get what you're saying, but still think the Monsignor has a decent idea. The battles over marriage laws and words have already been lost and have been for centuries, really. There's no way we're going to get people to stop calling civil unions "marriage," or refrain from referring to homosexual "marriages." It simply won't happen.

The fact is that words do change meaning ("gay" is an obvious example) and we have to do something to differentiate between Sacramental Holy Matrimony and what is typically called "marriage" today. If a "movement" were made out of this, we'd be teaching people just by speaking on the topic.

Plus, just for the sake of a bit of "emotional justice,"  it'd have the benefit of pissing off the gay "marriage" crowd. It would be a definite way of saying, "there's a difference between what you have and what God hath joined together."  It linguistically preserves the very concept of Sacramental marriage (at least until people stamp their feet and demand to call civil unions "Holy Matrimony" or something, which wouldn't surprise me. But at least we'd have a few years of making a serious statement). It'd also put (real) marriage back into the arms of the Church, where it belongs in the first place. We could just ignore the other kinds of "marriage" (natural, civil, common-law, etc.) and leave them to Congress and judges, where most folks seem happy to have them.

I'm for it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)