theological issues of doctrine

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

To fail to have a sacramental marriage, giving preference to s de jure marriage, io to fail to obey the doctrine of the Church. That's a failure of obedience, and per Verona, a heresy if done from wrong teaching.

You seem to be arguing validity. I'm arguing licity.

(For those not in on what we are talking about, the Church has a lot of edge cases where a marriage is valid, but not considered morally right. A marriage can be valid, but simultaneously forbidden.)

Aquinas isn't the end of thinking on this matter

Also, you're still ignoring the elephant.

22

Absolutely. Aquinas and his collaborator on the supplement do not deny that. You appear to have - without any reason - misunderstood his answer to Question 41 as a recommendation. It is not.

Read Question 42 article 2: " I answer that, Nature inclines to marriage with a certain good in view, which good varies according to the different states of man, wherefore it was necessary for matrimony to be variously instituted in the various states of man in reference to that good. Consequently matrimony as directed to the begetting of children, which was necessary even when there was no sin, was instituted before sin; according as it affords a remedy for the wound of sin, it was instituted after sin at the time of the natural law; its institution belongs to the Mosaic Law as regards personal disqualifications; and it was instituted in the New Law in so far as it represents the mystery of Christ's union with the Church, and in this respect it is a sacrament of the New Law. As regards other advantages resulting from matrimony, such as the friendship and mutual services which husband and wife render one another, its institution belongs to the civil law. Since, however, a sacrament is essentially a sign and a remedy, it follows that the nature of sacrament applies to matrimony as regards the intermediate institution; that it is fittingly intended to fulfill an office of nature as regards the first institution; and. as regards the last-mentioned institution, that it is directed to fulfill an office of society."

And Question 42 article 3:" I answer that, There have been three opinions on this point. For some [Peter Lombard, Sent. iv, D, 2 said that matrimony is nowise the cause of grace, but only a sign thereof. But this cannot be maintained, for in that case it would in no respect surpass the sacraments of the Old Law. Wherefore there would be no reason for reckoning it among the sacraments of the New Law; since even in the Old Law by the very nature of the act it was able to afford a remedy to concupiscence lest the latter run riot when held in too strict restraint.

Hence others [St. Albert Magnus, Sent. iv, D, 26 said that grace is conferred therein as regards the withdrawal from evil, because the act is excused from sin, for it would be a sin apart from matrimony. But this would be too little, since it had this also in the Old Law. And so they say that it makes man withdraw from evil, by restraining the concupiscence lest it tend to something outside the marriage blessings, but that this grace does not enable a man to do good works. But this cannot be maintained, since the same grace hinders sin and inclines to good, just as the same heat expels cold and gives heat.

Hence others [St. Bonaventure, Sent. iv, D, 26 say that matrimony, inasmuch as it is contracted in the faith of Christ, is able to confer the grace which enables us to do those works which are required in matrimony. and this is more probable, since wherever God gives the faculty to do a thing, He gives also the helps whereby man is enabled to make becoming use of that faculty; thus it is clear that to all the soul's powers there correspond bodily members by which they can proceed to act. Therefore, since in matrimony man receives by Divine institution the faculty to use his wife for the begetting of children, he also receives the grace without which he cannot becomingly do so; just as we have said of the sacrament of orders (Supplement:35:1. And thus this grace which is given is the last thing contained in this sacrament."

Aquinas was not even born at the standard time of Mythic Europe, 1220.

It is tmk just a convention since Jeremiah Genest, that the Aristotle of the time of Aquinas, and Aquinas' remarkably rational and open theology, are recommended to SGs who need philosophical and theological background for their saga.

23

And now, back at my PC.

OneShot, I'm trying to use period documents (hence the Decretal, which is about 1140), but rather than me just post a wall of the Decretal, can we look through a relevant case? It must be I'm not understanding you.

Causus 28, OK?

If you're a Christian, and you marry a Jew, and the Jew does not convert, you are married (that is, it is a valid marriage) but it is not licit, and so therefore you must live separately, rather than as a couple,and you cannot remarry until their death. This is the church law: the secular law was that you'd be fined (up to put to death if you were in bits of Spain).

You are, in this case, married, and yet your marriage is not one which leads to the things of marriage (children, consolation, community) unless the Jew converts. Technically, you are only allowed to marry (theologically, not secularly) on the basis that they have given an oath that they will convert, but if they were lying, that doesn't dissolve the marriage. You need to do penance afterward, because you have broken the laws of the church.

So, how do you get from there, where the marriages of unbelievers are valid, but not licit or sacred, and therefore require strict separation from Catholics, to the point where a person gets to marry, and have sexual intimacy, with a dragon?

Your argument seems to be that marriage is a predating institution, but as Aquinas notes, it's from the earliest states of man. You're once again ignoring that the dragon is a dragon, not a man. If your point is you can have a de jure marriage in secular law in places where people are allowed to marry dragons,I agree, but the question was, I thought, the view of the Church?

Doctrinally, you need to push your dragon a long way to get it within the realm of the Church's approval for betrothal. Even if you assume that the dragon is a person, with all of the required attributes of a potential spouse (opposite sex, humanity, a soul, the ability to perform sacraments, the capacity to consent, having told the spouse they are a dragon, openness to the bearing of children) you still hit the point that you aren't allowed, by the order of the Pope, to marry unbaptised people lacking a firm oath of conversion. You haven't been allowed to for about a hundred years. So, is this a baptised dragon? I mean, technically we have a draconic abbot...so, sure, if you are having a fervently Catholic dragon...that gets over that hurdle. It just seems a reach.

You have quoted a lot about the previous dispensations - but seem to still fall back to the earliest one, if I'm reading your argument, rather than seeing them as superseding each other?

In ancient times, people did A, under the early prophets they did B, now they do C is an argument against doing A and B, not permission to do them. Or am I missing your point? The Church is very clear that just because people did a thing in the Bible doesn't mean you are allowed to do it now. For example, having multiple wives, and marrying your close blood kin were allowed back in Ancient Israel. It's not allowed now.

Is your argument that the grace of the sacrament makes good the deficiency of the spouse in this case, hence your highlights? My counter to that would be a person does not become a spouse, and have the grace imparted, if one is not a candidate for the sacrament. Much as ordination, in period, cannot make women priests, baptism cannot make cats Catholic, and unction cannot speed trees to Heaven. If even angels can't perform sacraments, why should dragons?

24

As I say, though, for all my wrestling with the Decretal - there are selkie and merrow marriages in Cornish folklore and people marry faeries pretty regularly.. I'm not sure how to align that to what the Church actually believed and practised in far more concrete cases, like marrying Lithuanian pagans and Iberian Jews.

Silveroak, I'm sorry we can't give you a simple answer here. The best minds of the Church worked on the theology of sacramental marriage for about 400 years, and even now it's a bit of an odd duck. (As Protestants and Orthodox thinkers point out).

As OneShot points out, at least Aquinas is tidy. Gratian loves being untidy - he literally says the Bible both approves and forbids marriages to outsiders, with quotes, back to back, to make sure you know you are in the swamp.

25

I can't seem to find how to send PMs on the new board, so, OneShot, can I just say "Sorry if my tone was brusque"? No offence was intended and I apologise for getting carried away.

26

Decreti Secunda Pars Causa 28 is indeed an enormous wall of Latin text: the first Quaestio alone has 17 chapters. This causa is known for the following remark in Quaestio 1 chapter 17: "Illorum vero coniugia, qui contemptis omnibus illis solempnltatibus solo affectu aliquam sibi in coniugem copulant, huiuscemodi coniugium non legitimum, sed ratum tantummodo esse creditur." So this remark states, that under certain conditions a marriage is believed be valid before god (ratum), but not before any law (legitimum).

Do you mean this remark, and wish to draw conclusions from it?

For which couple?

Nevermind.

27

I did ignore the entire dragon, before you brought it up.

I don't know, how it got in here, what kind of dragon it is, and why it would desire a sacramental marriage.
As the dragon is not human, a real sacramental marriage - even with another dragon - is not possible. If the dragon can assume human shape and still scare its bride to be and a kidnapped priest into submission, it can get all the trappings of one, though, and never care for its validity. What would a valid marriage do for it in its den, cave or castle anyway?
Perhaps you tell us, just what kind of dragon you imagine. The Divine Abbot from Antagonists would not marry, while La Belle et la Bête isn't a medieval tale.

28

I wasn't looking for an easy or simple answer, such things tend to be flawed at best, but rather the kind of conversation I see here- though I wish I had seen more on it regarding the "confess everything" topic, since while oneshots answer was an answer but not especially doctrinal, and the answer about perfect contrition seems moe about methodology and degree of forgiveness instead of the topic of someone confessing guilt for non sins to make sure their bases are covered- especially in the context of the Abigisenian crusades, where one major sticking point was that cathars believed sex within marriage was sinfully, so our hapless peasant, unable to decide between differences in catholic and cathar doctrine (and especially before the military might of France made such lines quite clear) has decided to confess to feeling lust for his wife on a 'cover my bases' basis. I'm fairly certain that, documented or not, such confusion did occur...

1 Like
29

Gratian said it was fine to desire your wife sexually, just not in abhorrent ways. He assumes we know what he meant. Personally, I think he meant sodomy because that seems to play an outside role in medieval thought.

He also specifies it as not ok during nightly prayer, or during or the night previous to the holy days of fasting.

30

Since this thread seems to be about theological issues I really am curious on how Magic, Faerie, Divine, and Infernal all being proven easily seen facts would have changed the way the Church looked at things. Heck, not just the Church, but pretty much all faiths that focus on what we consider the Christian God, that is the god of the Divine.

Because it seems to me that the Divine would basically say "X is Evil" when its quite clear that in Mythic Europe it is very much not.

31

Distinguishing Magic, Faerie, Divine and Infernal with Hermetic magic is complex enough and does not always work: e. g. hell can deceive even the most powerful Hermetic magic.
Distinguishing it reliably without Hermetic magic is next to impossible. So I don't quite see, how in Mythic Europe "the way the Church looked at things" would change.

I've no idea how the Divine would say that.

32

My point is that in the real world there is no physical proof that magic (in any form) exists in a way that anyone could see. In Mythic Europe that is not the case. Even the most uneducated peasant farmer can tell you that Magic, Faerie, Divine, and Infernal exist. They might not know the details but they know its real, not a fantasy or someone's imagination or something someone believes but can't prove. It is real.

This would cause a change in how certain things are described, how certain things are written up, how certain things are taught.

Which would make us using real world examples as being entirely true as not really truly consistent with the world of Mythic Europe.

Which led me to my question, wouldn't it be interesting and useful to think on how matters might change in a world where the supernatural is a real provable fact!

--

A sideways example of this fact is in the Theban Tribunal book about Crete. In there it is mentioned that early Crete was safe from conquests thanks to the presece of Talos. But that once said entity was imprisoned the island became an easy target. But that if he is freed, the hint hint players nudge nudge is half stated, then the potential for future historical changes is quite apparent.

It is such things that I mean for this topic. If x can be proven as one thing then it is a good idea to think would y choose to react in the same way about it that they did in our real world. The answer might be yes, but the answer could easily be no, or yes but, or no but, some other permutation. Which could be interesting.

33

Best provide a clear example. I don't see one.

The generic historical medieval peasant would more often than not believe in ghosts, undead, witches and various types of beings Ars Magica classifies as Faeries.
And the generic historical priest or scholar might be less credulous, but would not go to a magus to get the supernatural explained.

34

When answering your post above, the following was not yet in it:

There are many changes possible in Mythic Europe that did not happen in history. The basic assumption, though, is that they did not yet happen before the saga started.

35

The real world church believed in all of these things.

The Decretal I've been quoting gives the Church's statement on the possibility of divorce because of impotence caused by hexes, for example.

1 Like
36

Actually, this would be true historically as well, the difference being that historically said peasant would be wrong.
Also worth noting that in ROP:D it states that the cult of Sol Invectus recognizes faerie and magic realms as separate, unlike the Catholic church which sees all three as infernal. Which I suppose answers my question previous, because if your spouse has been transformed into a demon or devil, your spouse is dead (at least to my understanding)

37

If this is just a reference to RoP:TD p.70 "They recognize differences between the Infernal, Magic, and Faerie realms**;** unlike the Church, they accept the idea that the old gods existed and may still exist, but believe they are mortal and fear death much like humans do.", it is a misreading. The "unlike the Church" does not refer back over the semicolon, but forward towards "they accept the idea that the old gods existed".

Of course, the Christian churches in Mythic Europe do not adopt the distinction of Hermetic magi between Faerie, Magic and Infernal - but there is tmk nowhere in the ArM5 books a hint, that "the Church" lumps them all together as Infernal in doctrine. To the contrary, Antagonists p.37ff has Father Joseph of Napoli, who wishes to turn the Order of Hermes into a religious order under the authority of the Pope.

To be very explicit, p.39 there has: "If relevant, the true position of the Divine upon Father Joseph's mission is something for your troupe to decide for your own saga." This resumes the ArM5 core book's position, that it is a troupe decision whether Hermetic magic is inherently sinful in their saga or not.

For the position of theologians in Mythic Europe, ArM5 p.182 has: "Those theologians who give serious thought to the issue tend to have a slightly different view of the issue. They see the Divine as the supernatural realm, the mundane as the natural realm, and Magic, Faerie, and Infernal as together making up the preternatural realm. Opinions are divided as to whether the three components of the preternatural realm are actually distinct, and thus over whether there is really any difference between the Infernal and the Magical. Even among those who accept that the three preternatural realms are truly distinct, there is a debate over whether magic is sinful, and incompatible with a truly spiritual life, in itself."

1 Like
38

It would seem, however, that the consensus is that faeries are either infernal or soulless, which would imply to me that the transformed spouse is considered dead in either case.

39

There's a bit on faeries in the Jerbiton chapter in HoS:S pg 44 - their general view is that faeries don't have souls, and that sex with them is a type of bestiality (and a mortal sin).

40

Carlos Ginzberg's excellent 'Night Battles' is a recreation of historical archives from the Italian (not Spanish) Inquisition in the 16th and 17th centuries. It follows a group of men and women who call themselves the 'benandanti' who regarded themselves as professional witches. It also follows the tale of a Livonian werewolf (who calls himself a 'Hound of God', or 'Domine Canem' in direct reference to the Dominican Order), who slips into the gates of Hell every winter to steal grain the Devil absconded with and bring it back to the Land every spring.The benandanti and the 'holy wolves' considered themselves purely Christian, but only later were they convinced they were in fact diabolical. The treatise within the text gives examples of how some of the spouses of the (faerie-blood?) beneandanti and (divine?) werewolves were treated by the Church.