A Question About Validity vs. Sacramentality in Marriage

[Upbeat_Dad]

Here’s the scenario: My wife and I were both received into the Church four years ago at the Easter Vigil. We were told in RCIA that our marriage, which took place in a Protestant church, was considered “presumptively valid.” by the Catholic Church. Question: Did our marriage become sacramental retroactively when we received the sacrament of confirmation, or does it still remain valid, but not sacramental to this day? Follow up question: if not sacramental, is it possible to make it so somehow?

 

[1ke]

Here’s the scenario: My wife and I were both received into the Church four years ago at the Easter Vigil. We were told in RCIA that our marriage, which took place in a Protestant church, was considered “presumptively valid.” by the Catholic Church.

that is correct, your marriage is valid.

Question: Did our marriage become sacramental retroactively when we received the sacrament of confirmation, or does it still remain valid, but not sacramental to this day?

If you were already baptized as Protestants your marriage was valid and sacramental all along, and remains so.

If one or both of you were unbaptized before entering the Church, your marriage was a valid natural marriage and became a sacrament at the point in time that the unbaptized party received baptism.

Follow up question: if not sacramental, is it possible to make it so somehow?

Sacramentality of marriage is a function of baptism. A valid marriage between the baptized is, by its very nature, a sacrament.

 

[Joe_5859]

I was all set to answer the question, but then saw that 1ke responded and I have nothing more to add.

 

[Upbeat_Dad]

Thank you 1Ke, that clears it up nicely.

 

[shawnbm]

I have read the answers above and I do think they are correct, because your marriage was considered valid in accordance with your protestant denominations and you were both baptized Christians when you married. If one of you had been a lapsed Catholic who married without dispensation from the ordinary, however (I ran into this recently), then your marriage would be valid, but irregular and not sacramental. I know of a couple that went through RCIA and learnt years later that because it was not convalidated after they were received into the Church (nobody at the parish had properly vetted their marital situation), it was merely considered a civil marriage and was not sacramental due to the irregularity involving the one baptized Catholic who was ignorant of such things.

 

[1ke]

If one of you had been a lapsed Catholic who married without dispensation from the ordinary, however (I ran into this recently), then your marriage would be valid, but irregular and not sacramental.

This is not accurate. A Catholic marrying outside Catholic form without dispensation does not have a valid marriage. The marriage attempt is invalid.

This does not apply to the OP.

 

[shawnbm]

Thank you, 1ke–I did not know this or I misheard when this came up. I know that one of the two was baptized Catholic but had not been to a mass in forty years and was never confirmed. They had only vague memories of going with long gone relatives to a Catholic parish when eight or nine. As such (and this should be no surprise), they were completely ignorant of anything regarding the need for a dispensation from the ordinary to marry a non-Catholic (indeed, the person considered themselves to be a nondenominational Christian since never confirmed). Unfortunately, due to oversight the problem was not recognized during RCIA. So, they were flabbergasted to learn that they needed a con-validation, especially when RCIA materials went over how all these civil marriages between baptized non-Catholic Christians were considered valid by the Catholic Church. A deacon informed them of the need for con-validation when he learnt of the situation years later.

 

[1ke]

Correct. A convalidation makes an invalid marriage valid. That is why the couple you mention had to have a convalidation.