A question on receiving Holy Communion

[CreekCrawler]

So I have recently found out that those who were married outside of the Catholic Church cannot receive Communion ( even if they are now faithful Catholics ) until the marriage is made right in the church.
Well, I have been studying the history of marriage within the church. Seems for the first 1000 years Marriage was mostly a civil act, and did not involve the Church at all…from what I gather the CC did not accept marriage as a sacrament until the 13th century, and did not even require it to be done in the Church / by a priest until the 16th century.

So, if two adults consenting to be united in marriage within the guidelines of whatever social norms were applicable in that given region were accepted by the CC for so long, Why suddenly change it to where a married couple under the same criteria are now for some reason forbidden to partake of Holy Communion ?

Thanks in advance !

 

[1ke]

So I have recently found out that those who were married outside of the Catholic Church cannot receive Communion ( even if they are now faithful Catholics ) until the marriage is made right in the church.

That is correct.

Well, I have been studying the history of marriage within the church. Seems for the first 1000 years Marriage was mostly a civil act, and did not involve the Church at all…

Not sure where you get your history from, but this is not correct. Or rather, only partially correct. The Church recognizes the civil aspects of marriage, but from early times certainly did regulate marriage through various council canons (for instance the canons of the council of Elvira in the 300s).

from what I gather the CC did not accept marriage as a sacrament until the 13th century, and did not even require it to be done in the Church / by a priest until the 16th century.

Again, not accurate.

So, if two adults consenting to be united in marriage within the guidelines of whatever social norms were applicable in that given region were accepted by the CC for so long,

Premise is not accurate.

Why suddenly change it to where a married couple under the same criteria are now for some reason forbidden to partake of Holy Communion ?

The Church did not “suddenly change” this.

And, as to why they are “for some reason” required to abstain from the Eucharist: as with all legislative acts of the Church, at the point at which a requirement is established Catholics are obligated to follow the law.

If they do not, there are consequences-- in this case refraining from reception of the Eucharist due to being in a state of objectively mortal sin-- until they take corrective action.

 

[CreekCrawler]

Well, I certainly do not stand behind my short study on the subject and could very well be misinformed. However, I have read in many places ( and never anywhere to the contrary, perhaps you can provide that info ) that the church did not declare that marriage was to take place exclusively in the church and by a priest until the 16th century’s counter reformation.
That being the case ( if it is the case ) , how could something that has historically not been a sin at all now be held as a mortal sin ?

 

[1ke]

Well, I certainly do not stand behind my short study on the subject and could very well be misinformed. However, I have read in many places ( and never anywhere to the contrary, perhaps you can provide that info ) that the church did not declare that marriage was to take place exclusively in the church and by a priest until the 16th centurie’s counter reformation.

Well, it is true that during the counter reformation it was necessary to *reaffirm * and further define/legislate Church teaching on the sacrament of marriage, since those such as Luther, Calvin, et. al., were teaching heresy regarding the sacraments.

It is not true that the Church’s teaching *originated *in the 16th century.

The requirements of the form of marriage have varied throughout the Church’s history.

how could something that has historically not been a sin at all now be held as a mortal sin ?

Because the Church has the authority to bind and loose.

And, if the Church binds us to a particular form, we are obligated to follow it. If we do not, we are not in a valid marriage and are committing the sin of fornication.

So, there are two sins objectively (subjectively there may be no sin if the person was ignorant of the requirement for example): Disobedience to the legitimate authority over us (the Church) and sexual intimacy outside valid marriage.

If one remains in sin-- i.e. unconfessed and no amendment of purpose-- one cannot receive the Eucharist (just like if one is in any other continual sin, this is not unique to this particular sin). If one does make firm amendment of purpose and convalidates the marriage, one can return to the Eucharist.

 

[CreekCrawler]

“Because the Church has the authority to bind and loose.”

That about sums it up I guess… Thanks 1ke !

 

[Ignatius]

Well, I certainly do not stand behind my short study on the subject and could very well be misinformed. However, I have read in many places ( and never anywhere to the contrary, perhaps you can provide that info ) that the church did not declare that marriage was to take place exclusively in the church and by a priest until the 16th century’s counter reformation.

Can you please give the authoritative citations ( For example: Council of Elvira, Canon 324) from some of the “many places” that you’ve seen it?

That being the case ( if it is the case ) , how could something that has historically not been a sin at all now be held as a mortal sin ?

Problem here is, it is not the case.

 

[CreekCrawler]

The council of Trent Session XXIV

The question is can you provide documents stating that marriage WAS to be done in the Church exclusively and by a priest prior to the council of Trent…

For arguments sake

By the way I cannot see anything in the canons of Elvira that pertain to the Church mandating anything on marriage except that Catholic girls should not be given in marriage to priests of idols…

 

[1ke]

The council of Trent Session XXIV

The question is can you provide documents stating that marriage WAS to be done in the Church exclusively and by a priest prior to the council of Trent…

For arguments sake

that is a red herring, since the Church does not in fact state that marriage is to be exclusively done in the Church currently.

The point is whether or not the Church regulated marriage, and whether or not the Church was in fact involved in the marriage of Christians. Your original post’s premise was “Seems for the first 1000 years Marriage was mostly a civil act, and did not involve the Church at all”. This is not true.

The Nuptial Mass dates from Tertullian’s time. We have his writings, we have the Roman Sacramentaries, we have Pope Nicholas I’s writings, we have laws enacted in the time of Charlemagne regarding the form of marriage and requirement of a priest’s presence-- all of these predate the reformation by a millennium or more.

By the way I cannot see anything in the canons of Elvira that pertain to the Church mandating anything on marriage except that Catholic girls should not be given in marriage to priests of idols…

That is the point, the Church was in fact regulating marriage from the beginning-- which is the opposite of “not involved at all” until the Reformation. The details of the regulation have varied, but the fact that the Church did regulate marriage from the first centuries is clear.

 

[CreekCrawler]

1ke, the points you made in your previous reply were well taken… but I was prodded to continue, and I couldnt resist.
You guys are right… thanks for the answers

 

[kmuestwin]

I would like to point out that church doctrine doesn’t change. It develops.

Like an acorn becomes an oak tree, our understanding of the divine increases but in its essence does not change. It is up to Catholics in good standing to be faithful to the current magisterium. Not the magisterium of 80 years ago and not the magisterium of 1000 years ago.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

…Seems for the first 1000 years Marriage was mostly a civil act, and did not involve the Church at all…from what I gather the CC did not accept marriage as a sacrament until the 13th century, and did not even require it to be done in the Church / by a priest until the 16th century.

So, if two adults consenting to be united in marriage within the guidelines of whatever social norms were applicable in that given region were accepted by the CC for so long, Why suddenly change it to where a married couple under the same criteria are now for some reason forbidden to partake of Holy Communion ?

Quite mistaken! The Catholic Church has regulated marriage from its’ earliest days, as did the Jews before. Would Jews or Christians have a pagan ritual marriage according to the custom of the Roman Empire? Of course not. They would never consider such a thing.

Christians stood apart from both the Jews and pagans on the issue of divorce and remarriage, which Christ forbid. This continues to be a conflict between the Catholic Church and pagan society today.

As the Roman Empire declined, the Catholic Church took over more and more of the civil functions of society. Marriage was defined by Church Canon law. The concept of non-religious “civil marriage” is entirely a modern invention.

 

[1ke]

Quite mistaken! The Catholic Church has regulated marriage from its’ earliest days, as did the Jews before. Would Jews or Christians have a pagan ritual marriage according to the custom of the Roman Empire? Of course not. They would never consider such a thing.

This is not really accurate. Most of the customs of the current marriage rite come from pagan Rome. The Church gave great latitude in the celebration of marriage, and most of what comes down to us today is of pagan origin-- the rings, the veil, the crown, the betrothal, the dowry, etc. The Church readily accepted these customs, Roman, Goth, Teutonic, Anglo-Saxon, etc., and Christianized them. The Church solemnized marriage through the Nuptial Mass (which replaced pagan sacrifices).

The Church did regulate marriage early on, particularly as it related to Catholics marrying pagans or heretics, but the Church pretty much accepted whatever the local custom was as to the form of marriage as long as it was public (i.e. clandestine marriage created problems of repudiating the bride too easily, which is really why the Church began insisting on the presence of a priest-- to minimize nullity claims down the road).

Christians stood apart from both the Jews and pagans on the issue of divorce and remarriage, which Christ forbid. This continues to be a conflict between the Catholic Church and pagan society today.

This is true. The Church did not admit divorce and remarriage in most cases-- the unbaptized being a different matter (Pauline Privilege).

As the Roman Empire declined, the Catholic Church took over more and more of the civil functions of society. Marriage was defined by Church Canon law.

The Church regulated marriage, yes. But, the Church did not claim sole ownership of marriage. Pagans and Jews married validly in their own way. Civil laws regarding marriage certainly existed.

The concept of non-religious “civil marriage” is entirely a modern invention.

This is not at all accurate.

 

[Bergon]

So I have recently found out that those who were married outside of the Catholic Church cannot receive Communion ( even if they are now faithful Catholics ) until the marriage is made right in the church.
Well, I have been studying the history of marriage within the church. Seems for the first 1000 years Marriage was mostly a civil act, and did not involve the Church at all…from what I gather the CC did not accept marriage as a sacrament until the 13th century, and did not even require it to be done in the Church / by a priest until the 16th century.

So, if two adults consenting to be united in marriage within the guidelines of whatever social norms were applicable in that given region were accepted by the CC for so long, Why suddenly change it to where a married couple under the same criteria are now for some reason forbidden to partake of Holy Communion ?

Thanks in advance !

What you do not mention is what is the problem with your marriage. I am, of course, inferring that it is your own situation of which you speak. Obviously, you do not have to air your private affairs here on a public forum. What I was wondering is that if you were mistaken about some of the other facts if you have misinterpreted your marriage situation.

If you were married outside the Catholic Church, were you a catholic at the time of your marriage? If you were not a catholic you were not bound to catholic canonical form of marriage. If that is your concern then you need not have any concern because your marriage is valid.

If you were married outside the Catholic Church, were you a catholic at the time of your marriage? If you were a catholic did you formally defect from the Church and marry after 27th November 1983 and before 8th April 2010? Did you marry in this timeframe? Then you weren’t bound by catholic canonical form.

The above are just two of the possible permutations. Can you see how complicated it can get? The best way to check and regulate your marriage situation would be with your pastor.

 

[CB_Catholic]

What you do not mention is what is the problem with your marriage. I am, of course, inferring that it is your own situation of which you speak. Obviously, you do not have to air your private affairs here on a public forum. What I was wondering is that if you were mistaken about some of the other facts if you have misinterpreted your marriage situation.

If you were married outside the Catholic Church, were you a catholic at the time of your marriage? If you were not a catholic you were not bound to catholic canonical form of marriage. If that is your concern then you need not have any concern because your marriage is valid.

If you were married outside the Catholic Church, were you a catholic at the time of your marriage? If you were a catholic did you formally defect from the Church and marry after 27th November 1983 and before 8th April 2010? Did you marry in this timeframe? Then you weren’t bound by catholic canonical form.

The above are just two of the possible permutations. Can you see how complicated it can get? The best way to check and regulate your marriage situation would be with your pastor.

I don’t see how you got that from the OP’s post at all, and such inferences should not be made.

 

[CreekCrawler]

What you do not mention is what is the problem with your marriage. I am, of course, inferring that it is your own situation of which you speak.

I am not, nor have I ever been married.