B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The Catholic Church represents Christ. So what the Church deems valid or invalid, so does Christ.
- Status
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Just to be clear, there are two distinct (but related) aspects of Catholic canon law involved here:
- (1) Your first wedding ceremony was invalid due to lack of form, i.e., taking place outside the Catholic Church.
- (2) Because of your firm denial of point (1), your convalidation ceremony in the Church also has a very real likelihood of being invalid, due to defective exchange of consent.
M
mikew262
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
I know the Catholic Church did not deem our 1st ceremony as valid. However as Catholics, it was important to us that the Church did recognize our union, which is why we had the 2nd ceremony. However, you’ll never convince me that God did not bless our 1st ceremony; that dog just don’t hunt.
So does every other Christian Church, just in different ways. I believe Jesus said something to the effect when 2 or more gather in my name, I will be there. There was more than 2 people at my Lutheran wedding ceremony.
I know the Catholic Church did not deem our 1st ceremony as valid. However as Catholics, it was important to us that the Church did recognize our union, which is why we had the 2nd ceremony. However, you’ll never convince me that God did not bless our 1st ceremony; that dog just don’t hunt.
M
mikew262
Guest
- Our 1st ceremony was invalid to the Catholic Church only. I acknowledge that. No denial.
- Our convalidation is valid because we recognized the Church didn’t recognize the 1st ceremony, which is why we had the 2nd. It was important to us that the Church did recognize/bless our union.
What I did take issue with, and frankly got angry over, is that the a previous poster insinuated that our marriage wasn’t valid in any sense and that it wasn’t blessed by God. This is I did disagree with.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
“So does every other Christian Church”
No
There is only ONE Church founded by Christ that represents Christ on earth. That Church is the Catholic Church.
Other Christians by virtue of their Baptism, even though they belong to separated Christian communities are to different degrees united to the Catholic Church. When two or more Christians are gathered together Christ is present in spirit with them as individual Christians.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
I can only indicate what the law of the Church says on a given matter, and seek to do that accurately. I have no desire to convince but only to state things correctly and believe I have. Individuals may agree or disagree with the substance of the law, but they should at least know what it is.
Canon 1108 provides: “§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local ordinary or the pastor or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and in the presence of two witnesses, according to the rules expressed in the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116 and 1127, §§ 1 and 2.”
Canon 1157 says, “The renewal of consent must be a new act of the will concerning a marriage which the person who is renewing consent knows or thinks was null from the beginning.”
I cautioned the original poster Kayla to consider this latter point during her catechesis and formation for the sacrament. My comment was in that context and directed toward her clarification. My use of the citation by a prior poster was to illustrate the concept correctly. Perhaps in retrospect, I might have stated the correction by merely restating or paraphrasing the substance of the post more generally. Applying the law to his individual situation as to draw any conclusion about what God thinks of his individual situation is not my prerogative nor intention, nor would it be the purpose for which Church law exists. But my statement of the law itself is correct. The law is what it is.
Two broad questions have been raised in this discussion: 1) how one accepts the authority of the Church to regulate the sacraments, and 2) the role of individual conscience. The second opens up an even broader issue.
We should be at least clear that the Church asserts this authority in canon 841, that since the sacraments pertain to the divine deposit, it belongs to the supreme authority of the Church alone to approve or define the requirements for their validity. The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church (canon 840). So at least, we must state the law of the Church in regard to the external forum, what can be publicly observed and regulated.
The second broad issue is that individuals do apply or fail to apply the law to their own circumstances through the exercise of conscience. This conscience may be informed or uninformed, correct or erroneous. Error may be vincible or invincible. A judgment regarding conscience is not the realm of law, since law regulates the external forum.
In the practical order, what a person did or did not do, thought or did not think, at a wedding ceremony, original or convalidation, will have consequence if a marriage is investigated for validity in a tribunal. Otherwise, the question will not really be asked.
In the moral order, and in the final analysis, conscience and human actions are accountable to divine and not judicial judgment. Ultimately a term like “validity” is a judicial category. The good faith in which parties approach convalidation, clearly intending to do what is right and seek the “blessing of the Church,” is a moral category.
In my opinion, a person who is troubled about the matter though in his or her own situation and in a existing marriage which he or she wishes to continue might benefit from the counsel of a priest in the internal forum.
Canon 1108 provides: “§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local ordinary or the pastor or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and in the presence of two witnesses, according to the rules expressed in the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116 and 1127, §§ 1 and 2.”
Canon 1157 says, “The renewal of consent must be a new act of the will concerning a marriage which the person who is renewing consent knows or thinks was null from the beginning.”
I cautioned the original poster Kayla to consider this latter point during her catechesis and formation for the sacrament. My comment was in that context and directed toward her clarification. My use of the citation by a prior poster was to illustrate the concept correctly. Perhaps in retrospect, I might have stated the correction by merely restating or paraphrasing the substance of the post more generally. Applying the law to his individual situation as to draw any conclusion about what God thinks of his individual situation is not my prerogative nor intention, nor would it be the purpose for which Church law exists. But my statement of the law itself is correct. The law is what it is.
Two broad questions have been raised in this discussion: 1) how one accepts the authority of the Church to regulate the sacraments, and 2) the role of individual conscience. The second opens up an even broader issue.
We should be at least clear that the Church asserts this authority in canon 841, that since the sacraments pertain to the divine deposit, it belongs to the supreme authority of the Church alone to approve or define the requirements for their validity. The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church (canon 840). So at least, we must state the law of the Church in regard to the external forum, what can be publicly observed and regulated.
The second broad issue is that individuals do apply or fail to apply the law to their own circumstances through the exercise of conscience. This conscience may be informed or uninformed, correct or erroneous. Error may be vincible or invincible. A judgment regarding conscience is not the realm of law, since law regulates the external forum.
In the practical order, what a person did or did not do, thought or did not think, at a wedding ceremony, original or convalidation, will have consequence if a marriage is investigated for validity in a tribunal. Otherwise, the question will not really be asked.
In the moral order, and in the final analysis, conscience and human actions are accountable to divine and not judicial judgment. Ultimately a term like “validity” is a judicial category. The good faith in which parties approach convalidation, clearly intending to do what is right and seek the “blessing of the Church,” is a moral category.
In my opinion, a person who is troubled about the matter though in his or her own situation and in a existing marriage which he or she wishes to continue might benefit from the counsel of a priest in the internal forum.
C
CARose
Guest
Camerson,
I would like to thank you for your excellent posts on this thread, providing much needed information regarding marriages, annulments and convalidation. I have a small amount of information on the subject due to my own personal experiences and I am frequently approached by young couples seeking information in preparation of their weddings.
I am greatly saddened that a large number of our “good” Catholics have no understanding of our need to submit our wills to the Church, especially in matters like this. We don’t have the discretion to simply determine we will have a garden wedding and then to expect the Church to bend to our will.
It breaks my heart when couples set themselves up for future difficulties by marrying outside the Church. They don’t realize what they are doing. When one member of the couple grows in their faith and understands that they truly are NOT married in the eyes of the Church, and therefore in the eyes of God, great stress can be put on the marriage.
Mike,
I understand you mean well. I understand that when you stood at the Altar for your first wedding, you had every intention of standing before God, your Bride, and your community to declare your commitment and fidelity to this marriage. I know that each day you spent with the woman to whom you are committed has been spent with the intention of living right in the eyes of God. I do NOT dispute this fact.
But what we need to realize is, our relationship with God is mediated. The Church was IN FACT given the right to bind both on Earth and in Heaven. The Church, through her authority, has bound the form necessary for a valid marriage. As Catholics, we have both the benefits and responsibilities associated with full membership in the Body of Christ.
The benefits begin and end with the Eucharist, the source and summit of our Communion with Christ. But we also have the sacrament of Marriage, a bond held together by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only the Church can preside over the establishment this bond among her members. The marriage bond is actually conferred by the couple itself, each one upon the other.
The sacraments each have responsibilities associated with our receipt of their grace. Being in good standing with the Church is part of the deal.
I think that today, we have become too casual about the receipt of the sacraments, assuming that if we simply show up and go through the motions, everything is copacetic.
It’s past time for us to accept that their are rules, responsibilities, ways in which we are expected to act in accord with the requirements of God, as given to us through our Church. Kinda’ goes against the grain of everything we learned in the 60’s & 70’s and then applied in the 80’s, but it’s real stuff and we need to get with the program.
BTW, when I say we, I certainly mean “me”. I need to better get with the program, and I hope I have been starting.
CARose
I would like to thank you for your excellent posts on this thread, providing much needed information regarding marriages, annulments and convalidation. I have a small amount of information on the subject due to my own personal experiences and I am frequently approached by young couples seeking information in preparation of their weddings.
I am greatly saddened that a large number of our “good” Catholics have no understanding of our need to submit our wills to the Church, especially in matters like this. We don’t have the discretion to simply determine we will have a garden wedding and then to expect the Church to bend to our will.
It breaks my heart when couples set themselves up for future difficulties by marrying outside the Church. They don’t realize what they are doing. When one member of the couple grows in their faith and understands that they truly are NOT married in the eyes of the Church, and therefore in the eyes of God, great stress can be put on the marriage.
Mike,
I understand you mean well. I understand that when you stood at the Altar for your first wedding, you had every intention of standing before God, your Bride, and your community to declare your commitment and fidelity to this marriage. I know that each day you spent with the woman to whom you are committed has been spent with the intention of living right in the eyes of God. I do NOT dispute this fact.
But what we need to realize is, our relationship with God is mediated. The Church was IN FACT given the right to bind both on Earth and in Heaven. The Church, through her authority, has bound the form necessary for a valid marriage. As Catholics, we have both the benefits and responsibilities associated with full membership in the Body of Christ.
The benefits begin and end with the Eucharist, the source and summit of our Communion with Christ. But we also have the sacrament of Marriage, a bond held together by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only the Church can preside over the establishment this bond among her members. The marriage bond is actually conferred by the couple itself, each one upon the other.
The sacraments each have responsibilities associated with our receipt of their grace. Being in good standing with the Church is part of the deal.
I think that today, we have become too casual about the receipt of the sacraments, assuming that if we simply show up and go through the motions, everything is copacetic.
It’s past time for us to accept that their are rules, responsibilities, ways in which we are expected to act in accord with the requirements of God, as given to us through our Church. Kinda’ goes against the grain of everything we learned in the 60’s & 70’s and then applied in the 80’s, but it’s real stuff and we need to get with the program.
BTW, when I say we, I certainly mean “me”. I need to better get with the program, and I hope I have been starting.
CARose
M
mikew262
Guest
Br. Rich SFO said:
As a Catholic, I’m in general agreement with your statement. However, Christians of other denominations would certainly not be. To insinuate that Christ is not present (in some form) in other Christian worship is pretty presumptious, or did I misinterpret your meaning.
D
davy39
Guest
mikew262 said:
I agree with you. We were married in the Methodist church the first time on Oct 5, 1979. Twelve years later, after my wife became Catholic, our marriage was validated in the Catholic church. To us our anniversary is Oct 5 1979. I don’t even remember the date of our Catholic valadation, but I could look it up.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
We recognize other validly Baptized Christians as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not recognize other churches or Christian communities as brother and sister “Churches” in any way equal to the Catholic Church. (Excepting of course those of the East who have maintained Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders.)
C
CARose
Guest
Davy,
If neither you nor your wife were Catholic at the time of your marriage in 1979, you were under no obligation to marry in the Catholic Church, and the Church would recognize your marriage as valid in the eyes of the Church and the eyes of God. A Catholic, however, is bound to follow the forms laid out by the Church, and to fail to do so has real consequences in the eyes of God.
CARose
If neither you nor your wife were Catholic at the time of your marriage in 1979, you were under no obligation to marry in the Catholic Church, and the Church would recognize your marriage as valid in the eyes of the Church and the eyes of God. A Catholic, however, is bound to follow the forms laid out by the Church, and to fail to do so has real consequences in the eyes of God.
CARose
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
There is a difference I believe in how the Church looks at dates depending on why the first attempt is not recognized. Not intending to get into anyones specific marriage situation.
If two people one Catholic and the other a Baptized Christian. marry in the non-Catholic church and both are free to marry, etc. The marriage is considered invalid due to form. The Church would not recognize the marriage as valid until it is convalidated. However the original date would stand after the convalidation since nothing indicates that the original consent was invalid.
An instance however when the exchange of consent is deemed invalid due to a prior Marriage or some other reason. The Church recognizes the marriage after the impediment is removed and a new exchange of consent is made in a Convalidation. The date of the marriage is in fact the dated of the new exchange of consent not the original attempted date of the marriage.
Deacon John correct me if i’m wrong.
J
Jesusismylord
Guest
I have a friend who is civilly married to a Jewish man. Her Jewish husband had bee previously married in his church to his first wife and had gotten a civil divorce and is now married to my friend… Now my friend and her husband are thinking of becoming Catholics, but when they approached our pastor, the first thing he told them as that her husband must get an annulment from the Catholic Church for a marriage that had been done in a Jewish Temple many years ago. .
Is this not a contradiction? So if a Catholic was previously married in a Protestant, Jewish,etc Church, does it mean that that marriage was valid in the Christian faith or Jewish faith which also believes in the permanence of marriage?
Thanks!
Is this correct?
C
CARose
Guest
The Church reserves to herself the right and responsibility of determining the validity of a given marriage. Hence, an individual is not considered free to marry if they have attempted the bond of marriage previously, until such time as the Church declares the first marriage to be null (having never been a marriage in the first place, due to any of a number of reasons which would impair the couple from having formed the bond of marriage in the first place).
This applies to Catholic and non-Catholic marriages alike. Non-Catholics don’t tend to care whether or not the Church believes they are free to remarry, unless the couple later decides to convert to Catholicism.
CARose
This applies to Catholic and non-Catholic marriages alike. Non-Catholics don’t tend to care whether or not the Church believes they are free to remarry, unless the couple later decides to convert to Catholicism.
CARose
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Catholics must be married in a Catholic Church, though they can marry a non-Catholic (Protestant, Jewish, etc). I do believe that there can be a dispensation to allow them to be married in a non-Catholic church or synagogue, but this is NOT a regular course and in any event must be pursued through the diocese before the wedding. There would be paperwork involved.
If a Catholic marries a Protestant in a Protestant church without the above dispensation, the marriage is invalid due to lack of form. Ditto to marriage of a Catholic to a Jewish person in a synagogue. AND to marriage of TWO Catholics by a Justice of the peace, as well. All are invalid due to lack of form.
Therefore this couple are already themselves in an invalid marriage, since they could not have been wed in the Catholic Church of the Catholic party to the marriage.
Now, regarding NON Catholics, their marriages, WHEREVER they occurred, are considered VALID.
Two Jewish people, marrying in a temple, are considered to have a VALID MARRIAGE. The fact that they civilly divorced (even if their churches/temples sanction divorce) does not affect the understanding that the first marriage was a valid marriage. If it is found that the marriage was invalid, then the couple will be free to convalidate their marriage.
Otherwise, according to Catholic teaching as given by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, since the husband was married before, and the marriage is still considered valid, he and the second wife are in an adulterous relationship. They could not seek to enter the Church as Catholics without regularizing this wrong relationship, because they could not participate in the sacraments, they would basically, by living as husband and wife in mortal sin, be in a constant state of defiance of the faith they supposedly embrace.
Again, that is why seeking a decree of nullity is necessary.
Your Jewish friend therefore is considered still validly married to his first wife. THAT is why an annulment is needed.
If a Catholic marries a Protestant in a Protestant church without the above dispensation, the marriage is invalid due to lack of form. Ditto to marriage of a Catholic to a Jewish person in a synagogue. AND to marriage of TWO Catholics by a Justice of the peace, as well. All are invalid due to lack of form.
Therefore this couple are already themselves in an invalid marriage, since they could not have been wed in the Catholic Church of the Catholic party to the marriage.
Now, regarding NON Catholics, their marriages, WHEREVER they occurred, are considered VALID.
Two Jewish people, marrying in a temple, are considered to have a VALID MARRIAGE. The fact that they civilly divorced (even if their churches/temples sanction divorce) does not affect the understanding that the first marriage was a valid marriage. If it is found that the marriage was invalid, then the couple will be free to convalidate their marriage.
Otherwise, according to Catholic teaching as given by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, since the husband was married before, and the marriage is still considered valid, he and the second wife are in an adulterous relationship. They could not seek to enter the Church as Catholics without regularizing this wrong relationship, because they could not participate in the sacraments, they would basically, by living as husband and wife in mortal sin, be in a constant state of defiance of the faith they supposedly embrace.
Again, that is why seeking a decree of nullity is necessary.
Your Jewish friend therefore is considered still validly married to his first wife. THAT is why an annulment is needed.
J
Jesusismylord
Guest
Please pray for this couple in question. What my pastor told them, that the man should first get an annulment has discouraged them from their call to become Catholics. Actually, they are both Jewish and have discovered Jesus (Messianic Jews) and were thinking of becoming Catholics. Now they are discouraged and have put this on hold.
Thanks!
Teresa
Thanks!
Teresa
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
This is a special case since BOTH are not Baptized. They should speak with a canon lawyer or the diocese Marriage tribunal about how to proceed. An annulment process may not be necessary.
D
davy39
Guest
At the time of our marriage, I was Catholic, but my wife was a member of the church of Christ, but later converted to our church. So we had to both go through the annulment process, and her through RCIA of course. It was a long process, but it was well worth it.
C
CARose
Guest
Ah Davy, thanks for the clarification! You’re so right.
And Br. Rich brings up an important point, one I should have recognized myself.
CARose
And Br. Rich brings up an important point, one I should have recognized myself.
CARose
- Status