Are non-Catholic marriages considered valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benjammin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjohnson said:
I understand what you’re saying, but as “gay-marriage” just came to my state, I find myself seeking comfort and truth in what the church teaches and not what government tells me.

I’m starting to view the civil portion of my marriage as just civil-union paperwork, and my vows exchanged in my Lutheran church before God as my real marriage.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day we should be able to differentiate what Sacramental marriage is from what the secular state wants to call marriage. Civil marriage shouldn’t and really couldn’t degrade what is Sacramental Marriage is. Even if Civil Marriage is only between a man and a woman, it still wouldn’t compare to what a Sacramental Marriage is. Sacramental Marriage is not a legal contract, for starters.
 
1ke said:
Non-Catholic ministers are lay people. They are simply witnessing the vows like any other civil authority.
Click to expand...
That all depends on how you define “Catholic” because it is certainly not the case that priests of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are lay people. They possess valid holy orders.
 
ryanblack said:
that all depends on how you define “catholic” because it is certainly not the case that priests of the assyrian church of the east, the oriental orthodox churches, and the eastern orthodox churches are lay people. They possess valid holy orders.
Click to expand...
see my universal disclaimer, located in my signature.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Even if Civil Marriage is only between a man and a woman, it still wouldn’t compare to what a Sacramental Marriage is. Sacramental Marriage is not a legal contract, for starters.
Click to expand...
Valid civil marriages between the baptized are sacramental.
 
1ke said:
see my universal disclaimer, located in my signature.
Click to expand...
Based on having read a great many of your posts, I had no doubt that you are aware that there are other Apostolic Churches with valid sacraments. However, they are not Catholic, if by Catholic you mean those particular churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is what is generally meant when someone uses the term “Catholic,” especially with the capital “C”. Given this general understanding, even when your disclaimer is read, it could easily be taken that a claim was being made that only priests of the churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome are validly ordained priests.
 
Phemie said:
Legitimacy & illegitimacy referred in that post was the status of the child based on his/her parents’ marital status.

Canon Law defines how and when a child is legitimate. An illegitimate child is legitimated as soon as his parents marry. It no longer has practical application in the Church (illegitimacy used to be an impediment to ordination until the 1983 Code) but it still has application in inheritance and succession laws in certain countries.
Click to expand...
This is going to draw flack, but CANON LAW IS JUST PLAIN WRONG! God considers no life “illegitimate”, and neither should the Church!
 
Don_Jackson said:
This is going to draw flack, but CANON LAW IS JUST PLAIN WRONG! God considers no life “illegitimate”, and neither should the Church!
Click to expand...
This is just plain silliness.

The terms are legal term and there is nothing wrong with them.
 
1ke said:
This is just plain silliness.

The terms are legal term and there is nothing wrong with them.
Click to expand...
Not silly at all if you truly believe in the divine sanctity of human life as opposed to rote manmade legalism.
 
Don_Jackson said:
Not silly at all if you truly believe in the divine sanctity of human life as opposed to rote manmade legalism.
Click to expand...
My dictionary defines “legitimate” to mean “lawful” or “licit”. Marriage of a man to the mother of a child has long been the way to establish the *legal *male parentage of the child.

Jesus was the legitimate descendent of David through Joseph --a man who was not his biological parent-- because Joseph was the husband of Mary.

I believe that even today, the husband of a woman who gives birth is considered to be the legal father of a child unless and until some legal action is taken to establish otherwise. The word “bastard” may have an unsavory connotation but it really is referring to a child who does not have a male parent as the law defines it.
 
SMHW said:
My dictionary defines “legitimate” to mean “lawful” or “licit”. Marriage of a man to the mother of a child has long been the way to establish the *legal *male parentage of the child.

Jesus was the legitimate descendent of David through Joseph --a man who was not his biological parent-- because Joseph was the husband of Mary.

I believe that even today, the husband of a woman who gives birth is considered to be the legal father of a child unless and until some legal action is taken to establish otherwise. The word “bastard” may have an unsavory connotation but it really is referring to a child who does not have a male parent as the law defines it.
Click to expand...
That’s calling being exclusionary. Exactly what Christ preached against.
 
1ke said:
Valid civil marriages between the baptized are sacramental.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about the definition of marriage. But you are right, in the early Church there was no Rite of Marriage. People got married the way their culture or government pronounces them married and if they were Christians then they have a Christian marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top