Blessing question

[MammaBear]

Can anyone tell me if the nuptial blessing given at the Rite of Marriage is also give at a Convalifation? Is it a different blessing at a Convalidation?

Thanks!

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I don’t think so. Convalidation is the same as a nupital wedding, just a different name. It is a new consent.

 

[phil19034]

Can anyone tell me if the nuptial blessing given at the Rite of Marriage is also give at a Convalifation? Is it a different blessing at a Convalidation?

Thanks!

It’s the same Rite, there are no differences except that typically at a Convalidation it’s often just the bride/groom and two witnesses.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Same - the only change in ours may have been slight wording adjustment because we already had children, but even at that, I don’t think it was different.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

It’s the same Rite, there are no differences except that typically at a Convalidation it’s often just the bride/groom and two witnesses.

Not necessarily. The only reason for not having guests present is a lack of understanding of what a convalidation is (by potential guests). We had a crowd for ours; perfectly acceptable and a good reason to celebrate with family/friends/Church community.

Nothing wrong with only 2 witnesses, either.

 

[phil19034]

Not necessarily. The only reason for not having guests present is a lack of understanding of what a convalidation is (by potential guests). We had a crowd for ours; perfectly acceptable and a good reason to celebrate with family/friends/Church community.

Nothing wrong with only 2 witnesses, either.

right. that’s why I said “often”

 

[angell1]

It’s the same Rite, there are no differences except that typically at a Convalidation it’s often just the bride/groom and two witnesses.

funny that you mention that, I’ve been wondering about that lately, I guess, technically, that could happen at a wedding too, right?

for whatever reason, I supposed the bride and groom don’t have to invite anyone besides what’s required, do they?

 

[phil19034]

funny that you mention that, I’ve been wondering about that lately, I guess, technically, that could happen at a wedding too, right?

for whatever reason, I supposed the bride and groom don’t have to invite anyone besides what’s required, do they?

correct.

 

[Phemie]

funny that you mention that, I’ve been wondering about that lately, I guess, technically, that could happen at a wedding too, right?

for whatever reason,** I supposed the bride and groom don’t have to invite anyone besides what’s required, do they?**

Exactly! That’s why it’s so frustrating to hear someone say that they are getting married civilly because they don’t have the money to get married in the Church. All it takes for a Church wedding is the bride and groom, two witnesses and the priest, deacon, or, in some cases, a lay person appointed by the bishop.

 

[phil19034]

Exactly! That’s why it’s so frustrating to hear someone say that they are getting married civilly because they don’t have the money to get married in the Church. All it takes for a Church wedding is the bride and groom, two witnesses and the priest, deacon, or, in some cases, a lay person appointed by the bishop.

Agreed. The Church needs to a better job of advertising that this is an option

 

[Faith1960]

It’s the same Rite, there are no differences except that typically at a Convalidation it’s often just the bride/groom and two witnesses.

We had five guests in addition to our two witnesses.

 

[Faith1960]

Not necessarily. The only reason for not having guests present is a lack of understanding of what a convalidation is (by potential guests). We had a crowd for ours; perfectly acceptable and a good reason to celebrate with family/friends/Church community.

Nothing wrong with only 2 witnesses, either.

I also held flowers

 

[phil19034]

We had five guests in addition to our two witnesses.

Yes, I didn’t mean that guests were not allowed at a convalidation. I simply meant that usually it’s just the bride & groom, plus their witnesses. But you could have 100 guests if you wanted.

Really, all a “convalidation” means is that the couple is already legally married by the state, but not married in the eyes of the Church.

 

[MammaBear]

Thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Vico]

Yes, I didn’t mean that guests were not allowed at a convalidation. I simply meant that usually it’s just the bride & groom, plus their witnesses. But you could have 100 guests if you wanted.

Really, all a “convalidation” means is that the couple is already legally married by the state, but not married in the eyes of the Church.

It also means that the couple themselves do not believe that they are married, so it is in their eyes also. If it is believed by either that the marriage is valid, then new consent cannot be given, so a retroactive convalidation would need to be used.

 

[Phemie]

It also means that the couple themselves do not believe that they are married, so it is in their eyes also. If it is believed by either that the marriage is valid, then new consent cannot be given, so a retroactive convalidation would need to be used.

I think that only applies if a putative marriage existed.

A putative marriage does not exist if they were married civilly without a dispensation. That was cleared up in a dubium sometime in the 1940s.

 

[Vico]

I think that only applies if a putative marriage existed.

A putative marriage does not exist if they were married civilly without a dispensation. That was cleared up in a dubium sometime in the 1940s.

That would be the 1917 code. Is that equivalent to the current Can. 1157 ?

The renewal of consent must be a new act of will consenting to a marriage which the renewing party knows or thinks was invalid from the beginning.

 

[Phemie]

That would be the 1917 code. Is that equivalent to the current Can. 1157 ?
The renewal of consent must be a new act of will consenting to a marriage which the renewing party knows or thinks was invalid from the beginning.

It doesn’t hinge on Can. 1157 but rather on Canon 1061§3.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh. §2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.
§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

I quote from post #32 on this page

In volume 41 of the Acts of the Apostolic See, p. 158, you’ll find this authentic interpretation:

RESPONSA AD PROPOSITA DUBIA
…
II - De matrimonio putativo

D. An sub verbo « celebratum » can. 1015 § 4 intelligi debeat dumtaxat
matrimonium coram Ecclesia celebratum.
R. Affirmative.
Datum Romae, e Civitate Vaticana, die 26 Ianuarii anno 1949.

M. Card. MASSIMI, Praeses. vatican.va/archive/aas/do…%20-%20ocr.pdf

Basically, the question is: whether the verb “celebrated” in c. 1015.4 (in the 1983 Code, 1061.3) must be understood (to mean) only a marriage celebrated before the Church. Answer: yes. So, when a party to a marriage is Catholic, the marriage must be “celebrated before the Church,” i.e., in accord with the requirements of canonical form. If a Catholic totally disregards canonical form, that attempted marriage is not even putative as far as the Church is concerned. This interpretation was made on the 1917 Code but it still applies today since the 1983 Code is the same, as far as how a putative marriage is defined.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[Vico]

It doesn’t hinge on Can. 1157 but rather on Canon 1061§3.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh. §2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.
§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

I quote from post #32 on this page

Of course. What I an referring to is not about putative but about the inability or unwillingness to give new consent, so instead of a simple convalidation, a retroactive convalidation is the only possibility.

 

[phil19034]

Of course. What I an referring to is not about putative but about the inability or unwillingness to give new consent, so instead of a simple convalidation, a retroactive convalidation is the only possibility.

It’s called a Radical Sanation.

I had one when I returned to the Church. My wife didn’t want to go though a convalidation, so after several months of prayer, etc. I worked out a Radical Sanation, which the Bishop approved.

The Radical Sanation is addressed in Canon Law #1161