Can Protestants Remarry Validly?

[PietroPaolo]

So they’d have to be willing an eventual divorce or affair at the moment of marriage, not just think those are okay possibilities that they wouldn’t pursue themselves.

If we can’t assume the first marriage was invalid b/c of lack of understanding, then we must assume it was valid, making the second marriage invalid and thus we should not attend.

 

[Fairwinds]

That may be your opinion, but the Church does not teach what you propose.

I can’t risk it.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I can’t risk it.

:yawn:

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

See also:

Canon 1101

1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to be in agreement with the words or signs employed in celebrating matrimony.
2. But if either or both parties through a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, some essential element or an essential property of marriage, it is invalidly contracted.

Is belief in the indissolubility of marriage an essential part of marriage? I ask this because the couple contracting marriage has excluded this in the case of adultery. Not only does simple belief exist in the case, but the couple has demonstrated this in an objective way because one party committed adultery and divorced because of it.

 

[Fairwinds]

:yawn:

you know, when we catholics go to these protestant affairs, all eyes are upon us. weddings, funerals, vespers. we kinda outshine the actual wedding or funeral. so because we’re so important, we can’t risk giving even the appearance of approval to those people. no one said being this holy would be easy.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#V

 

[Memaw]

so that means protestant funeral services are verboten, as well as buddhist weddings, etc.

I used to wonder if we catholics went out of our way looking for ways to offend in the name of holier than thou. now I’m certain of it. a catholic who refused to attend a friend’s protestant wedding on religious grounds would be looked at as a prime jerk, would impress no one, and turn off anyone at the inquiring stage. no wonder we’re hated.

Funerals and first time weddings are a different matter. Stating the truth is not "going out of the way to offend anyone or being holier than thou. Human respect should never be the motive for deciding right from wrong. God Bless, Memaw

 

[dans0622]

you know, when we catholics go to these protestant affairs, all eyes are upon us. weddings, funerals, vespers. we kinda outshine the actual wedding or funeral. so because we’re so important, we can’t risk giving even the appearance of approval to those people. no one said being this holy would be easy.

Hello,

Your sarcasm (or whatever it is) exhibits just as much of a judgmental, “holier-than-thou” attitude as the one you are deriding. The original question of the thread, and the responses, are attempts at putting the words of the Lord (whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery) into practice. If you want to say that you would go to this wedding, just say so and perhaps give some reasons.

As far as I’m concerned, it would seem that if we personally have no good reason to think that a person’s marriage is invalid, we have no business going to that person’s second wedding. The Lord was pretty clear and if that is what it looks like is going on, we should not support it by attending.

Dan

 

[Memaw]

Yes, but they are not Catholic, never have been Catholic. They don’t have recourse to the Tribunal. Warrior Monk has an interesting point, Protestants believe they can divorce and remarry would this not make the marriage invalid? Or at least allow us to suppose it was likely invalid?

But the question was, can Catholics attend. The same God for them as us made the rules as to divorce and remarriage. It really isn’t up to people to do what they want. That kind of thinking has gotten the human race in an awful mess. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Fairwinds]

Hello,

Your sarcasm (or whatever it is) exhibits just as much of a judgmental, “holier-than-thou” attitude as the one you are deriding. The original question of the thread, and the responses, are attempts at putting the words of the Lord (whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery) into practice. If you want to say that you would go to this wedding, just say so and perhaps give some reasons.

As far as I’m concerned, it would seem that if we personally have no good reason to think that a person’s marriage is invalid, we have no business going to that person’s second wedding. The Lord was pretty clear and if that is what it looks like is going on, we should not support it by attending.

Dan

we have harsh standards to adhere to. we’ve got to adjudicate the validity of prior protestant marriages within the weeks before one of their weddings without knowing the full set of facts that it might take years for a catholic tribunal to discern. this is hard work. its clearly better to side on caution. who needs friends anyway?

 

[1ke]

Is belief in the indissolubility of marriage an essential part of marriage? I ask this because the couple contracting marriage has excluded this in the case of adultery. Not only does simple belief exist in the case, but the couple has demonstrated this in an objective way because one party committed adultery and divorced because of it.

Adultery does not invalidate marriage.

If one were having an affair before the marriage that continued on after vows were exchanged, then that would be evidence that one did not **intend **fidelity.

An affair during the marriage does not demonstrate this, per se. One could have intended fidelity and failed in that. It does not necessarily indicate there was a defect in intent at the time the vows were exchanged.

 

[PietroPaolo]

we have harsh standards to adhere to. we’ve got to adjudicate the validity of prior protestant marriages within the weeks before one of their weddings without knowing the full set of facts that it might take years for a catholic tribunal to discern. this is hard work. its clearly better to side on caution. who needs friends anyway?

Alright, I’ll bite (even though I really should know better ). Other than wanting to avoid upsetting friends and not wanting to seem harsh or judgmental, what reason would you give for going? Do you think the second marriage is valid? Are you okay with divorce and remarriage? What is the argument…

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Adultery does not invalidate marriage.

If one were having an affair before the marriage that continued on after vows were exchanged, then that would be evidence that one did not **intend **fidelity.

An affair during the marriage does not demonstrate this, per se. One could have intended fidelity and failed in that. It does not necessarily indicate there was a defect in intent at the time the vows were exchanged.

I’m aware of this. That’s not my primary issue. The issue is not believing that marriage is indissoluble at the time of consent, as is clearly the case in the OP. Not only does this apply to the OP, but is applies to all major protestant sects, who do not believe that marriage is a sacrament in the first place, and secondly that it can be dissolved (i.e., not intrinsically indissoluble) in certain circumstances between baptized parties.

Specifically, at the time of consent reserving the right to divorce one’s spouse if a certain event occurs.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I’m aware of this. That’s not my primary issue. The issue is not believing that marriage is indissoluble at the time of consent, as is clearly the case in the OP. Not only does this apply to the OP, but is applies to all major protestant sects, who do not believe that marriage is a sacrament in the first place, and secondly that it can be dissolved (i.e., not intrinsically indissoluble) in certain circumstances between baptized parties.

Specifically, at the time of consent reserving the right to divorce one’s spouse if a certain event occurs.

It seems the canons he cited indicate the need for both the belief that a marriage can be dissolved AND the will to eventually dissolve the marriage to be present when the marriage is preformed. So a temporary marriage entered into at the beginning for 5 years would be invalid, but a Protestant understanding of marriage plus later infidelity would not be enough to make a marriage invalid. At least that’s how I read it.

 

[1ke]

I’m aware of this. That’s not my primary issue. The issue is not believing that marriage is indissoluble at the time of consent, as is clearly the case in the OP.

No, that is not clearly the case with the OP. This is nowhere in the OP.

Not only does this apply to the OP, but is applies to all major protestant sects, who do not believe that marriage is a sacrament in the first place, and secondly that it can be dissolved (i.e., not intrinsically indissoluble) in certain circumstances between baptized parties.

No it doesn’t. Else the Church would not examine each case individually but would rule all such marriages de facto invalid. The Church does not do so.

What protestant sects do or do not teach about marriage does not determine the will at the exchange of consent.

Specifically, at the time of consent reserving the right to divorce one’s spouse if a certain event occurs.

If one specifically intends this, and you can prove it, then yes that is grounds to pursue nullity.

 

[1ke]

It seems the canons he cited indicate the need for both the belief that a marriage can be dissolved AND the will to eventually dissolve the marriage to be present when the marriage is preformed. So a temporary marriage entered into at the beginning for 5 years would be invalid, but a Protestant understanding of marriage plus later infidelity would not be enough to make a marriage invalid. At least that’s how I read it.

Right.

When I was a protestant (Episcopalian) my church did not prohibit divorce/remarriage-- stopping short of actually teaching it was OK they certainly performed remarriages.

As a child of divorce, despite what my denomination taught or didn’t teach, my friends and I would often say “when we marry it will be for life”, “til death do us part”, etc.

It so happens I did not marry while I was a protestant, but had I there would be no case upon which to say that I did not intend perpetuity, Episcopalian teaching aside.

 

[Fairwinds]

Alright, I’ll bite (even though I really should know better ). Other than wanting to avoid upsetting friends and not wanting to seem harsh or judgmental, what reason would you give for going? Do you think the second marriage is valid? Are you okay with divorce and remarriage? What is the argument…

Its not my role to judge the validity of others’ marriage as a tribunal would. I’m not a tribunal. it may be for reasons unknown to me or you or the OP that the first marriage was void ab initio. if was void from the beginning, it is so whether you know it or not. tribunals don’t declare an existing marriage void (a divorce), they declare the marriage never existed. huge difference. the couples’ relationship with each other and with God is between them and God.

because this makes us Catholics look petty and scrupulous, I’d just as soon celebrate the day with my friends.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Its not my role to judge the validity of others’ marriage as a tribunal would. I’m not a tribunal. it may be for reasons unknown to me or you or the OP that the first marriage was void ab initio. if was void from the beginning, it is so whether you know it or not. tribunals don’t declare an existing marriage void (a divorce), they declare the marriage never existed. huge difference. the couples’ relationship with each other and with God is between them and God.

because this makes us Catholics look petty and scrupulous, I’d just as soon celebrate the day with my friends.

Okay, I see your point, however you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you assume a Protestant marriage is in fact a valid marriage and celebrate the day with your friends. On the other hand, you assume the same marriage is invalid when your friend divorces and remarries. The Church’s position is consistent. Assume the first marriage is valid unless proven otherwise. All subsequent remarriages (until the death of the first spouse) are therefore ipso facto invalid.

Further, do you consistently hold to the position of not judging other people’s marriages to be valid or invalid? Would you withhold judgement of the validity of a Gay ‘Marriage’ or a Polygamous Marriage? I don’t suppose you would celebrate such weddings with your friends.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

In addition, they have a “higher authority” telling them the opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches about this. Their pastors and elders are telling them that adultery is a valid reason for divorce and that remarriage is acceptable in that case.

It’s not Catholic teaching exactly, but Jesus said

Matthew 5:32
“But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery” DR

“But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress” RSVCE

But the Catechism explains the revelation on this in Catholic Church teaching.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

 

[Fairwinds]

Okay, I see your point, however you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you assume a Protestant marriage is in fact a valid marriage and celebrate the day with your friends. On the other hand, you assume the same marriage is invalid when your friend divorces and remarries. The Church’s position is consistent. Assume the first marriage is valid unless proven otherwise. All subsequent remarriages (until the death of the first spouse) are therefore ipso facto invalid.

Further, do you consistently hold to the position of not judging other people’s marriages to be valid or invalid? Would you withhold judgement of the validity of a Gay ‘Marriage’ or a Polygamous Marriage? I don’t suppose you would celebrate such weddings with your friends.

I usually give everyone the benefit of the doubt,and there are no hard and fast rules for things like this where my personal interest level is minimal.

I don’t know any gay couples who’d invite me to a wedding, but would give some neutral reason not to go if asked anyway. polygamy? not permitted anywhere, as far as I know. same answer.

not trying to be overly argumentative here, but I honestly cannot see myself turning down a close friend’s invitation to the type of wedding the OP posits because it is scandalous, or whatever the terminology is here.

would you? known someone for 20 years, maybe a business partner, maybe someone you served with overseas, definitely a close friend… turn him down because his marriage is invalid under CCC rules?