Catholic Convalidation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lmaria91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Personally, I find it odd that one may make mutual and public promises, have every intention of Honoring these promises, live together as man and wife yet the Church sees nothing more there than a rescindable arrangement.
Click to expand...
Who is rescinding what?

Be that as it may, in principle, there is nothing unusual about a legal system requiring subjects of the law to observe certain formalities in specific actions that will have legal consequences. This happens regularly in the Church, and the state, too, does it in regard to weddings/marriage (as well as other things).

However, yes, one could say that it is odd for the church to continue to impose formalities like those of “canonical form” when its basic purpose (ensuring a “public” exchange of consent) is now also accomplished by the requirements of civil law.

Dan
 
Rau said:
I guess in respect of marriage, I’ve tended to see “form” as only a secondary attribute of what is happening.
Click to expand...
But it isn’t. Failure to be married in Catholic form is as much an impediment to valid marriage as any other.
 
Just go to the priest and tell him you’re (presumably having physical intimacy now) and going to be living together soon anyway. See if you can do a quick ceremony there in the rectory. And then have a big celebration whenever you want to.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
yet the Church sees nothing more there than a rescindable arrangement.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t.

perhaps the others aren’t being blunt enough to get it across, so I will: the church sees them as just plain shacked up and fornicating, with nothing to rescind.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
Is it your position that the Church does not have authority over Catholics and the sacraments?
Click to expand...
No. What I found odd is the rule the church chose to make. That does not challenge rule-making authority so I’m perplexed that you ask the question you do, given there’s no foundation for it in anything I posted.🤔
acanonlawyer said:
However, yes, one could say that it is odd for the church to continue to impose formalities like those of “canonical form” when its basic purpose (ensuring a “public” exchange of consent) is now also accomplished by the requirements of civil law.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
dochawk said:
perhaps the others aren’t being blunt enough to get it across, so I will: the church sees them as just plain shacked up and fornicating, with nothing to rescind.
Click to expand...
The “rescinding” I referred to is a State prerogative. One cannot be married in the Church if civilly married.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
I’m assuming that you are an adult. Your Dad will have to get used to you making your own moral choices.
Click to expand...
And, if she’s planning a big wedding and needs help from Dad to pay for it, she’ll have to get used to living with the consequences of her own moral choices. 😉

(And, even if the OP is paying for her wedding herself, she’ll be dealing with the fallout of telling her dad that his wishes mean nothing to her, for quite a long while…)
Rau said:
Personally, I find it odd that one may make mutual and public promises, have every intention of Honoring these promises, live together as man and wife yet the Church sees nothing more there than a rescindable arrangement.
Click to expand...
Well, if those promises are made in a civil context in which divorce provides an easily-accessible end to the marriage, then it really is just “a rescindable arrangement”, isn’t it, in its civil extent?

On the other hand, if the promises are made in a religious context in which marriage is seen as indissolvable and life-long, then why is it “odd” that the Church sees precisely what it sees?
Rau said:
Well, the church does see (only) the legally contracted “civil marriage”
Click to expand...
It really doesn’t. It doesn’t recognize the marriage as such.
Rau said:
One cannot be married in the Church if civilly married.
Click to expand...
Says who? One cannot be married to another person besides one’s spouse if civilly married, but that holds in civil contexts as well as Church contexts.

However, couples who are only civilly married subsequently get married to each other in the Church all the time. It’s called “convalidation”, and it creates a sacramental marriage.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
The “rescinding” I referred to is a State prerogative. One cannot be married in the Church if civilly married.
Click to expand...
That simply is not the position of the RCC.

The church doesn’t recognize what you call a “state prerogative”, and it is neither requirement nor bar to marrying the same person in the church.

Now, civil marriage to someone else would be another story . . .
 
Gorgias said:
Well, if those promises are made in a civil context in which divorce provides an easily-accessible end to the marriage, then it really is just “a rescindable arrangement”, isn’t it, in its civil extent?

On the other hand, if the promises are made in a religious context in which marriage is seen as indissolvable and life-long, then why is it “odd” that the Church sees precisely what it sees?
Click to expand...
The civil marriage is rescindable. I could imagine the Church might have elected to hold that the commitment in its eyes stands. However, it does not.
Gorgias said:
It really doesn’t. It doesn’t recognize the marriage as such.
Click to expand...
It really does. It recognises the civil marriage for what it is - a rescindable agreement sufficient to prevent either of the participants marrying another (eg. in the Church) until it is rescinded.
dochawk said:
The church doesn’t recognize what you call a “state prerogative”,
Click to expand...
Of course the church does.
dochawk said:
and it is neither requirement nor bar to marrying the same person in the church.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about church marriage to the same person 😏
 
Justin_Mary said:
So if I were married outside the Church, then divorced, then plan to marry in the Church all I need to do is make a confession & I’m good to go?

I was under the impression that I would have to go through the annulment process to determine if my first marriage was valid.
Click to expand...
From my understanding and experience, you would have to go through the annulment process or you would be living in sin with your subsequent marriage. I could be mistaken, though. I am sure someone will jump in to correct me if I am.
 
Rau said:
Of course the church does.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) dochawk:
Click to expand...
only in the sense that it recognizes the difference between blue and green in laymen’s clothing. It does not recognize it as marriage in the context of at least one Catholic, any more than it recognizes tapping each others nose three times as marriage for Catholics.

Unless you can accept this much of Catholic teaching, discussion is not possible.
 
Rau said:
The civil marriage is rescindable. I could imagine the Church might have elected to hold that the commitment in its eyes stands. However, it does not.
Click to expand...
The thing, though, is that the commitment wasn’t made within the context of the Church. So, what you’re asking is whether the Church is willing to let the civil government proxy for its authority. It ain’t. 😉
Rau said:
It really does. It recognises the civil marriage for what it is - a rescindable agreement sufficient to prevent either of the participants marrying another (eg. in the Church) until it is rescinded.
Click to expand...
In other words, it ‘recognizes’ it as something distinct from a ‘marriage’.
Rau said:
It recognises it for what it is, not for what it does not claim to be.
Click to expand...
This! 👍
It recognizes it as “not marriage, but civil arrangement”.
 
Gorgias said:
So, what you’re asking is whether the Church is willing to let the civil government proxy for its authority. It ain’t.
Click to expand...
Nope, that’s not the question. The question is whether the Church could have chosen to treat the actions that the couple took - to commit themselves to each other - as binding on themselves. 😉
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Nope, that’s not the question. The question is whether the Church could have chosen to treat the actions that the couple took - to commit themselves to each other - as binding on themselves.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that.

The reason why the Church got involved (officially) in the first place is that folks used to do this… and then bail on their spouses, putting them in tough situations, when something better came along. The Church got involved precisely to prevent the kinds of inequities that the whole “nope, we’re not really married” notion created!
 
Gorgias said:
in the first place is that folks used to do this… and then bail on their spouses,
Click to expand...
Many years ago, I was able to go to a talk by Fr. Ted Mackin, SJ, about the history of marriage in the Church.

Exchange of vows used to be the standard for marriage, and there was a problem with couples disappearing, retiring a couple of weeks later, and not agreeing on whether or not they’d exchanged vows (a witness wasn’t necessary).

As a result, the requirement was imposed that a priest witness the vows.

This led to a new problem: young couples whose parents wouldn’t let them marry would break into the rectory, wake the priest, and exchange vows in front of him as he came to his senses! 😱 😜 🤯

In the normal pace of Vatican rush to repair such things, the requirement was eventually put in that the priest request the vows.

“Rush”, as in about 700 years! 🤣 😱 (interestingly, about the same length as between the RCC withholding the Cup from the laity to flush out heretics and finally remembering to return it).

Fr. Mackin was one of the top couple of authorities on the Sacrament of Marriage in the world; one of my biggest regrets about college is that I wasn’t able to fit his high upper division (majors and honors program only) course on the subject into my schedule. A few years ago, my college magazine reported that he had left the order (with permission) after something like 49 years as a priest . . . to marry!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top