Opinion does not truth make.
Do you mean simply Christians, or Catholic Christians? If it’s the former, that’s not what our pastor and the canon lawyer told us. They both said that only full Catholics are bound by canon law, and thus the canonical impediments against marriage only apply to them. Seeing as how we won’t be full Catholics at the time of our marriage, it will be valid, sacramental and licit.
Wow what a pile of snakes, first lets address the primary confusion, if given a dispensation it is from canonical form for a catholic to obtain marriage without the specific requirement of form. So the civil marriage is misunderstood. Now to expand that to get to your question; If two non Catholics marry the Catholic Church recognizes this one time if baptized it is sacramental marriage, if not baptized it is recognized as a Natural Marriage. If they convert to Christians the marriage becomes sacramental (one marriage only). Now, once Catholic always catholic by canonical law. So to side track when a catholic marries outside the church without a dispensation the marriage is not recognized by the Catholic Church, thus convalidations, radical Senations, or Sacramental Marriages are needed to return to communion.
This is correct. If neither of you is Catholic, then canon law does not apply to you regarding the form of marriage.
It is not irrelevant. You listed yourself as Catholic in your profile, and asked a question about getting married civilly. Therefore, the intial responses to you incorrectly focused on your need to marry in the Catholic form. But, you are NOT Catholic and therefore do not have to marry in the Catholic form. It was a huge detail to leave out of your initial post as it led to inaccurate answers to your question.
I don’t understand what protestant communion has to do with marriage?
Yes, I mean simply Christians. However, the issue is more nuanced than 1ke or I have expressed. If you are a Christian who is not Catholic and belong to a ‘tradition’ (for lack of a better term) that requires that its members be married in a church ceremony then if they are married by the JP the Church will not recognize it as a Sacramental Marriage. Usually, the Church holds other Christians to their own standards. Of course, if one belongs to a ‘tradition’ that does not have such a requirement then the civil ceremony will generally suffice.
The desecration of a Bishop will have to be relied upon?
You are right. My answer was not the ideal answer I should have given, because I was “strategizing” for the OP, thinking that there were no reason they could not marry in the church unless because one of them being indecisive because of the rush, situation etc. Therefore in that post I began with “In my opinion, if both of you are sincere about the marriage…”. So assuming that both the OP and fiance were sincere with their plan to get married, I gave my advice to get married civilly first, assuming it was only a matter of timing, situation, etc. I did believed God will bless their faithfulness to one another, thus sacramental marriage will surely come in place indeed. This was my assumption in giving such advice.
Yes. I do believe that God’s blessing is transcribed in the sacrament, and that such can make a big difference.
The Orthodox Churches have a requirement of form/canonical code, and a sacramental understanding of marriage. The Catholic Church acknowledges Orthodox marriages as valid or invalid depending upon whether or not the Orthodox person married according to Orthodox requirements.
This is purely in the realm of theory now because we found that this issue is not the issue of the OP(s). But, simply put, the code recognizes that it cannot account for all the exigencies of human life. Therefore a lot of latitude is given to the Diocesan Bishop and even more so to the Holy See. I’m not saying that the Code gets tossed but rather that application of the law is not always straightforward. There is a principle of interpretation that states: Restrictions are to be interpreted as narrowly as possible and permissions are to be interpreted as broadly as possible.
Mosher, let me publically apologize for misunderstanding you over this. I was simply confused based on a very common error I fall into myself many times more than I would like to think about.
Thank you. It was good that you caught that error. It’s actually quite funny.
Sure, that fact means that our original plans have changed (we will be getting married outside of the Church, but *not *in a civil ceremony with a Catholic wedding later on). But that doesn’t change my question. I’M NOT ASKING WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE A VALID MARRIAGE!!! :banghead:
You are not currently a Catholic. Therefore you are not prohibited by canon law from receiving communion in a non-Catholic church. As a candidate you should voluntarily refrain because you no longer consider yourself in communion with these protestants and you recognize they do not have a valid Eucharist.
You are not a Catholic and neither is your fiance. Therefore, not only does Catholic form NOT apply to you, it CANNOT apply to you.
In the sacrament of marriage the **couple **is the minister of the sacrament. They confer it upon each other by the exchange of consent. The Catholic priest, deacon, or appointed lay person is the Church’s *witness *to the marriage when the marriage involves a Catholic. The priest does not confer the sacrament (Latin Rite Church). Therefore, non-Catholics marry validly and sacramentally when they exchange their vows.
I would like to clarify this a little bit. It is becoming the common opinion that the couple is the minister of the sacrament of matrimony. However, this is not the case. There is no magisterial document that has indicated this as being the case. In fact, the thought that the Western Church holds this position started when we are accused by the Orthodox as holding this position. Rather, what is more accurate is that the Church has not made any formal pronouncement on who is the Ordinary Minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony.