Communion and remarriage

[Corki]

I really don’t know what to do. She came on here and asked for an answer, we gave it, and she’s disputing the answer because it’s not the one she wanted. Normally, I’d just say it’s on her, but the problem is that her husband’s soul is at stake, and she’s probably not going to pass on the correct information.

I’m incredibly saddened by this situation and wish there was more that could be done

I agree. The OP has been asking variants of the same question (about her prior marriage) since 2008, even before her current wedding.

I hope she sorts out her prior situation and is able to validate her marriage but I fear that won’t happen until shesits down with a good priest who can help her through the annulment process.

 

[1ke]

I agree. The OP has been asking variants of the same question (about her prior marriage) since 2008, even before her current wedding.

Wow, thanks for this heads-up.

How annoying to have spent time honestly trying to answer this question and help someone only to find out that the OP has indeed been posting this same question for almost 2 years, and getting the same answer for almost 2 years. In fact, I actually posted on one of those old threads!!

Maybe the OP should put a disclaimer on future questions on this topic so we will know she plans to let us answer and then accuse us all of being wrong.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Whatever!! This marriage is valid, we are not sinning and all of you are wrong!!! You are just echoing what you have read on this forum and can’t think for yourselves.

I have no problem believeing your marriage is valid, however your husband is not in communion with the church. Again invalid marriage is an oxymoron. Invalid sacramental records exist. Records of those free to marry and not free to marry also exist and that is where the primary problem is. Once your record from the first marriage attempt is removed as incorrect you and your husband can have a marriage recorded recorded in the catholic church and thus end the problem.

hope that helps

 

[inkeri]

6913080[/B]end_of_the_skype_highlighting]I have no problem believeing your marriage is valid, however your husband is not in communion with the church. Again invalid marriage is an oxymoron. Invalid sacramental records exist. Records of those free to marry and not free to marry also exist and that is where the primary problem is. **Once your record from the first marriage attempt is removed as incorrect you and your husband can have a marriage recorded recorded in the catholic church and thus end the problem. **
hope that helps

Texas Roofer, with all due respect, what you said does not make sense to me, especially the part I bolded.

I was not aware that receiving a decree of nullity is a mere matter of designating previous marriage attempts as correct or incorrect.

 

[lizaanne]

Texas Roofer, with all due respect, what you said does not make sense to me, especially the part I bolded.

I was not aware that receiving a decree of nullity is a mere matter of designating previous marriage attempts as correct or incorrect.

That’s because it’s not. He is entirely wrong and providing very dangerous and inaccurate information to someone who is practically begging to hear what she wants to hear. Very dangerous indeed.

~Liza

 

[CoffeeHound]

That’s because it’s not. He is entirely wrong and providing very dangerous and inaccurate information to someone who is practically begging to hear what she wants to hear. Very dangerous indeed.

~Liza

I sort of see where Texas Roofer is going, and it sort of makes sense, but it’s confusing and wrong.

I think I have a way to settle this once and for all:

noclevername, to be able to prove that he’s married in the Catholic Church, your husband should have a notation in his baptismal registry (held at the church in which he was baptized) listing that he’s received the Sacrament of Marriage (and a valid marriage to you, a baptized Methodist, would be sacramental no matter where it was held). If he has a form from his baptism parish showing that he’s married, then no one is really in a place to question the marriage.

Why not contact his baptism parish (the church at which he was baptized) and see what you need to do to get a notation in their registry and a proof of marriage from them? If we’re wrong, they should mail you a piece of paper saying that you’re validly married, and everything will be fine.

 

[lizaanne]

(and a valid marriage to you, a baptized Methodist, would be sacramental no matter where it was held).

No - this is not true either.

A Catholic MUST marry in a Catholic Church UNLESS they have special permission from his Bishop to do otherwise. If they do not, it is not a valid marriage, if it’s not valid, it’s not sacramental.

To whom much is given, much is expected. Catholics must adhere to the laws of the Church. Period.

~Liza

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer, with all due respect, what you said does not make sense to me, especially the part I bolded.

I was not aware that receiving a decree of nullity is a mere matter of designating previous marriage attempts as correct or incorrect.

I do not understand if you are asking a question what that question is. Attempted marriages are just that attempted marriages. Where is the correct or incorrect from? I was referring to records as correct or incorrect not marriages.

That’s because it’s not. He is entirely wrong and providing very dangerous and inaccurate information to someone who is practically begging to hear what she wants to hear. Very dangerous indeed.

~Liza

Canon Law is Canon Law sorry it upsets you Liz

Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.

additionally (seems as though this was posted)
**CHAPTER III.

SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS…

*Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately *and certainly. **

So we see that a previous marriage which has been dissolved by the state still exists as an impediment to the acknowledgement of actual marriage.

noclevername has told you some important things

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No - this is not true either.

A Catholic MUST marry in a Catholic Church UNLESS they have special permission from his Bishop to do otherwise. If they do not, it is not a valid marriage, if it’s not valid, it’s not sacramental.

To whom much is given, much is expected. Catholics must adhere to the laws of the Church. Period.

~Liza

Like Adam & Eve ?

…and all those OT people, were any of them married, ever? how could they be if Bishops which did not exist are who make marriages

 

[lizaanne]

I have no problem believeing your marriage is valid, however your husband is not in communion with the church. Again invalid marriage is an oxymoron. Invalid sacramental records exist. Records of those free to marry and not free to marry also exist and that is where the primary problem is. Once your record from the first marriage attempt is removed as incorrect you and your husband can have a marriage recorded recorded in the catholic church and thus end the problem.

hope that helps

In the quote above, you tell her that all she has to do is get an inaccurate record fixed in a parish office, and that you have no problem believing that her marriage is valid. This is wrong and very dangerous. You have no idea if their marriage is valid, and all evidence is to the contrary, and has been explained very well by others. And just updating some records in an office is not what needs to happen - they need to go through the annulment process for her previous marriage and receive a Declaration of Nullity of her first marriage before they can convalidate the current union.

Canon Law is Canon Law sorry it upsets you Liz

My name is Liza. Not Liz. And Canon Law does not upset me - but poor advice to others most certainly does.

Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.

additionally (seems as though this was posted)
**CHAPTER III.

SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS…

*Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately ***and certainly.

So we see that a previous marriage which has been dissolved by the state still exists as an impediment to the acknowledgement of actual marriage.

noclevername has told you some important things

I agree with the above - but I fail to see how it is in any way the same as telling someone that you “have no problem believeing [sic] your marriage is valid”.

~Liza

 

[lizaanne]

Like Adam & Eve ?

…and all those OT people, were any of them married, ever? how could they be if Bishops which did not exist are who make marriages

You are kidding, right?

Wow - that statement is so very telling of your level of understanding. I’m not wasting any more time here. Seeya.

~Liza

 

[CoffeeHound]

No - this is not true either.

A Catholic MUST marry in a Catholic Church UNLESS they have special permission from his Bishop to do otherwise. If they do not, it is not a valid marriage, if it’s not valid, it’s not sacramental.

To whom much is given, much is expected. Catholics must adhere to the laws of the Church. Period.

~Liza

A baptized Methodist VALIDLY married to a Catholic would have a sacramental wedding no matter where they were married. There’s no “ifs, ands, or buts” in that statement.

If valid marriage took place in a country club, it would, by definition, need a dispensation from form. If the couple did not have a dispensation it would not be valid.

 

[CoffeeHound]

I do not understand if you are asking a question what that question is. Attempted marriages are just that attempted marriages. Where is the correct or incorrect from? I was referring to records as correct or incorrect not marriages.

The problem was that you told her that her marriage was valid. It is not. It suffers from two specific impediments (on of which you listed):

1. Lack of proper form (a Catholic marrying outside the Catholic Church without dispensation)
2. Lack of freedom to marry (the bride was already presumably validly married at the time of the wedding and thus was not free to marry)

So they did not validly marry and this is not simply a “paperwork issue”, as it would sound from your post. To be validly married, they will need an entirely new wedding ceremony (a convalidation) to satisfy the impediment listed in #1 after investigation to resolve the impediment listed in #2.

Telling her that her marriage is valid, when it is not, is dangerous because it will cause her and her husband to sin further.

Like Adam & Eve ?

…and all those OT people, were any of them married, ever? how could they be if Bishops which did not exist are who make marriages

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

About 1612 is where you should start. There’s a pretty fundamental difference between marriage under the laws of Moses and marriage under the new and everlasting covenant.

 

[dans0622]

SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS…

*Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately *and certainly.

So we see that a previous marriage which has been dissolved by the state still exists as an impediment to the acknowledgement of actual marriage.

Hello Texas Roofer,

I must say that I do not know what your ultimate point is but this canon is not concerned with any action by a civil authority to “dissolve” a marriage. Instead, it refers to a bond of marriage that has been dissolved by the Pope or by the Pauline Privilege or by death. Such a dissolution needs to be established legitimately before a party can re-marry (in the true sense of the term).

Dan

 

[dans0622]

No - this is not true either.

A Catholic MUST marry in a Catholic Church UNLESS they have special permission from his Bishop to do otherwise. If they do not, it is not a valid marriage, if it’s not valid, it’s not sacramental.

~Liza

Hi Liza,

To be more precise, a Catholic must marry according to canonical form unless they have a dispensation from the local ordinary. The physical location of a wedding does not impact validity, as long as the official witness (priest) is within his territory. A Catholic who gets married out on a beach, for example, without permission–but otherwise observes canonical form–would be in a presumptively valid marriage, although it would be illicit (since permission to be married outside of a sacred place was not obtained). See c. 1118.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The problem was that you told her that her marriage was valid. It is not.

I have to disagree with you on both accounts 1) I did not say she is validly married, 2) I do not believe I nor any poster has the divine power or privilege to know such

It suffers from two specific impediments (on of which you listed):

1. Lack of proper form (a Catholic marrying outside the Catholic Church without dispensation)

1. Lack of freedom to marry (the bride was already presumably validly married at the time of the wedding and thus was not free to marry)

So they did not validly marry and this is not simply a “paperwork issue”, as it would sound from your post. To be validly married, they will need an entirely new wedding ceremony (a convalidation) to satisfy the impediment listed in #1 after investigation to resolve the impediment listed in #2.

Would that new wedding ceremony be called a Radical Sanation (tongue in cheek) How about you explain to her how her life would be different from the convalidation. Will she live in a new place? Will it be in the newspaper? Will all her family and friends come? What kind of public announcement must occur? ( or will some record be changed in a closed book in the office?)

Telling her that her marriage is valid, when it is not, is dangerous because it will cause her and her husband to sin further.

I choose not to judge nor do I see any sign of sin, remember her husband is refraining, she is not catholic

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

About 1612 is where you should start. There’s a pretty fundamental difference between marriage under the laws of Moses and marriage under the new and everlasting covenant.

I am not sure that is the best reference. I make another post which may address this better
Thank you for the post

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hello Texas Roofer,

I must say that I do not know what your ultimate point is but this canon is not concerned with any action by a civil authority to “dissolve” a marriage. Instead, it refers to a bond of marriage that has been dissolved by the Pope or by the Pauline Privilege or by death. Such a dissolution needs to be established legitimately before a party can re-marry (in the true sense of the term).

Dan

Thanks Dan
I think we are seeing the same thing, one big issue for non catholics is the issue of recognizing the marriage while calling it out of form and validity, and yet refusing to recognize the divorce. To them it must surely seem we say **" I do not recognize your marriage, and I do not recognize your right to marry because I know you are married in that mariage I refuse to recognize". **:whacky:

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let me apologize to Lizaanne I should have been more patient and productive.

Guys let’s try it this way: Let’s take 100% of the marriage responsibility and simply assign it to the appropriate party. I ask you to test your thoughts before you post because this is highly deceptive.

 

[CoffeeHound]

I have to disagree with you on both accounts 1) I did not say she is validly married, 2) I do not believe I nor any poster has the divine power or privilege to know such

I do. Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and loose and she does this through Canon Law. Canon Law is very clear on this situation that her wedding is not valid.

Perhaps the disconnect is that you do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, which is fine (the OP is Methodist, after all). However under that case, your advice would not be based on Catholic theology. Presenting it as such is, at best, dishonest.

How about you explain to her how her life would be different from the convalidation. Will she live in a new place? Will it be in the newspaper? Will all her family and friends come? What kind of public announcement must occur? ( or will some record be changed in a closed book in the office?)

What’s the difference between a couple that cohabitates according to state law and a couple married according to state law? Practically there’s no difference. It’s the exact same situation with being married according to God’s Law vs. cohabitating according to God’s Law.

I choose not to judge nor do I see any sign of sin, remember her husband is refraining, she is not catholic

If you use the heretical definition of marriage you originally defined, then I would come to the same conclusion. That’s why Methodists would consider their marriage valid while Catholics would not.

Just please stop trying to pass off your opinion as being “Catholic”.

 

[CoffeeHound]

I think we are seeing the same thing, one big issue for non catholics is the issue of recognizing the marriage while calling it out of form and validity, and yet refusing to recognize the divorce.

There’s no contradiction. The Catholic Church never recognizes divorce as breaking the bond of marriage. Only the death of a spouse can do that.

There is no defect from lack of form for non-Catholics.

To them it must surely seem we say **" I do not recognize your marriage, and I do not recognize your right to marry because I know you are married in that mariage I refuse to recognize". **:whacky:

The Catholic Church does recognize her first marriage. And as such, it does not recognize her ability to marry a second person. It’s really not whacky at all when you understand it.