Confused

[joeybaggz]

(Two non-Catholics have no obligation to have their pending marriage approved by the Catholic Church, and it would be hugely unfair — not to mention, an ecumenical disaster — if the Catholic Church were to say that such a marriage “does not count” in the church’s eyes.)

The above was stated in a Diocesan publication in response to a question about the validity of a marriage.

I’m not looking to argue but the premise of “hurting the feelings” of other denominations seems a questionable logic to me.

The RCC considers marriage a sacrament, an institution created and validated by Christ. Many, if not most in practice, protestant denominations consider marriage nothing more than an ordinance, something that can be dissolved by man at his will. Why is the marriage between two persons who have no belief in marriage as a sacrament; that the words “what God has joined together, no man may divide” are simply something superfluous and antiquated, valid in the eyes of the church?. In my diocese and others in which I have lived, no Catholic can be married by the Church in anything but a RCC building/sanctuary. Two protestants getting married in a gazebo overlook Lake Whatcamacallit by a “preacher” who has his “degree” from preachersareus.com is the equivalen??? And the tradcats agree? I’m stumped; are you telling me that the simple recitation of the words, “what God has joined together, no man may divide” makes it a valid marriage?

Shalom

 

[1ke]

are you telling me that the simple recitation of the words, “what God has joined together, no man may divide” makes it a valid marriage?

No.

Consent of the parties make a valid marriage.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

 

[Irishmom2]

I get what you are saying joeybaggz, I think I saw the same question in our paper.

Unfortunately, 1ke’s response does little to answer your question. I guess I don’t understand either.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Since their admission to Communion isn’t implied, because it doesn’t apply to those of another denomination, it was pointless your diocese raising it.

Protestants are sadly just as sentimental about what they call “communion” as many Catholics are.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Out of fairness, here is the full answer from Father Kenneth Doyle:

catholicphilly.com/2017/08/think-tank/catholic-spirituality/is-an-annulment-needed-for-a-non-catholic-marriage-and-is-recreational-marijuana-use-permitted/

Q. I need some clarification on the church’s marriage laws. I am a Catholic currently married to a divorced non-Catholic whose first marriage was not in the Catholic Church.

I tried to arrange to marry him in the church, but a parish priest told me that my husband-to-be would need to get his previous marriage annulled first. My husband does not believe in the annulment process, so we did not go through with it.

Later, I happened to go to confession at a Catholic chapel in a mall, and the priest there told me that I can, in fact, get married in the Catholic Church; he said that, since my husband is a non-Catholic, since his prior marriage was not in the Catholic Church and since he is now divorced, he would be free to marry me in a Catholic ceremony.

That priest in confession said he himself would not be able to perform the ceremony because he is assigned to a chapel, but that I should reach out to a priest at a parish. So I did that, and to my disappointment that parish priest told me the same thing the priest had said originally — that my husband would first need an annulment granted by the Catholic Church.

I am getting conflicting information, and I am hoping that you can help me to understand what it is that I need to do. (Eastern Massachusetts)

A. The parish priests were right, and the priest at the mall was wrong. In all likelihood, your husband’s first marriage was presumed by the Catholic Church to have been valid at the time, and a formal annulment process would be required to have that earlier marriage annulled before the two of you could be married in a Catholic ceremony.

(Two non-Catholics have no obligation to have their pending marriage approved by the Catholic Church, and it would be hugely unfair — not to mention, an ecumenical disaster — if the Catholic Church were to say that such a marriage “does not count” in the church’s eyes.)

You and your husband should sit down with a priest and have the annulment process explained: In annulling a marriage, the church is not saying that he was never really married to his first wife — or, that any children of that marriage were illegitimate — but only that some essential element was lacking that would have made it a permanent and binding commitment in the church’s eyes.

Often, such grounds involve emotional immaturity or instability on the part of one or both parties — or a flawed understanding of what the marriage commitment involved.

The annulment process, with the necessary paperwork and testimony, can normally take upward of a year. (If it happened, however, that your husband’s first wife was a Catholic and they were married without church approval, that is a simpler process. It is called, technically, a “declaration of nullity for absence of canonical form” and can often be completed within a few weeks.)

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The RCC considers marriage a sacrament, an institution created and validated by Christ. Many, if not most in practice, protestant denominations consider marriage nothing more than an ordinance, something that can be dissolved by man at his will. Why is the marriage between two persons who have no belief in marriage as a sacrament; that the words “what God has joined together, no man may divide” are simply something superfluous and antiquated, valid in the eyes of the church?

That is an overstatement. Many Protestants believe the teaching of Christ on the indissolubility of a valid Christian marriage. If two Protestants enter marriage without a valid understanding, and then divorce, that lack of understanding could be grounds for a decree of nullity.

In my diocese and others in which I have lived, no Catholic can be married by the Church in anything but a RCC building/sanctuary. Two protestants getting married in a gazebo overlook Lake Whatcamacallit by a “preacher” who has his “degree” from preachersareus.com is the equivalent???

More insults. It is not the building or the officiant that makes a marriage, it is the couple and their intent.

 

[AbideWithMe]

(Two non-Catholics have no obligation to have their pending marriage approved by the Catholic Church, and it would be hugely unfair — not to mention, an ecumenical disaster — if the Catholic Church were to say that such a marriage “does not count” in the church’s eyes.)

The above was stated in a Diocesan publication in response to a question about the validity of a marriage.

I’m not looking to argue but the premise of “hurting the feelings” of other denominations seems a questionable logic to me.

The RCC considers marriage a sacrament, an institution created and validated by Christ. Many, if not most in practice, protestant denominations consider marriage nothing more than an ordinance, something that can be dissolved by man at his will. Why is the marriage between two persons who have no belief in marriage as a sacrament; that the words “what God has joined together, no man may divide” are simply something superfluous and antiquated, valid in the eyes of the church?. In my diocese and others in which I have lived, no Catholic can be married by the Church in anything but a RCC building/sanctuary. Two protestants getting married in a gazebo overlook Lake Whatcamacallit by a “preacher” who has his “degree” from preachersareus.com is the equivalen??? And the tradcats agree? I’m stumped; are you telling me that the simple recitation of the words, “what God has joined together, no man may divide” makes it a valid marriage?

Shalom

Wow, I’m surprised you have such a low view of non-Catholic Christians.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That is an overstatement. Many Protestants believe the teaching of Christ on the indissolubility of a valid Christian marriage. If two Protestants enter marriage without a valid understanding, and then divorce, that lack of understanding could be grounds for a decree of nullity.

More insults. It is not the building or the officiant that makes a marriage, it is the couple and their intent.

Yes. Thank you.

 

[Lucretius]

Why is the marriage between two persons who have no belief in marriage as a sacrament; that the words “what God has joined together, no man may divide” are simply something superfluous and antiquated, valid in the eyes of the church?

For the same reason those who believe follow the correct formula for baptism despite believing that it is a mere “symbol” still baptise, and the same reason why a priest who reads over the Anaphora despite rejecting the doctrine of the Eucharist, still transubstantiates the elements. Ex opere operato.

When it comes to the essence of the sacrament of marriage, all one really needs is the vows of the husband and wife; in the past, pre-reformation era many Christians would marry via common law marriage. However, due to abuses, and political issues related to the reformation, the Latin Church decided during the Council of Trent to bind that at least one presbyter and two witnesses ought to recognize the marriage.

This binding is of the same kind as, say, holy orders only being available for celibate men, or the Apostles’ Creed being read for a baptism: neither are essential to the sacrament, but they are fittingly given the societal, cultural, political, personal, etc. circumstances that the Church and her members currently finds herself in.

Does that make sense? It might help to think of the difference between natural rights and legal rights/positive law, or the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Christi pax.

 

[tee_eff_em]

(Two non-Catholics have no obligation to have their pending marriage approved by the Catholic Church, and it would be hugely unfair — not to mention, an ecumenical disaster — if the Catholic Church were to say that such a marriage “does not count” in the church’s eyes.)

The above was stated in a Diocesan publication in response to a question about the validity of a marriage.

I’m not looking to argue but the premise of “hurting the feelings” of other denominations seems a questionable logic to me.

Perhaps it was poorly stated, but there is a very good reason to not write off the marriages of non-Catholics.

The RCC considers marriage a sacrament, an institution

created

and validated by Christ.

This is not correct. Marriage was raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament, but marriage pre-dates the Church, and comes from the Creator in the beginning.

tee

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The previous posters have already made all the most important points about marriage, in the eyes of the Church, being effectuated by the intent/ consent of the couple involved, but I’d just add on that if the Church all of a sudden decided all marriages not officiated in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest were invalid,

• any non-Catholic divorcee or multiple divorcee could feel free to run over to the Catholic church and marry any Catholic they wanted with no problems, which does not seem to be a desirable situation at all; and
• as the lack of a valid marriage in the Church’s eyes would effectively mean couples were living in sin, it would be essentially condemning the vast majority of people who are non-Catholic simply for being non-Catholic and having a non-Catholic view of marriage requirements. In short, we’d be back to the old “non-Catholics go to hell” way of thinking, which the Church today does not embrace.

 

[joeybaggz]

No.

Consent of the parties make a valid marriage.

Okay. so what is consent? Is it the simple recitation of the two words, “I do” C’mon, when is the last time you’ve been to a wedding ceremony and heard one of the parties say, “No, I don’t,” or something like that?

 

[joeybaggz]

Wow, I’m surprised you have such a low view of non-Catholic Christians.

Actually, I don’t. I admit to baiting by the overstatement in the OP. I understand and respect the marriage vow of two protestants in a church setting, with the presence of a legitimate minister of their faith. It is the people (and I have met many of them in my lifetime) that say they belong to a certain denomination because they were raised in it as a child, but now have no interest or belief in any faith and consider religion nothing but foolish superstition (including many Catholics of my acquaintance) These people get married in a corn field by some “Irregular” minister, without a scintilla of belief in the sacred nature of marriage, and that “consent” by saying “I do” is recognized by the Church? Why, because at the time of the marriage they stated they were (pick you denomination here) and that makes them a Christian??

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

By the way, I really like your signature statement by Rabbi Heschel.

 

[joeybaggz]

This is not correct. Marriage was raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament, but marriage pre-dates the Church, and comes from the Creator in the beginning

Yes, the pagans of the time of Adam, Noah, Abraham, (not to mention the ancient Egyptians) married. I think Pharaoh at Moses time had two hundred wives he “married” Very sacred unions I guess???

Christ came to the people of Israel. By the time of his arrival, Mosaic law had raised marriage to a sacred act within the Covenant. While I don’t disagree with your statement, my take is that Jesus simply validated that sacred nature for his followers (“I cam not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it”) I don’t think Christ was elevating the “marriage” of pagans who worshiped stone dogs and sticks, as the equivalent of the Mosaic law. I reiterate my above post that I am not “damning” (for lack of a better word) marriages between non Catholics of any persuasion who recognize the dignity of marriage instituted by the Creator from the beginning. I am questioning the hard core line of “trads” when it comes to marriages that never were, but just can’t be “proven” so.

It is those who are in an irregular marriage as stated by Francis who have grown in faith, wish to raise their children in the faith and return themselves, who cannot obtain a decree of nullity for a previous (non sacramental/impulsive or foolish marriage) due to a hateful or antagonistic former spouse who does everything in his/her power to derail the annulment process. (and please don’t tell me that doesn’t exist, I have seen too many friends leave the church because of just that situation, including two priest who are now Episcopal ministers, because of their experience with just that situation) The annulment process is tricky (for lack of a better word) and good people fall through the cracks.

And yes, I’m on Francis’ side as to Amoris Laetitia.

Shalom

 

[joeybaggz]

And please, somebody direct me to the instructions how to answer different posts in one single post, without having to make separate individual posts.

If that still exists after the September purge!

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

You’re conflating a couple of things. Any marriage where there are no impediments with consent is a valid marriage. It is not automatically a sacrament. The Church recognizes a distinction. Two people married in a Baptist church, for instance, may or may not have a sacramental marriage while they do (presumably) have a valid marriage. Note that the ministers are the couple themselves, even in a Catholic marriage rite, and the status of the officiant is irrelevant. The determination of sacramental status is dependent upon baptism of both parties, which makes one a member of the Church (Catholic), even if not in full communion or an imperfect state of membership, so to speak. Thus, why would there be a problem with two non-Catholics getting married and having the Church apply her laws to it in the very same way she applies those laws to her own children?

 

[joeybaggz]

You’re conflating a couple of things. Any marriage where there are no impediments with consent is a valid marriage. It is not automatically a sacrament. The Church recognizes a distinction. Two people married in a Baptist church, for instance, may or may not have a sacramental marriage while they do (presumably) have a valid marriage. Note that the ministers are the couple themselves, even in a Catholic marriage rite, and the status of the officiant is irrelevant. The determination of sacramental status is dependent upon baptism of both parties, which makes one a member of the Church (Catholic), even if not in full communion or an imperfect state of membership, so to speak. Thus, why would there be a problem with two non-Catholics getting married and having the Church apply her laws to it in the very same way she applies those laws to her own children?

I don’t disagree with anything you said. My problem is the justice of the attitude that just because two people say I do, means proper and informed consent. (Okay, I know you are going to cite the probability of a decree of nullity in this case, but that isn’t my concern.)

My question isn’t aimed at spiritually mature people who recognize the Creator’s intent. It is with those who entered (willingly) into marriages that were doomed to fail, that cannot be annulled because the annulment process cannot always exact the truth due to the anything from the animosity of former spouses who hate the church, to lack of witnesses or defective memories. And I’ve seen too many good people leave the RCC because of just this situation, including two good priests.

Shalom

 

[AbideWithMe]

Actually, I don’t. I admit to baiting by the overstatement in the OP. I understand and respect the marriage vow of two protestants in a church setting, with the presence of a legitimate minister of their faith. It is the people (and I have met many of them in my lifetime) that say they belong to a certain denomination because they were raised in it as a child, but now have no interest or belief in any faith and consider religion nothing but foolish superstition (including many Catholics of my acquaintance) These people get married in a corn field by some “Irregular” minister, without a scintilla of belief in the sacred nature of marriage, and that “consent” by saying “I do” is recognized by the Church? Why, because at the time of the marriage they stated they were (pick you denomination here) and that makes them a Christian??

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

By the way, I really like your signature statement by Rabbi Heschel.

Well, okay, if you mean vows between those only nominally or residually Christian, I don’t believe we can know the depth of their intent but we still have to presume sincerity of intent unless an exploration of evidence shows otherwise after a marriage fails.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

I get what you are saying joeybaggz, I think I saw the same question in our paper.

Unfortunately, 1ke’s response does little to answer your question. I guess I don’t understand either.

Same here.

Seems like forever I’ve been trying to find the answer to what is meant by “what God joins together…”. It says what GOD joins, not two people, or a pastor, or a priest. How do we know what God joined together? A ceremony? A piece of paper? A simple promise? An oath? Seems like there’s got to be something …I dunno… something to show for it, something occurring, other than everyday lust or friendly compatibility love.

I feel like I’m being taught sham marriages are something God put together and can’t be broken. Your marriage can’t be real if you don’t know God or want to follow Him. A simple agreement for financial reasons, but allowing infidelity on the side, can’t be “what God put together”. Why would GOD JOIN two together in immorality? (Unless sincerely confessed…even at that…where’s the real bond?)

 

[AnneElizabeth]

In the churches favor, I’m sure they can’t scrutinize intent. If God joined two people together how would a third party know? It’s up to the couple to know, but what happens when couples don’t know or understand, lack spiritual comprehension?

We have a catachesis crisis these days… how does this effect vows? The annulment problem has to be directly correlated with that. How do you fix a problem that deep?