Assuming that the marriage a valid natural marriage, then yes the marriage would automatically become Sacarmental.If the non-Catholic party in a disparity of cult marriage gets baptized, does that marriage automatically become sacramental in nature, or does the marriage have to be blessed in a ceremony? If someone can supplement their answer with canon law, or some other authoritative source, that would be appreciated. (I was not able to locate the answer.)
Therefore, theoretically, if both of them got married civilly, and both got received into Church at the same time at the Easter Vigil, that would mean that there would be no matrimonial ceremony necessary in order to convalidate their marriage?And since the Advocate asked for canon law:
Can 1055 §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Right. If they had a valid marriage to start with, at the time of their baptisms it would become a sacramental marriage.Therefore, theoretically, if both of them got married civilly, and both got received into Church at the same time at the Easter Vigil, that would mean that there would be no matrimonial ceremony necessary in order to convalidate their marriage?
That just seems a bit odd to me…A couple gets civilly married in a drive through booth in Vegas before their baptized, and without ceremony, their baptisms requalify the state of their marriage to that of a sacramental one. I’d think a ceremony would be in order…Right. If they had a valid marriage to start with, at the time of their baptisms it would become a sacramental marriage.
No matter what their baptismal status, as long as they freely exchanged consent and had no impediments, their marriage is presumed valid. Valid is valid; it requires no further ceremony once they are baptized.That just seems a bit odd to me…A couple gets civilly married in a drive through booth in Vegas before their baptized, and without ceremony, their baptisms requalify the state of their marriage to that of a sacramental one. I’d think a ceremony would be in order…
Still, thanks for your reply.
Assuming they are not Orthodox Christians or another sacarmental church, then yes.Therefore, theoretically, if both of them got married civilly, and both got received into Church at the same time at the Easter Vigil, that would mean that there would be no matrimonial ceremony necessary in order to convalidate their marriage?
But what if they were Orthodox…then what?Assuming they are not Orthodox Christians or another sacarmental church, then yes.
There is nothing to validate. The marriage is already valid. Convalidation is new exchange of consent to make a marriage valid.Therefore, theoretically, if both of them got married civilly, and both got received into Church at the same time at the Easter Vigil, that would mean that there would be no matrimonial ceremony necessary in order to convalidate their marriage?
Orthodox married in their Orthodox Church would make a profession of faith and that is it.But what if they were Orthodox…then what?
Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon - the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded.
DanMarriage, moreover, is a sacrament, because it is a holy sign which gives grace, showing forth an image of the mystical nuptials of Christ with the Church. But the form and image of these nuptials is shown precisely by the very bond of that most close union in which man and woman are bound together in one; which bond is nothing else but the marriage itself. Hence it is clear that among Christians every true marriage is, in itself and by itself, a sacrament; and that nothing can be further from the truth than to say that the sacrament is a certain added ornament, or outward endowment, which can be separated and torn away from the contract at the caprice of man (nn. 23-24 of “Arcanum”, available here: w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html ).
Correct. I have been a Coordinator of RCIA for more than five years, and very involved for many years prior to that. The books are clear that a first marriage between an unbaptized man and woman is considered valid, and that it becomes Sacramental when both of them are baptized, by the act of Baptism itself. No further action need be taken.Therefore, theoretically, if both of them got married civilly, and both got received into Church at the same time at the Easter Vigil, that would mean that there would be no matrimonial ceremony necessary in order to convalidate their marriage?