Do we consider non-Catholic spouses as fornicating?

[jmcrae]

OK, I got that…makes sense.

But I’m a little confused by the other sacraments (besides baptism, that is). So is confirmation a sacrament in Protestantism as well (even though they don’t recognize it as such? And if so, if someone is confirmed as a Protestant, why then would they need to be reconfirmed (or have I got the terminology wrong…) in the Catholic Church when converting?

For Baptism, God works through anyone who intends to baptize as the Church baptizes, and who is using the standard Trinitarian formula.

For Confirmation and Holy Orders, God acts through a validly ordained Bishop - if there is no validly ordained Bishop performing the Sacrament, it does not take place. There is one exception to this that I am aware of: priests may Confirm adult converts on the night of the Easter Vigil.

For Holy Communion, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick, God acts through a validly ordained priest or Bishop - without the validly ordained priest or Bishop, these Sacraments also don’t happen.

I understand marriage…as it is a sacrament that the two people getting married give to each other, with the priest/deacon/pastor, etc. presiding and why the “sacramentality” would be separate from the presider.

 

[tinman]

This seems a lot of fighting over jurisdiction regarding marriage, and makes it seem easier to be a non-Catholic than a Catholic.

To some degree I’m a skeptical Catholic, because our Church does have a history of being irrational – think of Galileo.

Reading about mixed marriages, I came across this tidbit:

As a consequence Pope Benedict XIV, choosing the lesser of two evils, issued a declaration concerning marriages in Holland and Belgium (Nov. 4, 1741), in which he declared mixed unions to be valid, provided they were according to the civil laws even if the Tridentine prescriptions had not been observed. A similar declaration was made concerning mixed marriages in Ireland by Pope Pius, in 1785, and gradually the “Benedictine dispensation” was extended to various localities.

 

[jmcrae]

This seems a lot of fighting over jurisdiction regarding marriage, and makes it seem easier to be a non-Catholic than a Catholic.

Well, yes, I think it’s definitely easier to be a non-Catholic.

Not nearly as rewarding, though.

To some degree I’m a skeptical Catholic, because our Church does have a history of being irrational – think of Galileo.

Perhaps you should learn about Galileo, instead of believing whatever popular mythology is making you think that he has anything to do with anything in this thread.

 

[rlg94086]

Having had experience of this with my god son, the marriage is considered valid, but not Sacramental. If the unbaptized person later gets baptized, the marriage automatically becomes Sacramental at the moment of his or her baptism.

Thanks. Does that mean the couple can get married in the Catholic Church, as long as they raise their children Catholic? …and I’m assuming it would require a dispensation?

 

[1ke]

Thanks. Does that mean the couple can get married in the Catholic Church, as long as they raise their children Catholic? …and I’m assuming it would require a dispensation?

Yes, they can be married in the Church. Yes, it requires a dispensation from disparity of cult.

 

[Newbie2]

OK…scratch head again…so I understand this correctly:

If a Protestant is married, it is sacramental…therefor unbreakable, no?

So, if a Protestant gets divorced, then converts, are they still considered married to the (former) partner? Would then there be a prohibition for that converted partner in the marriage to the Eucharist if they got remarried as a Catholic?

(Hope that question’s clear)

 

[jmcrae]

OK…scratch head again…so I understand this correctly:

If a Protestant is married, it is sacramental…therefor unbreakable, no?

Assuming it’s valid, yes. (Validity is presumed, until the Marriage Tribunal is asked to look into it.)

Valid non-Sacramental marriages are also unbreakable, as well, just so you know.

So, if a Protestant gets divorced, then converts, are they still considered married to the (former) partner? Would then there be a prohibition for that converted partner in the marriage to the Eucharist if they got remarried as a Catholic?

(Hope that question’s clear)

If a divorced Protestant were to attempt marriage with a Catholic, he or she would have to receive a Declaration of Nullity for the previous marriage before the wedding could take place in the Church.

The same would happen if a divorced and unbaptized person were to attempt the same thing - it’s validity that counts, with regard to the permanence of marriage.

Remember, Adam and Eve did not have a Sacramental marriage, but it was certainly both valid and permanent.

This is also why people converting to the Catholic faith, who have been divorced and remarried, need to go through the Marriage Tribunal at the same time that they are going through RCIA - so that they can receive a marriage blessing, and begin to receive the Sacraments in the Church.

 

[1ke]

OK…scratch head again…so I understand this correctly:

If a Protestant is married, it is sacramental…therefor unbreakable, no?

If the Protestant is baptized and married to another baptized person (with no impediments/prior bonds), yes it’s a Sacrament. Remember, not all Protestants believe baptism is necessary and some are not baptized.

So, if a Protestant gets divorced, then converts, are they still considered married to the (former) partner?

Correct. They can petition the tribunal if they believe they have grounds for nullity.

Would then there be a prohibition for that converted partner in the marriage to the Eucharist if they got remarried as a Catholic?

If the divorced Protestant remarried a Catholic without a decree of nullity outside the Church, the Catholic would be in an invalid marriage and a state of mortal sin and cannot receive the Eucharist.

The Protestant would not be able to complete the process of coming into full communion with the Catholic Church until they took care of the irregular marriage situation by obtaining a decree of nullity or in the absence of that either separating or living as brother and sister with permisison of their pastor.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, they can be married in the Church. Yes, it requires a dispensation from disparity of cult.

Thanks!

 

[David_Dutra]

The question that i have is if a couple get married civilly by the state, but not sacramentally are they allowed to be sexually active. According to my understanding, a couple that is baptized and catholic cannot have intercourse until they are married sacramentally.

I have looked through the different canons. Convalidations but really doesnt say much.

 

[kage_ar]

The question that i have is if a couple get married civilly by the state, but not sacramentally are they allowed to be sexually active. According to my understanding, a couple that is baptized and catholic cannot have intercourse until they are married sacramentally.

I have looked through the different canons. Convalidations but really doesnt say much.

Baptized Catholics are bound under Canon Law, they must marry according to that law. If they choose to attempt marriage outside of that law, they are not validly married. Sex outside of a valid marriage is a grave sin, it is fornication.

 

[jmcrae]

The question that i have is if a couple get married civilly by the state, but not sacramentally are they allowed to be sexually active.

If they are atheists, this is the normal way that they would get married, and it would be a valid marriage.

If they are Catholic, it doesn’t really matter if they are sexually active or not - by the act of marrying outside the Church, they excommunicate themselves. They are re-admitted to the Sacraments when they marry in the Church.