Do we consider non-Catholic spouses as fornicating?

[1ke]

And yet, Catholics do not consider a Catholic person to be validly married if they’re married to a non-Catholics.

This is untrue. Catholics can validly marry non-Catholics.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Rubbish. They are considered valid.

At least two of your fellow Catholics in this thread have stated that they are not valid unless they receive a “special dispensation”.

I cannot answer for what other Catholics say, I go by what the official teaching of the Church is. Therefore you are wrong.

So then, I’m wrong because I pointed out that Catholics do believe that such marriages aren’t valid? How did you come to that conclusion?

You know, before you continue to lecture me in the other thread about my alleged misunderstanding of logical fallacies, you might want to familiarize yourself with the phrase “post hoc ergo proctor hoc” because that is the logical fallacy you’ve just committed here.

I didn’t even look at what the others said, it frankly is irrelevant, because the Catholic Church has not forbidden any Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, though it is not recommended.

So then, are you saying that your fellow Catholic posters are wrong?

1ke:

This is untrue. Catholics can validly marry non-Catholics.

Then why did you say earlier that they cannot do so without a “special dispensation”?

 

[Harmony1988]

At least two of your fellow Catholics in this thread have stated that they are not valid unless they receive a “special dispensation”.

I cannot answer for what other Catholics say, I go by what the official teaching of the Church is. Therefore you are wrong. I didn’t even look at what the others said, it frankly is irrelevant, because the Catholic Church has not forbidden any Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, though it is not recommended.

 

[Harmony1988]

At least two of your fellow Catholics in this thread have stated that they are not valid unless they receive a “special dispensation”.

So then, I’m wrong because I pointed out that Catholics do believe that such marriages aren’t valid? How did you come to that conclusion?

You know, before you continue to lecture me in the other thread about my alleged misunderstanding of logical fallacies, you might want to familiarize yourself with the phrase “post hoc ergo proctor hoc” because that is the logical fallacy you’ve just committed here.

So then, are you saying that your fellow Catholic posters are wrong?

Then why did you say earlier that they cannot do so without a “special dispensation”?

Once again, stop modifying your post as an answer, this way I don’t even know if you have answered, modifying does not let the other person know you have answered.

Quote me instead.

 

[Harmony1988]

So then, are you saying that your fellow Catholic posters are wrong?

The ones who said that marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics is not allowed by the church? Yes.

I personally have an aunt who is married to a buddhist, they got married in the catholic church.

 

[Harmony1988]

So then, I’m wrong because I pointed out that Catholics do believe that such marriages aren’t valid? How did you come to that conclusion?

You know, before you continue to lecture me in the other thread about my alleged misunderstanding of logical fallacies, you might want to familiarize yourself with the phrase “post hoc ergo proctor hoc” because that is the logical fallacy you’ve just committed here.

I see what your game is here.

Not only do you refuse to quote in response, but you modify the preceding post to confuse me and the others. Not going to work with me.

I said you were wrong based on formulating the idea that Catholics can’t marry others of different faiths based on the opinions of others here. I’m sorry, Catholicism doesn’t go by majority opinion of the people or the opinions of people on the boards. Some people don’t know all about the teachings.

I have committed no fallacy, but you have started the straw man argument here by cunningly quoting the line you wanted to, leaving out what I said earlier. That’s also known as cherry picking (fallacy)

Smarten up.

This will be the last time I copy paste your modified posts to respond. Learn to quote others, not modify your post lengthening it and making it look like you formed a response to the person before they actually argued with you.

 

[Contarini]

This teaching is not Catholic teaching. The baptism of a Protestant may be valid, that is true at least, and then this person does have a connection with the Church. But the Church then doesn’t call that Protestant a Catholic, either in its documents or in canon law.

Not officially, no. But I think that Vatican II and the Catechism imply what hamburglar is saying. They do say that all the baptized are imperfectly joined to the Church. Now obviously in a sense the word “Catholic” is appropriate only for those who are fully joined to the Church, and that’s how you’re using it and how, as you note, it’s officially used. But the point hamburglar is making is that the Church to which baptism unites us is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Protestants would agree, even if we define the Church differently. No one is baptized into Methodism or Anglicanism or Presbyterianism. They are baptized into the one Church. This goes back to Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Even if their Protestant tradition doesn’t consider it a sacrament? Maybe I’m not clear on “valid” vs. “Sacramental”.

Can you clarify this a bit for me?

What people believe is not what defines a sacrament. Sacraments are God’s work, not human works.

Edwin

 

[1ke]

Then why did you say earlier that they cannot do so without a “special dispensation”?

You stated a universal negative, that Catholics cannot validly marry non-Catholics. This is not true. Catholics can validly marry non-Catholics.

They do not *always *do so, but they *can *do so.

 

[rlg94086]

You stated a universal negative, that Catholics cannot validly marry non-Catholics. This is not true. Catholics can validly marry non-Catholics.

They do not *always *do so, but they *can *do so.

I think this discussion can benefit from a little Canon Law:
catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

Canon 1059* The marriage of catholics, even if only one party is baptised, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law**, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage.*

***CHAPTER VI: MIXED MARRIAGES ***
Canon 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.
“Express permission” is a dispensation.
Canon 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
Canon 1125.1 the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church;
Canon 1125.2 the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party.
Canon 1125.3 both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.
Canon 1126 It is for the Episcopal Conference to prescribe the manner in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, are to be made, and to determine how they are to be established in the external forum, and how the non-catholic party is to be informed of them.
Canon 1127.1 The provisions of canon 1108 are to be observed in regard to the form to be used in a mixed marriage. If, however, the catholic party contracts marriage with a non-catholic party of oriental rite, the canonical form of celebration is to be observed for lawfulness only; for validity, however, the intervention of a sacred minister is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
Canon 1127.2 If there are grave difficulties in the way of observing the canonical form, the local Ordinary of the catholic party has the right to dispense from it in individual cases, having however consulted the Ordinary of the place of the celebration of the marriage; for validity, however, some public form of celebration is required. It is for the Episcopal Conference to establish norms whereby this dispensation may be granted in a uniform manner.
Canon 1127.3 It is forbidden to have, either before or after the canonical celebration in accordance with 1127.1, another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the catholic assistant and a non-catholic minister, each performing his own rite, ask for the consent of the parties.
Canon 1128 Local Ordinaries and other pastors of souls are to see to it that the catholic spouse and the children born of a mixed marriage are not without the spiritual help needed to fulfil their obligations; they are also to assist the spouses to foster the unity of conjugal and family life.
Canon 1129 The provisions of cann. 1127 and 1128 are to be applied also to marriages which are impeded by the impediment of disparity of worship mentioned in canon 1086.1

Now, someone mentioned marriage to a Buddhist. I’m not a Canon lawyer (maybe there is one on the forum that can clear this up), but I don’t believe a marriage is valid and/or sacramental unless both parties are baptized:

Canon 1055.1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has,* between the baptised**, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.*
Canon 1055.2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptised persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.
However, I’m not clear on that in light of 1059 which mentions “if only one party is baptized.” Can anyone clear that up?

 

[whatevergirl]

This is completely incorrect. Non-Catholic marriages are valid marriages. Two Protestants who get married (assuming they are both baptized) have a Sacramental marriage, even if they are married in a garden by a JP.

The only people who are required to get married in the Church are Catholics. The Church does not require the impossible from people.

Going with this…one of my husband’s brothers received an annulment from his first marriage. My husband’s family was raised Catholic, all baptized Catholic. Now, this one brother I mention, remarried in the Lutheran church, to a Lutheran woman. He is now an ‘elder’ in his church–is this second marriage not valid because he is Catholic, although not practicing–and married a Lutheran?

 

[1ke]

Going with this…one of my husband’s brothers received an annulment from his first marriage. My husband’s family was raised Catholic, all baptized Catholic. Now, this one brother I mention, remarried in the Lutheran church, to a Lutheran woman. He is now an ‘elder’ in his church–is this second marriage not valid because he is Catholic, although not practicing–and married a Lutheran?

If he was married in the Lutheran church **without **a dispensation then, yes, it is invalid. If he received a dispensation from form then it is perfectly valid.

 

[whatevergirl]

Thanks–not sure how I’d find that out without appearing nosy. I can’t imagine that he would have sought that out, because he abandoned his own faith. I would imagine that a Catholic person marrying a non Catholic, in a non Catholic church–who had plans of remaining true to the Church, would seek that out, but he has completely abandoned the Catholic faith, and is an elder in the Lutheran church, very much a practicing Christian, just not Catholic. I am led to believe therefore, that he didn’t seek a dispensation, because he wasn’t interested in continuing with the faith.

 

[jmcrae]

Even if their Protestant tradition doesn’t consider it a sacrament?

Yes. Keep in mind, the Sacraments work “ex operato” - it’s God who does them; not us.

Maybe I’m not clear on “valid” vs. “Sacramental”.

Can you clarify this a bit for me?

The marriage of any two baptized persons, if it is a valid marriage, is also a Sacramental marriage. It becomes Sacramental by the fact of two baptized people coming together in a valid marriage.

Unbaptized people have valid marriages, but not Sacramental marriages - because they are not baptized.

 

[jmcrae]

[/INDENT]However, I’m not clear on that in light of 1059 which mentions “if only one party is baptized.” Can anyone clear that up?

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.

 

[jmcrae]

Going with this…one of my husband’s brothers received an annulment from his first marriage. My husband’s family was raised Catholic, all baptized Catholic. Now, this one brother I mention, remarried in the Lutheran church, to a Lutheran woman. He is now an ‘elder’ in his church–is this second marriage not valid because he is Catholic, although not practicing–and married a Lutheran?

I don’t know whether he would be considered Catholic. If he ever attempts to return to the Faith, he would find out, I suppose. If he is still considered Catholic, then, if he wanted to return to the practice of the Catholic faith, he would have to have his marriage blessed in the Church before he could return to the Sacraments.

Apart from that, there is absolutely nothing you can do for him that he would welcome, so aside from keeping him in your prayers, it would be best to just leave him alone.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, a marriage between two baptized Christians is a sacrament even if their own denomination does not believe in sacraments or recognize it as a sacrament.

You are correct that valid and sacramental are two distinct things. In this case though, the marriage would be both.

What people believe is not what defines a sacrament. Sacraments are God’s work, not human works.

Edwin

Yes. Keep in mind, the Sacraments work “ex operato” - it’s God who does them; not us.

The marriage of any two baptized persons, if it is a valid marriage, is also a Sacramental marriage. It becomes Sacramental by the fact of two baptized people coming together in a valid marriage.

Unbaptized people have valid marriages, but not Sacramental marriages - because they are not baptized.

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?

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.

Thanks.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t know whether he would be considered Catholic. If he ever attempts to return to the Faith, he would find out, I suppose. If he is still considered Catholic, then, if he wanted to return to the practice of the Catholic faith, he would have to have his marriage blessed in the Church before he could return to the Sacraments.

Apart from that, there is absolutely nothing you can do for him that he would welcome, so aside from keeping him in your prayers, it would be best to just leave him alone.

I thought if you’re baptized Catholic, you’re always Catholic.

 

[1ke]

I thought if you’re baptized Catholic, you’re always Catholic.

This is true. You are always Catholic.

The marriage laws of the Church state that those who have not “formally defected” are bound by the laws of the Church on marriage. Formally defected has a specific meaning in canon law as it pertains to marriage. There is a link to a document detailing the steps required before someone is considered to have “formally defected” on some other threads if you search, I don’t have time to find it right now.

So, in absence of a formal defection, Catholics are bound by the marriage laws of the Church.

 

[1ke]

So is confirmation a sacrament in Protestantism as well (even though they don’t recognize it as such?

No. All Sacraments other than baptism and marriage require Holy Order to confer it.

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?

They are not “reconfirmed”. They are validly confirmed only in the Catholic or Orthodox Church (or any other church with valid Holy Orders).

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.

Thanks.

The priest does not confer the Sacrament, the couple confer it on each other. The couple is the minister of the Sacrament. The priest/deacon is only a witness for the Church.