Does baptism sacramentalise this marriage?

[yesukristus]

I have a friend who got civilly married before she and her husband was baptised. Does their baptism sacramentalise their marriage or do they need to go for convalidation? Pls quote CCC or canon law where appropriate. Thanks.

 

[1ke]

Non-Catholics marry validly when they marry civilly, as did your friends. If one or both parties are unbaptized, this produces what the Church calls a natural marriage.

If and when both parties become baptized, in the Catholic Church or in a non-Catholic ecclesial community, then their natural marriage becomes a sacrament by the fact of their bpatism.

Their valid marriage becomes a sacrament upon baptism:

*Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament*.

Convalidation is a process for making an invalid marriage valid. It has nothing to do with baptismal status or sacramentality of marriage. Your friends are already in a valid marriage. Convalidation does not apply to them.

If they are being baptized into the Catholic Church, the priest can give them the Nuptial Blessing, which can be given to any couples who have not previously received it.

 

[steve_b]

Non-Catholics marry validly when they marry civilly, as did your friends. If one or both parties are unbaptized, this produces what the Church calls a natural marriage.

If and when both parties become baptized, in the Catholic Church or in a non-Catholic ecclesial community, then their natural marriage becomes a sacrament by the fact of their bpatism.

Their valid marriage becomes a sacrament upon baptism:
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament
.

Convalidation is a process for making an invalid marriage valid. It has nothing to do with baptismal status or sacramentality of marriage. Your friends are already in a valid marriage. Convalidation does not apply to them.

If they are being baptized into the Catholic Church, the priest can give them the Nuptial Blessing, which can be given to any couples who have not previously received it.

Since the man and the woman give the sacrament to each other, both need to know what they are doing sacramentally for the sacrament to take place.

For example

If a divorce takes place in the future, and one or both ex spouses seeks an annulment, a trubunal determines whether a sacrament took place. The trubunal can’t nullify a sacrament. If they determine a sacrament took place, those 2 are sacramentally married till one dies.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

If a divorce takes place in the future, and one or both ex spouses seeks an annulment, a trubunal determines whether a sacrament took place. The trubunal can’t nullify a sacrament. If they determine a sacrament took place, those 2 are sacramentally married till one dies.

Actually, the Tribunal determines if a VALID marriage took place. A valid marriage is a sacrament if it takes place between people who are baptized; however, a perfectly valid marriage can also take place between people who are not baptized. It is then termed a natural marriage rather than a sacramental marriage.

Let’s say that two Jews get married. Since they are not baptized their marriage won’t be a sacrament, but it will be valid. Let’s say that a Presbyterian and a Buddhist get married. Since only one of them is baptized the marriage will not be sacramental (both must be baptized for it to be sacramental) but it is still valid.

If at some later point the non-baptized parties are baptized, the marriage then becomes sacramental as well.

 

[1ke]

Since the man and the woman give the sacrament to each other, both need to know what they are doing sacramentally for the sacrament to take place.

This is not correct.

Consent brings about a valid marriage. It has nothing to do with sacramentality, which is efficacious based on baptismal status alone. The couple does not have to “know” anything about marriage being a sacrament-- as is the case with baptized non-Catholics.

Church teaching is clear:

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist **between the baptized **without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied 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.

If a divorce takes place in the future, and one or both ex spouses seeks an annulment, a trubunal determines whether a sacrament took place. The trubunal can’t nullify a sacrament. If they determine a sacrament took place, those 2 are sacramentally married till one dies.

This is also incorrect.

Tribunal cases determine VALIDITY, not sacramentality.

 

[steve_b]

This is not correct.

Consent brings about a valid marriage. It has nothing to do with sacramentality, which is efficacious based on baptismal status alone. The couple does not have to “know” anything about marriage being a sacrament– as is the case with baptized non-Catholics.

If it was so cut and dried, there would be no possible way for an annulment or the process of one to exist. The Church would refuse to hear anymore cases.

To quote a tribunal arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php “not every expression of consent uniting the partners gives rise to the sacred bond of marriage as it is understood by the Church.”

CCC
1632 So that the “I do” of the spouses may be a free and responsible act and so that the marriage covenant may have solid and lasting human and Christian foundations, preparation for marriage is of prime importance.
The example and teaching given by parents and families remain the special form of this preparation.
The role of pastors and of the Christian community as the “family of God” is indispensable for the transmission of the human and Christian values of marriage and family,135 and much more so in our era when many young people experience broken homes which no longer sufficiently assure this initiation:
It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise, so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.136

Notice that the “I Do” must be a responsible act. Otherwise the foundation won’t last. It can’t be responsible if there isn’t proper formation in what makes a marriage a marriage, and a sacramental covenant, a sacramental covenant.
I:

Church teaching is clear:

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist **between the baptized **without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied 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.

CCC
Yes
1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

Yes
1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."129

Yes
1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

**however, **

1629For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

i.e. what really counted wasn’t there from either one or the other or both people, from the beginnig.

Remember, “not every expression of consent uniting the partners gives rise to the sacred bond of marriage as it is understood by the Church.”
I:

This is also incorrect.

Tribunal cases determine VALIDITY, not sacramentality.

“not every expression of consent uniting the partners gives rise to the sacred bond of marriage as it is understood by the Church.”

A trubunal can’t invalidate a sacred bond of marriage. Only death can dissolve a sacramental marriage covenant.

Which means an annulment says, the sacred bond of marriage didn’t take place, therefore neither did a sacramental covenant.

If it did an annulment couldn’t be done

 

[steve_b]

This is not correct.

Consent brings about a valid marriage. It has nothing to do with sacramentality, which is efficacious based on baptismal status alone. The couple does not have to “know” anything about marriage being a sacrament-- as is the case with baptized non-Catholics.

Church teaching is clear:

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist **between the baptized **without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied 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.

This is also incorrect.

Tribunal cases determine VALIDITY, not sacramentality.

Marriage is a sacrament. If there is no valid marriage, then there is no marriage at all, ergo no sacrament either.

 

[1ke]

If it was so cut and dried, there would be no possible way for an annulment or the process of one to exist. The Church would refuse to hear anymore cases.

I’m sorry, you seem to have gone off on a tangent unrelated to the OP and I am really not sure what your point is.

Notice that the “I Do” must be a responsible act. Otherwise the foundation won’t last. It can’t be responsible if there isn’t proper formation in what makes a marriage a marriage, and a sacramental covenant, a sacramental covenant.

If this were true, the unbaptized could not contract valid marriages nor could non-Catholic baptized individuals. This is simply not the case.

The Church addresses this specifically:

Can.* 1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage **does not **vitiate matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.

A trubunal can’t invalidate a sacred bond of marriage. Only death can dissolve a sacramental marriage covenant.

Which means an annulment says, the sacred bond of marriage didn’t take place, therefore neither did a sacramental covenant.

If it did an annulment couldn’t be done

I don’t believe anyone has argued otherwis. But a decree of nullity makes a statement about VALIDITY, not sacramentality. A marriage can be valid between the unbaptized, and therefore NOT a sacrament. A tribunal can rule on the valididty/invalidity of both putative natural and sacramental marriages.

Valid natural marriages can also be dissolved via the Petrine or Pauline Privilege.

 

[1ke]

Marriage is a sacrament.

Between the baptized, yes it is.

If there is no valid marriage, then there is no marriage at all, ergo no sacrament either.

Yes, this is true. If a marriage is invalid it was not sacramental.

The inverse, however, is not true. If a marriage is valid it is also a sacrament if both parties are baptized. It is a valid, natural marriage if one or both are unbaptized.

 

[steve_b]

I’m sorry, you seem to have gone off on a tangent unrelated to the OP and I am really not sure what your point is.

I was responding to what you wrote.

:
Consent brings about a valid marriage. It has nothing to do with sacramentality, which is efficacious based on baptismal status alone. The couple does not have to “know” anything about marriage being a sacrament-- as is the case with baptized non-Catholics.

So I quoted from the tribunal link
“not every expression of consent uniting the partners gives rise to the sacred bond of marriage as it is understood by the Church.”

therefore, considering 50% + of marriages end in divorce, Catholics are no exception to this sad statistic, “consent” meaning what the Church means by “consent” depends on the person(s) making the consent and what THEY mean by consent. Obviously, given the annulment statistics, one or both people today, were unable to make or didn’t know how to make, the quality “consent” as understood by the Church.

That’s all I meant.

 

[yesukristus]

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

So strictly speaking does this mean that those validly baptised outside the Catholic Church are also sacramentally married? Or is there another canon law limiting this to baptised Catholics only?

 

[1ke]

So strictly speaking does this mean that those validly baptised outside the Catholic Church are also sacramentally married?

Yes

No.

[/QUOTE]

 

[yesukristus]

ok, so does this mean the Church regards a civil wedding or a wedding in a non-Catholic church between two baptised people to be sacramental? If I’m not wrong Catholics are supposed to be married in a Catholic church right? What happens to the Catholic couple if they don’t? Please quote canon law thanks.

 

[1ke]

ok, so does this mean the Church regards a civil wedding or a wedding in a non-Catholic church between two baptised people to be sacramental?

Yes. Of course.

If I’m not wrong Catholics are supposed to be married in a Catholic church right?

Catholics are to marry in the Catholic form, which means that a representative of the Church (typically a priest or deacon) witnesses the marriage and exchange of consent. Canon law requires this form for validity:

Can.* 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Can.* 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

Since 1983, the Church has also allowed a relaxation in the law wherby the bishop can grant a dispesensation from form to allow a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic before some other type of witness and in some other place:

Can.* 1127 §1. The prescripts of ⇒ can. 1108 are to be observed for the form to be used in a mixed marriage.

Nevertheless, if a Catholic party contracts marriage with a non-Catholic party of an Eastern rite, the canonical form of the celebration must be observed for liceity only; for validity, however, the presence of a sacred minister is required and the other requirements of law are to be observed.

§2. If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the local ordinary of the Catholic party has the right of dispensing from the form in individual cases, after having consulted the ordinary of the place in which the marriage is celebrated and with some public form of celebration for validity. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms by which the aforementioned dispensation is to be granted in a uniform manner.

The form of marriage goes to validity-- before a priest and two witnesses (or as otherwise noted in in canons 1108 - 1116), the place goes to licitnss (lawfulness). Regarding place:

Can.* 1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.

§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

§3. A marriage between a Catholic party and a non-baptized party can be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.

Note above that it says the ordinary can permit the marriage to be celebrated (in the Catholic form) elsewhere (other than parish Church). One can argue all day long whether places paticular bishops have and do allow are “suitable” but that is irrelevant-- it is the bishop’s perogative. But also note that the canons do not state that the place creates an impediment to validity. And if the Catholic is marrying a non-baptizd party, the bishop’s permission is not required to have the marriage in "another suitable place.

So, in the case ot two Catholics or a Catholic/baptized non-Catholic if the priest fails to get the bishop’s permission it is illicit (a violation of the law) but not invalid.

What happens to the Catholic couple if they don’t? Please quote canon law thanks.

Their marriage would not be valid until they took steps to exchange vows in the Catholic form:

Can.* 1160 A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

 

[1ke]

Here are some good articles you might like to read on Marriage.

newadvent.org/cathen/09703b.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/09699a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

The historical development surrounding the canonical requirements of form (priest witnessing vows) is pretty interesting, and has a lot to do with what went on prior when people could contract marriage by exchanging vows privately or in civil ways only-- women were too easily repudiated by their lawful spouse when their vows were exchanged privately or without the Church having a method of witnessing and confirming the free consent of the parties. Protecting women from false repudiation/nullity proceedings is one reason that form came into the laws of the Church.