Finding Wife's ex-hubby's baptismal certificate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flameburns623
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, it’s entirely possible that for reasons unmentioned here his pastor is going the radical sanation route and will only be conferring a nuptial blessing.
I think this is the priests plan, since I am fairly sure he clearly said that my marriage would be blessed and not convalidated. I’m not certain I grasp the reasons for the “radical sanation”, which I actually had to google to get defined, but I’m fairly sure he said my marriage would be “blessed, not convalidated”.
 
A convalidation is when you speak your vows in front of a priest/deacon and two witnesses. You are actually getting married in the Church and she sees your marriage as starting at that point. A convalidation requires that both of you accept that your marriage is not valid and take steps to fix that.

When the spouse is unwilling to accept that the marriage was not valid and does not want to repeat the vows, a petition can be made for a radical sanation which means that the Church recognizes your marriage as having been valid from the time you originally spoke your vows.
 
…] but I’m fairly sure he said my marriage would be “blessed, not convalidated”.
Having a marriage “blessed” is a typical colloquialism for convalidation. Chances are your priest used that wording because he thought it would would be easier to understand than convalidation. My guess is that many priests probably say “blessed” rather than “convalidation” when they are talking to each other.

You can always ask the priest whether the word convalidation applies to your circumstances.
 
A convalidation is when you speak your vows in front of a priest/deacon and two witnesses. You are actually getting married in the Church and she sees your marriage as starting at that point. A convalidation requires that both of you accept that your marriage is not valid and take steps to fix that.

When the spouse is unwilling to accept that the marriage was not valid and does not want to repeat the vows, a petition can be made for a radical sanation which means that the Church recognizes your marriage as having been valid from the time you originally spoke your vows.
Possibly because he was concerned about the reaction of my in-laws. My wife’s stepfather is a retired minister among the independent Baptists and vigorously anti-Catholic. Thanks for clarifying.

Oddly enough my wife was raised baptist (GABC, not SBC) but finds the Baptists boring and the Catholics and Episcopalians just weird. Not a fan of history, is she, nor crazy about formality. But that’s for a different thread and a different time. She’s not following me into the CC right now so not a big deal for the moment.
 
Having a marriage “blessed” is a typical colloquialism for convalidation. Chances are your priest used that wording because he thought it would would be easier to understand than convalidation. My guess is that many priests probably say “blessed” rather than “convalidation” when they are talking to each other.

You can always ask the priest whether the word convalidation applies to your circumstances.
In my case, the priest distinguished between “convalidation” and “blessing” saying that my marriage could not be convalidated but only blessed because my wife has never been baptised.

Again assuming I’ve gotten all of the terminology correct. He made a clear distinction between what the Catholic Church does for a marriage between a validly-baptised non-Catholic and a Catholic and what is done by contrast between a Catholic and one who has never been baptised in any Christian communion.

I was fairly certain he spoke of my marriage as being ‘blessed’ only, but could be mistaken. I am sure that he made the distinction I just outlined, whatever the technical terms used.

Because of the holidays I will likely have to wait till Monday to resolve all of this.
 
In my case, the priest distinguished between “convalidation” and “blessing” saying that my marriage could not be convalidated but only blessed because my wife has never been baptised.

Again assuming I’ve gotten all of the terminology correct. He made a clear distinction between what the Catholic Church does for a marriage between a validly-baptised non-Catholic and a Catholic and what is done by contrast between a Catholic and one who has never been baptised in any Christian communion.

I was fairly certain he spoke of my marriage as being ‘blessed’ only, but could be mistaken. I am sure that he made the distinction I just outlined, whatever the technical terms used.

Because of the holidays I will likely have to wait till Monday to resolve all of this.
No, your wife being non-baptized wouldn’t exclude having your marriage convalidated because that would be like saying that a Catholic can’t marry a non-Baptized.

But as I reread your post I’m a little confused. Are you in fact converting to Catholicism or are you a Catholic who had just never been confirmed?
 
In my case, the priest distinguished between “convalidation” and “blessing” saying that my marriage could not be convalidated but only blessed because my wife has never been baptised.

Again assuming I’ve gotten all of the terminology correct. He made a clear distinction between what the Catholic Church does for a marriage between a validly-baptised non-Catholic and a Catholic and what is done by contrast between a Catholic and one who has never been baptised in any Christian communion.

I was fairly certain he spoke of my marriage as being ‘blessed’ only, but could be mistaken. I am sure that he made the distinction I just outlined, whatever the technical terms used.
Assuming a declaration of nullity is issued on all applicable marriages prior to this the and one of you being a Catholic the marriage can be convalidated. Some people suggest to tell non-Catholics that a priest “blessed” your marriage. It’s actually a convalidation. HOWEVER, if your wife is not baptized your marriage will be valid but it will not be sacramental. Only at the time of her baptism will the marriage become sacramental. That’s probably what you heard. If not, you have a very confused pastor.

If your wife is baptist, send her on her marry way to be baptised. Why wait. The Church recognized valid baptisms from other Christian faith traditions. Go to a Church of Christ and say tell them she wants to be part of the Lord’s Church in Baptism. They believe and do it correct. But if she’s bend on converting to Catholicism and insists on being baptized by a priest, then go for it. I hope you both enter RCIA together and go through the learning process of learning what a marriage really is.

Good luck.

PAX
Because of the holidays I will likely have to wait till Monday to resolve all of this.
 
No, your wife being non-baptized wouldn’t exclude having your marriage convalidated because that would be like saying that a Catholic can’t marry a non-Baptized.

But as I reread your post I’m a little confused. Are you in fact converting to Catholicism or are you a Catholic who had just never been confirmed?
I have been a lapsed and unconfirmed Catholic who is now returning to the sacraments.
 
40.png
Eucharisteo:
Assuming a declaration of nullity is issued on all applicable marriages prior to this the and one of you being a Catholic the marriage can be convalidated. Some people suggest to tell non-Catholics that a priest “blessed” your marriage. It’s actually a convalidation. HOWEVER, if your wife is not baptized your marriage will be valid but it will not be sacramental. Only at the time of her baptism will the marriage become sacramental. That’s probably what you heard. If not, you have a very confused pastor.

If your wife is baptist, send her on her marry way to be baptised. Why wait. The Church recognized valid baptisms from other Christian faith traditions. Go to a Church of Christ and say tell them she wants to be part of the Lord’s Church in Baptism. They believe and do it correct. But if she’s bend on converting to Catholicism and insists on being baptized by a priest, then go for it. I hope you both enter RCIA together and go through the learning process of learning what a marriage really is.
Baptists often put a very low premium on what they term the ‘ordinance’ of baptism. They believe, generally, that one becomes a Christian by one’s initial profession of faith in Christ as Savior. My Baptist paternal grandfather was not baptised until he was around forty or so, for example, although he had been a member of that Baptist church for several decades by that time.

There is great variation in Baptist practice from one Baptist church to another, but the following is not uncommonly true: Baptism is, frequently, an act of obedience which a Christian should partake in at some point in their Christian walk; but it, like the reception of holy communion, is not something particularly important to the Christian walk in the Baptist view.

Hence it is not especially unusual to find a Baptist like my wife who has reached mature adulthood–and who consider themselves very much ‘saved’ and a Christan–without ever having been baptised. A few have reached my wife’s age having never received communion–in many Baptist churches, holy communion is distributed only on Easter Sunday… (A friend of mine served time as a Baptist pastor and told me he found this to be the case more often than he liked: he himself had a higher view of these ‘ordinances’ ).

To suggest therefore that a Baptist ‘lacks’ baptism is sometimes a little insulting because it suggests that the Baptist’s profession of faith was somehow insufficient and they are not truly “Christian”. Suggesting this to my wife, therefore, might be indelicate.

So far as my wife and RCIA are concerned, I would hope that if my wife ever considers joining the Catholic Church, I have an understanding pastor who will waive the normal RCIA process. My wife is not an abstract thinker, does not read often, or very well, and finds classroom-type settings much too difficult to manage. Very much a visual and and immediately-experiential sort of person. RCIA would swiftly extinguish any interest she might have in the Catholic faith.

Not as major an impediment as one might think: the Catholic faith was taught for centuries to people who were very much like my wife. Catholic churches and Catholic worship and devotion are practically tailor-made for such people: in a grand, historic Catholic church, you could teach everything anyone could possibly need to know about the Faith just by using the building, statuary, devotional practices, and the Mass as the source of the curricula.

All of which is still an aside and premature. I did speak to my pastor yesterday afternoon: the parish office is closed this week so I will contact them Monday.
 
The original name for the very diverse group of denominations which are now called “Baptists” was actually “ana-baptists” for the very reason that they denied the efficacy of Baptism.

Just a historical note.
 
By permission of my priest, I received the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion today, and can continue to receive the sacraments henceforth… My marriage will be regularized in February on our original wedding anniversary. Confirmation will take place on Holy Saturday. A bit different than I had understood it would happen, but it all works for me. I am back in full communion with the Church.
 
Trying to regularize my present marriage. My wife has never been baptised (raised in a Baptist home where they do not baptise infants; she was ‘blessed’ when an infant, a common practice among Evangelicals, but never baptised. We have a statement from the church she was raised in to this effect).

We could therefore pursue a Petrine dissolution without problems and we have put together the case based on that approach. Petrine dissolutions can take months or years, and there is some reason to expect that my wife’s family would not cooperate–my wife’s stepfather is a Baptist minister of the most fundamental kind. We’re prepared for whatever happens but this is not the best direction to take this annulment if we can avoid it.

HOWEVER it emerges that my wife’s first husband was baptised in the Catholic Church. His mom in fact had to regularize her marriage to his biological dad in order to marry the dad. If we can prove the ex-husband was baptised Catholic, the process is much simpler and gets handled at the Diocesan level with relative speed. I’m told a ‘Dissolution for non-canonical form’ could be completed in as little as a month, meaning the whole process could be done by Christmas.

Problem is there is much hostility between the ex-husband, ex-mother-in-law and my wife. On top of which, the mother has divorced the biological father and the whole family have become anti-Catholics. We’ve been told by the mother that neither she nor her son (my wife’s ex-husband) will cooperate. We’ve been told that the son and the whole family (several sons that I know of) were baptised in one specific local Catholic parish but that church has no record of the baptism.

The biological father (still a nominal Catholic), would be willing to cooperate to his best ability but he was away in the military when his sons were born. He believes that all of his sons were baptised Catholic, and he believes it was in the specific parish already named to me by the mother–but since he was out of the country, he can’t provide proof of this nor serve as a witness to the son’s baptism.

There are several parishes in the area, and several defunct parishes whose records have been moved to one of the active parishes but so far I am striking out.

I’m going to do some legwork and try to find a newspaper announcement of the ex-husband’s birth–if I’m lucky, I might even find an announcement of the baptism, which sometimes happened in the 1960’s and earlier. I may discover that the family lived in some other parish boundaries at the time.

OR the marriage tribunal may find records from the regularization of the parents’ marriage that could be a help.

Other than this, I dunno where to go. Any advice?
Have you asked the Diocese? It might be better if your pastor asked the Diocese for the Sacramental records.
 
For the record: My wife and I have had our marriage validated and I have been duly confirmed in the Church, as of May 2, 2009. Sorry but my computer has been down for several months so could not post sooner.
 
For the record: My wife and I have had our marriage validated and I have been duly confirmed in the Church, as of May 2, 2009. Sorry but my computer has been down for several months so could not post sooner.
Thank you for sharing your journey with us. It was both informative and inspirational.
 
Am going on 4 years of spiritual progress since returning to the Church. May 02 was the day I was confirmed & my marriage was regularised, though I was confessed and returned to the sacraments by permission of my priest some time previous to this. Many thanks to all who participated in this thread, particularly FrDavid96. God’s blessings to all on thiss glorious Easter!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top