Have Convalidations changed since 1962?

[Jerry-Jet]

Are Convalidations the same now as they were in 1962?

What would a tradtionalist convalidation be like?

Is it possible to have a convalidation in Latin?

Is it possible to have a convalidation with TLM or are Convalidations always separate from Mass?

 

[bpbasilphx]

What on earth is a “convalidation”?

Or are you trying to say “concelebration”?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

What on earth is a “convalidation”?

Or are you trying to say “concelebration”?

When a Catholic gets married outside of the Church, without dispensation, it is considered to be act of defiance to Church authority.

Whilst not a huge sin as sins go, it needs to be patched up in a convalidation, when the Church says that, yes, this marriage was a real marriage. Just don’t go asking for an annullment later

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I just wondered if the ceremonyu for a Convalidation was different pre-Vatican II?

 

[kleary]

What on earth is a “convalidation”?

Or are you trying to say “concelebration”?

A “Convalidation” is a “Catholic Wedding” for a couple who is in an “invalid marriage”. An example of this is a Catholic man “marrying” a non-Catholic woman via a “justice of the peace” or judge or mayor.

Usually the “Convalidation” is done in private, like in the rectory or parish office. The man and woman exchange vows before a Catholic priest or deacon.

As far as the practice before, I am unsure. All I know is that if they were from different faiths (one Catholic and one Protestant), the vows were exchanged in front of the pastor and in the Rectory- never the Church and never with the Nuptial Mass and never with the Nuptial blessing.

If they both were Catholic, they would have the full fledged Nuptial Mass and blessing- since they “are not married to begin with”. And yes Virginia, those Catholics who get married “outside the Church”, outside the auspices of the Catholic Church, are invalidly married- and every time they have sexual relations they are committing mortal sin- fornucation!

Please pray for my brother, and most of all his pastor. His pastor is allowing him to receive Holy Communion even though he continues to live in a marital relationship with his civilly married wife.

Ken

 

[ChristopherM]

We are getting our convaildation done through our local ICRSS Oratory, we are both cradle Catholics that married outside the church,

We were advised against a mass due to time, scheudling, cost, etc… and that we needed to resolve the issue as soon as possible,

Its been a little over a month since the process started and I think we are almost done.

It would have been VERY nice to receive a dispensation from a priest so that I could receive communion but no such luck here

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Maybe I should have made the siuation more clear:

Protestant man A who was never married but was baptized before marries Protestant woman B who had been baptized before and married three times before–all to protestant men who she subsequently divorced.

The couple are married by a federal judge thus making it the protestant man’s A first marriage and the protestant woman’s B fourth marriage.

After being married protestant husband #4 realizes wife has schizophrenia but tries to help her the best way he can.

Her first protestant husband dies.

The couple later on decide to convert to the Catholic faith but finding themselves in a state of mortal sin live as brother and sister awaiting annullments from her two other Protestant marriages because since she had severe schizophrenia she wasn’t able to give full consent of her will.

Later on the marriage Tribunal grants both of those annullments.

The Protestant Couple has now been married to one another for 24 years–has been going to mass but not taking the eucharist–and every night has prayed an act of contrition promising God that they will indeed confess all their sins at the first opportunity once the Tribunal has rendered its decision to their Catholic parrish priest so they can receive the Eucharist and be confirmed as Catholics.

What is the timing–is it confession first–go to all the RCIA classes–confirmation and Eucharist at Easter vigil and THEN convalidation

OR

should the convalidation come before they enter the Catholic Church?

I would think that if one husband had died and the other two marriages were annulled that the last marriage–even though it was between two Protestants by a federal judge in a civil ceremony would be considered VALID but not sacramental.

That being the case would it be appropriate for that Protestant Couple who do become Catholic at Easter vigil to: on the following Mercy Sunday since they aren’t cradle Catholics and have built up over 40 years of temporal punishment have their Valid marriage as protestants Convalidated and made sacramental in the Catholic Church on Mercy Sunday so if St.Faustina’s private revelations are indeed true–

not only would they be sacramentally married but maybe even be able to start their marriage with a clean slate free from temporal debt

due to the special grace given to those who trust in Jesus and fulfill His conditions for that promise of Mercy on Mercy Sunday?

In other words–what more wonderful way to end on the Octave day of Easter for the newly Catholic and sacramentally married couple?

It just seems to me that in the late afternoon of Mercy Sunday to have a convalidation and partake of the Eucharist would the the best way I can think of for the couple and their new parrish friends to experience another facet of God’s Mercy!

I just wondered if anything had changed in convalidations between 1962 and now–I figured that if anybody knew the Right way for a Convalidation to be done it would be the people here at the traditionalist forum.

 

[rayne89]

It does not have to be done in private now, I don’t know about before Vatican II. I had my marriage convalidated in 2004. We had about 30 people in attendance. We had a matron of honor, a best man, a flower girl (our daughter) and a ring bearer (matron of honor’s son). It was conducted just as a weddding would be. We did not have a Mass because most of our guests were either protestants or fallen away Catholics. I had a bouquet of flowers I carried in which a rosary was woven in and my husband and I placed roses at the feet of Mary. It was one of the best days of my life.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

And yes Virginia, those Catholics who get married “outside the Church”, outside the auspices of the Catholic Church, are invalidly married- and every time they have sexual relations they are committing mortal sin- fornucation!

No they aren’t. The sin is flagrant disregard for Church authority. Almost certainly the Church will find that the marriage was indeed a real marriage.
Marriages “in the fields” were fairly common in medieval times. The situation has changed because there are so many divorces and people seeking annullments, so the Church has to take disregard of the rules much more seriously than in the past.

 

[puzzleannie]

Maybe I should have made the siuation more clear:

Protestant man A who was never married but was baptized before marries Protestant woman B who had been baptized before and married three times before–all to protestant men who she subsequently divorced.

The couple are married by a federal judge thus making it the protestant man’s A first marriage and the protestant woman’s B fourth marriage.
.

yes you should have been more clear, you changed the story, and as usual the answer changes because the first instance did not provide all the facts. This woman is a long way from convalidation. She is presumed validly married to her first husband until the canon law tribunal of the diocese finds otherwise. Each subsequent marriage in turn must be examined. If any is found to be still valid, she cannot marry the current guy in the Catholic Church, and she cannot receive the other sacraments until this matter is resolved. This question should have been resolved in this couples initial interview with the pastor or RCIA coordinator, as in most dioceses they will not even be admitted to the process until the marriage issues are resolved. Proving once again the truth we have stated so many times here: it is absolutely useless to discuss the validity of any individual marriage situation on these forums. The couple needs to visit their pastor, explain all (not just part) of their story and let him advise them on the annulment process first.

It is completely unclear to me why OP is asking about canon law on marriage as it was applied in 1962. What difference does it make to a couple today? Even if they were married before 1962 they still have to have a tribunal judgement on the validity of their marriage. There is no way, even with the convoluted story presented here, that we can know all the circumstances. The couple must be guided by the pastor and the tribunal of the diocese as to when and how they will rectify their situation vis a vis the sacraments. If they are both protestants, and the tribunal (after what promises to be a long and complex investigation) finds their current marriage is valid, there is no need for a convalidation. But a hypothetical guess about a hypothetical situation is useless for discussion.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Maybe this generic question could be answered: If it is possible to have a convalidation with a current Novus Ordo Mass is it ever possible to have a convalidation with TLM?

 

[Chatter163]

When a Catholic gets married outside of the Church, without dispensation, it is considered to be act of defiance to Church authority.

Whilst not a huge sin as sins go, it needs to be patched up in a convalidation, when the Church says that, yes, this marriage was a real marriage. Just don’t go asking for an annullment later

I don’t know where you get the idea that Catholics marrying outside of the Church is “not a huge sin as sins go.” One of the seven precepts of the Church is to obey the laws of the Church concerning marriage. This is in fidelity to Our Lord’s own teachings, and not merely some “act of defiance to Church authority.” It certainly is that, but it is much more; it defies Our Lord’s teachings.

In response to another poster’s pointing out that a couples who marries outside the Church and do not live as brother and sister pending their convalidation are committing fornication, the following was posted:

No they aren’t. The sin is flagrant disregard for Church authority. Almost certainly the Church will find that the marriage was indeed a real marriage.
Marriages “in the fields” were fairly common in medieval times. The situation has changed because there are so many divorces and people seeking annullments, so the Church has to take disregard of the rules much more seriously than in the past.

I am not sure where this desire to paint such irregular marraiges as barely sinful or not at all sinful originates. (Actually, I think that I do know, but that is another matter…)

There seems to be an intent to paint this simply as a failure to follow a specific legal form, and nothing more. Fornication is a serious sin, and the stone cold reality is that this is precisely what the such irregualr situations are seen to be. While mitigating circumstances are certainly possible, the Church’s teaching, based on Our Lord’s own words, has not changed into merely failing to follow a form. She still teaches that fornication is the proximate result of such illicit unions, no matter how embarrassing that might be to some modern Catholics.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Not that it matters to a 21st century couple, but prior to Vatican II, and even beyond it, getting a decree of nullity was not easy (it is not easy today) and took longer.

In any event, a convalidation was in private; OUTISDE the sancutary (by the altar rail with the couple on the outside, in the priest’s office, or in one of the rectory side rooms designated for this purpose). There was certainly no white dress, no walk up the aisle- after all, this was to rectify something that was invalid (civil marriage); and Emily Post, if not the Holy Father, would have had something to say about a huge wedding to the same person in the United States! It simply was ***not done ***, my dear!

 

[kleary]

No they aren’t. The sin is flagrant disregard for Church authority. Almost certainly the Church will find that the marriage was indeed a real marriage.

Please cite Canon Law in this regard sir. In order for a Catholic’s marriage to be valid a Catholic Bishop, Priest or Deacon must be present at the “ceremony”.

A Catholic can get a dispensation from the Bishop to get married in another ceremony, officiated by someone other than a Catholic Bishop, Priest or Deacon, as long as a Catholic Bishop, Priest or Deacon is in attendance at it and if not then the “marriage” is indeed invalid. Catholics MUST get married under the auspices of the Catholic Church or the “marriage” is INVALID, and if you say they are valid then please cite for me Canon Law in this regard.

Ken

 

[kleary]

When a Catholic gets married outside of the Church, without dispensation, it is considered to be act of defiance to Church authority.

Whilst not a huge sin as sins go, it needs to be patched up in a convalidation, when the Church says that, yes, this marriage was a real marriage. Just don’t go asking for an annullment later

That is absurd. You sound just like my brother’s pastor!

Contracting “Matrimony” outside the auspices of the Church is and always will be MORTAL SIN -DEFIANCE OF ONE OF THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH - now go ahead and tell me that “Vatican II” removed the “Precepts of the Church”… then show me which Vatican II document that comes from…

Not a “huge sin”- gimme a break. The first huge sin of defiance of Church authority, AND the attempt to confect the Sacrament of Matrimony outside the auspices of the Catholic Church and also…Every time after the “invalid wedding” every sexual act is fornucation because they ARE NOT MARRIED… no matter how much they love each other, no matter what.

You are removing the necessity of a Catholic Bishop, Priest or Deacon from the form of the Sacrament, from the form of that makes a “Valid Marriage”.

Can. 1108 Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canon 144, 1112, 1116 and 1127.

Can. 1160 For a marriage which is invalid because of defect of form to become valid, it must be contracted anew in the canonical form, without prejudice to the provisions of Can. 1127

Ken

 

[rayne89]

No they aren’t. The sin is flagrant disregard for Church authority. Almost certainly the Church will find that the marriage was indeed a real marriage.
Marriages “in the fields” were fairly common in medieval times. The situation has changed because there are so many divorces and people seeking annullments, so the Church has to take disregard of the rules much more seriously than in the past.

You don’t just get a convalidation in cases of a previous marriage being declared null. My husband and I married right out of highschool at a wedding chapel. My husband went through the RCIA process 6 years later and no one bother to tell either one of us that our marriage was not recognized by the church. I was raised Catholic but fell away from the church in my teens. Our catechism classes growing up left much to be desired and I had no clue about church teaching. When we changed to a more orthodox parish I told the priest we were not married in the church and he said “Oh we must have a wedding then.”
If two protestants marry and then convert there is no need for convalidation, the marriage becomes sacramental once they are received into the church.
Anytime a Catholic marries outside the church without dispensation a convalidation is required because such a marriage is not recognized by the church. There is no such thing as finding a marriage “was real” when it comes to convalidation. It may be a legal marriage but it is not a sacramental one. Which means for a Catholic it is indeed sinful to engage in marital relations because until the marriage is convalidated the marriage is not recognized. It would be seen as two people having sex outside of marriage.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

GK Chesterton married before he became a Catholic and 4 years after becomming a Catholic his wife converted also.

Since they came into the Catholic Church at different times was a convalidation necessary?

 

[puzzleannie]

. My husband and I married right out of highschool at a wedding chapel. My husband went through the RCIA process 6 years later and no one bother to tell either one of us that our marriage was not recognized by the church. I was raised Catholic but fell away from the church in my teens. Our catechism classes growing up left much to be desired and I had no clue about church teaching. When we changed to a more orthodox parish I told the priest we were not married in the church and he said “Oh we must have a wedding then.”

your situation was because one of you was Catholic and you married with “lack of form” so you needed a convalidation, that was the reason, not your husband’s conversion.

If two protestants marry and then convert there is no need for convalidation, the marriage becomes sacramental once they are received into the church.

two baptized persons who are otherwise free to marry contract a marriage that is both sacramental and valid.

Anytime a Catholic marries outside the church without dispensation a convalidation is required because such a marriage is not recognized by the church. There is no such thing as finding a marriage “was real” when it comes to convalidation. It may be a legal marriage but it is not a sacramental one. Which means for a Catholic it is indeed sinful to engage in marital relations because until the marriage is convalidated the marriage is not recognized. It would be seen as two people having sex outside of marriage.

your last paragraph is correct.

 

[kleary]

GK Chesterton married before he became a Catholic and 4 years after becomming a Catholic his wife converted also.

Since they came into the Catholic Church at different times was a convalidation necessary?

No, because they both were not Catholic when they were married. Marriages between two Protestants is deemed valid by the Church.

Ken

 

[rayne89]

your last paragraph is correct.

I am aware my husbands conversion was not the reason needed to the convalidation. I would have thought someone should have told us at that time since was my husband was about to receive the sacraments that our situation was not correct. They were aware that we were married outside the church and said nothing about the need to correct it.