How did catholic people marry back in the old American Western days?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rtfirefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rtfirefly

Guest
Taking the American Western era (~1830-1880) how would a couple marry if they couldn’t find a priest? There were Catholic European immigration during that time and I’m pretty sure lots of lone men traveled to far distant areas where there wasn’t any catholic communities. So if two people met and fell in love during those times how would they marry if they couldn’t get a priest? I imagine they could take a long trip to get to a priest, but what if they were unable to travel?
 
rtfirefly said:
Taking the American Western era (~1830-1880) how would a couple marry if they couldn’t find a priest? There were Catholic European immigration during that time and I’m pretty sure lots of lone men traveled to far distant areas where there wasn’t any catholic communities. So if two people met and fell in love during those times how would they marry if they couldn’t get a priest? I imagine they could take a long trip to get to a priest, but what if they were unable to travel?
Click to expand...
Circuit riders
 
Speaking for my home state of the Republic of Texas, we owe a huge debt to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate for serving the needs of the 19th century Catholic populace.
 
That’s actually where the idea of Common Law marriage comes into play. Because people were spread out and it could be a long time before a preacher came along, those who managed to stay together a certain amount of time were considered by law to be legally married. Just as there were circuit preachers, there were also priests who rode circuits in order administer the Sacraments.
 
The Southwest has been full of Franciscans since the time of the Conquistadors. There were priests around.
 
rtfirefly said:
Taking the American Western era (~1830-1880) how would a couple marry if they couldn’t find a priest? There were Catholic European immigration during that time and I’m pretty sure lots of lone men traveled to far distant areas where there wasn’t any catholic communities. So if two people met and fell in love during those times how would they marry if they couldn’t get a priest? I imagine they could take a long trip to get to a priest, but what if they were unable to travel?
Click to expand...
They could make their vows to each other in front of witnesses and then when the priest came he would validate the marriage for them. I don’t know the Latin name for it but in English it’s called “Healing at the Roots”. Not the same as the popular live togethers we have today. There are priests available. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
They could make their vows to each other in front of witnesses and then when the priest came he would validate the marriage for them. I don’t know the Latin name for it but in English it’s called “Healing at the Roots”. Not the same as the popular live togethers we have today. There are priests available. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I think the term is “Radical Sanation”
 
The church should’ve just ordained a bunch of guys whose sole responsibility was to travel to places like the American Frontier to administer sacraments.
 
Here_For_Donuts said:
The church should’ve just ordained a bunch of guys whose sole responsibility was to travel to places like the American Frontier to administer sacraments.
Click to expand...
They did. They’re called “priests”. 😉

(Like Joie said, the nickname for priests working in mission country is “circuit riders.” They still exist, you know: in some places, the priest only comes by every so often, so people wait for his visit in order to participate in the sacraments…)
 
Memaw said:
They could make their vows to each other in front of witnesses and then when the priest came he would validate the marriage for them. I don’t know the Latin name for it but in English it’s called “Healing at the Roots”.
Click to expand...
I’ve never studied the history of radical sanation, but I’ve never heard of it being used as a means to convalidate a marriage that could be convalidated by an actual marriage liturgy. Rather, its function is to convalidate those marriages in which there was consent that endured from some time in the past up through the present, and in which one spouse is unwilling to take part in a Catholic wedding ceremony.

Do you have any citations that describe sanation being used in the way you suggest?

Thanks!

G.
 
You still don’t need a priest to get married if one will not be around for a month.

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.
 
Phemie said:
You still don’t need a priest to get married if one will not be around for a month.

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.
Click to expand...
I was going to reference that canon, too, but that’s in the 1983 Code. Offhand, I don’t know what the relevant Canon would have been in the 1917 Code. More to the point, though, since we’re talking about the 1800s, we can’t really point to today’s canon law and presume that this was what was in effect 200 years ago… 🤷
 
Gorgias said:
I was going to reference that canon, too, but that’s in the 1983 Code. Offhand, I don’t know what the relevant Canon would have been in the 1917 Code. More to the point, though, since we’re talking about the 1800s, we can’t really point to today’s canon law and presume that this was what was in effect 200 years ago… 🤷
Click to expand...
Can. 1098 in the 1917 Code is the same and since that was a compilation of laws that were already in existence, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that had been in existence for a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top