I have a totally hypothetical question, but it's something I'm curious about

[JonathonofOhio]

So, let me understand. The position of the Catholic Church is that the marriage of a Catholic is only valid when performed within the Church, of with “dispensation”. Yet every other marriage is also valid. Or, does the Church teach that the only valid marriages are its own?

The Sacrament is only valid if it is done by the Church.

It is still a legal marriage as far as government is concerned. It is still a union (in the legal sense). It is just not a valid Sacrament if not done in the Church.

To make it even more clear: You can be married in the Church, then later get a divorce by going to the court and filing for it. While you are divorced in the eyes of the government (your marriage contract is voided), it doesn’t change the Church’s view of your marriage. It’s still a valid Sacrament according to the church until you get an annulment, and, if you run off and marry someone else outside of the Church (because the church will not remarry you), you are committing adultery.

 

[faithfully]

The Sacrament is only valid if it is done by the Church.

It is still a legal marriage as far as government is concerned. It is still a union (in the legal sense). It is just not a valid Sacrament if not done in the Church.

Even when done in the Church it is not always Sacramental. See my case above. But it is valid. Meaning, if, as in my case, I were to divorce, and wanted to remarry, I’d have to have an annullment.

LOL! Just how confusing can we get!

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Even when done in the Church it is not always Sacramental. See my case above. But it is valid. Meaning, if, as in my case, I were to divorce, and wanted to remarry, I’d have to have an annullment.

LOL! Just how confusing can we get!

It’s actually really quite simple, it’s just that the government started getting more involved in marriage during the early 1900’s in the United States and it views it as a legal contract between two people…actually it views it as a business venture. This complicated things even more, because people don’t understand that marriage, for a long time, was a religious thing. The Church has always viewed it as a Sacrament, and the writings of the Church Fathers indicate that unanimously…just read the info at the link I provided in an earlier post.

BTW, your Marriage is Sacramental. I too married a non-catholic. You could not be married in the Catholic Church if it wasn’t Sacramental, because it has to be Sacramental in order to be valid-- marriage is a Sacrament. It doesn’t exist in any other form within the Church.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Not sure about the semantics.

I’m a Catholic. DH is not baptised. We were married in the Catholic church. Our marriage is valid. It is NOT Sacramental.

Correct. The situation the OP is proposing is that the couple was married outside the Church without permission and therefore in a state of disobedience. Therefore not valid or Sacramental. Yours was in Church with dispensation therefore valid but not Sacramental due to the fact that your dh is not baptized. (although not to be diminished due to the fact that I am sure your marriage is still blessed and full of love.)

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Correct. The situation the OP is proposing is that the couple was married outside the Church without permission and therefore in a state of disobedience. Therefore not valid or Sacramental. Yours was in Church with dispensation therefore valid but not Sacramental due to the fact that your dh is not baptized. (although not to be diminished due to the fact that I am sure your marriage is still blessed and full of love.)

Oh, I didn’t realize that the spouse wasn’t baptized (I edited my post above to reflect this realization, sorry). I was told by my parish priest that we couldn’t get married in the Catholic Church unless she was baptized, because it’s a Sacrament. We did not have a full Mass though since she was non-catholic. I may just be a little foggy on those rules since it was years ago, but it seems that was what I was told. Then again it wouldn’t make sense that the Sacrament would be denied to the Catholic.

Regardless, this is incorrect… I as a Catholic did receive the Sacrament of Matrimony, and I do believe it is viewed that joanofarc also received the Sacrament and in that regard it is valid and is Sacramental. Therefore an annulment would be necessary if the Catholic divorced and wanted to remarry in the Catholic Church.

Saying a marriage is non sacramental but valid is an oxymoron.

 

[faithfully]

It’s actually really quite simple, it’s just that the government started getting more involved in marriage during the early 1900’s in the United States and it views it as a legal contract between two people…actually it views it as a business venture. This complicated things even more, because people don’t understand that marriage, for a long time, was a religious thing. The Church has always viewed it as a Sacrament, and the writings of the Church Fathers indicate that unanimously…just read the info at the link I provided in an earlier post.

BTW, your Marriage is Sacramental. I too married a non-catholic. You could not be married in the Catholic Church if it wasn’t Sacramental, because it has to be Sacramental in order to be valid-- marriage is a Sacrament. It doesn’t exist in any other form within the Church.

Has your non-Caholic been baptised within any other religion? Mine has not. I rec’d dispensation to marry. You’ll want to do some research if your spouse is not baptised. You might be in for a rude awakenin. I was!

I can’t find the canon law that explains this. Sacramental marriage can only be between 2 baptized people. But it can still be validin the eyes of the church.

 

[Modestly_Anne]

Has your non-Caholic been baptised within any other religion? Mine has not. I rec’d dispensation to marry. You’ll want to do some research if your spouse is not baptised. You might be in for a rude awakenin. I was!

I can’t find the canon law that explains this. Sacramental marriage can only be between 2 baptized people. But it can still be validin the eyes of the church.

See, this is where I get even more confused. Some say that the scenario I offered wasn’t sacramental so it is invalid because one person was a baptized Catholic (who let’s say left the Church as a baby and doesn’t have a clue about Church teachings), but yours because you were given a dispensation is valid even though it’s not sacramental.

I think Christ would be far more worried about what the baptized person actually knew at the time they took those vows. The same way in which a sin can only be mortal if the 3 requirements are met that make it mortal, you would think a person making a promise in the sight of God, even in a Protestant Church, who doesn’t know otherwise, and believes to be totally on the up and up, would indeed be partaking in a valid marriage. Especially since two Protestants that do the exact same are seen as being in a valid marriage by the Catholic Church.

I understand the marriage not being sacramental, but for the Church to say that the promises made before God, the consummation that took place and the children produced all mean nothing in regards to the Church seeing the marriage as valid, is odd to me. Not sacramental, certainly, but invalid…

 

[Modestly_Anne]

It’s actually really quite simple, it’s just that the government started getting more involved in marriage during the early 1900’s in the United States and it views it as a legal contract between two people…actually it views it as a business venture. This complicated things even more, because people don’t understand that marriage, for a long time, was a religious thing. The Church has always viewed it as a Sacrament, and the writings of the Church Fathers indicate that unanimously…just read the info at the link I provided in an earlier post.

BTW, your Marriage is Sacramental. I too married a non-catholic. You could not be married in the Catholic Church if it wasn’t Sacramental, because it has to be Sacramental in order to be valid-- marriage is a Sacrament. It doesn’t exist in any other form within the Church.

So are the Protestants who marry in Protestant Churches viewed as being in a sacramental marriage by the Church or just validly married and would need to have their marriage blessed to make it a sacrament? How can a non-priest make their marriage a sacrament, but not one of a baptized Catholic and Protestant?

 

[Modestly_Anne]

**After reading this thread and still seeing your confusion I am going to guess that you’re confusion lies in your misunderstanding of legal marriage and sacramental marriage.
**

No, I quite understand the difference between a civil or government marriage and vows that are exchanged before God.

What I don’t understand is how when a baptized Catholic (even if they haven’t been in the Church since the day after they were baptized), marries a baptized Protestant in a Protestant Church,the marriage is invalid no matter what has occurred in the years of marriage and** yet **two baptized Protestants married in a Protestant Church making the exact same promises before God are seen as validly married even in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

 

[Petergee]

So are the Protestants who marry in Protestant Churches viewed as being in a sacramental marriage by the Church or just validly married and would need to have their marriage blessed to make it a sacrament? How can a non-priest make their marriage a sacrament, but not one of a baptized Catholic and Protestant?

It’s not the priest who makes the marriage a sacrament. The bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other, the priest is there only as a witness.

It is possible for two baptised protestants to have a sacramental marriage. But it is increasingly unlikely these days due to most protestant marriage services having defect of form (e.g. often the spouses don’t promise that they will freely and lovingly accept children).

 

[Petergee]

What I don’t understand is how when a baptized Catholic (even if they haven’t been in the Church since the day after they were baptized), marries a baptized Protestant in a Protestant Church,the marriage is invalid no matter what has occurred in the years of marriage

No, that’s putting it too strongly. The Church, in charity towards all men, presumes that every marriage is valid unless and until it is proven or obviously invalid. The marriage you refer to may well be sacramentally valid, although illicit. However, if a Church marriage tribunal is ever asked to investtigate the validity of the marriage, the fact that the Catholic married in a non-Catholic (and in an ecclesial community lacking Apostolic Succession and 7 valid sacraments) ceremony illicitly (i.e. without permission from his bishop) would be a strong argument (not necessarily an overwhelming one) in favour of the conclusion that the marriage was invalid.

To put it another way, if the Catholic spouse was in such a frame of mind as to perform an act which was deliberately disobedient to a very serious precept of the Church, how likely is it that by that very same act, he was seriously and concsientiously committing himself to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?

 

[PRmerger]

So, let me understand. The position of the Catholic Church is that the marriage of a Catholic is only valid when performed within the Church, of with “dispensation”. Yet every other marriage is also valid. Or, does the Church teach that the only valid marriages are its own?

The Church teaches that its members must follow the precepts set by her.

Those who are not Catholic are not bound by Catholic precepts