Invalid Marriages and RCIA

[rick43235]

Hi pandacordova & rick43235

One huge problem is the way the Church uses the word “valid” which really applies to the sacrament not the relationship. The Church calls invalid as unprepared or unable persons who participates in a ceremony but do to their issue do not receive the sacrament (an indelible mark on the soul).

Thanks for that explanation. I’ve never heard that before.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Hi pandacordova & rick43235

One huge problem is the way the Church uses the word “valid” which really applies to the sacrament not the relationship. The Church calls invalid as unprepared or unable persons who participates in a ceremony but do to their issue do not receive the sacrament (an indelible mark on the soul). In these cases one of the persons in line for a sacrament knew they were still acknowledged in the Church as married to another. The great disservice in these cases is the person who refuses to inform the Church of their failure to achieve the lifelong unity required to fulfill the earlier attempt. Btw in Church use the opposite of valid is licit which would be error on the celebrant (priest, records, or other issue outside the couple)

Hope that helps

This doesn’t quite sound right to me.

Marriages may be valid but not sacramental. Anytime a non-baptized person gets married it is non-sacramental, but may be completely valid. Should the non-baptized person divorce and want to marry a Catholic, the marriage would need to be investigated for validity first.

Not all sacraments leave indelible marks on the soul. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders so, but not the others. That’s why those sacraments can be received only once.

 

[tinalewis]

lissa70

I would like to encourage you to please just be a friend to this woman and love her.

I am in the same situation except that I was baptized in a protestant church as a child. My husband was in a marriage for less than a year over 25 years ago and since he does not want to have anything to do with the Catholic Church will not go through the annulment processes. He is my one and only and we have been married for 21 years. I never thought of being catholic that long ago and I am not living in sin. I took vows before GOD!! I know that my marriage is valid and the church will too when they are given the chance. You have no idea how hurtful it is for people in this situation to be told they need to live as brother and sister. PLEASE. I will not disrepect the vows that I made to my husband.

All this being said I will wait for GOD to work in my husbands life like he has mine so that we can enter the church together, but I do not need to be made an outcast in the mean time. People please just use some restraint and try to walk a mile in someone elses shoes.

I suppoprt you completely on this. When my husband and I were married a long time ago, we made our vows to each that we have faithfully and happily kept. This was long before I wanted to become Catholic. If my husband’s annulment hadn’t come through, today I wouldn’t be a Catholic, but I would never abandon my husband for my desire to join the Catholic church. To me that’s completely disrespecting my husband, to whom years ago I made a vow just as binding to my heart as the one I made when we were married in the Catholic church last year.

You are in my prayers . . as are all RCIA and potential-RCIA candidates in similar heartbreaking situations.

 

[agapewolf]

I suppoprt you completely on this. When my husband and I were married a long time ago, we made our vows to each that we have faithfully and happily kept. This was long before I wanted to become Catholic. If my husband’s annulment hadn’t come through, today I wouldn’t be a Catholic, but I would never abandon my husband for my desire to join the Catholic church. To me that’s completely disrespecting my husband, to whom years ago I made a vow just as binding to my heart as the one I made when we were married in the Catholic church last year.​

So you don’t believe the Church is the church that Jesus Christ founded and gave authority to?

Basically what you are saying is that you love your husband more than God. THAT is disrespecting your husband, by putting him ahead of God’s calling to you to be in the one holy Catholic and apostolic church

2nd of all, what about the vows your husband made to the first wife? That is what people seem to forget in these scenarios. How come THOSE vows don’t have to be honored? THOSE are the vows that the Church is honoring…and presuming that they were honest in the first place. That is the charitable thing…to assume validity.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This doesn’t quite sound right to me.

Marriages may be valid but not sacramental. Anytime a non-baptized person gets married it is non-sacramental, but may be completely valid.

Marriage predates the Catholic Church, marriage is based in Natural Moral Law ( see Church teachings). As such the call to the vocation has been answered by men and woman all through time. These marriages were sacramental, and should not be confused with adultery or fornication. The church teaches baptism, confession, marriage can all be obtained by answering the call of god via Natural Moral Law. It is through that same method that non Christians can obtain salvation.

Should the non-baptized person divorce and want to marry a Catholic, the marriage would need to be investigated for validity first.

Not all sacraments leave indelible marks on the soul. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders so, but not the others. That’s why those sacraments can be received only once.

let me give you something to read : baltimore-catechism.com/lesson13.htm

Baptism, Confession, and Last Rites are separated as sacraments of the dead because they can reverse a condemned soul, while the other sacraments are considered the sacraments of the living because a clean soul is required to receive these sacraments.

hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So you don’t believe the Church is the church that Jesus Christ founded and gave authority to?

Basically what you are saying is that you love your husband more than God. THAT is disrespecting your husband, by putting him ahead of God’s calling to you to be in the one holy Catholic and apostolic church

Please read the post above, the church does not teach that marriages outside the church are invalid. Additionally if you read the Old Testament you will find an obligation of men to marry second, third, etc… wives when certain conditions occur. (as happen with Onan)

2nd of all, what about the vows your husband made to the first wife? That is what people seem to forget in these scenarios. How come THOSE vows don’t have to be honored? THOSE are the vows that the Church is honoring…and presuming that they were honest in the first place. That is the charitable thing…to assume validity.

The scenarios presented in this thread involve non-Catholics who were not under catholic law, and may not even know of previous marriages or whether declarations of annulment existed. Under their system civil divorce decrees may well have been sufficient to find “free to marry”. Later when these non catholic wished to obtain communion with the church they found the fault of their spouse ( failure to obtain an annulment) as an impediment to their communion. The options then become 1) celibacy or 2) separation if the spouses refuses to participate in an annulment. However please note that real marriages are life long vocations so separations and celebacy are difficult to obtain.

hope that helps

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Marriage predates the Catholic Church, marriage is based in Natural Moral Law ( see Church teachings). As such the call to the vocation has been answered by men and woman all through time. These marriages were sacramental, and should not be confused with adultery or fornication.

There is a difference between a natural marriage (which involves at least one non-baptized person) and a sacramental marriage (which involves two baptized people). Two Jews, two Muslims, two Hindus, or two other unbaptized people can enter into perfectly valid natural marriages (and no one is accusing them of adultery or fornication so please don’t change the subject). Since they are not baptized they cannot receive sacraments.

See canon law: 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.

The church teaches baptism, confession, marriage can all be obtained by answering the call of god via Natural Moral Law. It is through that same method that non Christians can obtain salvation. let me give you something to read : baltimore-catechism.com/lesson13.htm

Baptism, Confession, and Last Rites are separated as sacraments of the dead because they can reverse a condemned soul, while the other sacraments are considered the sacraments of the living because a clean soul is required to receive these sacraments.

hope that helps

You’ve changed the subject. Initially you said that marriage left an indelible mark on the soul. Now you’re talking about sacraments of the living and sacraments of the dead.

To stay with your original point, sacraments that leave an indelible mark are ones that can be received only once. And if you’re about to say that someone can be married only once, I’ll ask you the same question I ask my RCIA folks: what happens if your spouse dies? Can you remarry in the Church? Of course you can. The vows you made were until death.

The Catechism explains more:

1121
The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible;40 it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.

 

[agapewolf]

Please read the post above, the church does not teach that marriages outside the church are invalid. Additionally if you read the Old Testament you will find an obligation of men to marry second, third, etc… wives when certain conditions occur. (as happen with Onan) The scenarios presented in this thread involve non-Catholics who were not under catholic law, and may not even know of previous marriages or whether declarations of annulment existed. Under their system civil divorce decrees may well have been sufficient to find “free to marry”. Later when these non catholic wished to obtain communion with the church they found the fault of their spouse ( failure to obtain an annulment) as an impediment to their communion. The options then become 1) celibacy or 2) separation if the spouses refuses to participate in an annulment. However please note that real marriages are life long vocations so separations and celebacy are difficult to obtain.

hope that helps

This doesn’t “help” at all. I stand by what I wrote here. There is an objective reality to the situation, and it isn’t dependant on what a person wants to exist. There were vows made in the original marriage, yet, the current people involved want that to just disappear and are blaming the church for being “mean spirited” in recognizing that we actually believe people when they make vows.

I don’t understand why you wrote the first part. By the very nature that the first marriage is presumed valid is why I wrote what I wrote.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This doesn’t “help” at all. I stand by what I wrote here. There is an objective reality to the situation, and it isn’t dependant on what a person wants to exist. There were vows made in the original marriage, yet, the current people involved want that to just disappear and are blaming the church for being “mean spirited” in recognizing that we actually believe people when they make vows.

I don’t understand why you wrote the first part. By the very nature that the first marriage is presumed valid is why I wrote what I wrote.

Maybe we should look at it this way “When should the original marriage vows be broken, and by who?” I see you tell some to break their original vows while you tell others not to; that makes no sense to me. I notice you advise those who have a man and wife unity ordered to procreation of children to break their vows and those who did not have that condition to uphold their vows. Again that makes no sense to me. Maybe you did not understand their comments of this reverse condition which occurs occasionally?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There is a difference between a natural marriage (which involves at least one non-baptized person) and a sacramental marriage (which involves two baptized people). Two Jews, two Muslims, two Hindus, or two other unbaptized people can enter into perfectly valid natural marriages (and no one is accusing them of adultery or fornication so please don’t change the subject). Since they are not baptized they cannot receive sacraments.
See canon law: 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.
You’ve changed the subject. Initially you said that marriage left an indelible mark on the soul. Now you’re talking about sacraments of the living and sacraments of the dead.
To stay with your original point, sacraments that leave an indelible mark are ones that can be received only once. And if you’re about to say that someone can be married only once, I’ll ask you the same question I ask my RCIA folks: what happens if your spouse dies? Can you remarry in the Church? Of course you can. The vows you made were until death.
The Catechism explains more:
1121
The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible;40 it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.

I do not know why you wish to split these hairs in such matters. If you read the catechism references earlier posted it would seem to explain it. Maybe we should follow the other post and do this(?) :

*Who decides when a Natural Marriage is valid?

Who decides when a sacramental marriage has occurred? *

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I do not know why you wish to split these hairs in such matters.

I was merely trying to correct your original message where you said that the word “valid” applies to the sacrament and that the sacrament leaves “an indelible mark on the soul.”

Valid applies to the marriage; it need not be sacramental to be valid. And marriage is not a sacrament that leaves an indelible mark on the soul.

The first point is important. I get people who wish to participate in RCIA who are in a second marriage. Often they’ll reassure me that this isn’t a problem because their first marriage was in a courthouse. Since they weren’t Catholic they were not required to follow the Catholic form of marriage. They may have entered into a valid marriage even if no priest or minister was involved. We won’t know until a Tribunal makes a ruling.

I don’t wish to argue with you. I was trying to clarify a point and at this point I think it’s been clarified.

 

[agapewolf]

Maybe we should look at it this way “When should the original marriage vows be broken, and by who?” I see you tell some to break their original vows while you tell others not to; that makes no sense to me. I notice you advise those who have a man and wife unity ordered to procreation of children to break their vows and those who did not have that condition to uphold their vows. Again that makes no sense to me. Maybe you did not understand their comments of this reverse condition which occurs occasionally?

What are you talking about? Are you sure you are talking to me? This doens’t make any sense. What condition are you talking about?

A real marriage cannot be broken, ever. Ive never told someone to “break” vows.

I’m talking about the several couples on here that are “married” civilly, only because one of them had a previous marriage and haven’t gotten annulled (or they say if they hadn’t they wouldn’t have come into the church). Somehow, the church is being blamed here, rather than even thinking that we should honor the fact that there were original marriage vows in place, a choice to divorce, and a choice to try to “marry” someone else.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I was merely trying to correct your original message where you said that the word “valid” applies to the sacrament and that the sacrament leaves “an indelible mark on the soul.”

Valid applies to the marriage; it need not be sacramental to be valid. And marriage is not a sacrament that leaves an indelible mark on the soul.

The first point is important. I get people who wish to participate in RCIA who are in a second marriage. Often they’ll reassure me that this isn’t a problem because their first marriage was in a courthouse. Since they weren’t Catholic they were not required to follow the Catholic form of marriage. They may have entered into a valid marriage even if no priest or minister was involved. We won’t know until a Tribunal makes a ruling.

I don’t wish to argue with you. I was trying to clarify a point and at this point I think it’s been clarified.

I simply do not agree with this assessment in fact I would say it contributes to the problem. The tribunal assesses the conditions of the participants before and prior to the marriage not the relationship. Invalid when used by the church means one or both of the people did not achieve the standards required for sacrament when they attempted to receive a sacrament thus no actual sacrament occurred. When some people attend RCIA and tell us they are in a second civil marriage the church refuses to celebrate sacraments until the current state is rectified. The issue in their case is they apparently asked god to for a covenant with them and their spouse and later broke that covenant. If the tribunal determines they never asked for a covenant or did not understand the request the church can deem them free to marry in the church.

Now to address the “Natural Marriage” the church refers to Natural marriages when a man and woman answers gods call to unity designed toward the procreation of children in the absence of the church. The use of the term “valid” here just alienates others. The church has no authority over these marriages, none. The church can and does issue dispensation to catholics to allow them to participate in Natural Marriages under certain conditions.

Now, If you want to discuss how Christ imparts grace on a soul and that does not leave and “indelible mark on the soul” we can use another thread or you can PM me but that is outside this thread.

Hope that helps

 

[tinalewis]

So you don’t believe the Church is the church that Jesus Christ founded and gave authority to?

Basically what you are saying is that you love your husband more than God. THAT is disrespecting your husband, by putting him ahead of God’s calling to you to be in the one holy Catholic and apostolic church

2nd of all, what about the vows your husband made to the first wife? That is what people seem to forget in these scenarios. How come THOSE vows don’t have to be honored? THOSE are the vows that the Church is honoring…and presuming that they were honest in the first place. That is the charitable thing…to assume validity.

Fr. Sunny, O.Carm told me it isn’t a sin to not be Catholic. I believe him. I wouldn’t abandon my husband when to stay with him isn’t a sin. Nothing has ever or would ever prevent me from going to Mass and adoration several times each week. That’s more than a lot of Catholics do.

Besides, what’s it to you? I was addressing my post to non-Catholics in similar situations to let them know I feel their distress and they have my supports and prayers. Are you included in this group?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What are you talking about? Are you sure you are talking to me? This doens’t make any sense. What condition are you talking about?

A real marriage cannot be broken, ever. Ive never told someone to “break” vows.

I’m talking about the several couples on here that are “married” civilly, **only because **one of them had a previous marriage and haven’t gotten annulled (or they say if they hadn’t they wouldn’t have come into the church). Somehow, the church is being blamed here, rather than even thinking that we should honor the fact that there were original marriage vows in place, a choice to divorce, and a choice to try to “marry” someone else.

The cases mentioned were non catholics who asked god for a single marriage covenant and are to this day honoring that covenant.  They did not desire communion with the Catholic Church at the time of marriage and their spouses did not desire communion.  So it could not be " only because".  After all the Catholic Church would refuse to marry them even if the previously married party was never catholic. In most cases the "young and dumb" married improperly and later become middle aged people who wish to clean up their actions.  The unique condition discussed here is when those people are told to dishonor their marriage covenant by either actual separation or installing a celibacy which is somewhat contrary to the marriage covenant.  So again I ask you to consider the request you place on them.

A better way may be to teach that the unity to their spouse combined with their spouse’s refusal to fulfill obedience to the church causes an un-ended separation from communion. Only through the cooperation of the spouse can both the unity and the communion occur.

 

[agapewolf]

The cases mentioned were non catholics who asked god for a single marriage covenant and are to this day honoring that covenant. They did not desire communion with the Catholic Church at the time of marriage and their spouses did not desire communion. So it could not be " only because". After all the Catholic Church would refuse to marry them even if the previously married party was never catholic. In most cases the “young and dumb” married improperly and later become middle aged people who wish to clean up their actions. The unique condition discussed here is when those people are told to dishonor their marriage covenant by either actual separation or installing a celibacy which is somewhat contrary to the marriage covenant. So again I ask you to consider the request you place on them.

A better way may be to teach that the unity to their spouse combined with their spouse’s refusal to fulfill obedience to the church causes an un-ended separation from communion. Only through the cooperation of the spouse can both the unity and the communion occur.

Wrong. There is no current marriage covenant. A marriage covenant Can NOT take place when someone is presumned to be married to someone else. That is the break down. It is impossible to marry 2 people at once.

 

[agapewolf]

Fr. Sunny, O.Carm told me it isn’t a sin to not be Catholic. I believe him. I wouldn’t abandon my husband when to stay with him isn’t a sin. Nothing has ever or would ever prevent me from going to Mass and adoration several times each week. That’s more than a lot of Catholics do.

Besides, what’s it to you? I was addressing my post to non-Catholics in similar situations to let them know I feel their distress and they have my supports and prayers. Are you included in this group?

I am allowed to participate in an open Catholic forum. You stated you would not have become Catholic if your husband didn’t get an annullment. You would have kept yourself away from keeping the sacraments and receiving Jesus, to live with a person who was married to someone else.Staying with him would have been a sin, if he didn’t get the annulment. I’m asking you here, what about HIS first vows? Why aren’t THOSE vows honored in your scenario?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Wrong. There is no current marriage covenant. A marriage covenant Can NOT take place when someone is presumned to be married to someone else. That is the break down.

Says who? You are in no position, nor is the church, or the tribunal to assess any marriage (other than your own). The church or the tribunal can rule the sacrament is not present and thus the parties maybe free to marry. The Church will refuse to celebrate a marriage attempt when either party is not free to marry, or appears bound to a marriage covenant.

It is impossible to marry 2 people at once.

This you have correct

I am allowed to participate in an open Catholic forum. You stated you would not have become Catholic if your husband didn’t get an annullment. You would have kept yourself away from keeping the sacraments and receiving Jesus, to live with a person who was married to someone else.Staying with him would have been a sin, if he didn’t get the annulment. I’m asking you here, what about HIS first vows? Why aren’t THOSE vows honored in your scenario?

This is incorrect completely wrong the “husband” is clearly not in a united state designed to the procreation of children with the first woman, so your assessment that he is married to the first girl can only be correct if the tribunal is greatly errored. Do you believe the tribunal to be errored? I hope you understand that

 

[tinalewis]

I am allowed to participate in an open Catholic forum. You stated you would not have become Catholic if your husband didn’t get an annullment. You would have kept yourself away from keeping the sacraments and receiving Jesus, to live with a person who was married to someone else.Staying with him would have been a sin, if he didn’t get the annulment. I’m asking you here, what about HIS first vows? Why aren’t THOSE vows honored in your scenario?

Protestants are allowed to honor their marriage vows made in a Protestant church. My husband and I were married in a Protestant church officiated by an ordained United Church of Christ minister. We honor our vows, as do millions of other couples married in a Protestant church. Simple as that. Again, I believe it isn’t a sin to be a Protestant.

Sure, you’re free to write anything you want in the forums, and so am I. So I’ve answered your questions, maybe you can consider answering mine, at least to yourself. What’s the importance of this to you? Do you know all the circumstances of my life? Amazing, if you do.

Again, all I was attempting to do is to offer my support, my prayers, and understanding to folks who are distressed to find themselves in similar situations. Maybe this thread isn’t welcoming of a post like mine.

I’ll keep my prayers and support between myself and God next time.

 

[agapewolf]

Says who? You are in no position, nor is the church, or the tribunal to assess any marriage (other than your own). The church or the tribunal can rule the sacrament is not present and thus the parties maybe free to marry. The Church will refuse to celebrate a marriage attempt when either party is not free to marry, or appears bound to a marriage covenant. This you have correct

This is incorrect completely wrong the “husband” is clearly not in a united state designed to the procreation of children with the first woman, so your assessment that he is married to the first girl can only be correct if the tribunal is greatly errored. Do you believe the tribunal to be errored? I hope you understand that

Im not talking about your current marriage state. I hope you understand that. You DID state however, what the situation would be if your husband did not get an annullment. You would not have come into the church. I am pointing that out, that you seem to only want to honor your civil marriage vows while completely ignoring (in this hypothetical) the ones already made. Just because your husband moved on and is not living with the original wife, if he had not gotten an annulment, it is still presumned to be valid. yet you say you would overlook that and stay away from the sacraments. Someone else already stated that they are not in the church because of that situation…again, completely ignoring that there were original vows made.

How come those original vows don’t count? Because they don’t want them to? because it doesn’t feel good? becauese they’ve moved on? Why don’t they count for anything?