Is a secular marriage between a baptized Protestant and a non-Christian valid?

[x1980x]

If a validly baptized Protestant (who has never been Catholic) and a person who was never baptized or whose baptism is invalid (e.g. LDS) have married in a secular ceremony (e.g. by a Justice of the Peace), is that valid in the eyes of the CC?

Btw, as a Protestant I agree with the CC that LDS baptisms are invalid and so do not feel the need to qualify that with an “eyes of the CC” statement.

 

[Labarum]

If the marriage was done at a justice of the peace it is definitely not valid since God was not involved. Any secular marriage that takes place is not valid.

In terms of a Christian marriage outside of the Catholic Church being valid it is since the only valid sacraments Protestants have is baptism and marriage.

However, in this situation it is not valid since it was not a Christian marriage but rather a secular one.

Here is some more info: catholic.com/quickquestions/how-are-catholics-to-view-protestant-marriages

 

[1ke]

If a validly baptized Protestant (who has never been Catholic) and a person who was never baptized or whose baptism is invalid (e.g. LDS) have married in a secular ceremony (e.g. by a Justice of the Peace), is that valid in the eyes of the CC?

Btw, as a Protestant I agree with the CC that LDS baptisms are invalid and so do not feel the need to qualify that with an “eyes of the CC” statement.

Yes.

this is provided there are not divine law impediments to a valid marriage such as a prior marriage/divorce by either party with a still-living spouse, etc.

 

[1ke]

If the marriage was done at a justice of the peace it is definitely not valid since God was not involved. Any secular marriage that takes place is not valid.

this is 100% inaccurate.

In terms of a Christian marriage outside of the Catholic Church being valid it is since the only valid sacraments Protestants have is baptism and marriage.

When a protestant minister witnesses a marriage he is the civil officiant and witness. Same if it is a Justice of the Peace. Both are witnessing the marriage in a civil capacity.

A marriage between baptized non-Catholics is valid and a sacrament regardless of where they contract the marriage. The consent of the couple makes the marriage, not who witnesses it.

If one of the parties is not baptized, as in the OP’s question, the marriage is a valid, natural marriage.

However, in this situation it is not valid since it was not a Christian marriage but rather a secular one.

this is not true.

 

[Labarum]

this is 100% inaccurate.

When a protestant minister witnesses a marriage he is the civil officiant and witness. Same if it is a Justice of the Peace. Both are witnessing the marriage in a civil capacity.

A marriage between baptized non-Catholics is valid and a sacrament regardless of where they contract the marriage. The consent of the couple makes the marriage, not who witnesses it.

If one of the parties is not baptized, as in the OP’s question, the marriage is a valid, natural marriage.

this is not true.

I would have to disagree. If you go to City Hall and get your marriage done civilly from a Justice of the peace it is NOT valid in the eyes of God or the Church. It is only valid in the eyes of civil law but not divine law.

If you were Catholic you would still be required to get your marriage acknowledged by the Church.

If you were Protestant you would need a blessing from a Pastor.

Both serve the purpose of bestowing the grace thorough the sacrament. If it is just a civil wedding then it is not a sacrament and God and his Grace is absent.

 

[Johnnyduffy]

The catechism teaches that matrimony is a sacrament that exists between two baptized persons. If it is done civily it is not valid as a sacrament. However it may be valid as a contract, I am not 100% sure. A marriage such as the one you described may be dissolved by the pauline privlege.

 

[agapewolf]

I would have to disagree. If you go to City Hall and get your marriage done civilly from a Justice of the peace it is NOT valid.

If you were Catholic you would still be required to get your marriage acknowledged by the Church.

If you were Protestant you would need a blessing from a Pastor.

Both serve the purpose of bestowing the grace thorough the sacrament. If it is just a civil wedding then it is not a sacrament and God and his Grace is absent.

This is not church teaching. Only Catholics are bound by canonical form. Catholics must be married through the guidelines of the church. non-Catholics are not bound by these restrictions. Protestant churches even recognize marriages of their own members done civilly. The Catholic church honors valid natural marriages, and considers them a sacrament when both are baptized.

 

[SMHW]

The OP was specifically addressing the case of one baptized (non-Catholic and let’s through in non-Orthodox) Christian and one unbaptized person (a non-Christian). 1ke was expounding on that. Such a marriage, even though a valid natural marriage, cannot be a sacrament regardless of the religious affiliation of the witness. (Until such time as the unbaptized person gets baptized but that is another discussion.)

The witness who presides at the wedding ceremony needn’t be a minister.

 

[dochawk]

Under western Cannon Law the priest is not universally required. The priest has only became a mandatory witness in the second Millenium (to deal with cases in which the couple returned and differed on whether they’d exchanged vows!). This created a new loophole in which the couple, lacking permission from families, would quite literally wake up the priest in his bed and exchange vows while he was still coming to his senses. (seriously. This one was finally closed in the 70s, with the requirement that the prest or deacon request the vows).

Even today, in areas undeserved by clergy, a vald RC marriage can be entered in the interim, valid but solemnified once clergy is available.

In the east, though, due to a different understanding, the priest is indispensable. Rather than witnessing, he cuffs the “crowning.”. If a Roman Catholic marries an Eastrn Catholic before a deacon rather than priest, it is invalid.

hawki

 

[1ke]

I would have to disagree. If you go to City Hall and get your marriage done civilly from a Justice of the peace it is NOT valid in the eyes of God or the Church. It is only valid in the eyes of civil law but not divine law.

This is NOT true.

If you were Catholic you would still be required to get your marriage acknowledged by the Church.

This is true for Catholics, because the Catholic Church requires a priest, deacon, or designated lay person to be the official witness for the Church unless a person receives a dispensation from form. If they receive a dispensation they can be married civilly outside Catholic form.

The OP did not ask about Catholics. He asked about non-Catholics. Non-Catholics are not bound by merely ecclesial laws.

If you were Protestant you would need a blessing from a Pastor.

This is simply untrue.

Can you explain exactly what a non-Catholic pastor’s blessing supposedly does? Such pastors do not have holy orders. They are laypeople.

Both serve the purpose of bestowing the grace thorough the sacrament. If it is just a civil wedding then it is not a sacrament and God and his Grace is absent.

Nope. this is an incorrect understanding of the sacrament and the role of the priest or civil witness in it.

The priest (or deacon or layperson) is simply the witness for the Church. It is the consent of the couple that makes the marriage and marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament by the very existence of their baptism.

The Church does not teach this at all.

 

[1ke]

The catechism teaches that matrimony is a sacrament that exists between two baptized persons. If it is done civily it is not valid as a sacrament.

This is NOT true.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I would have to disagree. If you go to City Hall and get your marriage done civilly from a Justice of the peace it is NOT valid in the eyes of God or the Church. It is only valid in the eyes of civil law but not divine law.

If you were Catholic you would still be required to get your marriage acknowledged by the Church.

If you were Protestant you would need a blessing from a Pastor.

Both serve the purpose of bestowing the grace thorough the sacrament. If it is just a civil wedding then it is not a sacrament and God and his Grace is absent.

You are completely wrong in this matter. Plus what you state in contrary to the teachings, laws, and practices of the Catholic Church.

The Church only obliges Catholics to observe canonical form. With regards to non-Catholics She does not require them to follow canonical form.

If as given in the OP’s example a Protestant married a non-Christian their marriage would be considered a good and natural marriage by the Catholic Church. Because one of the spouse’s was not a Christian it would not be a sacrament. The Church would consider the marriage to be valid.

If you want to be technical, or shall we say canonical, the Catholic Church would presume the marriage was valid. It would be considered valid until, at least, four different Church judges decide, with moral certainty, that the marriage was invalid. It would not be found invalid because they were both non-Catholics and married in a civil ceremony.

 

[1ke]

The OP was specifically addressing the case of one baptized (non-Catholic and let’s through in non-Orthodox) Christian and one unbaptized person (a non-Christian). 1ke was expounding on that. Such a marriage, even though a valid natural marriage, cannot be a sacrament regardless of the religious affiliation of the witness. (Until such time as the unbaptized person gets baptized but that is another discussion.)

The witness who presides at the wedding ceremony needn’t be a minister.

If both are baptized non-catholics (and yes, non-Orthoox) their civil marriage is both valid and a sacrament.

People have this silly notion that a non-Catholic minister somehow blesses a marriage. This simply is not true. Non-Catholic ministers have no more power to bless a marriage than you, me, or my cat. They are LAYPEOPLE. They do not have Holy Orders.

So, according to this misguided theory, no marriages would be valid except those presided over by a validly ordained priest-- if the priest were somehow making the marriage come into existence. But the Church clearly teaches it is the consent of the couple that makes the marriage. The priest is the witness for the Church.

And, the Church does not even require a priest to be the witness for Catholics. The Church allows a deacon or a lay person to witness the marriage. And it also allows dispensations from form in which case a Catholic could validly marry at city hall before the JP.

 

[SMHW]

If both are baptized non-catholics (and yes, non-Orthoox) their civil marriage is both valid and a sacrament.

People have this silly notion that a non-Catholic minister somehow blesses a marriage. This simply is not true. Non-Catholic ministers have no more power to bless a marriage than you, me, or my cat. They are LAYPEOPLE. They do not have Holy Orders.

So, according to this misguided theory, no marriages would be valid except those presided over by a validly ordained priest-- if the priest were somehow making the marriage come into existence. But the Church clearly teaches it is the consent of the couple that makes the marriage. The priest is the witness for the Church.

And, the Church does not even require a priest to be the witness for Catholics. The Church allows a deacon or a lay person to witness the marriage. And it also allows dispensations from form in which case a Catholic could validly marry at city hall before the JP.

…and just a note to make our Eastern Catholic friends happy… The last paragraphs were aimed at Western Catholics.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

People have this silly notion that a non-Catholic minister somehow blesses a marriage. This simply is not true. Non-Catholic ministers have no more power to bless a marriage than you, me, or my cat. They are LAYPEOPLE. They do not have Holy Orders.

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches it is essential that the priest (non-Catholic minister) blesses the marriage for its validity. The have valid holy orders.

But the Church clearly teaches it is the consent of the couple that makes the marriage. The priest is the witness for the Church.

In the Eastern churches, including the Catholic ones, it is the priest who is the minister of the sacrament not the parties to the marriage.

And, the Church does not even require a priest to be the witness for Catholics. The Church allows a deacon or a lay person to witness the marriage.

That only applies to the Latin Catholic Church; in the Eastern Catholic churches a priest, or bishop, is necessary.

 

[1ke]

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches it is essential that the priest (non-Catholic minister) blesses the marriage for its validity. The have valid holy orders.

I am not talking about Eastern Catholics.

And, moreover, since this is not true for Latin Catholics it seems to lack the character of Divine Law.

In the Eastern churches, including the Catholic ones, it is the priest who is the minister of the sacrament not the parties to the marriage.

Well, not exactly. Even in the Eastern code it clearly states that the consent of the parties makes marriage.

The blessing is required for validity. They don’t go so far as to say the priest is the “minister of the Sacrament”. Clearly not since it cannot be the case for Eastern Catholics without also being the case for Latin Catholics. Form and matter of the sacraments do not vary based on Rite or Code of Canon Law.

That only applies to the Latin Catholic Church; in the Eastern Catholic churches a priest, or bishop, is necessary.

The Eastern code does allow for both dispensation and for marriages before witnesses only. The parties then follow up with a blessing from a priest. But the code does not say the marriage is invalid until they do so in cases where they have followed the law.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am not talking about Eastern Catholics.

I raised the point because you mentioned non-Catholics without qualification and that would include the Orthodox. Their praxis is different but valid. Your post also covered the Catholic Church without qualification. I was pointing out that again the praxis of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches differs from the Latin. If the thread had been exclusively about Latin Catholics as this particular forum normally is I wouldn’t have said anything. However, this thread was about a non-Catholic and a non-Christian.

The main point being that a priest is more essential in the Eastern churches that in the Latin.

 

[1ke]

I raised the point because you mentioned non-Catholics without qualification and that would include the Orthodox.

Please see my prior post on this thread where I specifically said non-Catholic (and non-Orthodox). Post #13.

Stop nit-picking my posts.

 

[1ke]

I was pointing out that again the praxis of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches differs from the Latin.

A point that merely serves to confuse the issue rather than help in a thread where someone does not understand the basic aspects of marriage of non-Catholics being valid.

One can move on to the complex, convoluted world of Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy vis-a-vis marriage on a separate thread.

IMHO.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Please see my prior post on this thread where I specifically said non-Catholic (and non-Orthodox). Post #13.

You stated in the aforementioned post 13, which I did quote, that non-Catholic ministers could not bless marriages. That statement was inaccurate. Non-Catholic includes the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. Their clergy have valid holy orders and can, and do, bless marriages. Your reference to Orthodox occurred in the previous paragraph and concerned the parties to marriage rather than ministers of churches and ecclesial communities. I hope that help clears up any misunderstanding.

Stop nit-picking my posts.

That is not what I am doing. I am simply aiming for accuracy. The same statement holds true with respect to what you say in post 19.