Marriage Dispensation Help!

[Robert_Burns]

Phemie:
<<< One of those rules is proper form and an automatic declaration of nullity happens with “lack of form” because the marriage is not valid without proper form. >>>>

Robert: Which is one of the CRITERIA the CHURCH USES not laypeople like you. You seem to be convinced that the Church doesnt investigate this fact. And by the way its not only form its form matter and Intent as with all Sacraments.

<<< If two protestants married by a protestant minister before converting their marriage is considered valid automatically because they were not required to be married in the Catholic church being protestant at the time. >>>>

Robert : And if one has been married twice?

<<< It would be mortal sin if the sin was committed with full knowledge >>>>

Robert: Nonsense - the Catholic was not only Catholic but beyond the Age of Reason at the time they decided to defy the Church. As for the Non Catholic - I never mentioned them.

. Since it is rather obvious the OP was not instructed in the requirements of a Catholic regarding marriage she did not have full knowledge. She did not personally commit mortal sin. Now she knows the requirements and knows she is required to abstain until having her marriage convalidated.

Robert: Nonsense. Catholics cannot use ignorance of the Faith as an excuse for commiting Sin especially against a Sacrament… How could a Baptised Catholic who grew up as a Catholic - was catechised - and learned the Seven Sacraments say they DIDNT know they couldnt marry outside the Church. I find that difficult to believe.

You have things a bit confused which is probably confusing the OP. A Catholic who married outside the Catholic church without a dispensation has not entered into a valid marriage in the eyes of the church.

Robert: Prior to Vatican II and the 1984 Code of Canon law it was Automatic Excommunication for a Catholic to marry outside the Catholic Faith and for a non Catholic minister to perform the ceremony. It was more than Sinful. And since Marriage is in addition to being a Sacrament the Will of GOD you cannot say the Marriage is invalid. If for example - the Minister used Proper Form - Matter and Intent to do what the Church does - it would in fact be a Valid Marriage although it wouldnt be a Sacrament. It would be a Sin for the Catholic. What the Church does is attempt to determine if this in fact has taken place hense the reason it takes time. Secondly - the Church enters into the determination with the Faith of the Catholic in mind. A Catholic may have commited Sin but the Church wants the Cattholic to return as the prodigal son returned. But in order to allow this to occur - the Church wants to insure that the Marriage is Valid and that the non Catholic is not going to be an impediment to The faith of the Catholic and to any Children that are born. If so - in either case - that is precisely why we have the Petrine Priviledge and the Pauline Priviledge. So to say it “automaticly invalid” is not true. Only the Church can say that.

 

[Robert_Burns]

All this confusion .
Ok I was married at 18 to my husband by a protestant minister in 1991. I was baptized and raised nominally Catholic. When I became pregnant in 1994 I had a strong calling to return to the church of my childhood. Two years later my husband converted. He had never been baptized but his family switched to various protestant faiths growing up and even Jehovah’s Witnesses for a while. Our parish (the same one from all my childhood) allowed my husband to go through RCIA and be baptized knowing we were married outside the church.

It wasn’t until 2004 when we changed parishes and explained to our new parish priest we were not married in the Catholic church he smiled and said “Ahh we must have a wedding then!” Our marriage was convalidated in 2004. I still celebrate our original wedding date but we now also celebrate our new one.Our old parish was rather liberal and I think they thought they were doing us a kindness by not “being judgmental” about the state of marriage instead of telling us what the church actually teaches. Do I personally “feel” we were not yet married -no.

But this isn’t about my personal feelings, its about what God requires of me through His Church. Objectively I was not yet married according to the teachings of His church. I feel I lived a married life to the best of my ability even though it wasn’t truly recognized as a marriage and I believe God knows that. And I believe God knew I would return home to his Church and make things right and he was patient with me. I am thrilled that our marriage is now sacramental and we have those graces. And I am glad to obey whatever His Church requires of me.

In the eyes of the Church you are not yet married. It is not meant to be a personal judgment or an insult. You, as a Catholic, were required to either marry in the church or get a dispensation. Since you did neither your marriage is not yet recognized. If you were not aware of this requirement than up until you have become aware you did not commit personal sin.

Now that you know what the church teaches -which is you are not validly married outside of the Church if you are Catholic without a dispensation -you would be require to abstain like any other couple not yet married in the church. If you can not live as brother and sister than go to confession shortly before your convalidation date and refrain until after the wedding -which is what it is. That way you will be free from sin when you enter the sacrament of marriage. And this is a joyful thing -to make your marriage sacramental.

Precisely . when you say “Our marriage was convalidated” did the Priest advise you to confess the sin of fornication from the time of your first marriage? (Dont answer that here ) But obviously not. Because the Union , although not sacramental , was likewise not an unholy union as living in Sin would be as so many young people do today in our society. Thats the entire point. But once you advised him that your marriage was outside the Church - he had no choice but to advise you to have it convalidated. Just as converts from other fiths have "Conditional Baptisms " for the same reason. Just curious - but did your husband get Baptised in the Church or conditionally Baptised?

More info :

teams-transatlantic.org/documents/Themeaningofmarriage.pdf

 

[rayne89]

<<< One of those rules is proper form and an automatic declaration of nullity happens with “lack of form” because the marriage is not valid without proper form. >>>>

Robert: Which is one of the CRITERIA the CHURCH USES not laypeople like you. You seem to be convinced that the Church doesnt investigate this fact. And by the way its not only form its form matter and Intent as with all Sacraments.

<<< If two protestants married by a protestant minister before converting their marriage is considered valid automatically because they were not required to be married in the Catholic church being protestant at the time. >>>>

Robert : And if one has been married twice?

<<< It would be mortal sin if the sin was committed with full knowledge >>>>

Robert: Nonsense - the Catholic was not only Catholic but beyond the Age of Reason at the time they decided to defy the Church. As for the Non Catholic - I never mentioned them.

. Since it is rather obvious the OP was not instructed in the requirements of a Catholic regarding marriage she did not have full knowledge. She did not personally commit mortal sin. Now she knows the requirements and knows she is required to abstain until having her marriage convalidated.

Robert: Nonsense. Catholics cannot use ignorance of the Faith as an excuse for commiting Sin especially against a Sacrament… How could a Baptised Catholic who grew up as a Catholic - was catechised - and learned the Seven Sacraments say they DIDNT know they couldnt marry outside the Church. I find that difficult to believe.

You have things a bit confused which is probably confusing the OP. A Catholic who married outside the Catholic church without a dispensation has not entered into a valid marriage in the eyes of the church.

Robert: Prior to Vatican II and the 1984 Code of Canon law it was Automatic Excommunication for a Catholic to marry outside the Catholic Faith and for a non Catholic minister to perform the ceremony. It was more than Sinful. And since Marriage is in addition to being a Sacrament the Will of GOD you cannot say the Marriage is invalid. If for example - the Minister used Proper Form - Matter and Intent to do what the Church does - it would in fact be a Valid Marriage although it wouldnt be a Sacrament. It would be a Sin for the Catholic. What the Church does is attempt to determine if this in fact has taken place hense the reason it takes time. Secondly - the Church enters into the determination with the Faith of the Catholic in mind. A Catholic may have commited Sin but the Church wants the Cattholic to return as the prodigal son returned. But in order to allow this to occur - the Church wants to insure that the Marriage is Valid and that the non Catholic is not going to be an impediment to The faith of the Catholic and to any Children that are born. If so - in either case - that is precisely why we have the Petrine Priviledge and the Pauline Priviledge. So to say it “automaticly invalid” is not true. Only the Church can say that.

Robert you need to get your facts straight -you keep bringing even more possible scenarios which is only muddling this further.

I’m not pulling these things out of mid air -I went through a convalidation myself. The priest did not say let us investigate to see if your marriage is valid he said “Let’s have a wedding.” And my current parish is very traditional.

The church teaches
a) one can not commit mortal sin when one does not know its a mortal sin

That means if you do not know getting married outside the church is wrong you are not held accountable. You can not commit mortal sin without full knowledge -period.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. Catechism of the Catholic Church

Guess what? In all my years of catechism growing I was never taught one had to marry in the church. I never read it in any of my books or ever heard anyone say that. I know you might find hard to believe or outrageous but it is the truth -and it is outrageous. But how can someone be held accountable for something they don’t know? We have several generations of Catholics who were barely instructed in the faith.

b) a marriage outside the church without a dispensation will be declared invalid -what are you proposing the church would find in their “investigation” that would make marriage valid to a Catholic married outside the church without a dispensation?

c) you are correct if two protestants convert and were married by a protestant minister -but one or both parties have already been married once before than their current “marriage” would be invalid because one can only marry one time.

 

[rayne89]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=359803&highlight=valid+marriage

From Catholic Answers Fr Vincent Serpa

This is a marriage related question.

I am not baptized. I am currently in my 2nd year of RCIA. I am looking forward to my baptism, confirmation and first communion on Easter 2010. My RCIA director is aware of my marriage situation (described below) and has not indicated that it would be any kind of issue for the completion of the Easter activities.

My question is whether I need to take any steps relating to my marriage before my baptism/confirmation/first communion in 2010 and in order for me to remain in full communion with the Catholic church thereafter? Is convalidation or some other procedure necessary, and if so, when do I need to do that?

The situation of my marriage is that my wife was raised Catholic, baptized Catholic, and had 1st communion as a youngster, but her family faded away from the Church by the time she was to be confirmed, so she was not confirmed. My wife and I were married outside the Catholic church - in a civil ceremony - long before I started the RCIA process. As I mentioned above, I am not baptized.

Our marriage is the first and only marriage for both me and my wife.

Thanks

Hi,

I don’t know what your RCIA director is thinking. Of course, you need to be validly married in order to enter the Catholic Church! Since your wife is a baptized Catholic and married outside of the Catholic Church, you both need to have your marriage convalidated. From what you have written, it sounds like an easy matter to take care of. See your priest about it soon.

The reason that it is necessary is that since the Church does not recognize your marriage as valid, and therefore, marital relations are considered to be sinful. One certainly should not receive baptism and the other sacraments and then immediately commit a mortal sin.
In fact, it would be good for you and you wife to be celibate until your marriage is convalidated. All you wife would then have to do is go to Confession and she would be able to receive Holy Communion. If you need further info on this, just contact me privately here by clicking on my name or you may email me at vserpa@catholic.com.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

There are plenty of others
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=323280&highlight=valid+marriage

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=212552&highlight=convalidation

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=29658&highlight=convalidation

Since you, as Catholics, married outside the Church you failed to observe the required form of the celebration of marriage - so your marriage was null (invalid) from the beginning. Convalidation attempts to make an invalid marriage valid. In cases such as yours this would require that your marriage be “contracted anew in canonical form” (Code of Canon Law, 1162). Provided this was done, your marriage should be valid.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Robert you need to get your facts straight -you keep bringing even more possible scenarios which is only muddling this further.

I’m not pulling these things out of mid air -I went through a convalidation myself. The priest did not say let us investigate to see if your marriage is valid he said “Let’s have a wedding.” And my current parish is very traditional.

The church teaches
a) one can not commit mortal sin when one does not know its a mortal sin

That means if you do not know getting married outside the church is wrong you are not held accountable. You can not commit mortal sin without full knowledge -period.
Guess what? In all my years of catechism growing I was never taught one had to marry in the church. I never read it in any of my books or ever heard anyone say that. I know you might find hard to believe or outrageous but it is the truth -and it is outrageous. But how can someone be held accountable for something they don’t know? We have several generations of Catholics who were barely instructed in the faith.

b) a marriage outside the church without a dispensation will be declared invalid -what are you proposing the church would find in their “investigation” that would make marriage valid to a Catholic married outside the church without a dispensation?

c) you are correct if two protestants convert and were married by a protestant minister -but one or both parties have already been married once before than their current “marriage” would be invalid because one can only marry one time.

Robert: And yet you went to the Priest and the Priest told you lets have a Marriage. My entire point remains - that ONLY THE CHURCH can determine if a Marriage is valid or not. This nonsense about all marriages outside the Church being invalid is not true. Only the Church can determine this. There is no such thing as “automatically invalid.” As for whether or not you are aware of the teachings of the Church regarding marriage - thats between you and GOD but anyone who went to Mass for more than a month or two must have slept through the Sermons. I have probably heard 300 or 400 sermons in my lifetime speaking of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony including the readings in Scripture :

Scripture
Gen. 2:20-24 - we see that, from the beginning, husband and wife are joined together by God and become one body. A body cannot be dismembered and still live.

Mal. 2:16 - God says “I hate divorce.” These are strong words from our Lord. Divorce and remarriage violates the sacred marital covenant between a husband and a wife that has been ordained by God.

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus makes it clear that it is God who joins the husband and wife together, according to His will. What God joins together cannot be dissolved because God’s will is perfect and eternal.

Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18 - Jesus says that whoever divorces and remarries another commits adultery. This is an offense against the natural law.

Rom. 7:2-3 - again, Paul reiterates Jesus’ teaching that sacramental marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage is adultery. He who commits adultery destroys himself. (Prov. 6:23). Many Protestant denominations have rejected this teaching of Jesus and His Church.

1 Cor. 7:10-11 - once again, Paul gives Christ’s teaching that married couples cannot divorce and remarry. This violates God’s divine plan for the husband and wife.

Matt. 5:31-32 - the Lord permits divorce only for “porneia.” This Greek word generally means unlawful sexual intercourse due to either blood relations (also called incest) or nonsacramental unions. The Lord does not permit divorce for “moicheia” (adultery). It is also important to note that in these cases, a marriage never existed in the first place, so the Lord is not actually permitting divorce, but a dissolution of the unlawful union.

Eph. 5:22-32 - Paul says that the sacramental union of husband and wife is the image of Christ and the Church. Just as Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride the Church are inseparable, so are a husband and wife also inseparable. A civil divorce cannot dissolve a sacramental marriage (between two baptized people).

1 Cor. 7:12-15 - these verses set forth what the Church calls the “Pauline privilege” - two unbaptized people marry, and afterwards one of the people is baptized. If the unbaptized person decides to leave the marriage, the Christian is free to remarry (because the first marriage was not sacramental, and a union between a baptized and an unbaptized person can jeopardize the baptized person’s faith).

Ezra 10:1-14 - these verses support what the Church calls the “Petrine privilege” - a baptized person marries an unbaptized person. To save the baptized person’s faith from being jeopardized, the Pope may dissolve such a marriage pursuant to his binding and loosing authority.

Rev. 19:9 - the marital union of man and woman reflect Christ’s union with the Church at the heavenly marriage supper. Just as Christ and the Church have become one flesh through the Eucharist and the union brings forth spiritual life for God’s children, a man and a woman become one flesh and their union brings forth physical life for the Church. This union is indissoluble.

 

[rayne89]

Sigh - Ok I’m not going to keep arguing. All CATHOLICS are required to be married in a Catholic Church or receive a dispensation -if a CATHOLIC does not do either of these two things their marriage is not recognized by the Church and is automatically considered invalid until their marriage is convalidated. That is Catholic Church teaching. Not my opinion. If you don’t want to believe me that that is Church teaching than feel free not to.

 

[Phemie]

Robert: And yet you went to the Priest and the Priest told you lets have a Marriage. My entire point remains - that ONLY THE CHURCH can determine if a Marriage is valid or not. This nonsense about all marriages outside the Church being invalid is not true. Only the Church can determine this. There is no such thing as “automatically invalid.” .

Yes, there is. A canon lawyer will tell you that the marriage of a Catholic married outside the church without a dispensation is not presumed valid, unlike that of a Catholic married in the Church or that of non-Catholics. That’s why a Catholic married outside the Church who divorces does not have to get an ‘annulment’. Simply showing a Catholic certificate of baptism, a marriage certificate that shows that the marriage took place outside the Church and divorce papers will be enough. It doesn’t even have to go to the marriage tribunal although most dioceses do that.

 

[PolishK]

Wow, I didn’t know what a quarrel this would become.

I would like to say first off that, Robert, you need to not be judgmental.

I, in fact, did NOT know some of these things. As I stated in my original posting, my Mother started taking me to a Methodist church at age 7. Clearly a 7-year-old does not know all the teachings of the Church.
Yes, I was baptized and received my first Communion but less than a year later, I did not go to the Catholic church anymore.
I visited on occasion as a teenager and have always attended the Midnight Mass, but nothing more.
So to insinuate that I am lying is horribly insulting to me.

Second - if the Church sees my marriage as invalid and considers any marital “activity” a SIN, then why are they going to make me wait a year to have it convalidated?

Thanks for all your help.

God Bless.

 

[rayne89]

Second - if the Church sees my marriage as invalid and considers any marital “activity” a SIN, then why are they going to make me wait a year to have it convalidated?

Thanks for all your help.

God Bless.

I would check with your diocese because a year seems like quite a long time to wait for someone who is already legally married (I thought originally you said 6 months?) Ours took less than three months from meeting with the priest, obtaining a current copy of our baptism certificates, filling out the paper work, the priest sending it to the archdiocese and getting approval back and pick a date for the convalidation. We had already been married legally almost 14 years so we didn’t have to go through the standard marriage prep just meet with our priest.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I am in a similar boat. I was baptized Catholic and did not make any other sacraments( another story for later). Anyway, I was confirmed a Lutheran, married another Lutheran ten years ago in front of a Lutheran minister. A few years later, in 2004, I decided to go back to being a Catholic( yet another story for later). My wife did not want to switch but was supportive of my decision. She did not want our marriage blessed by a priest because as far as she was concerned, it was already. So because of this, my parish priest talked to the Archdiocese and it was determined that my marriage was valid and did not need to be blessed. We have one child who was baptized and is being raised Catholic.

I’ve spoken to my Parish and I was told I will need to have my marriage blessed. Because my husband is baptized as a Christian, our marriage is considered valid with a blessing.
I was NOT told I was committing adultery and sinning.
I am not confirmed as of yet. I was baptized Catholic but I am in the process of finishing the Sacraments that were left undone when I was a child.
I was told when my Confirmation was complete that I would be able to have my marriage blessed and that we would get around to that when necessary. No one ever said “You can’t have sex with your husband till then.” “You need to move out and not live as husband and wife.”
I apologize if I sound snippy, but to tell me I know nothing of faith is is simply untrue.
I have been researching this issue and apparently, as long as I have a valid reason for my marriage not being in the Church and because I still was married in a Christian church to a baptized Christian, our marriage is valid, just not blessed.
This is the information I have found recently and the information that was passed to me.
I am just confused because on this website I keep seeing information stating otherwise.

 

[Phemie]

I am in a similar boat. I was baptized Catholic and did not make any other sacraments( another story for later). Anyway, I was confirmed a Lutheran, married another Lutheran ten years ago in front of a Lutheran minister. A few years later, in 2004, I decided to go back to being a Catholic( yet another story for later). My wife did not want to switch but was supportive of my decision. She did not want our marriage blessed by a priest because as far as she was concerned, it was already. So because of this, my parish priest talked to the Archdiocese and it was determined that my marriage was valid and did not need to be blessed. We have one child who was baptized and is being raised Catholic.

Sounds like you had a radical sanation, which is a form of convalidation that is done when the non-Catholic party does not want to repeat the vows. Unlike a simple convalidation which is the start of the valid marriage, a radical sanation ‘heals’ the marriage ‘at the root’ and the marriage is deemed to have been valid from the start of the legal marriage.

Of course the Tribunal might also have decided that since you were confirmed in the Lutheran Church and essentially were not Catholic you were not bound by the rules of the Church regarding marriage. That ‘loop-hole’, for want of a better word, was closed in recent years.

 

[rayne89]

I am in a similar boat. I was baptized Catholic and did not make any other sacraments( another story for later). Anyway, I was confirmed a Lutheran, married another Lutheran ten years ago in front of a Lutheran minister. A few years later, in 2004, I decided to go back to being a Catholic( yet another story for later). My wife did not want to switch but was supportive of my decision. She did not want our marriage blessed by a priest because as far as she was concerned, it was already. So because of this, my parish priest talked to the Archdiocese and it was determined that my marriage was valid and did not need to be blessed. We have one child who was baptized and is being raised Catholic.

My guess is because you were confirmed Lutheran the Catholic Church considered that a formal defection and your marriage was considered as two protestants getting married instead of a Catholic and a protestant.

 

[moon1234]

Unfortunantly, once a Catholic always a Catholic (At least in the eyes of the Church). Some other reasoning was behind this decision.

 

[Phemie]

Unfortunantly, once a Catholic always a Catholic (At least in the eyes of the Church). Some other reasoning was behind this decision.

From 1983 until recently Canon Law allowed that one who had formally defected from the Church did not have to follow the canonical form for marriage. If the poster was married while that was in effect, the Tribunal may well have considered the fact that he was raised and confirmed in the Lutheran Church as formal defection.

 

[moon1234]

A formal defection requires the following:

1. Decide to leave the Church (which supposes an act of heresy, apostasy, or schism),
2. Put this decision into effect (“realize” it),
3. Manifest this decision externally by submitting it in writing to the Ordinary (normally the bishop) or one’s pastor, and
4. Get the Ordinary or pastor to agree that you really have performed the act of will to leave the Church described above and thus committed heresy, apostasy, or schism.

It is then to be noted in the parish baptismal register that you have so defected.

At least per the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/formal_defectio.html

I personally don’t believe you can “formally defect” from the Catholic Church. You can choose not to participate, but EVERYONE is REQUIRED to be a member of the Church Christ founded or they they will have no salvation (Christ). Formally defecting is just an outward visible sign of disobediance. Why the church would ever recognize something like this is beyond me.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Thank you. I couldn’t remember the term that my deacon used. This was done back in 2004. So if this so called “loop hole” was closed, what does that mean for people in my situation? Do they get rejected by the church because their spouse refuses to convert and/or have their marriage vows done over?

Sounds like you had a radical sanation, which is a form of convalidation that is done when the non-Catholic party does not want to repeat the vows. Unlike a simple convalidation which is the start of the valid marriage, a radical sanation ‘heals’ the marriage ‘at the root’ and the marriage is deemed to have been valid from the start of the legal marriage.

Of course the Tribunal might also have decided that since you were confirmed in the Lutheran Church and essentially were not Catholic you were not bound by the rules of the Church regarding marriage. That ‘loop-hole’, for want of a better word, was closed in recent years.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Well, I became Lutheran kind of by accident when I was 10 because my family was not going to church anymore and I got drawn into the neighborhood church then. At that time, I was ignorant of church teaching only have gone to first grade in a Catholic school.

A formal defection requires the following:

1. Decide to leave the Church (which supposes an act of heresy, apostasy, or schism),
2. Put this decision into effect (“realize” it),
3. Manifest this decision externally by submitting it in writing to the Ordinary (normally the bishop) or one’s pastor, and
4. Get the Ordinary or pastor to agree that you really have performed the act of will to leave the Church described above and thus committed heresy, apostasy, or schism.

It is then to be noted in the parish baptismal register that you have so defected.

At least per the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/formal_defectio.html

I personally don’t believe you can “formally defect” from the Catholic Church. You can choose not to participate, but EVERYONE is REQUIRED to be a member of the Church Christ founded or they they will have no salvation (Christ). Formally defecting is just an outward visible sign of disobediance. Why the church would ever recognize something like this is beyond me.

 

[PolishK]

Wow, Eric, that sounds like it was quite easy for you then!

I was told we would have to go to marriage preparation, which is silly because I’m not going to sit there and have someone talk to me as if I’m not married and ask if I’m sure this guy is who should be with…etc…

Now, when I spoke to my RCIA director, she said “Oh yes, we’ll just have the marriage blessed after your Confirmation”.
She didn’t seem like she thought I would have to do any marriage prep. (I’m telling you right now, my Baptist husband will NOT go to a 6-month long marriage course when we’re already married. Especially because he is in pretty intense flight training with the AF right now).
So, my Confirmation should be in May 2011 which would be almost a YEAR. Why, if we are supposedly sinning against the Church, would they make me wait a year?

I’m just baffled. I know I need to just go talk to the Priest and I will, but until then I’m going to sit here in complete puzzlement.

Thanks for all the responses!!!

God Bless!

 

[moon1234]

Keep in mind that many RCIA directors and instructors are just that. They don’t fully understand canon law (That is what lawyers are for) and should not be advising you on such matters. A priest or someone from the Diocesean chancery should be assisting you.

If you really want to know what the answer is then look for an FSSP Parish, Institute of Christ the King Parish or St. John Cantius in Chicago. These are traditional orders of priests. They are very approchable and not hidden behind layers of lay directors and what not.

You can just phone one of the parishes and ask to speak with Father. My family does it all the time. They will be happy to speak with you and explain what must be done and how you should live in your current situation.

You should NOT have to sit through RCIA. However, the Priest should sit with you and your husband and make sure you know what is required in a Catholic Marriage. Some of the items may seem a little stupid if you are already married, but some of it may be required paperwork. Just go with it.

6 Months to a Year of RCIA BEFORE being properly married in the eyes of the Church? That seems really odd. I would also NOT receive confirmation if you are still having relations with your husband at least until the marriage situation is resolved.

I would urge you again to speak with a Traditional parish priest. They can make things happen faster for you than it sounds like your local parish is moving.

 

[rayne89]

Now, when I spoke to my RCIA director, she said “Oh yes, we’ll just have the marriage blessed after your Confirmation”.

This is NOT correct. A) a baptized Catholic does not need to go through RCIA. I know I was confirmed at the age of 24. I attended two classes with our parish nun.

B) your marriage can (and if they are making you wait that long should) be convalidated before you receive confirmation. Confirmation is not required to have a sacramental marriage.

I would call your parish and ask to speak to your priest about “a personal matter.” An appointment in person would be ideal. Make sure you get to speak to your parish priest directly -do not let them hand you off to a lay person. If you get the same story from your priest, then contact your diocese. I’m sorry you can’t even get proper information from your parish.

Unfortunately some parishes do get some what “rogue” on how they do things and think they know better than Rome on how things are to be done. It really is sad and leads to so much confusion and frustration for the laity.

May I ask how long you have been legally married to your husband?