Marriage question

[barts61]

I suspect young couples do this sometimes to sidestep the canonical six-month waiting period. This would be, to put it lightly, a grave sin in itself, even if the false “marriage” were not consummated, and I don’t see how one could undertake it with an eye toward confessing after without also running afoul of the mortal sin of presumption QUOTE]

Interesting about the Scottish Reformation…wan’t aware of that…

This is what throws me. To me if you have a valid marriage license - you’re married, by judge, priest or otherwise…

 

[His_helpmeet]

sw85;12190951:

I suspect young couples do this sometimes to sidestep the canonical six-month waiting period. This would be, to put it lightly, a grave sin in itself, even if the false “marriage” were not consummated, and I don’t see how one could undertake it with an eye toward confessing after without also running afoul of the mortal sin of presumption QUOTE]

Interesting about the Scottish Reformation…wan’t aware of that…

This is what throws me. To me if you have a valid marriage license - you’re married, by judge, priest or otherwise…

Legally married, as recognized by the state - yes. Validly married, in the eyes of God - no. In some cases, there can be other reasons why a marriage would be legal, but not valid - such as an intent not to be faithful, an intent not to be open to at least the possibility of children, being coerced into the marriage for one reason or another, etc. According to the law of the land, you’ve got a piece of paper stating you’re married. Now, in most cases, the marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise. The exception to this rule is in the case where you can prove “on paper” that the marriage was not valid - for example, a Catholic marrying outside the Church. In such cases, the marriage may be legal, but there is no valid spiritual marriage covenant between the couple.

 

[billcu1]

barts61;12192586:

Legally married, as recognized by the state - yes. Validly married, in the eyes of God - no. In some cases, there can be other reasons why a marriage would be legal, but not valid - such as an intent not to be faithful, an intent not to be open to at least the possibility of children, being coerced into the marriage for one reason or another, etc. According to the law of the land, you’ve got a piece of paper stating you’re married. Now, in most cases, the marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise. The exception to this rule is in the case where you can prove “on paper” that the marriage was not valid - for example, a Catholic marrying outside the Church. In such cases, the marriage may be legal, but there is no valid spiritual marriage covenant between the couple.

No covenant between the couple? Now I’m confused. A marriage between two baptized people isn’t a covenant? I thought it was a sacrament? And a natural marriage between all else?

 

[phil19034]

-]/-]

His_helpmeet;12192943:

No covenant between the couple? Now I’m confused. A marriage between two baptized people isn’t a covenant? I thought it was a sacrament? And a natural marriage between all else?

It is. But two Catholics must get married in the Church. A Catholic and a non-catholic must get married in the Church or have a dispensation to marry outside the Church.

Two baptized, non-Catholics may marry any way that is approved by their denomination.

Catholics believe in specific liturgies for Baptism and Matrimony. While the Church has minimum requirement to recognize a non-Catholic baptism or marriage, the rituals, prayers, blessing, etc are more detailed and elaborate (for lack of a better word) for Catholics.

Also, think of it this way… Two Catholics would not Baptize their children in a Protestant church (assuming they are remaining Catholic). Why would two Catholics not get married in the Church?

Also… It amazes me how many couples don’t get married in the Church simply because they don’t want to take the Pre-Cana classes. It’s a crying shame, especially since the sessions are helpful and you have options regarding what kind to take. I wish I could get my wife to attend a couples retreat today.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, thank you. I left that whole part out of my answer. (Which is ironic since I’m validly married to a non-Catholic )

Also, a Deacon can perform a Catholic Wedding Ceremony (non-Mass) too

Even a lay person can receive the couple’s exchange of consent in certain situations. It happened in my diocese when the bishop appointed a Sister to prepare the couple and witness their marriage in an isolated community where a priest was only going at Christmas and Easter.

 

[Phemie]

No covenant between the couple? Now I’m confused. A marriage between two baptized people isn’t a covenant? I thought it was a sacrament? And a natural marriage between all else?

It is a covenant if it’s valid. For a Catholic’s marriage to be valid, the rules of the Church must be followed. One of those rules is that a Catholic must be married according to canonical form: in the Catholic Church, with the proper exchange of consent.

 

[billcu1]

Even a lay person can receive the couple’s exchange of consent in certain situations. It happened in my diocese when the bishop appointed a Sister to prepare the couple and witness their marriage in an isolated community where a priest was only going at Christmas and Easter.

Why can’t this lay person be a Catholic judge? I am not planning anything I just always wanted to be marriedby a judge or just filling out the paperwork and then going to the church and saying “bless this Union”. I am not married and not planning to be anytime soon. It doesn’t have anything to do with the pre-cana. That would be a positive influence.

 

[billcu1]

Even a lay person can receive the couple’s exchange of consent in certain situations. It happened in my diocese when the bishop appointed a Sister to prepare the couple and witness their marriage in an isolated community where a priest was only going at Christmas and Easter.

I see. In accordance with canon law?

 

[Phemie]

I see. In accordance with canon law?

Yes.

*Can. 1112 §1. Where there is a lack of priests and deacons, the diocesan bishop can delegate lay persons to assist at marriages, with the previous favorable vote of the conference of bishops and after he has obtained the permission of the Holy See.
§2. A suitable lay person is to be selected, who is capable of giving instruction to those preparing to be married and able to perform the matrimonial liturgy properly.
*

 

[Phemie]

Why can’t this lay person be a Catholic judge? I am not planning anything I just always wanted to be marriedby a judge or just filling out the paperwork and then going to the church and saying “bless this Union”. I am not married and not planning to be anytime soon. It doesn’t have anything to do with the pre-cana. That would be a positive influence.

See my post with the relevant canon

 

[Vico]

I see. In accordance with canon law?

There are three cases covered in canon law:

1. Catholic priest or deacon with two witnesses (Latin Catholic)
2. Catholic priest with two witnesses (eastern Catholic)
3. Extraordinary situation: two witnesses only, in danger of death or when impossible for a month to obtain clergy (Latin or eastern Catholic) If eastern Catholic, blessing should be received later.CIC (Latin)

Canon 1116

1. If one who, in accordance with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses only:INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) apart from danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this state of affairs will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest or deacon is at hand who can be present, he must be called upon and, together with the witnesses, be present at the celebration of the marriage, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage in the presence of only the witnesses.

CCEO (eastern)

Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone1) in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.
   [/INDENT]

 

[billcu1]

There are three cases covered in canon law:

1. Catholic priest or deacon with two witnesses (Latin Catholic)
2. Catholic priest with two witnesses (eastern Catholic)
3. Extraordinary situation: two witnesses only, in danger of death or when impossible for a month to obtain clergy (Latin or eastern Catholic) If eastern Catholic, blessing should be received later.CIC (Latin)

Canon 1116

1. If one who, in accordance with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses only:INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) apart from danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this state of affairs will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest or deacon is at hand who can be present, he must be called upon and, together with the witnesses, be present at the celebration of the marriage, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage in the presence of only the witnesses.

CCEO (eastern)

Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone1) in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.
   [/INDENT]

Ok but why is the eastern rite covered in our catechism. Aren’t they not in communion with the pope? As a Catholic I am required to abide by the Pontiff’s teachings as any other Catholic man. I might not agree with some optional things but faith and morals is not one of them. I know that much But again isn’t the Eastern rite out of communion?

 

[Phemie]

Ok but why is the eastern rite covered in our catechism. Aren’t they not in communion with the pope? As a Catholic I am required to abide by the Pontiff’s teachings as any other Catholic man. I might not agree with some optional things but faith and morals is not one of them. I know that much But again isn’t the Eastern rite out of communion?

Vico quoted their canon law, not our Catechism.

They are not in communion but they have valid orders and sacraments. Their Canon Law says that they must be married by a priest (not a deacon, not a lay person) because in their theology of marriage it is the priest who confers the sacrament. In our theology of marriage, the bride and groom confer the sacrament on each other.

 

[Vico]

Ok but why is the eastern rite covered in our catechism. Aren’t they not in communion with the pope? As a Catholic I am required to abide by the Pontiff’s teachings as any other Catholic man. I might not agree with some optional things but faith and morals is not one of them. I know that much But again isn’t the Eastern rite out of communion?

The CCEO is the Catholic canon law that applies to eastern Catholics which *St. Pope John Paul II promulgated *on October 18, 1990. The Catholic Church is composed of 23 sui iuris churches (22 are eastern), all in full communion with Rome. The CCEO does not apply to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, nor Assyrian Church of the East. The CCEO has to be used in conjunction with the CIC because there are inter-ritual church marriages of Catholics. Some portions of CCEO apply to Latin Catholics also.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=11498

 

[billcu1]

The CCEO is the Catholic canon law that applies to eastern Catholics which *St. Pope John Paul II promulgated *on October 18, 1990. The Catholic Church is composed of 23 sui iuris churches (22 are eastern), all in full communion with Rome. The CCEO does not apply to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, nor Assyrian Church of the East. The CCEO has to be used in conjunction with the CIC because there are inter-ritual church marriages of Catholics. Some portions of CCEO apply to Latin Catholics also.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=11498

In all your talk of eastern rite I was thinking you were speaking of the eastern Orthodox. That made me think of The “Great Schism” which as far as I know has not been corrected yet if ever. This is more complicated than I realized I see.

 

[Vico]

In all your talk of eastern rite I was thinking you were speaking of the eastern Orthodox. That made me think of The “Great Schism” which as far as I know has not been corrected yet if ever. This is more complicated than I realized I see.

About 1.5% of Catholics are eastern Catholics, with the membership of the ritual churches from each of the five traditions being in 2013 (Annuario Pontifico):

(Constantinople)
Ukrainian Greek 4,345,599
Melkite Greek 1,651,500
Romanian 535,171
Byzantine (Ruthenian) 486,627
Hungarian 327,200
Slovak 233,386
Byzantine Italy 61,814
Byzantine (Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro) 43,400
Macedonian 14,937
Bulgarian 10,000
Greek 6,025
Russian (no official numbers)
Belarusian (no official numbers)
Albanian (no official numbers)

(Alexandrian)
Coptic 165,923
Ethiopian 227,078

(Antiochian)
Maronite 3,381,733
Syro-Malabar 438,387
Syrian 266,461

(Armenian)
Armenian 566,015

(Chaldean)
Syro-Malabar 3,893,334
Chaldean 536,525

(Mixed)
Eastern Ordinariates 670

 

[zz912]

Why can’t this lay person be a Catholic judge? I am not planning anything I just always wanted to be marriedby a judge or just filling out the paperwork and then going to the church and saying “bless this Union”. I am not married and not planning to be anytime soon. It doesn’t have anything to do with the pre-cana. That would be a positive influence.

The marriage ceremony in the Church does not have to be ornate or lengthy. It can be a simple ceremony with the bare bones requirements.

But I think you are undervaluing marriage and not giving it the seriousness and importance it deserves. Marriage is a sacrament, one of seven. It is holy, sanctified by God Himself. We need to not knock it down and diminish it.

And this is especially true in our culture and times. Marriage has become a joke in our culture. People hop in and out of marriage, get married on a whim, use prenup’s as escape clauses, and aren’t really serious about it at all. At this point in history, it is MOST important that the Church guard the sacrament, and uphold it and what it should be for people to see and attempt to attain.

Marriage fundamentally CHANGES a person. There is an invisible change to the person at the wedding, where they become part of another person, they become a family. They are giving their entire selves to another person, for as long as they live. It is a lifelong vow.

Marriage should be taken MUCH more seriously.

 

[zz912]

Please enlighten me. Where is it in the Bible that says you can only be married by a priest, of the catholic persuasion, and not by a civil judge?

The Bible’s not an instruction manual and complete collection of the entirety of the Christian faith. It explicitly says so. The Bible is a collection of 73 books/letters/poems/etc that are to be used in the worship liturgy to proclaim God’s word. It is not, and has never been an instruction manual for the faith. The Bible is clear that the Church has authority on such matters.

The Church has used her authority to regulate the sacrament of marriage, so that marriages are normalized, and problems or issues are addressed before the marriage is confected. As part of this, the Church requires that Catholics come to the Church for marriage, or a waiver to a Church marriage. The Church wants to make sure that both parties are free to marry, know what marriage entails, and are willingly entering into the marriage.

Additionally, the Church recognizes that as a sacrament, that God has a role in marriage, that He bestows His graces on the husband and wife in the sacrament, and as such, He should be present at the marriage. Since the tabernacle in the parish contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of God Himself, He is physically present at the wedding, witnessing and participating in the marriage.

 

[phil19034]

This is something I don’t understand… Besides Anointment of the Sick, everyone receives their sacraments inside the Church unless there is a matter of life & death.

• Baptism - in the Church
• First Confession - in the Church
• First Communion - in the Church
• Conformation - in the Church
• Holy Orders - in the Cathedral
• Matrimony - with a Justice of the Peace??? Come on people.

And even Anointment of the Sick is performed inside the Church if the person is not home or hospital bound.

Yes, getting married outside can be beautiful, but wouldn’t it be better to have our Lord Physically present?

The below is from catholicweddinghelp.com:

In most cases, Catholics are required to be married in a Catholic church building (see Canon 1118). There are some exceptions. When a Catholic marries someone who is not Catholic, the Catholic party may request permission from the local bishop to celebrate the wedding at the other person’s place of worship. Because Church law states that a wedding may be held in “some other suitable place” besides a Catholic church, it is technically possible that the local bishop might allow outdoor weddings, but few do. No one would argue against the beauty of a natural setting; after all, creation reveals the presence of the Creator in a powerful way. But Catholics remember that Jesus Christ promised to continue to be present whenever his friends gathered in his name. The church building is the “house” in which the followers of Jesus do this on a regular basis to celebrate weddings and funerals and baptisms and confirmations and reconciliations and anointings of the sick—in short, all the most important events of their lives. For Catholics, it makes sense to begin a new household in this sacred house. Doing so symbolizes the new family’s connection with the wider community of believers—not only those present at the wedding, but also all the parishioners who gather in that space, and ultimately, the universal Church. - See more at: catholicweddinghelp.com/questions/outdoor-wedding.htm#sthash.lbfe9lgu.dpuf

 

[billcu1]

This is something I don’t understand… Besides Anointment of the Sick, everyone receives their sacraments inside the Church unless there is a matter of life & death.

• Baptism - in the Church
• First Confession - in the Church
• First Communion - in the Church
• Conformation - in the Church
• Holy Orders - in the Cathedral
• Matrimony - with a Justice of the Peace??? Come on people.

And even Anointment of the Sick is performed inside the Church if the person is not home or hospital bound.

Yes, getting married outside can be beautiful, but wouldn’t it be better to have our Lord Physically present?

The below is from catholicweddinghelp.com:

You don’t necessarily have to take the body and blood in a Parish. The priest if you are a shut in or ill can come to your place of residence.