Your understanding is incorrect.Why is it that a when a Catholic marries a non-catholic in a non-catholic church, it is considered invalid, but when the Catholic and non-catholic get married by a secular figure like a judge or captain, it is considered valid?
When a Catholic marries anyone ontside of the Catholic norms without the Bishops permission or in some cases dispensation it is not recognized and can be invalid.Why is it that a when a Catholic marries a non-catholic in a non-catholic church, it is considered invalid, but when the Catholic and non-catholic get married by a secular figure like a judge or captain, it is considered valid?
Wait, wait, please let’s just use the word VALID as the Church does. Valid doesn’t mean it’s a sacrament. There are lots of Catholics in my parish married to Salvation Army spouses. Even when they were married by a priest with all t’s crossed and i’s dotted most of these marriages are not sacraments but they are VALID as defined by the Church. They are both legal & valid but natural rather than sacramental since most SA adherents are not baptized.Oftentimes, people misunderstand how the Church uses the word “valid” especially when it comes to marriages.
Saying that a marriage is “valid” means that it is a Sacrament in the eyes of God. That’s not quite the same thing as saying “it is a marriage.” When it comes to marriage, the Church recognizes that a marriage can be a legal relationship without being a sacrament. That’s why even if 2 Catholics are married by a judge, if the marriage was a legal one, the parties are still considered to be legally married, but not sacramentally married. The same applies to a Catholic and non-Catholic married by a non-Catholic minister (w/o a dispensation)–it would be a legal marriage, but not a sacrament.
Phemie, take a breather. I was addressing the OPs question, and limiting myself to what was asked. I felt that extending the scenarios too much might cause further confusion.Wait, wait, please let’s just use the word VALID as the Church does. Valid doesn’t mean it’s a sacrament. There are lots of Catholics in my parish married to Salvation Army spouses. Even when they were married by a priest with all t’s crossed and i’s dotted most of these marriages are not sacraments but they are VALID as defined by the Church. They are both legal & valid but natural rather than sacramental since most SA adherents are not baptized.
Where did you get that idea?Why is it that a when a Catholic marries a non-catholic in a non-catholic church, it is considered invalid, but when the Catholic and non-catholic get married by a secular figure like a judge or captain, it is considered valid?
A valid marriage is always a sacrament if both parties have been baptized. If one, or both, have not been baptized it is a valid natural marriage. It becomes a sacrament if the unbaptized are later baptized. I recently had a Jewish couple come through my RCIA program. Their marriage became sacramental when they were baptized.Oftentimes, people misunderstand how the Church uses the word “valid” especially when it comes to marriages.
Saying that a marriage is “valid” means that it is a Sacrament in the eyes of God. That’s not quite the same thing as saying “it is a marriage.” When it comes to marriage, the Church recognizes that a marriage can be a legal relationship without being a sacrament. That’s why even if 2 Catholics are married by a judge, if the marriage was a legal one, the parties are still considered to be legally married, but not sacramentally married. The same applies to a Catholic and non-Catholic married by a non-Catholic minister (w/o a dispensation)–it would be a legal marriage, but not a sacrament.
Here is another question along these lines that I don’t know the answer to:Why is it that a when a Catholic marries a non-catholic in a non-catholic church, it is considered invalid, but when the Catholic and non-catholic get married by a secular figure like a judge or captain, it is considered valid?
Because to participate in a ritual in a schismatic community was likewise seen as an act of schism.Here is another question along these lines that I don’t know the answer to:
Why was it under the old canon law, that when a Catholic marries a non-catholic in a non-catholic church, the Catholic party was automatically excommunicated, but when the Catholic gets married to a non-catholic by a secular figure like a judge or captain, it did not result in excommunication, even though in both cases the marriage was considered invalid?
Thanks! That makes sense.Because to participate in a ritual in a schismatic community was likewise seen as an act of schism.
Any attempted marriage by a Catholic that does not follow the prescribed rulesHere is another question along these lines that I don’t know the answer to:
Why was it under the old canon law, that when a Catholic marries a non-catholic in a non-catholic church, the Catholic party was automatically excommunicated, but when the Catholic gets married to a non-catholic by a secular figure like a judge or captain, it did not result in excommunication, even though in both cases the marriage was considered invalid?
Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.
Not sure if this distinction made it through the ensuing discussion: a marriage may be valid but not sacramental. Or, to put it another way, not all valid marriages are sacramental.Oftentimes, people misunderstand how the Church uses the word “valid” especially when it comes to marriages.
Saying that a marriage is “valid” means that it is a Sacrament in the eyes of God.
Yes, as I re-read my post, I did a poor job of explaining that. A marriage can be valid without being a sacrament, depending upon the circumstances.Not sure if this distinction made it through the ensuing discussion: a marriage may be valid but not sacramental. Or, to put it another way, not all valid marriages are sacramental.
For example, my marriage to my Quaker wife was valid but not sacramental because my wife was not baptized. We had to obtain a dispensation for “disparity of cult.” When my wife came into full communion with the Church, not only did she receive Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist in one ceremony, we both received Matrimony as well. When the conditions for sacramental marriage occurred, our marriage became sacramental.
I love the sacramental economy.
JSA