Minister of the Mystery of Marriage(Crowning)

[twf]

Brother mardukm:

I am not a canon lawyer, and I speak with no authority, but I am certain that Protestant marraiges (assuming that both Protestants in question have been validly baptized) are indeed valid sacramental marriages. As has already been established, all valid marriages between the baptized are, by their very nature, sacramental. To put it another way, the deified children of God can no longer enter into mere natural marriages between themselves. (We can, of course, still contract natural, and non-sacramental, marriages with the non-baptized). Catholics who attempt to contract a marriage outside of the Church without a dispensation do indeed enter into invalid and null marriages. There is, however, an important distinction between these two scenarios: Catholics are bound by Church canons; Protestants are not. Protestants are, we must presume, not bound by the Church’s canons through no fault of their own having been born and nurtured outside of the Church’s canonical jurisdiction, but by virtue of their baptism they are in an imperfect mystical communion with the Church and can act, for lack of a better word, as ‘imperfect ministers’ of the sacrament of marriage in this extraordinary situation. The Church, however, through the authority given to Her to safeguard and regulate the sacraments, forbids the faithful to act without a priest without special dispensation. Historically, before Trent, many valid sacramental marriages were contracted by Latin faithful without the presence of a priest nor with any sort of dispensation. (If you don’t believe me I will attempt to find a reference in one of my old text books when I get a chance - don’t have access to anything at the moment!) Protestants, who are not bound by Trent, simply default to the fundamental “ability” of the baptized to contract sacramental marriages. Does that make any sense? The ‘imperfect minister’ bit is simply my personal explanation.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

I am not a canon lawyer, and I speak with no authority, but I am certain that Protestant marraiges (assuming that both Protestants in question have been validly baptized) are indeed valid sacramental marriages. As has already been established, all valid marriages between the baptized are, by their very nature, sacramental. To put it another way, the deified children of God can no longer enter into mere natural marriages between themselves. (We can, of course, still contract natural, and non-sacramental, marriages with the non-baptized). Catholics who attempt to contract a marriage outside of the Church without a dispensation do indeed enter into invalid and null marriages. There is, however, an important distinction between these two scenarios: Catholics are bound by Church canons; Protestants are not. Protestants are, we must presume, not bound by the Church’s canons through no fault of their own having been born and nurtured outside of the Church’s canonical jurisdiction, but by virtue of their baptism they are in an imperfect mystical communion with the Church and can act, for lack of a better word, as ‘imperfect ministers’ of the sacrament of marriage in this extraordinary situation. The Church, however, through the authority given to Her to safeguard and regulate the sacraments, forbids the faithful to act without a priest without special dispensation. Historically, before Trent, many valid sacramental marriages were contracted by Latin faithful without the presence of a priest nor with any sort of dispensation. (If you don’t believe me I will attempt to find a reference in one of my old text books when I get a chance - don’t have access to anything at the moment!) Protestants, who are not bound by Trent, simply default to the fundamental “ability” of the baptized to contract sacramental marriages. Does that make any sense? The ‘imperfect minister’ bit is simply my personal explanation.

I understand all that. But the question in my mind still remains - are they simply and merely PRESUMED valid (and therefore Sacramental) for the sake of determining nullity when the question arises for a possible marriage between a Catholic and a previously married Protestant

OR

are they objectively Sacramental?

Also, keep in mind that the VERY great majority of Protestants don’t believe that Marriage is a Sacrament, and the majority of Protestants don’t believe Marriage is indissoluble. According to Catholic theology, indissolubility is in the very nature of the Sacrament. If a Protestant enters into a marriage without the belief that it is indissoluble, how can it possibly be a Sacrament?

I hope a canon lawyer joins in.

Blessings

 

[twf]

mardukm:

You raise a very good point in regards to the intent of the couple. It may be that the Church’s traditional stance that Protestant marriages are generally sacramental is based upon the presumption that the marriage was contracted with the correct intent…then again, the Holy Spirit may provide whatever is lacking as long as the two sincerely enter into what they believe to be a God sanctioned convenant (as I know many Protestants do). My Protestant parents certainly entered into their marriage believing it to be a lifelong covenant - no exceptions; they may have lacked explicit understanding of the sacramental nature of marraige, but they intended to enter into a God ordained mystical union. How many Catholics fully understand the Church’s teachings on the nature of marriage? How explicit need this understanding/intent be?
To answer your question, I would say that they are simply presumed valid. The Church will not judge the validity of individual marriages until a case is brought before a marriage tribunal. It is beyond even the competence of the Church to determine whether or not all individual Protestant marriages, that do not in any way impact the Catholic faithful, are valid. I think it is more that the Church realizes that Protestant marries can be both valid and sacramental. Even in regards to Catholic marriages, they are simply presumed valid unless specifically tried by a tribunal. Can you really be sure that Joe and Jane in your parish had the correct intent when they entered into their marriage?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Canon 1108 -
**Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest, or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them

...

**

Blessings

I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, but I am sure you must realize that your ellipsis conceals exceptions written into the law itself?

Not to mention the whole of Canon 11?

tee

 

[cameron_lansing]

Canon 1108 -

Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest, or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them…
Blessings

The paragraph reads, of course, in total:

§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local ordinary or the pastor or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and in the presence of two witnesses, according to the rules expressed in the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116 and 1127, §§ 1 and 2. §2.

The requirement applies to marriages in which at least one Catholic is involved. It pertains to Latin Catholics. This basis is found in canon 11, which must also be read:

Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the sufficient use of reason and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

(Eastern Catholics have their own canons, of course, but see canons 848 and 1490 of the Eatern Codes which are the parallel canons.)

As an ecclesiastical rather than a divine law, the insistence on canonical form for validity applies to Catholics only. The Church accepts the capacity of non Catholics to marry validly according to whatever legal form is prescribed for them.

This is clarified in Dignitas connubii Art. 4

§1. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage of baptized non-Catholics: 1º in regard to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the celebration of the marriage, art. 2, §2 is to be observed; 2º in regard to the form of celebration of marriage, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or accepted in the Church or ecclesial community to which the parties belonged at the time of the marriage, provided that, if at least one party is a member of a non-Catholic Eastern Church, the marriage was celebrated with a sacred rite. §2. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage contracted by two unbaptized persons: 1º the cause of nullity is heard according to canonical procedural law; 2º however, the question of the nullity of the marriage is decided, without prejudice to divine law, according to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the marriage.

As long as they marry properly and are not forbidden by diriment impediments of divine law, non Catholics marry validly among themselves.

(Disclaimer: I am a canon lawyer.)

 

[mardukm]

I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, but I am sure you must realize that your ellipsis conceals exceptions written into the law itself?

Not to mention the whole of Canon 11?

Exceptions are just that ---- exceptions. They are not the rule.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cameron,

This is clarified in Dignitas connubii Art. 4

§1. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage of baptized non-Catholics: 1º in regard to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the celebration of the marriage, art. 2, §2 is to be observed; 2º in regard to the form of celebration of marriage, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or accepted in the Church or ecclesial community to which the parties belonged at the time of the marriage, provided that, if at least one party is a member of a non-Catholic Eastern Church, the marriage was celebrated with a sacred rite. §2. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage contracted by two unbaptized persons: 1º the cause of nullity is heard according to canonical procedural law; 2º however, the question of the nullity of the marriage is decided, without prejudice to divine law, according to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the marriage.

As long as they marry properly and are not forbidden by diriment impediments of divine law, non Catholics marry validly among themselves.

This doesn’t really clarify it for me, actually. The concerns of my earlier posts remain. Here they are again:

Also, it seems that the question of whether Protestant marriages are sacramental or not never comes up unless there is a question of nullity for the sake of marriage between a formerly married Protestant and a Catholic (btw, though I’m sure you already know, a marriage between a Protestant and Catholic without a dispensation is invalid). So I’m under the impression that the validity (and hence sacramentality) of a Protestant marriage is only PRESUMED, and a decree of nullity must be obtained. But the same case applies for even a prior marriage that is de facto invalid - validity is always PRESUMED and a decree of nullity is always necessary.

**I understand all that. But the question in my mind still remains - are they simply and merely PRESUMED valid (and therefore Sacramental) for the sake of determining nullity when the question arises for a possible marriage between a Catholic and a previously married Protestant

OR

are they objectively Sacramental?**
Please pick apart my statements to assess my reasoning. I hope you can help.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Several things.

1. The CIC, which is what y’all have been quoting, ONLY applies to Roman Catholics, not even the Eastern Catholics, and those non-Catholics seeking to become Roman Catholics. (The Eastern Catholics, and those non-Catholics seeking to become Eastern Catholics are under the CCEO, not the CIC)
2. All sacraments require a valid minister.
3. Protestants as a rule lack valid ministers for all sacraments but baptism.
   3a) Roman theologians have recently deemed the couple the ministers of the sacrament of baptism, but overall Catholic theology does not hold same; in the Eastern Chuches, only priests are valid ministers of marriage.
   3b) lack of a valid ordained minister does not preclude marriage, but does put the marriage into questionable validity; see CCEO canons 828
4. Marriage requires consent to permanent marriage (CCEO 819,824; CIC 1096, 1101; nigh identical wordings)
5. from the CCEO, it’s clear that some element of marriage requires an external minister, but that a marriage may be valid between Catholics without that blessing, but that the sacrament is none the less incomplete.
6. A Roman Deacon may bless marriages between Roman Catholics. Still, Roman Law requires a cleric (CIC 1108)
   5a) in need, where no clerics are available, a delegated layman witnesses in place of the cleric (CIC 1112) It is implied, however, that the delegation does not require the marriage be later blessed by a priest or deacon.

Cited CCEO Canons:
Canon 819

For matrimonial consent to be valid it is necessary that the contracting parties at least not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent consortium between a man and a woman which is ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Canon 824

1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to be in agreement with the words or signs employed in celebrating matrimony.
2. But if either or both parties through a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, some essential element or an essential property of marriage, it is invalidly contracted.

Canon 828

1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor, or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according, however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.

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 alone: (1) 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.

Select Cited CIC canons

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.

§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church.

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.

 

[babochka]

Also, it seems that the question of whether Protestant marriages are sacramental or not never comes up unless there is a question of nullity for the sake of marriage between a formerly married Protestant and a Catholic (btw, though I’m sure you already know, a marriage between a Protestant and Catholic without a dispensation is invalid). So I’m under the impression that the validity (and hence sacramentality) of a Protestant marriage is only PRESUMED, and a decree of nullity must be obtained. But the same case applies for even a prior marriage that is de facto invalid - validity is always PRESUMED and a decree of nullity is always necessary.

The other circumstance in which the sacramental validity of a protestant marriage comes up is upon conversion to Catholicism. The Church does not require a convalidation in these circumstances, which would lend strength to the argument that such a marriage is considered sacramental.

Elizabeth

 

[cameron_lansing]

Several things.

1. The CIC, which is what y’all have been quoting, ONLY applies to Roman Catholics, not even the Eastern Catholics, and those non-Catholics seeking to become Roman Catholics. (The Eastern Catholics, and those non-Catholics seeking to become Eastern Catholics are under the CCEO, not the CIC)…

I always appreciate when others take the time to reference the CCEO, as it is a time saver for me, but more importantly, this illustrates that the Catholic Church is not Latin but truly universal, and it is important to recognize the venerable theology and discipline of the Eastern Churches.

As pointed out earlier, by virtue of canon 11, the requirement of canonical form does not apply to non Catholics when marrying among themselves. The same is true in the CCEO, canon 1490 : Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, who have sufficient use of reason and, unless the law itself expressly provides otherwise, who have completed their seventh year of age.

CCEO canon 781 helpfully clarifies: If the Church must judge the validity of a marriage between baptized non-Catholics. (1) there is to be concern for the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the celebration of marriage in the light of can.780, §2; (2) with regard to the form of the celebration, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or admitted by the law to which the parties were subject at the time of the celebration of the marriage, provided that the consent be expressed in a public form and, when at least one of the parties is a baptized member of an Eastern non-Catholic Church, the marriage be celebrated with a sacred rite.

 

[cameron_lansing]

“I understand all that. But the question in my mind still remains - are they simply and merely PRESUMED valid (and therefore Sacramental) for the sake of determining nullity when the question arises for a possible marriage between a Catholic and a previously married Protestant.”

Marduk,

I never intend to pick things apart, only to understand.

A priest or deacon preparing the couple for marriage (or a tribunal) would back track and make a preliminary reading of the protestant’s prior marriage to see if there were any reason to suspect it was invalid. It depends on any marriages prior to that and whether or not a Catholic or Orthodox were involved in any prior marriage of the protestant and whether or not it was celebrated in a way that would be invalidating in either case. If so, then a doubt is raised about the qualification of the person to marry again.

I would avoid ever saying “merely presumed valid” since there is no “merely” in the law, and we should not add words to the canons but read them as they are given so we can understand them correctly. The presumption of validity of a prior marriage comes into play when a person seeks a subsequent marriage in the Church (canon 1060). As canon 1066 says, **Before marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration. **

Just to refresh our minds on this.

For a marriage to be sacramental, it must be valid **and **both parties must be baptized. If one or neither party is baptized, although married validly, the marriage is not sacramental. Not all protestants require baptism and not all protestants, therefore, are baptized. **See canon 1055: §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament. **But if two protestants are validly married and they are both baptized, the marriage is sacramental.

To understand what make a valid marriage, we turn to canon 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

This tells us that three elements are required for valid marriage: 1. consent, 2. a legal manifestation of that consent, and 3. personal qualification for marriage. If any one is missing, the marriage will lack validity.

**Consent **is simple enough for purpose of this discussion although it is rather complex. Canon 1101§1 sets forth the presumption that when people manifest consent, they mean it,. Canons 1095-1107 tells us when consent would be deficient and fail to create a valid marriage. This and the existence of impediments are what tribunals examine.

The **legal manifestation of consent **for Catholics is governed by canon law. As we learned from canon 1108 and its references, a Catholic must marry according to canonical form, be dispensed, or an exception in law must apply. What Dignitas says, is that all others must manifest consent according to their own religious law, or if they do not belong to a religion, the civilly accepted form of the land. In fact, protestants do not stipulate any such form for doing that in their religious law. They defer to civil law, and can marry quite properly among themselves. But as soon as a Catholic is thrown into the mix, canon 1108 applies. If there is no dispensation and no exception, the marriage of a Catholic would not even enjoy the presumption of validity. This is why a “lack of form” marriage can be declared invalid by an administrative process rather than a judicial process in a tribunal. (The Orthodox require sacred rite, and without it, a member of that Church cannot validly marry.)

To be qualified for marriage, all people must be free of impediments of divine law, including the bond of a valid prior marriage. Catholics must also be free of impediments of ecclesiastical law, or they must have been dispensed, or an exception in law must exist.

In speaking of a previously married person, the impediment to consider is that of a prior bond mentioned in canon 1085§1. It is an impediment of divine law and cannot be dispensed (setting aside certain cases of dissolution as the pauline privilege, the privilege of the faith and non consummation cases). However, it would cease with the death of a party to that marriage. As well, a tribunal decision could determine that such a prior bond did not really exist because that marriage was found to be invalid. This would overturn the presumption of validity.

Returning to canon 1057 now, for a previously married protestant to marry a Catholic validly,

1. the impediment of that person’s prior bond would have to be resolved as above to make the person qualified for marriage (as well as any other ecclesiastical impediments that might exist), and
2. since a Catholic is involved, canonical form must be observed, dispensed or excepted from in order to provide the legal manifestation, and
3. both parties must give consent.

 

[babochka]

3a) Roman theologians have recently deemed the couple the ministers of the sacrament of baptism, but overall Catholic theology does not hold same; in the Eastern Chuches, only priests are valid ministers of marriage.

1. from the CCEO, it’s clear that some element of marriage requires an external minister, but that a marriage may be valid between Catholics without that blessing, but that the sacrament is none the less incomplete.

Regarding 3a) : Could you define “recently deemed”? Are we talking 50 years or 500 years? Either could be considered “recent” in the history of the church.

Regarding 4) : How is a sacrament incomplete? If a person, in danger of death, is baptized by a layman, but survives, the Church does expect that the full ceremony will be performed by a priest at an appropriate time. Does that make the Sacramental grace received at the time of the emergency baptism incomplete? I would think that a marriage undertaken in extraordinary circumstances would fall into a similar category, but I don’t see how one receives incomplete graces from an incomplete sacrament.

Thank you for posting the appropriate canons from the CCEO. It did help to clarify the situation quite a bit. Either way you look at it, even in the case of a Catholic marrying a Protestant in a non-Catholic ceremony (with a dispensation), the marriage is occuring with the formal blessing of the Church.

Elizabeth

 

[cameron_lansing]

CCEO 776 (a parallel to the Latin canon 1055 §2) should also be referenced, as it states a theological truth and not a merely ecclesiastical law that pertains to all baptized persons:

§2. From the institution of Christ a valid marriage between baptized persons is by that very fact a sacrament, by which the spouses, in the image of an indefectible union of Christ with the Church, are united by God and, as it were, consecrated and strengthened by sacramental grace. §3. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in a marriage between baptized persons obtain a special firmness in virtue of the sacrament.

 

[babochka]

"

The **legal manifestation of consent **for Catholics is governed by canon law. As we learned from canon 1108 and its references, a Catholic must marry according to canonical form, be dispensed, or an exception in law must apply. What Dignitas says, is that all others must manifest consent according to their own religious law, or if they do not belong to a religion, the civilly accepted form of the land. In fact, protestants do not stipulate any such form for doing that in their religious law. They defer to civil law, and can marry quite properly among themselves. But as soon as a Catholic is thrown into the mix, canon 1108 applies. If there is no dispensation and no exception, the marriage of a Catholic would not even enjoy the presumption of validity. This is why a “lack of form” marriage can be declared invalid by an administrative process rather than a judicial process in a tribunal. (The Orthodox require sacred rite, and without it, a member of that Church cannot validly marry.)
.

Thank you! This is the critical piece that I needed for understanding the differences. I was simply thinking of valid form and matter.

Elizabeth

 

[StillWondering]

So Mr. John Cameron,

From what you linked, are you saying that the reason Eastern Catholics require the priest or bishop to bless their marriage to make it sacramental is simply because it would be invalid without the blessing (therefore not sacramental)?

On that same line of thought, the reason that non-Catholic but baptized couples who are validly marriage have a sacramental marriage and by default retain there sacramentality after converting into the Catholic faith, with or without a blessing, is because by their baptism, God bound the union (which reflect the indissoluble union between Christ and the Church)?

If you can clarify for me that would be wonderful to know. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

-Stillwondering

 

[Aramis]

The CCEO is abundantly clear that it’s valid and sacramental without the blessing, but still incomplete.

The CIC permits Romans to receive the blessing with even an appointed lay minister in cases of true necessity.

Such need happened within the last 30 years, in Alaska. Such need also happens in China, as well.

As far as the Roman Theologumenon about the minister of marriage being the couple, before a witnessing cleric, it’s post vatican II in general acceptance, but past 100 years or so that it’s been referenced, IIRC.

Keep in mind that many protestants enter marriage with an idea that it is neither sacramental nor permanent, merely beneficial and continuous. In such cases, the tribunal can reasonably declare it invalid.

But validity of non-Catholic, Non-Orthodox marriages is kind of a quantum state issue. It can neither be said to be truly sacramental and valid, nor invalid and hence non-sacramental, until examined; in the examining, its state becomes known… but until then, one should act as if it is valid.

 

[StillWondering]

The CCEO is abundantly clear that it’s valid and sacramental without the blessing, but still incomplete.

My apologies. I mistakenly thought that a marriage is not sacramental without the blessing form the first page. That info is all I needed to clear up my confusion.

 

[twf]

Aramis:
Can you please reference your claim that the Latin understanding of the couple acting as the ministers of the sacrament is of recent origin? As I have already stated in this thread, prior to Trent, the Latin Church recognized countless marriages between the baptized that were contracted without a priest and without a dispensation. If the couple was not, in the medieval Latin Church, understood to be the minister of the sacrament, why then were these marriages presumed valid and sacramental? It is only because of Church canons that have been in place since Trent that marriages contracted by the faithful without a priest (and without dispensation) are rendered invalid. Various opinions have been held in the history of Latin theology, but it is certainly not a new idea. The Catholic encyclopedia discusses the matter in some detail: newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

 

[Aramis]

I don’t know about pre-trent, but the introduction to the cerimonial for marriages makes note of the change and it’s post-trent. I don’t have dad’s copy to look up the exact text.

Also, examine the sections on marriage in the 1890’s Baltimore Catechism.

 

[twf]

Aramis: Perhaps it was a revival of an earlier understanding. I’ll have to do some research, but I am certain that one of medieval professors clearly indicated that the medieval Western Church understood the couple to be the ministers…