My Status and Implication on Marriage?

[Just_Lurking]

I’m not a canon law expert by any means, but has the OP “notoriously” rejected the Catholic faith just because he told his pastor that he no longer believes (and the pastor reportedly noted this on his baptismal certificate)? I would think that “notorious” rejection might require something much more public, such as if the OP were a noted author who had written about his rejection of the Catholic faith, had been interviewed about it on televison, etc.

Footnote 33 of the commentary I linked to in post #15 seems to indicate that notorious rejection is a broader concept than formal defection, and so might include all cases of formal defection such as the OP’s.

I would suggest consulting an actual canon lawyer for a definitive answer. For all I know, it could be the case that the OP has actually excommunicated himself automatically (i.e. latae sententiae) because of his apostasy (c.f. canon 1364 §1), and thus cannot participate in any sacrament (c.f. canon 1331 §1 2/). Or there could be a problem of martial consent due to the exclusion of the sacramental dignity of marriage (i.e. contra bonum sacramenti, c.f. canon 1101). It’s a very complicated topic.

 

[Thomas63116]

Interesting…I didn’t know that. I guess that’s why the law said the priest can ‘assist’ as opposed to ‘perform’?

The term “assist at Mass” also shows up a lot, I believe applied to both the laity and the priest. I’m a little fuzzy myself on the nuances of that term in Catholic law/theology.

Not sure if anyone knows these specifics, as this whole thing is sort of a complicated confused one-off Canon Law situation…but if the local priest seeks and is granted permission to assist in my marriage as part of a Catholic ceremony, do you know if that permission basically grants an exception to allow me to receive a sacrament despite my rejection of the religion?

I think that is a reasonable way to describe it. It is similar to when my wife and I married. She is Lutheran, and has no intention of becoming Catholic. Normally, she is not able to receive a Sacrament in the Catholic Church (Eucharist, Reconcilliation, Anointing of Sick, etc.) However, when we married in the Church, it was a Sacrament that we both received.

Because of what I said above (you would be administering the sacrament of matrimony as well as receiving it) I am also reminded of the fact that even a non-Christian can administer baptism in cases of necescity.

My partner and I were trying to understand how it’s possible that a ‘rejector’ is allowed to receive a sacrament…and the only reasoning we came up with was basically for the sake of the practicing Catholic.

Yes, that’s probably the main reason. But also for your sake. Whether you believe it or not, Catholics can hope that the grace conferred in the sacrament of marriage may be of help to you.

Also, because you have been baptized, there is no way for you to validly marry another baptized person without it also being a Sacrament (as far as the Catholic Church is concerned). Baptism imprints a permanent mark on the soul and cannot be “undone.”

 

[mtnutt]

For what it is worth, when I went through training to be a Marriage Tribunal Advocate I was taught that formal defection was defined as submitting a letter to your Bishop stating that you were defecting and that letter must be accepted, in writing, by the Bishop. We were told they are almost never accepted (at least not in our Diocese). I don’t know how Notorious/Public Rejection works. Based on what you said here I believe you would still be considered Catholic, though obviously non-practicing.

Also, you can not receive the grace associated with any sacrament (except Baptism) unless you are in a state of grace (i.e. free from serious/mortal sin) at the time of reception. While I certainly don’t know the condition of your soul and would never presume to judge your soul, it is possible that you are not in a condition to receive the sacrament, considering you have not been attending Mass, going to Confession, receiving Eucharist, etc.

Bottom line, as you have already been advised, seek the counsel of your Priest and/or Bishop to determine where you stand.

God Bless you and keep you.

P.S. Obviously I would recommend returning to the one true church, but that is between you and GOD (with help from the Holy Spirit).

 

[cameron_lansing]

The term “assist at Mass” also shows up a lot, I believe applied to both the laity and the priest. I’m a little fuzzy myself on the nuances of that term in Catholic law/theology.

Just a few passing thoughts on the notion of “assist” to get you started then, The main question has been answered by several recommendations for the OP to contact the diocese or a priest or a canon lawyer.

A priest or deacon assists at marriage but it is the consent of the parties that makes the marriage in the Latin code (canon 1057). No one but the parties can furnish the consent. Not even the priest or deacon.

Now canon 1158 §2 tells us what this assistant does, and we can extrapolate what assistance is from that: The one assisting at a marriage is understood to be only that person who, present at the ceremony, asks for the contractants’ manifestation of consent and receives it in the name of the Church. There’s your priest or deacon.

Since the code was written by committee,the same Latin words (here participare or assistere) have slightly different meanings that are judged in context.

In the canons on the Minister of the Eucharist (which begin with canon 897), the priest is said to “celebrate” and the faithful to “participate” or to “take part.” For example, in canon 923, the Christian faithful are said to participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
In canon 1248, assistance is broadly equated with participation (which it fulfills).The canon in the former code used the term “hearing.” Some degree of purpose is suggested by that change. Being physically present with the intention to pray rather than, say, to count the number of candles or keep a tally of coughs. In a proper sense, it is a purposeful uniting with the priest, acting in the person of Christ, as he offers the sacrifice of the Mass. I would not slice it much further than that, because such profound mystery and privilege are involved.