New to the Catholic Church and confused

  • Thread starter Thread starter ram1230
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizium23 said:
If it is consummated. If it was not consummated, there are certain circumstances under which a valid sacramental marriage can be dissolved.
Click to expand...
Not exactly… If it was not consummated, there was no covenant. Or, in other words, if unconsummated, it is not a valid Sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church and can be declared null. No true covenant marriage can ever be “dissolved” - either it is valid or it never was. Proper, adequate, free consent (between 1 man and 1 woman) without impediment and consummation are the elements that make it valid.
 
Suslar said:
Not exactly… If it was not consummated, there was no covenant. Or, in other words, if unconsummated, it is not a valid Sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church and can be declared null. No true covenant marriage can ever be “dissolved” - either it is valid or it never was. Proper, adequate, free consent (between 1 man and 1 woman) without impediment and consummation are the elements that make it valid.
Click to expand...
Unconsummated marriages can definitely be valid and sacramental. Are you saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were not validly married?
Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.
Click to expand...
Read more about Josephite marriages.
 
Elizium23 said:
Unconsummated marriages can definitely be valid and sacramental. Are you saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were not validly married?

]
Click to expand...
Joseph and Mary were married under Jewish law, not Catholic Canon Law.
 
Elizium23 said:
Unconsummated marriages can definitely be valid and sacramental. Are you saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were not validly married?

Read more about Josephite marriages.
Click to expand...
Even the Jimmy Akin article you referenced disagrees with you on this matter. Akin wrote: "If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble."

Mary and Joseph were validly married according to Jewish law (and would fit our Catholic definition of validly married) but not Sacramentally married.
 
Suslar said:
Mary and Joseph were validly married according to Jewish law (and would fit our Catholic definition of validly married) but not Sacramentally married.
Click to expand...
Yes. Sacramental marriages are a subset of valid marriages (specifically the subset in which both spouses are baptized). This is a point lost on many people; not understanding this point is why people get so upset when a non-Catholic has to go through the annulment process. Two Hindus can have a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church. In fact, two baptized Protestants who are married validly have a sacramental marriage ipso facto, even if they don’t accept marriage as a sacrament.
 
Suslar said:
Not exactly… If it was not consummated, there was no covenant. Or, in other words, if unconsummated, it is not a valid Sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church and can be declared null. No true covenant marriage can ever be “dissolved” - either it is valid or it never was. Proper, adequate, free consent (between 1 man and 1 woman) without impediment and consummation are the elements that make it valid.
Click to expand...
The marriage of a baptized man and woman is considered valid and sacramental as soon as consent is exchanged. Consummation makes it indissoluble.

It can be dissolved if they never consummate it, but that’s not the same as getting a decree of nullity that says the marriage was never valid.
 
Phemie said:
The marriage of a baptized man and woman is considered valid and sacramental as soon as consent is exchanged. Consummation makes it indissoluble.

It can be dissolved if they never consummate it, but that’s not the same as getting a decree of nullity that says the marriage was never valid.
Click to expand...
Similarly, a marriage dissolved under the Pauline Privilege is recognized by the Church to have been a valid, natural marriage (although not sacramental). It is a true marriage until the Church dissolves the bond.
 
A civil marriage is not valid in the Church. However, if you are divorced, you must have a Lack of Canonical Form Annulment granted before remarrying (or in my case before my second marriage can be validated.) If you are already remarried, you must wait until you are annulled and your current marriage is blessed/valid in order to receive the Eucharist OR acknowledge your current marriage is invalid and live in celibacy until the annulment of previous marriage is complete and current marriage is valid.
 
Deborah_Marie said:
A civil marriage is not valid in the Church. However, if you are divorced, you must have a Lack of Canonical Form Annulment granted before remarrying (or in my case before my second marriage can be validated.) If you are already remarried, you must wait until you are annulled and your current marriage is blessed/valid in order to receive the Eucharist OR acknowledge your current marriage is invalid and live in celibacy until the annulment of previous marriage is complete and current marriage is valid.
Click to expand...
That must be extremely frustrating for you! I will pray for you.
 
Just a request that when you get an official response from your priest would you please post the correct information, as you can see your situation is quite confusing with lots of possibilities. Do us a favor and let us know how it ends!
 
Suslar said:
That must be extremely frustrating for you! I will pray for you.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Suslar. Both my husband, or shall I say roommate for the time being, and myself are in complete acceptance with it.
 
Suslar said:
Even the Jimmy Akin article you referenced disagrees with you on this matter. Akin wrote: "If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble."

Mary and Joseph were validly married according to Jewish law (and would fit our Catholic definition of validly married) but not Sacramentally married.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that Mary and Joseph had a sacramental marriage? I can’t find any error in my statements, I don’t understand what you are trying to correct.

On the other hand, you said: "if unconsummated, it is not a valid Sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church and can be declared null. " which is entirely untrue, I quoted Canon Law regarding it.

Catholic marriage law is unfortunately a minefield of gotchas and myths and misunderstandings. I don’t understand it so well, I leave it mostly up to the experts.
 
Elizium23 said:
For non-Catholics it is. For Catholics with dispensation from canonical form, it is.
Click to expand...
I guess my statement was vague. I made the assumption when I said Lack of Canonical Form Annulment that it was understood without dispensation from canonical form. I was not aware a marriage outside of the Church for non-Catholics was considered valid in the Church. My apologies. :o

xoxo
  • Debi
 
Deborah_Marie said:
I guess my statement was vague. I made the assumption when I said Lack of Canonical Form Annulment that it was understood without dispensation from canonical form. I was not aware a marriage outside of the Church for non-Catholics was considered valid in the Church. My apologies. :o

xoxo
  • Debi
Click to expand...
In fact, two baptized non-Catholics who get married in their non-Catholic church receive the Sacrament of Matrimony even if they don’t know or believe that Matrimony is a sacrament. You’re not the only one that doesn’t know this, so don’t feel bad. (Hence the shock and indignation when a divorced Protestant needs an annulment before marrying a Catholic.)
 
Julian0404 said:
I believe the Catholic Church is the last of the Christian Churches that has not “edited” the teaching of JESUS wherein HE stated that - paraphrase - that although Moses had allowed divorce due to the “hardness of the hearts” of the Isrealites, that JESUS was voiding that Mosaic teaching and reaffirming that marriage is for “life” and cannot be interrupted except by the death of one of the spouses, or by adultery. And that if any person who does divorce and remarries, that he or she is committing adultery as is their new spouse likewise committing adultry.
The Annullment process - no guarantee and becoming harder to acquire - is intended to verify that one of the partners in a previous marriage entered into said marriage with a false committment and thereby the marriage was not valid by right of the falsehood.

You need to be speaking with your local parish priest or parish annullment representative to ensure you are not confused. I am surprised that was not a topic or side-bar discussion during your RCIA classes.
Click to expand...
I saw the links which talk about this, but just wanted to be sure this was clear, adultery is NOT justification for an annulment. Commentaries of the Catholic view point show that the word used meant illegal, such as the gentiles or pagans, relationships of incest. In other words, marriages that were not real in the beginning, at the time of the union, was this a legal union between two people?

If there was a sacramental union between a man and a woman and all was in order at the time of the marriage and consummation, the annulment will not be granted no matter if there was adultery involved later or not. Now if it can be proven that the spouse had no intention of the sacramental union as a commitment to avoid adultery then this could be seen as an impediment to the sacrament of matrimony.

Biggest issue I have with the OP’s post is that he was received into the Church while in an invalid marriage, this should not happen. However, pastors do make mistakes. Mine did a few years ago by confirming and giving first communion to a couple who were cohabitating and he did not know it. He was quite upset when it was brought to his attention. I witnessed their marriage about a year ago.
 
Elizium23 said:
Where did I say that Mary and Joseph had a sacramental marriage? I can’t find any error in my statements, I don’t understand what you are trying to correct.

On the other hand, you said: "if unconsummated, it is not a valid Sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church and can be declared null. " which is entirely untrue, I quoted Canon Law regarding it.

Catholic marriage law is unfortunately a minefield of gotchas and myths and misunderstandings. I don’t understand it so well, I leave it mostly up to the experts.
Click to expand...
You mentioned Joseph and Mary in the same 2 sentence paragraph as “Unconsummated marriages can definitely be valid and sacramental.” I’m really not sure why you brought them up as their marriage was under Jewish law - they, obviously, were not Roman Catholics 😉 Bringing them into the discussion could have been confusing for some because it’s not relevant . . . .
 
Suslar said:
You mentioned Joseph and Mary in the same 2 sentence paragraph as “Unconsummated marriages can definitely be valid and sacramental.” I’m really not sure why you brought them up as their marriage was under Jewish law - they, obviously, were not Roman Catholics 😉 Bringing them into the discussion could have been confusing for some because it’s not relevant . . . .
Click to expand...
Mary converted to Roman Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top