no annulment = mortal sin?

[1ke]

Yes, that’s correct. Did I say something confusing when I said: “the Church does recognize as valid any marriage that was done in accordance to the couple’s circumstances when they were married.”? A non-Catholic couple is acting in accordance of their circumstances by marrying civilly, as they are not obligated to marry in the Church.

Perhaps you did not mean your statement as I interpreted it. You stated Muslims marrying according to Mulsim fashion, Jews according to Jewish fashion, etc.

There are some who have posted here in the past implying that, for example, Jews have to marry before a rabbi, Methodists in front of a minister, Muslims before a Imam, etc. Even if the “Jewish fashion” is to be married before a rabbi, the couple actually marries validly when they marry civilly.

That is what I was clarifying. Non-Catholic ministers are acting only in a civil capacity and therefore it matters not if they contract their marriage before their own clergy or before a civil authority such as a JP.

 

[Rence]

Perhaps you did not mean your statement as I interpreted it. You stated Muslims marrying according to Mulsim fashion, Jews according to Jewish fashion, etc.

There are some who have posted here in the past implying that, for example, Jews have to marry before a rabbi, Methodists in front of a minister, Muslims before a Imam, etc. Even if the “Jewish fashion” is to be married before a rabbi, the couple actually marries validly when they marry civilly.

That is what I was clarifying. Non-Catholic ministers are acting only in a civil capacity and therefore it matters not if they contract their marriage before their own clergy or before a civil authority such as a JP.

I see what you’re saying. Right, those religions don’t require “Sacramental” or church weddings. They allow civil marriages, and yes their ministers act only in a civil capacity. I answered the way I did because some who have posted here that don’t recognize as valid any marriages except Catholic marriages.

 

[anp1215]

I thought it was a given that you had to get permission to do something that you’re not supposed to do

Maybe I misunderstood your wording.

 

[Rence]

Maybe I misunderstood your wording.

Maybe my wording was just bad… for lack of a better word

 

[anp1215]

Maybe my wording was just bad… for lack of a better word

 

[BrJuniper]

Your post isn’t really clear.

However, if two Jews marry each other, their marriage is valid.

If one coverts to Christianity and is baptized, their marriage is still valid.

If both convert and are baptized, their marriage is still valid and it becomes a sacrament upon their baptism.

Not necessarily. The free and full consent is often infringed upon by many factors including, but not limited to, age, understanding,and societal pressure. Hence, each case stands on its own…ALWAYS.

 

[thistle]

Not necessarily. The free and full consent is often infringed upon by many factors including, but not limited to, age, understanding,and societal pressure. Hence, each case stands on its own…ALWAYS.

Assuming no impediment to marriage then what 1ke stated is correct.

 

[Phemie]

Not necessarily. The free and full consent is often infringed upon by many factors including, but not limited to, age, understanding,and societal pressure. Hence, each case stands on its own…ALWAYS.

True, but the marriage is presumed valid until such time as an investigation proves that one of the above was present to prevent a valid marriage from taking place.

 

[BrJuniper]

Assuming no impediment to marriage then what 1ke stated is correct.

Not correct, as no action can be classified as sin much less mortal sin absent requisite knowledge, which no one has but the actor. Thus, your use of the universal, makes your statement inaccurate.

 

[BrJuniper]

True, but the marriage is presumed valid until such time as an investigation proves that one of the above was present to prevent a valid marriage from taking place.

Presumption of Validity? If one is erring on the side of caution, however I think that it would then be the reverse under the instructions and Dogma of Holy Mother Church. In other words, if a divorced catholic approaches for an annulment one should presume lack of intention in the first instance for a number of reasons like mercy, education, flawed instruction, and parental influence.

There seems to be a great desire on this board to make great sin out of human foibles.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Non-Catholic ministers are acting only in a civil capacity and therefore it matters not if they contract their marriage before their own clergy or before a civil authority such as a JP.

Are you actually suggesting that a Jewish Rabbi or a Baptist minister, when performing a marriage ceremony, are acting in the same capacity as a justice of the peace? Or a Vegas wedding chapel Elvis impersonator?

 

[Phemie]

Presumption of Validity? If one is erring on the side of caution, however I think that it would then be the reverse under the instructions and Dogma of Holy Mother Church. In other words, if a divorced catholic approaches for an annulment one should presume lack of intention in the first instance for a number of reasons like mercy, education, flawed instruction, and parental influence.

There seems to be a great desire on this board to make great sin out of human foibles.

A Catholic’s marriage, celebrated in the Church or outside of it with proper permissions/dispensations is always presumed valid according to Canon Law.

If that Catholic divorces and petitions for a decree of nullity, the onus is on the petitioner to provide information to prove nullity, rather than on the Church to prove validity. That’s why not all cases make it to the Tribunal, they are stopped at the parish level because there is nothing in the case that could be a reason for nullity.

 

[BrJuniper]

A Catholic’s marriage, celebrated in the Church or outside of it with proper permissions/dispensations is always presumed valid according to Canon Law.

If that Catholic divorces and petitions for a decree of nullity, the onus is on the petitioner to provide information to prove nullity, rather than on the Church to prove validity. That’s why not all cases make it to the Tribunal, they are stopped at the parish level because there is nothing in the case that could be a reason for nullity.

What happens in church is a wedding, not the Sacrament. The Sacrament is between the two and recognized by the Church through the witness of the Ordinary’s designate. Your post is an excellent example of way one should never presume a full understanding of Sacrament.

 

[AnnArbor]

What happens in church is a wedding, not the Sacrament. The Sacrament is between the two and recognized by the Church through the witness of the Ordinary’s designate. Your post is an excellent example of way one should never presume a full understanding of Sacrament.

And as such, the sacrament is presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise. Two unbaptized persons who enter into a marriage are presumed to be in a valid, good and natural marriage, unless proved otherwise.

Two baptized Christians who are not Catholic who enter into a marriage – whether conducted in a church or in front of a civil authority – are presumed to be in a valid sacramental marriage unless proved otherwise.

Two Catholics who enter into a marriage in the Catholic Church, or by obtaining the requisite permission from the Church to marry elsewhere, are presumed to be in a valide sacramental marriage unless proved otherwise. If one or more of the parties is Catholic, and the couple marries outside the Church without permission, the marriage would be invalidated for ‘lack of form.’

 

[neophyte]

What happens in church is a wedding, not the Sacrament. The Sacrament is between the two and recognized by the Church through the witness of the Ordinary’s designate. Your post is an excellent example of way one should never presume a full understanding of Sacrament.

You seem to think that you have some special competence in this subject. What formal training do you have? Are you a canon lawyer? Do you hold some office on a marriage tribunal?

I’m asking because you’ve made a number of statements that seem to be at odds with what I read the law to be, and with what I’ve heard from actual canon lawyers. For example, you apparently deny that marriage enjoys the presumption of validity until proven otherwise by competent authority.And you apparently deny that an action can be objectively sinful regardless of the subjective state of the actor.

 

[BrJuniper]

And as such, the sacrament is presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise. Two unbaptized persons who enter into a marriage are presumed to be in a valid, good and natural marriage, unless proved otherwise.

Two baptized Christians who are not Catholic who enter into a marriage – whether conducted in a church or in front of a civil authority – are presumed to be in a valid sacramental marriage unless proved otherwise.

Two Catholics who enter into a marriage in the Catholic Church, or by obtaining the requisite permission from the Church to marry elsewhere, are presumed to be in a valide sacramental marriage unless proved otherwise. If one or more of the parties is Catholic, and the couple marries outside the Church without permission, the marriage would be invalidated for ‘lack of form.’

All sounds real good till you get to the “requisite permission” stuff. If one needs permission then your presumption of validity goes away. We are nothing if not consistent.

 

[Phemie]

What happens in church is a wedding, not the Sacrament. The Sacrament is between the two and recognized by the Church through the witness of the Ordinary’s designate. Your post is an excellent example of way one should never presume a full understanding of Sacrament.

The Tribunal rules on validity, not sacramentality.

A marriage can’t be sacramental unless it’s valid but it can certainly be valid without being sacramental. If it’s valid and both are baptized, it’s sacramental. If it’s valid and one or both are not baptized, it’s natural.

 

[Phemie]

All sounds real good till you get to the “requisite permission” stuff. If one needs permission then your presumption of validity goes away. We are nothing if not consistent.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. The Church grants permission for mixed marriages and dispensations for marriages with non-baptized and for marriages outside the Church. In all those cases the marriages are presumed valid.

 

[Corki]

What happens in church is a wedding, not the Sacrament. The Sacrament is between the two and recognized by the Church through the witness of the Ordinary’s designate. .

A bit of a language problem here, I am guessing.

What happens in Church is a wedding AND a Sacrament. The spouses convey the Sacrament on each other but it is within the context of the wedding ceremony. The vows exchanged during the Sacrament are accepted by the priest or deacon.

Marriages between two non-baptized persons (or one baptized non-Catholic and one non baptized person) are presumed valid regardless of where they occur or who the witnesses are. These marriages are valid but not Sacramental.

Marriages between two baptized non-Catholics are presumed valid regardless of where they occur or who the witnesses are. The exception to this is where the non-Catholic Church to which the spouses belong imposses its own conditions for validity, as it the case for the Orthodox. These marriages are valid and Sacramental.

Marriages where at least one spouse is Catholic are presumed Valid only if they are contracted in the Church. “In the Church” does not mean, however, in the Church building or even witnessed by Catholic clergy. “In the Church” is to marry according to Canon law. These marriages are valid but may or may not be Sacramental.

 

[neophyte]

I’m not sure what you mean by that. The Church grants permission for mixed marriages and dispensations for marriages with non-baptized and for marriages outside the Church. In all those cases the marriages are presumed valid.

My understanding is that if a Catholic couple run off to a JP and contract a marriage, then they can’t just get a civil divorce and later attempt another marriage with different parties - they still need to get a declaration of nullity. That indicates to me that even that marriage is presumed valid.

If that’s what BrJuniper meant, then we’re in agreement on at least one thing.

But that doesn’t mean in turn that they are eligable to receive the Blessed Sacrament before they receive Reconciliation and begin to live as brother and sister until the union can be regularized.