no annulment = mortal sin?

[BrJuniper]

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.

Methinks i presume way to much. I disagree. One must always presume the most beneficial to the individual, not the easiest for the presumptor. Thus, when meeting a couple I presume a valid marriage, when one ask for a divorce I presume a possibility of an invalid marriage, when one is too young or uneducated a priest may, for pastoral reasons, preside at a wedding having doubts about the validity. Always presume in favor of God’s Mercy not in favor of your judgeship.

Put another way…Always presume the person to whom you are speaking was forgiven by God before you started the conversation, even if you saw what you thought was a sin or evidence of something you consider sinful.

 

[Corki]

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.

A marriage that is invalid due to lack of form, such as Catholics who attempt a marriage in front of a JP, does not enjoy the presumption of validity. However, the couple still have to “clear” the attempted marriage as part of their pursuit of a valid marriage to a different person. In some diocses, this process goes to the same tribunal that handles nullity cases. In others, it is done by the pastor. It is a purely paperwork process. What is issued is not a declaration of nullity but rather a confirmation that the attempted marriage was not a marriage at all.

 

[Phemie]

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 able to receive the Blessed Sacrament before they receive Reconciliation and begin to live as brother and sister until the union can be regularized.

No, that was clarified by a dubium in the 40s (while a new code of canon law came out in 1983, the canon has remained the same). The Catholic who marries outside the church without a dispensation from form is not in a putative (presumed valid) marriage. While in the US and Canada those lack of form cases are usually submitted to the Tribunal, such is not the case everywhere.

 

[BrJuniper]

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.

WOW…see ecclisiology. The marriage Sacrament is between the man and woman, the wedding is in church with a mass, if one wishes. The priest witnesses the civil union but not the consummation of the Sacrament, which is the act of Grace.

These kind of incomplete understandings are why I prefer to presume insufficient knowledge for free and full consent of the will.

 

[neophyte]

A marriage that is invalid due to lack of form, such as Catholics who attempt a marriage in front of a JP, does not enjoy the presumption of validity. However, the couple still have to “clear” the attempted marriage as part of their pursuit of a valid marriage to a different person. In some diocses, this process goes to the same tribunal that handles nullity cases. In others, it is done by the pastor. It is a purely paperwork process. What is issued is not a declaration of nullity but rather a confirmation that the attempted marriage was not a marriage at all.

I’m not seeing the distinction here. A declaration of nullity is a confirmation that an attempted marriage wasn’t a marriage at all. Isn’t that the whole point of the process? The competent authority determines that there was an impediment to the marriage, one impediment being not observing the Catholic form of marriage if one was bound to do so.

 

[neophyte]

No, that was clarified by a dubium in the 40s (while a new code of canon law came out in 1983, the canon has remained the same). The Catholic who marries outside the church without a dispensation from form is not in a putative (presumed valid) marriage. While in the US and Canada those lack of form cases are usually submitted to the Tribunal, such is not the case everywhere.

Hmm… well, then, I guess I stand corrected. I certainly don’t understand the nuance, but since I escaped the clutches of the Reformation I’ve come to GREATLY appreciate submitting to rightful ecclesiastical authority without understanding why a decision was made.

But I do like to try to understand. Any idea where I can find a copy of the text online?

 

[Corki]

WOW…see ecclisiology. The marriage Sacrament is between the man and woman, the wedding is in church with a mass, if one wishes. The priest witnesses the civil union but not the consummation of the Sacrament, which is the act of Grace.

No. That’s not what happens. The Sacrament of Marriage, in a Catholic church happens when the priest or deacon witnesses and accepts the exchange of vows/consent.

As noted in the Catechism (1631) “Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act.”

The consumation of the marriage happens later between the spouses but that only affects the indissolvubility of the marriage, not its validity as a Sacrament.

In the US, the priest is also the person who attests to the civil marriage but that is only a quirk in the law, not anything to do with the Sacrament. In most countries, the priest is not involved in the civil union at all.

 

[neophyte]

…These kind of incomplete understandings are why I prefer to presume insufficient knowledge for free and full consent of the will.

I wasn’t trying to be snarky when I asked about your training. I was (and am) honestly interested.

 

[BrJuniper]

I wasn’t trying to be snarky when I asked about your training. I was (and am) honestly interested.

Not sure what you are interested in. Degrees in Religious Studies and Liberal Arts. Graduate studies in Theology. Training? Former Marine, Litigation, and Friars Minor,not necessarily in that order.

 

[Phemie]

Hmm… well, then, I guess I stand corrected. I certainly don’t understand the nuance, but since I escaped the clutches of the Reformation I’ve come to GREATLY appreciate submitting to rightful ecclesiastical authority without understanding why a decision was made.

But I do like to try to understand. Any idea where I can find a copy of the text online?

It’s in Latin and a few of us have posted it recently. Search ‘putative’ ‘dubium’.

 

[Corki]

I’m not seeing the distinction here. A declaration of nullity is a confirmation that an attempted marriage wasn’t a marriage at all. Isn’t that the whole point of the process? The competent authority determines that there was an impediment to the marriage, one impediment being not observing the Catholic form of marriage if one was bound to do so.

It is a fine distinction.

In a full investigation for marriage validity, the couple attempted a valid marriage. However, when a declaration of nullity is issued, it is a statement that, in spite of the couple’s intent, no valid marriage occured due to some defect at the time.

In the case of a lack of form case, the couple did not even attempt a valid marriage. They contracted a civil marriage. No investigation as to defects is necessary. If one of the couple was Catholic and no dispensation was given, it wasn’t an attempt at a valid marriage. It’s cut and dried. The competent authority isn’t really “determining” anything other than confirming the facts and checking the documents.

 

[neophyte]

It is a fine distinction.

In a full investigation for marriage validity, the couple attempted a valid marriage. However, when a declaration of nullity is issued, it is a statement that, in spite of the couple’s intent, no valid marriage occured due to some defect at the time.

In the case of a lack of form case, the couple did not even attempt a valid marriage. They contracted a civil marriage. No investigation as to defects is necessary. If one of the couple was Catholic and no dispensation was given, it wasn’t an attempt at a valid marriage. It’s cut and dried. The competent authority isn’t really “determining” anything other than confirming the facts and checking the documents.

Ohhh, yeah. I think I get it. Let me run off on a tangent for a minute, maybe if I get help on a different question it’ll help clarify both.

I’d been wondering why Anglican ordination is invalid but non-Catholic baptism is valid, even though in both cases the parties expressly reject the Catholic understanding of the sacraments. But then I read Apostolicae Curae, and got the impression that the key is that the Anglicans changed the form of ordination, and the form is expressive of the intent. Not changing the form implies not changing the intent, which is why those baptisms are valid: the form is unchanged, and thus the intent.

But the Catholic couple did change the form when they went to the JP.

Did I get that sort of right?

 

[Corki]

Ohhh, yeah. I think I get it. Let me run off on a tangent for a minute, maybe if I get help on a different question it’ll help clarify both.

I’d been wondering why Anglican ordination is invalid but non-Catholic baptism is valid, even though in both cases the parties expressly reject the Catholic understanding of the sacraments. But then I read Apostolicae Curae, and got the impression that the key is that the Anglicans changed the form of ordination, and the form is expressive of the intent. Not changing the form implies not changing the intent, which is why those baptisms are valid: the form is unchanged, and thus the intent.

But the Catholic couple did change the form when they went to the JP.

Did I get that sort of right?

Non-catholics are not bound by Catholic law. So non-Catholic parents who brings their children to a non-Catholic baptism are not doing anything illicit. The power of the Sacrament flows through the minister who, in the case of Baptism is given the authority directly from the Holy Spirit.

I’ll let someone else comment on ordination.

With marriage, the couple convey the Sacrament on each other. If the spouse is Catholic, the “power” (for lack of a better word) to do that flows from the Church. If they go outside the Church, no “power” to convey the Sacrament.

 

[dans0622]

… I’d been wondering why Anglican ordination is invalid but non-Catholic baptism is valid, even though in both cases the parties expressly reject the Catholic understanding of the sacraments. But then I read Apostolicae Curae, and got the impression that the key is that the Anglicans changed the form of ordination, and the form is expressive of the intent. Not changing the form implies not changing the intent, which is why those baptisms are valid: the form is unchanged, and thus the intent.

But the Catholic couple did change the form when they went to the JP.

Did I get that sort of right?

Hello neophyte,

That’s a good insight but is a little bit off since “the form” of the Sacrament of marriage is not the same as “canonical form.” The form is, basically, “I marry you” while canonical form is stating that decision/intention before two witnesses and the authorized priest/deacon. Two Lutherans, for example, could confer the Sacrament of marriage before a justice of the peace. So, there you see the the essential form of the Sacrament being validly expressed but canonical form is not present. If someone was to change the form of the Sacrament (which can happen when a couple has the nerve to compose their own vows), then you’d be getting into the same murky swamp as the Anglicans did when they changed the form of ordination or when people had the temerity to change the form of baptism to “creator, redeemer, sanctifier.” Bad idea.

In law, there can be “formalities” that are required in order for a juridic act (such as getting married) to be valid (see canon 124.1). That is what canonical form is. The expression of marital consent, on the other hand, is not such a formality: it is an essential part of the act itself.

I hope this makes sense.

Dan

 

[BrJuniper]

No. That’s not what happens. The Sacrament of Marriage, in a Catholic church happens when the priest or deacon witnesses and accepts the exchange of vows/consent.

As noted in the Catechism (1631) “Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act.”

The consumation of the marriage happens later between the spouses but that only affects the indissolvubility of the marriage, not its validity as a Sacrament.

In the US, the priest is also the person who attests to the civil marriage but that is only a quirk in the law, not anything to do with the Sacrament. In most countries, the priest is not involved in the civil union at all.

Where do you people get this. Where to start…all marriage is liturgy not all liturgy is marriage. Your citation does not support your “theory”. Refrain from teaching, please. FYI the consummation is the sine qua non of the sacrament…and yup it is liturgy, go figure.

You are inaccurate about almost everything else as well.

Sacramental Theology for beginners

Every Sacrament involves a natural part of the human condition
Baptism…Water
Eucharist…Bread and Wine
Confession…Acknowledge wrong
Confirmation…Adulthood
Marriage…Reproduction
Ordination…Service
Anointing of the Sick/Extreme Unction…Illness/death

The objective truths of all seven are the same in that the human condition becomes grace filled by and through the incarnation. Every bath is not a Baptism, but every baptism is a bath, and liturgy.

 

[BrJuniper]

Hello neophyte,

That’s a good insight but is a little bit off since “the form” of the Sacrament of marriage is not the same as “canonical form.” The form is, basically, “I marry you” while canonical form is stating that decision/intention before two witnesses and the authorized priest/deacon. Two Lutherans, for example, could confer the Sacrament of marriage before a justice of the peace. So, there you see the the essential form of the Sacrament being validly expressed but canonical form is not present. If someone was to change the form of the Sacrament (which can happen when a couple has the nerve to compose their own vows), then you’d be getting into the same murky swamp as the Anglicans did when they changed the form of ordination or when people had the temerity to change the form of baptism to “creator, redeemer, sanctifier.” Bad idea.

In law, there can be “formalities” that are required in order for a juridic act (such as getting married) to be valid (see canon 124.1). That is what canonical form is. The expression of marital consent, on the other hand, is not such a formality: it is an essential part of the act itself.

I hope this makes sense.

Dan

An Anglican Ordination is Valid it is illicit. Oxford Movement 1870.

 

[1ke]

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.

Nope. That is NOT how the Churh approaches it. The bond is presumed valid unless proven otherwise. The Church assigns a person to be the defender of the bond in nullity proceedings.

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

 

[1ke]

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?

Yes. That is exactly the case.

 

[1ke]

I’m not seeing the distinction here. A declaration of nullity is a confirmation that an attempted marriage wasn’t a marriage at all. Isn’t that the whole point of the process? The competent authority determines that there was an impediment to the marriage, one impediment being not observing the Catholic form of marriage if one was bound to do so.

No.

In the case of lack of form the Tribunal does not issue a declaration of nullity. They process paperwork affirming freedom to marry. These are not the samething.

 

[BrJuniper]

Nope. That is NOT how the Churh approaches it. The bond is presumed valid unless proven otherwise. The Church assigns a person to be the defender of the bond in nullity proceedings.

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Your citations are not relevant as they are off point. You really want to play, let us see.

You are saying, in sum and substance, that the RCC under the authority of a Code, presumed to be inerrant, tells the faithful to presume sin over goodness, knowledge over ignorance and free consent over cohersion in all cases. Is that correct? (yes or no only please)

In the alternative define proof, evidence and doubt. I assert that unless you are one of the petitioners anyone married before the age of 25 provides sufficient evidence of absence of intention. On this I have no doubt, and your cannon rest on the presence of same, if it is absent your citation is even less relevant than irrelevant.