Nuptial Mass followed by non-Catholic ceremony?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DarkLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DarkLight

Guest
Just something I was wondering about (no specific situation). It seems in at least some cases family and Catholic Masses just don’t mix. Religious tensions are hard on any family, and a wedding could just bring them to a head. Would it be allowable in this case for a couple to have a private wedding Mass, followed by a non-Catholic “wedding” ceremony? One would of course have to be careful to avoid confusion, but it doesn’t seem too different from cases where people have had quiet weddings under pressure and then ceremonies later (e.g. with soldiers being deployed).
 
No, this is expressly forbidden in canon law.

However, Mass is not a requirement for the sacrament of marriage. One can have the marriage rite outside of Mass. Or in the case of mixed marriage or disparity of cult, one may be dispensed from form.
 
1ke said:
However, Mass is not a requirement for the sacrament of marriage. One can have the marriage rite outside of Mass. Or in the case of mixed marriage or disparity of cult, one may be dispensed from form.
Click to expand...
If both of the spouses were Catholic, they’d need a dispensation in order to not have a Nuptial Mass, wouldn’t they?
 
A wedding with all the suggested tensions, could only result in a strained marriage. Better to think long and hard before entering into that type of marriage.
 
1ke said:
No, this is expressly forbidden in canon law.

However, Mass is not a requirement for the sacrament of marriage. One can have the marriage rite outside of Mass. Or in the case of mixed marriage or disparity of cult, one may be dispensed from form.
Click to expand...
Could you provide a citation for this? I’m thinking particularly of those of us who have “I’m not going to set foot in that temple of the anti-christ” type of parents. For all that we’re supposed to stand up for the faith…I’ve found that this type of action only serves to alienate them more, because they see the church as “taking their kids away from them.”
Waiting said:
A wedding with all the suggested tensions, could only result in a strained marriage. Better to think long and hard before entering into that type of marriage.
Click to expand...
Why? It doesn’t seem that there’d be any more tension for a couple here than for a single person.
 
DarkLight said:
Could you provide a citation for this?
Click to expand...
Can. 1127 §3. It is forbidden to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the canonical celebration according to the norm of §1. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.
DarkLight said:
I’m thinking particularly of those of us who have “I’m not going to set foot in that temple of the anti-christ” type of parents. For all that we’re supposed to stand up for the faith…I’ve found that this type of action only serves to alienate them more, because they see the church as “taking their kids away from them.”
Click to expand...
In a mixed marriage or disparity of cult, the Catholic can apply for a dispensation from form, which might be the better alternative in such a hostile situation.

If both are Catholics, they must marry in the Catholic form, but that can be with the priest or deacon and just a few witnesses, with or without a Mass.

If the family chooses not to attend, that is their perogative.
 
1ke said:
Can. 1127 §3. It is forbidden to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the canonical celebration according to the norm of §1. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.
Click to expand...
Would this still apply if the parties chose some sort of non-religious celebration and ceremony?
In a mixed marriage or disparity of cult, the Catholic can apply for a dispensation from form, which might be the better alternative in such a hostile situation.
Click to expand...
If both are Catholics, they must marry in the Catholic form, but that can be with the priest or deacon and just a few witnesses, with or without a Mass.
Click to expand...
If the family chooses not to attend, that is their perogative.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of the second case, where both parties are Catholic but the family of one is not. It seems that insisting on only a Catholic wedding would cause scandal in this case…can that really be what the church requires? If so, why?
 
If both parties are Catholic, then why deprive themselves of all the benefits from the Mass? Would the non-Catholic family worry about the feelings of the Catholic if the situation were reversed? Do what is in the best interest of the couple marrying. Their memories should be filled with happiness of their new life together.
 
DarkLight said:
Would this still apply if the parties chose some sort of non-religious celebration and ceremony?
Click to expand...
Yes: or renew matrimonial consent before or after the canonical celebration
DarkLight said:
It seems that insisting on only a Catholic wedding would cause scandal in this case…can that really be what the church requires?
Click to expand...
I see no scandal.
DarkLight said:
If so, why?
Click to expand...
Yes, two Catholics are required to be married in the Catholic form.

Why? Because they are Catholics.
 
DarkLight said:
That seems to strain the grammar. It sounds more like it should be:

It is forbidden to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give matrimonial consent, or to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to renew matrimonial consent, before or after the canonical celebration according to the norm of §1

I see nothing said about the giving or renewing of consent in a non-religious context. If it were forbidden entirely, then all Catholics would be forbidden entirely from expressing their consent in front of a judge!
Click to expand...
Regarding grammar/sentence construction, it is likely a translation issue from the Latin.

Go read the marriage canons in context. You are tilting at windmills.
DarkLight said:
My concern is that many families do not come from backgrounds where there are these sorts of requirements. Thus, insisting on a Catholic ceremony would cause them to further believe that the Church is evil, by causing their children to become rebellious and ignore the inclusion and customs of their family. So they would be lead into greater sin and error.
Click to expand...
This is not scandal.
DarkLight said:
The question was about having a separate celebration, rather than skipping a Catholic ceremony.
Click to expand...
As previously stated, it is forbidden.
 
DarkLight said:
Would this still apply if the parties chose some sort of non-religious celebration and ceremony?

I was thinking of the second case, where both parties are Catholic but the family of one is not. It seems that insisting on only a Catholic wedding would cause scandal in this case…can that really be what the church requires? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Would two Catholics ever consider a ‘non-religious’ wedding? Of course not. That WOULD be a scandal and a very grave sin.

They could have a wedding ceremony without a Mass. They could invite the bigot relatives to the wedding reception only. They cannot have a non-religious wedding.

If a couple cannot stand up to some idiot relatives, they probably do not have the required maturity for marriage.
 
1ke said:
Regarding grammar/sentence construction, it is likely a translation issue from the Latin.

Go read the marriage canons in context. You are tilting at windmills.

As previously stated, it is forbidden.
Click to expand...
You’ve said this several times now, and still not answered why? And explain to me how causing someone greater error is not scandal? Indirect scandal certainly, but scandal nonetheless.
PaulfromIowa said:
Would two Catholics ever consider a ‘non-religious’ wedding? Of course not. That WOULD be a scandal and a very grave sin.

They could have a wedding ceremony without a Mass. They could invite the bigot relatives to the wedding reception only. They cannot have a non-religious wedding.

If a couple cannot stand up to some idiot relatives, they probably do not have the required maturity for marriage.
Click to expand...
I wonder if you’ve ever had those relatives, to speak like this. It’s not a matter of fear but of love and respect and wanting to share as much of your faith as you can with them. You love your family and wish them to see you as a caring, charitable person, not as the bigot they think that Catholics are. To them, doing a ceremony like this would only confirm that you do not care about them.
 
DarkLight said:
You’ve said this several times now, and still not answered why?
Click to expand...
The relaxation of the law in the case of dispensation from form is directly related to the fact that one of the parties is not Catholics and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the Church.

This is not the case when both are Catholics. The marriage of two Catholics allows no dispensation from form because the Church governs the sacraments.
DarkLight said:
And explain to me how causing someone greater error is not scandal? Indirect scandal certainly, but scandal nonetheless.
Click to expand...
When one is doing something moral and right, one is not causing scandal when someone else rejects the Faith.

When one is doing something sinful and that causes another to join in or commit sin, that is scandal.
 
Lots of people in my family are fallen away Catholics and don’t like Mass or being in church. We’re of Irish and Italian descent, and we can be a rowdy bunch - except at church, everyone gets all awkward and weird. When we got married, it was my and my husband’s wedding, not theirs. I saw this as one of the only times we had the right to evangelize our faith without family persecution. It was my goal to show everyone how much joy our faith gives us, how much faith has to do with our marriage. I had all those uncomfortable people in mind when we planned the Mass, all the hymns, the readings, etc. My family does not take kindly to Witness, and I would not give in to that pressure for our wedding.

Everyone had a great time.
 
DarkLight said:
1ke;10000302:
I see nothing said about the giving or renewing of consent in a non-religious context. If it were forbidden entirely, then all Catholics would be forbidden entirely from expressing their consent in front of a judge!
Click to expand...
I believe they are without a dispensation. 1ke please correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
 
1ke said:
The relaxation of the law in the case of dispensation from form is directly related to the fact that one of the parties is not Catholics and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the Church.

This is not the case when both are Catholics. The marriage of two Catholics allows no dispensation from form because the Church governs the sacraments.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand me. I am asking why the law is so, in this case. This is not a case of unchangeable law like the words of consecration are (I do not recall the exact terms here). I don’t think anyone would think that a second ceremony was a “second marriage” - hence why I cited cases I had heard of wartime marriages that were publicly celebrated later. Or even a couple repeating their consent in front of a judge, in places where that is required.
When one is doing something moral and right, one is not causing scandal when someone else rejects the Faith.
Click to expand...
When one is doing something sinful and that causes another to join in or commit sin, that is scandal.
Click to expand...
But the big objections I hear in the case of scandal are when one is doing something that is not itself sinful, but could encourage someone else to sin. Witness the numerous threads about living together - the thought is whether such an action would encourage others to think that sex outside of marriage was ok, even if the parties involved are doing nothing intrinsically wrong.
 
DarkLight said:
But the big objections I hear in the case of scandal are when one is doing something that is not itself sinful, but could encourage someone else to sin. Witness the numerous threads about living together - the thought is whether such an action would encourage others to think that sex outside of marriage was ok, even if the parties involved are doing nothing intrinsically wrong.
Click to expand...
Which I, and others, repeatedly point out is not scandal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top