Ok, do you consider protestant marriages as being invaild?

[AuroraB]

Yes. Baptized protestants are not canonically attached to a valid, apostolic church. A Protestant church has no authority to “bind” its members.
**
My question was not about the authority of a Protestant Church, but more that the two people getting married in a Civil Marriage Ceremony had excluded God from the ceremony. A Civil Marriage Ceremony before a Justice of the Peace is not a religious ceremony.

The question was basically answered by 1ke.**

 

[mdgspencer]

I never came across the idea that a marriage between two Protestants is not valid. That to me is as far out of it as if someone told me that are from the planet Venus. Rest assured that this idea is foreign to Catholic thought.

 

[Seatuck]

I never came across the idea that a marriage between two Protestants is not valid. That to me is as far out of it as if someone told me that are from the planet Venus. Rest assured that this idea is foreign to Catholic thought.

It has been popping up a lot lately. Just the result of all this bad catechesis over the years.

 

[Brendan]

It has been popping up a lot lately. Just the result of all this bad catechesis over the years.

Not only that, but some really bad misunderstandings by Protestants.

 

[runningdude]

runningdude;8013992:

Yes. Baptized protestants are not canonically

attached to a valid, apostolic church. A Protestant church has no authority to “bind” its members.
**
My question was not about the authority of a Protestant Church, but more that the two people getting married in a Civil Marriage Ceremony had excluded God from the ceremony. A Civil Marriage Ceremony before a Justice of the Peace is not a religious ceremony.

The question was basically answered by 1ke.**

I was attempting to answer why it was valid - because a Protestant church cannot require its members to do anything. I would like to point out that it is a matter of doctrine, that baptized protestants marry sacramentally, regardless of ceremony. Can. 1055 §1 only binds the Catholic Church to recognize a protestant marriage, unless proven by a Catholic tribunal to be invalid.

Catholic canon law, for the reasons I elaborated on before, technically has nothing to do with it the validity or sacramentality of a Protestant mariage!

 

[Big_Dummy]

So, why is the “Marriage of Protestant to Catholic with Catholic NOT receiving dispensation to be married in a non-Catholic Church: NOT valid.”???

 

[Brendan]

So, why is the “Marriage of Protestant to Catholic with Catholic NOT receiving dispensation to be married in a non-Catholic Church: NOT valid.”???

Because Catholics are bound by Church regulation on Form. If a Catholic marries under circumstances that are outside the circumstances provided for by Church law, the marriage is invalid.

The Church defines the form of marriage for those who are subject to it.

 

[adrift]

Not every nonCatholic Church believes marriage is a sacrament. . .so it would depend on the definition of that Church whether a civil ceremony met the requirements if indeed that Church did hold marriage as a sacrament. Valid, yes. Sacramental? Depends on their Church.

The sacramentality of a marriage between two baptized people is not dependent upon where they marry or what their understanding of (or their ecclesial community’s teaching on) sacramental theology is.

The marriage is a sacrament if (a) the two parties are baptized and (b) they contract a valid marriage. See the below canons:

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

I think what Tantum is saying is that it depends on if there is a baptism. Some Churchs’ baptizm are not recognized as being a baptism. eg Mormons
So if the baptism is legitimate than what you say is correct.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think what Tantum is saying is that it depends on if there is a baptism. Some Churchs’ baptizm are not recognized as being a baptism. eg Mormons
So if the baptism is legitimate than what you say is correct.

Right, only 1ke always says it better than I do!

 

[Big_Dummy]

what do you all consider a vaild baptism?

If one of the two protestants has an invaild baptism, would that make the marriage invaild?

 

[Phemie]

what do you all consider a vaild baptism?

If one of the two protestants has an invaild baptism, would that make the marriage invaild?

A valid baptism is a Trinitarian one “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” but not “In the name of Jesus” or “In the name fo the Creator, Redeemer and whatever”.

If one of the two Protestants is not validly baptized, the marriage is not sacramental. Baptism has no bearing on the validity of the marriage of Protestants.

Marriages are either

valid and sacramental (both parties are baptized)
or
valid and natural (one or both parties is not baptized).

 

[athenasius]

They can be valid if the Catholic gets a dispensation to marry in a protestant ceremony and if they do the Catholic preparation.

Sorry, I forgot about that…

 

[puzzleannie]

So, why is the “Marriage of Protestant to Catholic with Catholic NOT receiving dispensation to be married in a non-Catholic Church: NOT valid.”???

because the Catholic party IS bound by Catholic canon law on marriage

 

[puzzleannie]

So, why is the “Marriage of Protestant to Catholic with Catholic NOT receiving dispensation to be married in a non-Catholic Church: NOT valid.”???

because the Catholic party IS bound by Catholic canon law on marriage

what do you all consider a vaild baptism?

If one of the two protestants has an invaild baptism, would that make the marriage invaild?

there is no “you all” there is only the Catholic Church to whom Christ has given authority over his sacraments and she considers valid baptism performed with valid form and matter with intent to accomplish what the Church defines as the effects of baptism–even if that minister and the recipient have an imperfect understanding of that definition. That is why even a non-Catholic may validly baptize if the recipient is in danger of death. The matter is water–no other liquid–the form is “I baptize you in the Name of the FAther, and of the Son, and of the HOly Spirit” recited while pouring or sprinkling the water over the recipient, or while immersing him in water.

Denomination that reject the Catholic definition of baptism, the Mormons and JWs being the most prominent, do not have valid baptism because they specifically reject the intent to accomplish what the Catholic Church intends. Sects that do not use the proper form–some Pentecostals, for instance–do not have valid baptism for that reason. And while we are so far afield from the original topic, the bishop of your diocese has a list of denominations who have valid baptism.

 

[AuroraB]

The reason I asked the question (see previous posts) was because a friend is interested in someone who is divorced, a non Catholic. She says that there is no problem because he was married in a civil marriage. I thought she was wrong, and told her that she would have a problem with the Church if anything came of the relationship. I do know that Catholic marriage tribunals confront this problem all the time, more so today than in the past, where a Catholic wants to marry a previously married non Catholic, and the tribunals will examine the marriage of a non Catholic who has been divorced to see if that marriage can be annuled for the sake of the Catholic who wants to get married in the Church. I just wanted to check if I was correct and if there were any other points that I hadn’t thought of. thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[1ke]

The reason I asked the question (see previous posts) was because a friend is interested in someone who is divorced, a non Catholic. She says that there is no problem because he was married in a civil marriage. I thought she was wrong, and told her that she would have a problem with the Church if anything came of the relationship.

She is most definitely wrong.

I do know that Catholic marriage tribunals confront this problem all the time, more so today than in the past, where a Catholic wants to marry a previously married non Catholic, and the tribunals will examine the marriage of a non Catholic who has been divorced to see if that marriage can be annuled for the sake of the Catholic who wants to get married in the Church.

This isn’t accurate.

I marriage cannot be “annulled”. A marriage is either valid or not. A decree of nullity is a findign of fact regarding a defect or impediment at the time the vows were exchanged.

Any declaration of nullity is based on facts and not “for the sake of the Catholic” who wants to marry in the Church. If the non-Catholic’s marriage is found to be valid, the Catholic may not marry them.

 

[AJV]

Yes. Baptized protestants are not canonically attached to a valid, apostolic church. A Protestant church has no authority to “bind” its members.
**
Basically, each individual Protestant is on his or her own before God.**

Because marriage is a sacrament committed between to individuals, Protestants are free to use whatever form they like to celebrate the marriage, as their church has no authority to dictate a form.

Not exactly – at least according to certain canonical theories.

According to this, the Church has authority over all the baptized and can indeed prescribe a form to be followed by Protestants. The reason She does not do so is to avoid mass invalidity of Protestant marriages.

This historically was the practise. When the Council of Trent’s legislation on marriage (Tametsi) was promulgated in a diocese (all dioceses did not publish it), ALL the baptized, Protestants and Catholics were obliged to appear before a parish priest to validly marry.

As Protestantism became more and more widespread, the Pope (Benedict XVI) gave what came to be known as the “Benedictine Privilege” by which Protestants marrying among themselves or with a Catholic did not have to appear before the priest. Wherever the Benedictine Privilege was applied, therefore, Protestant marriages were valid, as they were in dioceses where Tametsi was not promulgated.

This happened until the time of Pius X who made a universal law in Ne Temere bound all Catholics to the Catholic form of marriage and did not bind the non-Catholics.

More recently, in some cases and where it does not contradict Church teachings, the Church has decided to admit provisions of Protestants marriage laws, if they exist (see Dignitas Connubii)

 

[Matthew_Holford]

???

Purely on the basis that they are Protestant, NO!

If they are free to marry and give proper consent then such marriage is valid. If they are both validly baptised it is a sacramental marriage, which if consummated is completely indissoluble.

If one or neither of the spouses is validly baptised it is a good and natural marriage.

 

[AuroraB]

She is most definitely wrong.

This isn’t accurate.

I marriage cannot be “annulled”. A marriage is either valid or not. A decree of nullity is a findign of fact regarding a defect or impediment at the time the vows were exchanged.

Any declaration of nullity is based on facts and not “for the sake of the Catholic” who wants to marry in the Church. If the non-Catholic’s marriage is found to be valid, the Catholic may not marry them.

Yes, but a “marriage” is called a marriage until proven otherwise by an investigation of the Marriage Tribunal and a decision to the contrary, that is the default position. So one has to assume that it is a marriage to start with. And even after the annulment, people will still call the first “marriage” a marriage because it was a marriage according to the law of the land, and especially where children are involved. The Church has no jurisdiction over that.

Second I meant that normally a Catholic Tribunal would not be interested in investigating the marriage of a non-Catholic, but would do so “for the sake of the Catholic who wants to marry the non - Catholic in the Church”, and yes whether the marriage is valid or not would depend on the facts.

 

[puzzleannie]

The reason I asked the question (see previous posts) was because a friend is interested in someone who is divorced, a non Catholic. She says that there is no problem because he was married in a civil marriage. .

the best advice you give her is to see her priest and lay out all the facts of the situation. There is no one answer that is best because there are so many variables. She does not know the baptismal status of his ex, for one thing, and a dozen other things can change the answer. She has to see her own priest. Nothing third hand is going to be of much help to her.