Priest in good standing celebrating wedding Mass at SSPX chapel?

[ProVobis]

Actually, as long as there is a dispensation for lack of form, the only Catholic who needs to be present is the one getting married.

Would it still be considered sacramental, without a priest or deacon present as a witness? Just asking.

 

[Phemie]

Would it still be considered sacramental, without a priest or deacon present as a witness? Just asking.

As long as the other person is baptized, yes.

 

[1ke]

Would it still be considered sacramental, without a priest or deacon present as a witness? Just asking.

All valid marriages between the baptized are sacramental. Sacramentality is a function of baptism, not who witnesses.

Validity is the key factor that would impact sacramentality-- two baptized people who are married invalidly are not in any marriage, let alone a sacramental one.

To be validly married, a Catholic must marry in the Catholic form or be dispensed from Catholic form. If dispensed from form, they validly marry civilly and a priest/deacon need not be present. That is what being dispensed from form means-- there is no Catholic priest/deacon witnessing the marriage.

 

[Brendan]

As far as I know, a Catholic marriage must take place in a Catholic church unless approved by the bishop, so absolutely the bishop would have to know about this because you will need his permission.

I know of a case pretty much identical to what the OP is requesting. A man who attended a diocesan indult parish married a woman who attended an SSPX parish.

The Wedding Mass was said according to the 1962 Missal and the marriage witness under the EF Rites by the diocesan priest, but at the SSPX chapel.

The local bishop was needed to provide a dispensation for the wedding to be witnesses outside of a recognized parish, chapel or oratory, but that was it.

IIRC, there were no objections on the SSPX side, as long as the Mass and Marriage Rite were Tridentine.

 

[jfoges]

Would it be possible for you to marry in the SSPX chapel with an SSPX priest and then have the marriage validated by the Catholic Church? That way you get your regularized marriage but she gets to get married in the SSPX chapel. Would that suit your needs?

 

[Brendan]

Would it be possible for you to marry in the SSPX chapel with an SSPX priest and then have the marriage validated by the Catholic Church? That way you get your regularized marriage but she gets to get married in the SSPX chapel. Would that suit your needs?

That would be a dispensation of form, and it would be obtained from the local bishop prior to the marriage.

If that was obtained, the marriage would be considered valid by the Church immediately ( no need for a later convalidation)

 

[jfoges]

That would be a dispensation of form, and it would be obtained from the local bishop prior to the marriage.

If that was obtained, the marriage would be considered valid by the Church immediately ( no need for a later convalidation)

What I’m talking about is something different. It is possible to get married outside the church and then have a priest validate the marriage afterwards, with no prior permission given for the first marriage. My understanding is this is pretty common. One common example is a couple who gets married by a justice of the peace and later decides they want a valid catholic marriage.

 

[ProVobis]

All valid marriages between the baptized are sacramental. Sacramentality is a function of baptism, not who witnesses.

Which brings me to my point. Aren’t the priests and deacons the administers of sacraments?

Even as far as baptisms go, even though they might be valid by virtue of Protestantism or otherwise, aren’t sacramental without the Church. Or am I wrong here?

What I’m talking about is something different. It is possible to get married outside the church and then have a priest validate the marriage afterwards, with no prior permission given for the first marriage.

Valid as regarding sacramental? That’s what I’m thinking too. Just like a Protestant baptism.

 

[jfoges]

Which brings me to my point. Aren’t the priests and deacons the administers of sacraments?

Even as far as baptisms go, even though they might be valid by virtue of Protestantism or otherwise, aren’t sacramental without the Church. Or am I wrong here?

I’m not totally sure but I think that a valid protestant baptism is sacramental. As far as marriages, I think that any marriage between baptised persons is sacramental, but not a marriage where at least one person is not baptised. I think sacramental means that it has the effect of bestowing grace on a person, it has some supernatural effect. The question of legality within Church law is a separate issue.

 

[Brendan]

What I’m talking about is something different. It is possible to get married outside the church and then have a priest validate the marriage afterwards, with no prior permission given for the first marriage. .

That would be called a ‘Convalidation’, and yes it is possible.

It would be sinful for the couple to engage in marital relations prior to that, as there would be no valid marriage without the Convalidation.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not totally sure but I think that a valid protestant baptism is sacramental. As far as marriages, I think that any marriage between baptised persons is sacramental, but not a marriage where at least one person is not baptised. I think sacramental means that it has the effect of bestowing grace on a person, it has some supernatural effect. The question of legality within Church law is a separate issue.

The Protestants also believe in grace and sacraments, so I don’t know where to draw the line on this score.

 

[Brendan]

I’m not totally sure but I think that a valid protestant baptism is sacramental.

It is. We confess One Baptism. A person joining the Catholic Church from another Christian denomination is not Baptized again.

As far as marriages, I think that any marriage between baptised persons is sacramental, but not a marriage where at least one person is not baptised. I think sacramental means that it has the effect of bestowing grace on a person, it has some supernatural effect. The question of legality within Church law is a separate issue.

Correct on all counts. A marriage between non Baptized persons, or between a Baptized and a non-Baptized person are not Sacramental.

But they ARE valid, binding marriages, referred to by the Church as ‘natural marriages’ as they follow the Natural Law. Prime examples are SS Joachim and Anne. Neither were Baptized, but the Church fully recognizes them as being married in the eyes of God.

The Sacramental nature of Marriage does mean that, in addition to the bond of marriage present as a natural marriage, the union also confers Grace on the couple.

 

[Phemie]

Which brings me to my point. Aren’t the priests and deacons the administers of sacraments?

In the Latin Church, the teaching is that the sacrament is conferred by the bride and groom on each other. So if they are baptized and in a valid marriage (criteria for which differs depending on whether they are non-Catholic or there is 1 or 2 Catholics involved) they are in a sacramental marriage.

Even as far as baptisms go, even though they might be valid by virtue of Protestantism or otherwise, aren’t sacramental without the Church. Or am I wrong here?

Remember, anyone can baptize and as long as they intend to do what the Church does it is a valid Baptism and a sacrament.

Valid as regarding sacramental? That’s what I’m thinking too. Just like a Protestant baptism.

A Catholic cannot marry validly outside the Church without a dispensation. But two baptized Protestants marry validly and sacramentally as long as there is no impediment, whether they marry in their churches or at City Hall.

 

[AllSeasons]

I know of a case pretty much identical to what the OP is requesting. A man who attended a diocesan indult parish married a woman who attended an SSPX parish.

The Wedding Mass was said according to the 1962 Missal and the marriage witness under the EF Rites by the diocesan priest, but at the SSPX chapel.

The local bishop was needed to provide a dispensation for the wedding to be witnesses outside of a recognized parish, chapel or oratory, but that was it.

IIRC, there were no objections on the SSPX side, as long as the Mass and Marriage Rite were Tridentine.

Thank you for sharing!

 

[otjm]

Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Glad to hear that there’s precedent. The wedding Mass will a Latin Mass, so hopefully that would make it a bit easier.

You need to learn to read critically. The poster did not say they had attended a confirmation; they said “they had heard”. No details of where this was heard - news? Another person? No possibility of follow-up. No way to ascertain if this was true, or a rumor; no way to tell if it was a Roman Catholic bishop, or someone else.

There is an old, old phrase: “Love is blind. But the neighbors aren’t.” The poster who said you need to think beyond the wedding. Either you do not truly value what the Church teaches, or you are so blinded by your emotional involvement with this young lady that you are not listening to what is going on.

Rome has said, through the head of the dicastery involved with the reconciliation attempt, and unofficially, that the SSPX are in de facto schism. It is not an official statement; but it is the means that Rome has of indicating what they are thinking.

It is entirely possible that she may leave the SSPX chapel; if so, she won’t be the first nor the last.

Possible. I did not say probable; that would require her to separate off from her family in a way that is far beyond what the Bible speak of. The Bible does not talk about turning one’s back on their family. You risk being constantly on the outs with her family should she leave; should she not leave, you run the fist of joining a group that Rome seems to think is in de fact schism.

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[otjm]

As long as the other person is baptized, yes.

It is my understanding that two Catholics must follow the required Cathoilic form - which is to have the marriage witnessed by a priest with faculties. The only exception would be through a dispensation from the bishop - which may or may not be granted.

 

[Aramis]

As far as I know, a Catholic marriage must take place in a Catholic church unless approved by the bishop, so absolutely the bishop would have to know about this because you will need his permission.

I believe that’s true for a Catholic-Catholic marriage.

On interfaith marriages (I’ve only attended one in a hotel hallway) it was enough to have a Catholic priest present.

For a Catholic to marry a non-catholic requires the permission of the Bishop of the Catholic, and if the non-catholic is of an Apostolic faith, theirs as well. It’s seldom hard to obtain.

Can. 1115 Marriages are to be celebrated in a parish where either of the contracting parties has a domicile, quasidomicile, or month long residence or, if it concerns transients, in the parish where they actually reside. With the permission of the proper ordinary or proper pastor, marriages can be celebrated elsewhere.

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P41.HTM

 

[Phemie]

It is my understanding that two Catholics must follow the required Cathoilic form - which is to have the marriage witnessed by a priest with faculties. The only exception would be through a dispensation from the bishop - which may or may not be granted.

Yes, you’re correct. My comment was concerning a Catholic who had received a dispensation from form. Once the dispensation from form has been granted, the only Catholic who needs to be present at the wedding is the one getting married; if the person he/she is marrying is baptized the marriage is sacramental regardless of where the ceremony takes place.

I have to say that in the years I worked for the parish I have not seen any request for dispensation from form refused. We have a high rate of mixed marriages in our area, where Catholics are only about 20% of the population, even if we don’t have a high number of marriages – most of the babies being baptized are born to common-law couples.