Yes, this is true. It is what tribunals are for. Someone may know that X is Catholic and know that X married Y in a civil ceremony. However, they may not know that X was granted a dispensation from canonical form by his bishop.That isn’t true.
Tribunals are for the investigation of putative marriages.Yes, this is true. It is what tribunals are for.
We know the OP was not granted a dispensation. He has a prior Catholic marriage that is not annulled.However, they may not know that X was granted a dispensation from canonical form by his bishop.
Putative marriages do. A civil marriage isn’t a putative marriage.As Beal, Coriden and Green say in their Canon Law commentary every marriage enjoys the favour of the law until competent ecclesiastical authority determines otherwise.
A putative marriage is, by definition, an invalid marriage that was was entered in good faith by at least one of the Parties, until both of them become certain of its invalidity. That being the case, I don’t think you mean to use that term in this context.Every marriage is putative until the contrary is shown.
Certainly, people commenting here are unable to authoritatively determine anything and there could be facts that are not revealed. Perhaps some people here think that goes without saying.That is why any marriage is putative until all the facts are properly ascertained by those appointed by the Church to do that.
What???A person who is divorced civily of a Catholic marriage should refrain from taking the eucharist/reconciliation as long as his spouse is alive.
I think it’s because you didn’t mention the second marriage—you said a divorced person needed to refrain from the sacraments while their spouse was alive. I believe you meant divorced and remarried.Is it because I forget to mentionned that your new civil marriage need to be recongized as valid by the Church?
It wasn’t obvious, which is why I posted what I did.Obviously I was speaking of a divorced person who is remarried in a civil union (or cohabiting).
Perhaps it should be expressed. Not everyone reading such things will know what someone implies in their own mind.Perhaps some people here think that goes without saying.
Unless they are clearly not validly married. For example, if two baptized Catholics got married at the courthouse, their marriage is not assumed to be valid.Whether my terminology is the precisely correct terminology I’m not absolutely sure. However, to be clear what I’m saying is if two people are believed to be married that’s how they should be treated until some competent authority declares their marriage is not valid.
Retroactive convaliation (radical sanation) dispenses from canonical form, even when both are Catholic and there may be a dispensation from disparity of worship ad cautelem (as a precaution), all given by the bishop.Indeed, I believe dispensation from canonical form when both parties are Catholic is reserved to the Holy See.
I think you mean formal defection (rare) between 1983 and 2010 then, however for the radical sanation case I am thinking of, this was not the case. But, yes, in that period (1983-2010) a formerly defected former Catholic is not bound to Catholic form of marriage.Perhaps they are not really Catholics and only assumed to be because they were in the past.
They may both have formally defected from the Catholic Church (1) after the current Code of Canon Law came into force, (2) before Pope Benedict XVI removed that possibility form the Law, (3) and they were married (i) after the new Code came into force but (ii) prior to Benedict XVI’s changes to the Law.
You’re really twisting yourself into a pretzel, now. In order to preserve the sense of being ‘right’, you’re now suggesting a case in which two Catholics, who formally defected from the Church – and therefore, who are not ‘practicing Catholics’ or members of a Catholic community – might be mistaken for Catholics who married invalidly? Seriously?Perhaps they are not really Catholics and only assumed to be because they were in the past.
I’d assume he’d actually have to repent for them to have an effect though.Also God forbid there’s an emergency, like an illness or accident , he can receive absolution and the Eucharist and anointing of the sick.
This is so very far from the truth. That is not at all how I see this matter. I do not regard it as a competition to be won.In order to preserve the sense of being ‘right’
I do not believe I was the first person in this thread to start adding whatso scenarios. I thought if others were I might, too, join in the frivolity.Seriously?