RCIA process - receiving communion

[JulianN]

IF the OP is already have issues like this with the Church, I’m not sure if she is ready to enter the Church. As this is pretty straight forward. There are a lot more confusing and controversal teachings than marriage in the Church

I think you’ll find marriage teachings in the Church cause quite a bit of controversy. A quick search of these fora will turn up a number of threads.

All I am saying is that I don’t think we should rush to judgment when someone is struggling with the idea that their wedding didn’t “count,” particularly when she wasn’t the Catholic party. This is why the radical sanation is often such a good option.

 

[Dovekin]

I may consider continuing if we are granted a radical sanation. If this is a retroactive dispensation, I am okay with this) I am not okay with having a new wedding date recorded in the church.

Good choice. I was just trying to figure out how to say this.

You should also ask if you can be received soon. RCIA is to complete initiation. Those who have not been catechized are taught alongside the unbaptized, but those who belong to another Christian Church usually know Christ already. They do not need as much catechesis, and you probably are in that category though it is a local judgment. You might want to wait until Easter to complete things with the ‘class‘ you are with, or to get acquainted with Reconciliation. (IOW, I agree with your husband, you should not have to put so much of an effort into it.)

 

[Dovekin]

There are a lot more confusing and controversal teachings than marriage in the Church

Maybe the Trinity? Cannot think of many more…

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Yes, it does. Your husband, as a Catholic, was obligated to be married in the Catholic Church.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

If neither of you were Catholic when you were married, no convalidation is necessary.

 

[TC3033]

the sacrament of marriage was discussed. We did discuss this topic, and how a catholic marrying a non-Catholic even if in another church is not recognized. We have a small RCIA class and the teacher saw a I had a funny look on my face.

Uh…What? If what you typed is accurate of what they said you should have a funny face, because it’s completely false.

I’m not Catholic, my wife is and our marriage is a Sacrament.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I’m not Catholic, my wife is and our marriage is a Sacrament.

Were you married in a Catholic Church or did your wife get a dispensation to marry outside the Catholic Church? If not, have you since had your marriage convalidated?

 

[JulianN]

Uh…What? If what you typed is accurate of what they said you should have a funny face, because it’s completely false.

I’m not Catholic, my wife is and our marriage is a Sacrament.

But I think you were married in a Catholic Church. I think she mistyped and just meant a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a place other than a Catholic church. (Unless there was a dispensation)

 

[TC3033]

TC3033:

I’m not Catholic, my wife is and our marriage is a Sacrament.

Were you married in a Catholic Church or did your wife get a dispensation to marry outside the Catholic Church? If not, have you since had your marriage convalidated?

Yes

I think she mistyped and just meant a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a place other than a Catholic church. (Unless there was a dispensation)

That’s why I asked if the quote was accurate.

 

[Dovekin]

It sounds like you think RCIA classes are inappropriate for the OP.

I am glad you understood what I was saying. If she wants to continue with RCIA, that should be up to her. She is a reasonably well catechized Christian, and that should be recognized by the RCIA team. The standard for them is “No greater burden than necessary.”

I say this in the context of her Christian marriage. A radical sanation will recognize this, but she should defend her her marriage and her baptism against the people who are not acknowledging them. If she believes she has a matrimonial covenant as described in §1 below, she should not have to listen to people telling her to live with her husband as if he were a brother.

The first canon on marriage:

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.

 

[Phemie]

hopeful3542:

It sounds like you think RCIA classes are inappropriate for the OP.

I am glad you understood what I was saying. If she wants to continue with RCIA, that should be up to her. She is a reasonably well catechized Christian, and that should be recognized by the RCIA team. The standard for them is “No greater burden than necessary.”

I say this in the context of her Christian marriage. A radical sanation will recognize this, but she should defend her her marriage and her baptism against the people who are not acknowledging them. If she believes she has a matrimonial covenant as described in §1 below, she should not have to listen to people telling her to live with her husband as if he were a brother.

The first canon on marriage:

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.

But theirs IS NOT a valid matrimonial contract due to lack of canonical form.

 

[Dovekin]

But theirs IS NOT a valid matrimonial contract due to lack of canonical form.

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

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.

I cannot fully reconcile these, I am not a canon lawyer. But I will abide by 1060, that the marriage was valid until the contrary is proven. I cannot believe that canon law would allow this couple to separate because of a lack of form. The “invalidity” of canon law cannot override the sacramentality of this couple’s matrimonial covenant. I cannot explain this, but I believe she and her husband are married and that should be acknowledged.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

There isn’t doubt here. They lack the proper form and have been informed of such by their local church!

 

[Usige]

The “invalidity” of canon law cannot override the sacramentality of this couple’s matrimonial covenant.

Lack of form is about as objective a case you can receive in a tribunal. Either the marriage conforms to canonical form or not. There is no sacramentality because no sacrament takes place. Simply looking at documents (or lack of) is enough to detemine if the marriage took place.

This is clearly spelled out in can 1108:
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Maybe @acanonlawyer can explain it better.

On a Friday night, not really. … There isn’t a whole lot to explain. Such a union doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity so it is not a “sacramental” marriage. That doesnt mean that God can’t work in the lives of those involved, certainly.

I am sorry for the OP’s experience. Unfortunately, it’s not entirely unique.

Dan

 

[Usige]

I may consider continuing if we are granted a radical sanation.

One thing I will caution is that Radical Sanations are not a normal course. By that I mean that it might be difficult to obtain one. In my own diocese we are cautioned against even mentioning them as our bishop is very reluctant to provide sanation except in extremely limited cases.

That is not to say it’s not possible, but depending on where you live it might take several months.

 

[poche]

If she did say that she was very wrong. That is something that should be discussed at the very beginning.

 

[Dovekin]

There isn’t a whole lot to explain. Such a union doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity so it is not a “sacramental” marriage. That doesnt mean that God can’t work in the lives of those involved, certainly.

There is a lot to explain here to those of us who are not experts in canon law.

Suppose a woman who married a Catholic in a Baptist Church came to you to arrange to marry a different Catholic in a Catholic Church. Would you say her marriage “doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity” so there is no reason for an annulment?

The situation here is similar to that in many ways, except that the judgment of “not a “sacramental” marriage” is an insult instead of a relief. I think there is something more that needs to be explained here. I cannot do it, but someone should.

 

[Sarad22]

Thank you. What do u mean by the standard term, no greater burden than necessary?

 

[Dovekin]

“It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’”
Acts 15:28-29

When the Apostles were discussing whether Gentiles should get circumcised in order to become Christians, they met in Jerusalem and decided they did not. In their letter, quoted above, they used the phrase “no greater burden than necessary.”

This is used in the RCIA for those who have been catechized in another Church. Their experience with Christ is a gift to us that we should not ignore. Uncatechized people go through a process like the unbaptized, but those who know Christ should be welcomed, with no greater burden than is necessary. This is more about attitude than what classes you attend, when you are received. It is about recognizing what you bring to us. I do not know you well enough to judge, but I am inclined to agree with your husband that you do not need to take on all that is asked of the uncatechized. It is always the decision of the pastor and those who help him, but if the requirements seem burdensome, you should ask about them.

Your marriage has a similar issue. The commitment you and your husband made to each other should be recognized. I am baffled by requests that you live together as if you were unmarried; you are married, committed to one another. A time of abstinence prior to sanation might be appropriate for spiritual purposes, but that would be voluntary. I am not an expert, and could be wrong about this, but we should be welcoming you and see the value of your marriage to you and to us. The legalese should never make you feel like your marriage was “invalid” except in a very narrow legal sense.

Of course there are still requirements. Do not eat meat sacrificed to idols, for instance. I may be exceeding my competence in saying these things, but Imo your background and your marriage are gifts that we welcome. I am sure the priests and others in your parish think that as well, even though all of us fail to express that at times.