Sacrament of Marriage Vs. Convalidation

[1ke]

The question I respond to is: “If it’s already been convalidated, I do not see how it can then be sanated.”

So, it is was an invalid convalidation, it could be retroactively validated. However, retroactive validation can include dispensations and permissions, and also be used to correct mistakes, such as when the priest or deacon forgets to secure a needed dispensation from disparity of cult, or when the priest or deacon did not receive proper delegation to assist at the marriage.

Well, duh, that’s **not **what my comment was directed to. I was responding to a person with a VALID convalidation.

I’m perfectly aware that a convalidation can be invalid. But, if a person has a **valid **convalidation they cannot also have a sanation, to my knowledge.

 

[1ke]

Thank you, but the marrage was not invalid.
canon 1617 two baptized Christian the marrige is automaticly sacramental.
Since the marrage lacked canonical form, which could have been resolved at the time of the marrage by asking for permission from the bishop,
Cannons 1633-1637 if a marrige is between a catholic and non catholic and permission has not been secured from the bishop, the marraige is valid but illicet.

You are NOT correct.

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.

bottom line, the man and wife had been living in a valid sacramental marrage based on the fact that they are both baptized Christans.
This assumes that there were no previous marriages that had not been annuled in which case the marrage would be invalid.

You are not correct.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Ah, I understand now. Thank you.

I don’t know the priests involved, so I cannot say, but I would tend towards them being honestly mistaken about convalidation rather than lieing to you. If they are like some other priests I know, they honestly think that is the case, they don’t understand sanation versus convalidation. They don’t deal with this too much.

Ain’t that the truth!!!

My boss is a priest, who also happens to be a canon lawyer, which is why I went to him first, after reading the appropriate canons,
and even he had to do some research and double checking
before he would give me any advice!!

When I asked my Pastor to help me out, he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about!!!

Oh well, I have always had to make things difficult, just ask my parents!!

 

[1ke]

To clarify-
while discussing with my priest convalidating our marriage, after hearing all of the facts, he decided that what we really needed was a radical sanation.

So our marriage was not convalidated. We are waiting on the “radical sanation” paperwork to go through the Bishop’s office, and hopefully, in the next couple of weeks our marriage will be “sanated”.

Ah, gotcha!

 

[Vico]

Well, duh, that’s **not **what my comment was directed to. I was responding to a person with a VALID convalidation.

I’m perfectly aware that a convalidation can be invalid. But, if a person has a **valid **convalidation they cannot also have a sanation, to my knowledge.

Ok, but I believed that we were talking about Oneofthewomen:
“I was in the same situation, and was told that because we married in a civil ceremony, without the proprer dispensation from the Chrurch, we would indeed have to be “married”, using the Rite of Marriage (with or without the Celebration of the Eucharist), and that a “simple convalidation” was not the remedy to our situation.”

See post #37; hers was not convalidated.

Were you talking about a different poster’s situation?

Radical sanation can be used to make the canonical effects begin earlier, so it could be done. It is for cases of inheritance rights, etc., and originally also for legitimacy, no longer an issue with the current canon law.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Ok, but I believed that we were talking about Oneofthewomen:
“I was in the same situation, and was told that because we married in a civil ceremony, without the proprer dispensation from the Chrurch, we would indeed have to be “married”, using the Rite of Marriage (with or without the Celebration of the Eucharist), and that a “simple convalidation” was not the remedy to our situation.”

See post #37; hers was not convalidated.

Were you talking about a different poster’s situation?

Radical sanation can be used to make the canonical effects begin earlier, so it could be done. It is for cases of inheritance rights, etc., and originally also for legitimacy, no longer an issue with the current canon law.

Or, as in my case, husband & I had our rights according to canon law violated by 2 different Priest/Pastors.

 

[Vico]

Or, as in my case, husband & I had our rights according to canon law violated by 2 different Priest/Pastors.

Surely. But this is to explain why one would get a radical sanation after a valid convalidation.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Considered going though this once, was even somewhat excited about it. Now, after asking about it and being treated by the Church as I was when asking questions. I’m not interested in the slightest.

 

[Vico]

Considered going though this once, was even somewhat excited about it. Now, after asking about it and being treated by the Church as I was when asking questions. I’m not interested in the slightest.

Sacrament is defined differently in Lutheranism and Catholicism.

Catholic Matrimony is a sacrament for the baptised. The action of the Holy Spirit in matrimony is sanctifying grace (which all living sacraments bring), and sacramental grace which is whatever actual graces the couple may need, through the years, to make a happy and successful marriage.

Lutheran marriage is a different understanding: that marriage is part of the First Article of the creed, so it is a purely secular action, a vocation of everyday life which is to be governed by the rule of law through government. Lutheran sacraments, due to the different defintion of sacrament, are limited to baptism, eucharist, and absolution.
bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense.php

So you can see why it would be important to a Catholic in a mixed marriage. But a Lutheran may also receive this help of the Holy Spirit. However there will not be much motivation if the Lutheran does not believe it.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Ah, I understand now. Thank you.

I don’t know the priests involved, so I cannot say, but I would tend towards them being honestly mistaken about convalidation rather than lieing to you. If they are like some other priests I know, they honestly think that is the case, they don’t understand sanation versus convalidation. They don’t deal with this too much.

You’re probably right. But I do find it odd that something so common is not clearly known by so many priests. At least our marriage is recognized now. I am grateful to God for that.

 

[Phemie]

You’re probably right. But I do find it odd that something so common is not clearly known by so many priests. At least our marriage is recognized now. I am grateful to God for that.

It’s not as common as some seem to think. From comments he’s made, I don’t think my pastor has ever dealt with an annulment case.

For a few years in our area of the diocese, a lay woman was the one who dealt with annulment cases for our area and she met the people in her home office. We at the parish rarely knew who was petitioning for one, particularly if they hadn’t been married in our parish so we had no decree coming back to us.

 

[Nomanibroke]

As a reply to the original post:

1. You are already sinning by being judgmental.
2. Marriage has long existed before Jesus Christ. Even the Church recognizes the validity of a civil marriage. Jesus has made marriage a sacrament. Therefore, even if you are married civilly, the sacrament of marriage is already bestowed upon you as long as you both are baptized Christians or Catholics.
3. I’m so happy none of you is God! Otherwise you’ll be tossing every soul to hell by the millions!

Cheers!

 

[Phemie]

As a reply to the original post:

1. You are already sinning by being judgmental.
2. Marriage has long existed before Jesus Christ. Even the Church recognizes the validity of a civil marriage. Jesus has made marriage a sacrament. Therefore, even if you are married civilly, the sacrament of marriage is already bestowed upon you as long as you both are baptized Christians or Catholics.
3. I’m so happy none of you is God! Otherwise you’ll be tossing every soul to hell by the millions!

Cheers!

You obviously don’t know Church teaching and Church law.

The Church recognizes the LEGALITY of a civil marriage. If one or both are Catholic, the Church does not recognize that marriage as VALID unless they had a dispensation to get married civilly.

 

[FAB]

1. Marriage has long existed before Jesus Christ. Even the Church recognizes the validity of a civil marriage. Jesus has made marriage a sacrament. Therefore, even if you are married civilly, the sacrament of marriage is already bestowed upon you as long as you both are baptized Christians or Catholics.

Cheers!

NO! the Church recongizes the legal status of a civil marrage , but it IS NOT sacramental.
Two Christians of a faith other tha Catholic have a sacramental marraige if witnessed by a preacher of their denomination, not a judge or other civil authority. It is sacramental and valid between a non-catholic and catholic if the proper dispinsations have been given for them to marry from the bishop. Two catholics it is sacrament and valid if witnessed by a preist or deacon.

Bottom line, it would be easier for all if a Christian couple would have the cerimony performed by a church to start with.