Sacramental Marrige

[mattnor]

I’m not a Catholic but am in RCIA currently. I’ve been married for 26 years,both Christian Baptised, and married in a Lutheran Church.I was informed that to go thru with the Confirmation/Initiation,that I would have to get a “convalidation of Marrige” first.Now,being the investigative guy that I am,I find that a Valid Marrige in a Christian Church is Sacramental and Valid in the Catholic Church as well. The only reason I can find for having to get it “convalidated” would be if I was already a Catholic and married ouside the canical form i.e The Catholic Church.My wife would “go along” with the Convalidation,but from what I read the Church would consider that day as the ““real” start of our marrige; a real sticking point with my wife of 26 years.If I can’t convince the my local Pastor of this,I’m thinking of trying the “radical Sanation” route to avoid having my wife humiliate herself getting “married” again so as to please The Church”.Does anyone have any thoughts,and if so please provide some ammo to use in my arguments?. Thanks much.

 

[OraEtLabora]

In 1981, Pope John Paul II issued* an apostolic exhortation called On the Family. Among other items in this groundbreaking document, he outlined practical suggestions for pastors and pastoral leaders when dealing with couples not married “in the Church.”

The pope cautioned that each situation should be examined case by case. He instructed pastors and pastoral leaders to make “tactful and respectful contact with the couples concerned and enlighten them patiently, correct them charitably and show them the witness of Christian family life in such a way as to smooth the path for them to regularize their situation.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

I would suggest that you read this exhortation. It will help you to understand the convalidation, but it will also enrich your understanding of family life as a Catholic.

To be straightforward (and this won’t be what you wanted to hear) the convalidation will be considered in the eyes of the church to be the date of your real marriage. You will however probably still have to use the date of your original marriage on certain legal documents for civil purposes. This does not mean that you need to reject the past 26 years of matrimonial union you have had with your wife, it merely recognizes the date on which your marriage came into full sacramental union with the church. I know this is difficult, and I wish you the best of luck!

 

[fullofzeal]

I was in a similar situation and my wifw didn’t pay much attention to the “start of marriage” being different than our previous invalid marriage. There isn’t any emphasis put on this aspect by those involved so don’t fret ,just do it

peace

 

[John_Higgins]

Matt,

Here’s the argument. If you wanted to get divorced and married to a Catholic today your current marriage would need to be annulled. The Church considers marriage between two Christians to be a valid sacramental marriage unless proven otherwise. So, if you would need to get it annulled, your current marriage is considered sacramental until proven otherwise.

Welcome to the Church and get ready to celebrate your 27th anniversary.

John

 

[CALDE]

Since the Church does not believe in Divorce, the only time an Annullment is granted is when there was no sacramental marrage in the first place.

 

[asquared]

Since the Church does not believe in Divorce, the only time an Annullment is granted is when there was no sacramental marrage in the first place.

this is not true. all marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise through an investigation by the marriage tribunal. a decree of nullity may be granted when the investigation shows that there was a defect in form (i.e. Catholic not married in the Church), a defect in natural law (i.e. incest, permanent impotence) or in consent (one or both parties was unable or did not consent to the marriage, i.e. “shotgun” wedding). A marriage between two baptized persons is considered sacramental. A marriage between two non-baptized persons, or one baptized and one non-baptized party, is a natural marriage, but if the necessary conditions are present, all 3 are valid marriages.

OP does not state that either he or his wife had been married previously, and he implies that both are baptized. If those circumstances are true they are both validly married and sacramentally married. No convalidation is necessary. However it is not possible to make a definitive statement about one individual specific case on this forum. OP should approach his priest about this, lay out all the facts about the marriage, for a determination. Relying on hearsay, or what happened to somebody else is useless. Every marriage situation is unique.

 

[axolotl]

Maybe i’m missing something here. I haven’t seen anything to indicate that his wife is Catholic. Nor have I seen anything to show this isn’t a first marriage for both of them.

Since they’re both baptized, their marriage is valid and sacramental.

I don’t see why he’d need a convalidation to join the Church.

And where is all this anullment talk coming from?

 

[mattnor]

Thanks for all the help. To answer some of the questions so far,both my wife and I have never been married before and are both Baptised Christians,married in a Lutheran Church.It sounds like I’m correct in that I don’t need the convalidation to join the Church,but what I really need is for somebody to either quote a Dogma or Canin,or point me in the right direction to get my “ducks” ib a row before I approach the pastor again wiht my argument.Remember,I’m dealing with a very nice pastor t my Parish,but he’s brand new to the Church in his role.And my Parish has saddled him with ALL things dealing with marrige;he’s overwealmed.Keep the posts comming I really apprieciate it.Matt

 

[puzzleannie]

this is a very basic question any priest should be able to answer, and if he has further questions he can call the marriage tribunal for clarification. You, the candidate, are not obligated to know the canon law and dogma for everything before you ask the priest, that is his job. I do hope your RCIA class will include good teaching on the sacrament of marriage, but you do not need your “ducks in a row” to ask the priest a question about a subject that should have been covered in your initial interview, or very shortly after you began your class. that is the parish responsibility, not yours, your part is just to state the facts about your personal situation.

forgot to say before, Welcome Home, we are so glad to have you, and praying for you on your journey.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m not a Catholic but am in RCIA currently. I’ve been married for 26 years,both Christian Baptised, and married in a Lutheran Church.I was informed that to go thru with the Confirmation/Initiation,that I would have to get a “convalidation of Marrige” first.Now,being the investigative guy that I am,I find that a Valid Marrige in a Christian Church is Sacramental and Valid in the Catholic Church as well. The only reason I can find for having to get it “convalidated” would be if I was already a Catholic and married ouside the canical form i.e The Catholic Church.My wife would “go along” with the Convalidation,but from what I read the Church would consider that day as the ““real” start of our marrige; a real sticking point with my wife of 26 years.If I can’t convince the my local Pastor of this,I’m thinking of trying the “radical Sanation” route to avoid having my wife humiliate herself getting “married” again so as to please The Church”.Does anyone have any thoughts,and if so please provide some ammo to use in my arguments?. Thanks much.

If you were Baptized and Lutheran (or not Catholic) and your wife was Baptized and Lutheran (or not Catholic) and neither of you had any prior marriages. Your Lutheran Marriage is most likely valid, Sacramental and needs nothing more done to be recognized by the Catholic Church. You need to ask why the pastor believes that the Marriage is lacking validity???

 

[puzzleannie]

.I was informed that to go thru with the Confirmation/Initiation,that I would have to get a “convalidation of Marrige” first…

who informed you of this? if it was indeed the priest you could just politely bring up the fact that your information is different, and respectfully ask him to research it with the tribunal if he is unsure of the rules.

 

[CALDE]

this is not true. all marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise through an investigation by the marriage tribunal. a decree of nullity may be granted when the investigation shows that there was a defect in form (i.e. Catholic not married in the Church), a defect in natural law (i.e. incest, permanent impotence) or in consent (one or both parties was unable or did not consent to the marriage, i.e. “shotgun” wedding). A marriage between two baptized persons is considered sacramental. A marriage between two non-baptized persons, or one baptized and one non-baptized party, is a natural marriage, but if the necessary conditions are present, all 3 are valid marriages.

OP does not state that either he or his wife had been married previously, and he implies that both are baptized. If those circumstances are true they are both validly married and sacramentally married. No convalidation is necessary. However it is not possible to make a definitive statement about one individual specific case on this forum. OP should approach his priest about this, lay out all the facts about the marriage, for a determination. Relying on hearsay, or what happened to somebody else is useless. Every marriage situation is unique.

The original post was in regards to OP having to marry in the Catholic Church in order to “validate” it.
The term is incorrect.
Although the marrage is valid, one cannot say that theirs is Sacramental, if the church which the marrage took place does’nt believe in Marrage as a Sacrament.
Therefore, what the Catholic Church is saying is that they would like to make their marrage of 26 years Sacramental.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The original post was in regards to OP having to marry in the Catholic Church in order to “validate” it.
The term is incorrect.
Although the marrage is valid, one cannot say that theirs is Sacramental, if the church which the marrage took place does’nt believe in Marrage as a Sacrament.
Therefore, what the Catholic Church is saying is that they would like to make their marrage of 26 years Sacramental.

As my dad would say “That does not hold much water!”

Any valid Marriage between two validly Baptized people is always a Sacrament.

This is seen in the way the Church handles a valid Marriage between a Baptized Christian and an un-Baptized person. which is NOT a Sacramental Marriage. However when the second un-Baptized person is validly Baptized, the Marriage becomes a Sacramental Marriage at the moment of their Baptism. Nothing else is required.

 

[CALDE]

As my dad would say “That does not hold much water!”

Any valid Marriage between two validly Baptized people is always a Sacrament.

This is seen in the way the Church handles a valid Marriage between a Baptized Christian and an un-Baptized person. which is NOT a Sacramental Marriage. However when the second un-Baptized person is validly Baptized, the Marriage becomes a Sacramental Marriage at the moment of their Baptism. Nothing else is required.

The word sacrament means, loosely defined, simbol.
Not to be confused with “Sacrament of the Catholic Church” which is a simbol of Gods love for us, which gives us sactifying grace for our salvation.
If a man and a woman marry “in” the Catholic Church, which believes in Marrage as one of the 7 Sacraments, which many Protestant Churches do not, then that marrage is Sacramental.
One cannot label an act in another church a Sacrament just because it looks like a Sacrament.
Belief has to be present.
Protestant Churches break bread and have communion, does this mean that they have the Holy Eucarist?
No, it does not.

 

[asquared]

This is a the Canon Law referend, for Calde
Can. 1055 ß1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

ß2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptized persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament

 

[cameron_lansing]

Canon 776 of the Eastern code is similar and its final paragraph incorporates Canon 1056 of the Latin code as well.

§1. The matrimonial covenant, established by the Creator and ordered by His laws, by which a man and woman by an irrevocable personal consent establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the generation and education of the offspring. §2. From the institution of Christ a valid marriage between baptized persons is by that very fact a sacrament, by which the spouses, in the image of an indefectible union of Christ with the Church, are united by God and, as it were, consecrated and strengthened by sacramental grace. §3. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in a marriage between baptized persons obtain a special firmness in virtue of the sacrament.

This reiterates the teaching in Casti Connubii which referenced canon 1012 of the former code, 39. And since the valid matrimonial consent among the faithful was constituted by Christ as a sign of grace, the sacramental nature is so intimately bound up with Christian wedlock that there can be no true marriage between baptized persons “without it being by that very fact a sacrament.”

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The word sacrament means, loosely defined, simbol.
Not to be confused with “Sacrament of the Catholic Church” which is a simbol of Gods love for us, which gives us sactifying grace for our salvation.
If a man and a woman marry “in” the Catholic Church, which believes in Marrage as one of the 7 Sacraments, which many Protestant Churches do not, then that marrage is Sacramental.
One cannot label an act in another church a Sacrament just because it looks like a Sacrament.
Belief has to be present.
Protestant Churches break bread and have communion, does this mean that they have the Holy Eucarist?
No, it does not.

The belief or non-belief of the person receiving the Sacrament matters not for the validity of the Sacrament. If a validly ordained priest celebrates a worship service in a Protestant community using the proper Form, Matter and Intent. Yes Holy Communion is received by all who receive, whther they believe or not.