H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Of course the church could change it. She should.
- Status
M
Minion_w_a_drum
Guest
This was what I thought would be the case. I just don’t understand how being in a non sacramental marriage can be anything but mortal sin. As a civilly divorced catholic with no annulment, I can go out today and enter into a non sacramental marriage and it is my understanding I would be committing mortal sin.
As far as your next comment, about the requirement of knowing you are committing a sin, I’m sure there are plenty of people who are married that are certain their marriage is flawed to a point of being invalid. It is my understanding that the tribunals only take their best shot at determining whether it is valid or not. The people in the marriage are the ones that know for certain. Tribunals basically only opine on the validity, based on evidence given to them. Their opinion then becomes fact (in regards to the Church)
My question is, for those who know their marriage is invalid (maybe their spouse basically told them information about their state of mind at marriage time.) For those people, are they in sin by staying in such a marriage? I know anyone could change at any time, but they also could die at any time too, which would not allow the proper conversion to take place.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
How did you come to this conclusion? In other words, how do you define “natural” and “sacramental” marriage?
Dan
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
A sacramental marriage occurs between 2 baptized people with full knowledge and consent.
Otherwise it is still a marriage but not sacramental. A natural marriage.
The church recognizes all marriages everywhere and presumes their validity. Rightly so.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
The issue is first marriages verses second marriage in this.
All first marriages are presumed valid and even if there was a “problem” of consent or knowledge it is still a marriage.
A second marriage can never be a marriage. So the same presumption does not apply. That is why when one gets an annulment it says that one was never sacramentally married to begin with and can therefore contract a first marriage.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
The church does not recognize all marriages. Ssm and polygamist ones are two examples.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
It seems that such a person would only “know” as much as the person revealed and wouldn’t necessarily “know” the marriage is invalid.
Whenever people enter into a contract that is recognized by the law of the Church, I don’t see how it can be said that a Party would be “in sin” for abiding by the terms of that contract. What the other Party says or does, after the fact, is irrelevant.
Dan
D
dans0622
Guest
“Otherwise” referring only to the baptismal status of the Parties or…do you mean “otherwise” includes two baptized people who marry *without *“full knowledge and consent” and so this, too, would be a “natural marriage”?
Dan
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Those aren’t marriages.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
It would be presumed sacramental if the two parties are baptized. If they aren’t baptized it would be a “natural marriage”
D
dans0622
Guest
Ok. … I guess I am not sure what the distinction between “sacramental” and “natural” marriage has to do with the situation presented in the OP. Maybe I missed something.
Dan
P
Phemie
Guest
I think the word you’re looking for is “putative”. Nothing in either scenarios described by the OP leads us to believe that one party is not baptized, a requirement for a natural marriage.
If the marriage would have been declared invalid by a Tribunal but they believed it to be valid it was a putative marriage.
An invalid marriage can neither be natural, nor sacramental, since it doesn’t exist.
P
PRmerger
Guest
An annulment can never be granted until a civil divorce is first granted.
P
Phemie
Guest
We know. In the OP’s 2nd scenario the couple in the invalid marriage doesn’t divorce and never seeks a decree of nullity.
P
PRmerger
Guest
- Status