Vocabulary question: Convalidation

[runningdude]

This is a question about the semantic construct of the word convalidation. The concept of “convalidation” is taking a putative (invalid) marriage, and turning into a valid, usually sacramental marriage.

However, does the term “convalidation”, mostly literally mean “Co-validating”, as in the church working with another party to validate the marriage, or does it mean “infusing with validity” for the first time?

The word seems to often be used with “co-validating” meaning, as a euphemism for a first wedding between an invalidly married couple. But is it simply a polite term, or it is a technical term, as in the latter definition, somewhat misused due to its confusing construct?

 

[agapewolf]

This is a question about the semantic construct of the word convalidation. The concept of “convalidation” is taking a putative (invalid) marriage, and turning into a valid, usually sacramental marriage.

However, does the term “convalidation”, mostly literally mean “Co-validating”, as in the church working with another party to validate the marriage, or does it mean “infusing with validity” for the first time?

The word seems to often be used with “co-validating” meaning, as a euphemism for a first wedding between an invalidly married couple. But is it simply a polite term, or it is a technical term, as in the latter definition, somewhat misused due to its confusing construct?

I believe it is referring to the fact that the priest is acting merely as a minister of the church, and not legally, as he usually does when witnessing a marriage (in USA). It most certainly IS the actual wedding of a couple as they are not married before the the church recognizes them so.

 

[PacoG]

I hope that the Church doesn’t massacre the English language like the legal profession does with the co- and con- prefixes. I really hope that the parties to a convalidation are not co-convalidators.

Look what the legal profession (and I think the media is responsible for spreading this) has done with those engaged in a conspiracy.

Conspire: Latin for to breath with…simple freshlaw Criminal Law class concept…when two or more people get together to plan and commit a crime.

• Used to be: participants in a conspiracy: (really old Common Law) were called *conspirants, or *(modern–since about 1700s) conspirators.
• Since 1970s: co-conspirators.

So co-conspirators are “breathing with with.” I could understand if co-conspirators were a second level of people who were remotely involved or played minor roles. However, all members of a conspiracy are referred to as co-conspirators in indictments and legal forms.

This has turned into the rantings on language of a 43 year old criminal law attorney. I better stop.

 

[jimrob]

The word comes from the latin where putting con- on the beginning of a verb strengthens it. Convalidation merely means the act of making something valid. There is no suggestion of sharing the validity with another authority.

The existence of the rite of convalidation is an example of the Church making a rod for our own backs and then having to find a solution. Sexual morality is an important feature of the Catholic faith and we therefore need to make strict rules as to who is and who is not married. However, the Church also recognises that a valid marriage is not conveyed by a clergyman, government official or ship’s captain, but by the couple themselves. Different authorities require different witnesses and will not recognise a marriage that has not been correctly witnessed and recorded. That leaves the Church in the awkward position of having to deal with people who have entered into a contract of marriage that the Church finds technically invalid. Therefore we need a rite to make such a marriage valid.

 

[ProVobis]

I hope that the Church doesn’t massacre the English language like the legal profession does with the co- and con- prefixes. I really hope that the parties to a convalidation are not co-convalidators.

Look what the legal profession (and I think the media is responsible for spreading this) has done with those engaged in a conspiracy.

FWIW:

• 1. com- with, together

[com- before b, p, m;
cor- before r;
col- before l;
co- before h, gn and usually before vowels;
con- before all other consonants.]

class.uidaho.edu/luschnig/EWO/24.htm

 

[PacoG]

FWIW:

• 1. com- with, together

[com- before b, p, m;
cor- before r;
col- before l;
co- before h, gn and usually before vowels;
con- before all other consonants.]

class.uidaho.edu/luschnig/EWO/24.htm

It still doesn’t convalidate the redundant co-conspirator.

 

[1ke]

I have never heard the term co-validating and the Church nowhere uses that term.

 

[FrDavid96]

This is a question about the semantic construct of the word convalidation. The concept of “convalidation” is taking a putative (invalid) marriage, and turning into a valid, usually sacramental marriage.

However, does the term “convalidation”, mostly literally mean “Co-validating”, as in the church working with another party to validate the marriage, or does it mean “infusing with validity” for the first time?

The word seems to often be used with “co-validating” meaning, as a euphemism for a first wedding between an invalidly married couple. But is it simply a polite term, or it is a technical term, as in the latter definition, somewhat misused due to its confusing construct?

What it means is that the marriage is already “valid” in the legal sense that the couple is considered married by the state. The marriage exists as a legal entity under civil law. Convalidation means that it becomes also-a-sacrament; so that it is valid legally and valid sacramentally.

When a couple gets married (first time) usually the priest acts as a minister of the Church and a representative of the state at the same time, so only one ceremony is necessary (in the US).

If two Catholics get married by a judge, the marriage is a valid one as far as civil law is concerned. They are later married sacramentally by convalidation but there is no legal paperwork involved because as far as the state is concerned the marriage already exists.

 

[ProVobis]

It still doesn’t convalidate the redundant co-conspirator.

Fair point. But is this any more or less redundant than “consubstantial with”?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What it means is that the marriage is already “valid” in the legal sense that the couple is considered married by the state. The marriage exists as a legal entity under civil law. Convalidation means that it becomes also-a-sacrament; so that it is valid legally and valid sacramentally.

When a couple gets married (first time) usually the priest acts as a minister of the Church and a representative of the state at the same time, so only one ceremony is necessary (in the US).

If two Catholics get married by a judge, the marriage is a valid one as far as civil law is concerned. They are later married sacramentally by convalidation but there is no legal paperwork involved because as far as the state is concerned the marriage already exists.

Side question but one that has been bothering me due to another thread. We’ve been married 22 years total (23 this year) but were married in the Church on our 10th anniversary. We are both Catholic but were both lapsed when we married in front of a judge.

I know that as far as the Church is concerned, we’ve been married only 12 years, but we can’t just erase that previous 10 years and say we weren’t really married, can we?

 

[runningdude]

I have never heard the term co-validating and the Church nowhere uses that term.

No, Its not a real term. It would be abominable to use it as a real term, but I’m using it to illustrate one of the potential definitions of convalidation, the proper term.

 

[PacoG]

Fair point. But is this any more or less redundant than “consubstantial with”?

Sounds like a chocolate drink Co-consubstantial.

That is awfully redundant. The Church shouldn’t follow the path of redundancy that the legal profession has with phrases such as “It is adjudged, ordered and decreed.”

 

[runningdude]

What it means is that the marriage is already “valid” in the legal sense that the couple is considered married by the state. The marriage exists as a legal entity under civil law. Convalidation means that it becomes also-a-sacrament; so that it is valid legally and valid sacramentally.

The word comes from the latin where putting con- on the beginning of a verb strengthens it. Convalidation merely means the act of making something valid. There is no suggestion of sharing the validity with another authority.

Thank you for illustrating the points - these are the two competing connotations of the word that I’m trying to analyze. Both are correct, as far as practice goes, i.e., validating before the eyes of God, a marriage that is legal before the eyes of man.

However, I’m really trying to discern the denotation, the literal meaning of the word. As PacoGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif said, the meanings of the co, col, con prefixed have been so butchered by modern English, and I’m trying to figure out what the Church is actually trying to say when it uses the term.

Some additional information that might be helpful would be the history of the term. When was it first used? Is it direct translation of legal term in Latin, or is it simply an English word using a Latin construct?

I know this is a nitty-gritty question , and I appreciate you patience!

 

[runningdude]

Fair point. But is this any more or less redundant than “consubstantial with”?

Sounds like a chocolate drink Co-consubstantial.

That is awfully redundant. The Church shouldn’t follow the path of redundancy that the legal profession has with phrases such as “It is adjudged, ordered and decreed.”

Well, the English term conspirator itself literally means “a party to a conspiracy”. Really, it has no other meaning, as there can be no one person conspiracy, and co-conspirator could only properly refer to a distantly or less involved conspirator.

However “consubstantial with” is simply the way to fit the Latin term into English. In Latin, this problem doesn’t exist: “consubstantiálem Patri” (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Latin_liturgical_version).

Possibly, the Latin “-em” suffix works similarly to the “with” in English (something about accusative declination indicating the “Patri - Father” being object of the sentence), but Latin grammar is too complex for me to quickly parse . (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case)

 

[PacoG]

Well, the English term conspirator itself literally means “a party to a conspiracy”. Really, it has no other meaning, as there can be no one person conspiracy, and co-conspirator could only properly refer to a distantly or less involved conspirator.

To sound totally like a lawyer, that would be true if that was true. That is not how it is used.

In every charging instrument I have ever seen (indictments, informations, complaints), the term “co-conspirator” is used to refer to all conspirators regardless of level of involvement.

Not to be contrary, this is a term that gets scorned by members of the defense bar. It’s what is scornfully (and playfully) referred to as prosecutorese. Co-conspirator is* prosecutores*e for conspirator.

It’s like the phrase “home invasion” (which is police-ese for burglary) has crept into the vernacular. A “home invasion” is what the rest of the world used to call a “burglary.”

 

[ProVobis]

However “consubstantial with” is simply the way to fit the Latin term into English. In Latin, this problem doesn’t exist: “consubstantiálem Patri” (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Latin_liturgical_version).

Possibly, the Latin “-em” suffix works similarly to the “with” in English (something about accusative declination indicating the “Patri - Father” being object of the sentence), but Latin grammar is too complex for me to quickly parse . (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case)

An old 19th century handmissal actually has “consubstantial TO the Father” which is probably more literal since Patri in the dative case. It’s a beautiful thing in an inflective language like Latin but it’s a tough thing to grasp in the English, though.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, the English term conspirator itself literally means “a party to a conspiracy”. Really, it has no other meaning, as there can be no one person conspiracy, and co-conspirator could only properly refer to a distantly or less involved conspirator.

I didn’t look it up but it seems “conspirator” comes from con(with)+spirare(breathe). Breathing together? Co-conspiracy would be breathing together together.

 

[FAB]

What it means is that the marriage is already “valid” in the legal sense that the couple is considered married by the state. The marriage exists as a legal entity under civil law. Convalidation means that it becomes also-a-sacrament; so that it is valid legally and valid sacramentally.

When a couple gets married (first time) usually the priest acts as a minister of the Church and a representative of the state at the same time, so only one ceremony is necessary (in the US).

If two Catholics get married by a judge, the marriage is a valid one as far as civil law is concerned. They are later married sacramentally by convalidation but there is no legal paperwork involved because as far as the state is concerned the marriage already exists.

I would add, that if one or both of the spouses are Catholic the church does not view them as married. So the term to Convalite is missleading. The marriage exist in civil terms only, so when a couple is united according to the laws of Church, then at that point they are considered to be in a valid marrage by the Church, That is were the marriage begins, even if they has been in a civil marriage with children for 20 years. In this understanding the Church is not con-validating the couple, it is the marriage.
This is from a cabon layer that is the head of the trubunal for my diocese.

 

[FrDavid96]

I would add, that if one or both of the spouses are Catholic the church does not view them as married. So the term to Convalite is missleading. The marriage exist in civil terms only, so when a couple is united according to the laws of Church, then at that point they are considered to be in a valid marrage by the Church, That is were the marriage begins, even if they has been in a civil marriage with children for 20 years. In this understanding the Church is not con-validating the couple, it is the marriage.
This is from a cabon layer that is the head of the trubunal for my diocese.

It is the sacrament of marriage which exists from the convalidation onward.

Marriage as a purely civil & legal institution under the laws of the state exists first. The Church does not deny that civil-only marriages exist, even if they involve 2 Catholics.

 

[Vico]

This is a question about the semantic construct of the word convalidation. The concept of “convalidation” is taking a putative (invalid) marriage, and turning into a valid, usually sacramental marriage.

However, does the term “convalidation”, mostly literally mean “Co-validating”, as in the church working with another party to validate the marriage, or does it mean “infusing with validity” for the first time?

The word seems to often be used with “co-validating” meaning, as a euphemism for a first wedding between an invalidly married couple. But is it simply a polite term, or it is a technical term, as in the latter definition, somewhat misused due to its confusing construct?

Simple or retroactive validation makes the marriage valid from the moment of the declaration of validity. That moment is when the sacramental grace is available for those married both baptised. The retroactive effect is only of canonical effects.

** Etymology of the Latin word convalidare **

the Medieval Latin word convalidare (validate, make valid)
using the Latin prefix con- (together)
derived from the Latin prefix com-
derived from the Latin word cum (with)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *kom (near, with, together)

derived from the Vulgar Latin word validare
derived from the Latin word validus (strong, powerful; valid)
derived from the Late Latin word valere (be strong, powerful, influential; farewell, goodbye, adieu)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *wal-

myetymology.com/latin/convalidare.html