Why must marriage be done in a church,etc?

[fakename]

Why must marriage be done in a church, with a priest, etc?

It seems that the two parties of a marriage really cause the sacrament, so the priest is superfluous since anyone can be a witness to the marriage and the sacrament would still hold its character.

Also, since God is everywhere, and since He causes everything good, surely He could cause a marriage. But when God causes a marriage, does that mean it becomes a sacrament, Since the two people perform the actions by which the sacrament imparts grace?

need help on this one…

 

[Califman831]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm The catechism section on marriage

 

[PerfectTiming]

Catechism:
1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ. In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but “one body” in Christ.

Hope that helps.

 

[Chen_Zhen]

Catechism:
1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ. In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but “one body” in Christ.

Hope that helps.

I think this (the above reference) is a good way to show the importance of the marriage union.

Please do not take this as the absolute truth but this is how I understand it:
The priest is also necessary and not superfluous and the OP says (that is a funny way to put it). The couple do confect the Sacrament because of their consent/will, but the priest is necessary to bless the marriage and it ensures that the couple has the intention of being married within the unity of Holy Mother Church.
Also, the ceremony is to be held in a church because this is where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass takes place.

If one really looks into the Sacrament of Marriage and does not focus on things like the “superfluous” priest, there is immense beauty to Christ elevating marriage to a Sacrament and the reasons behind the manner in which it is done. If more people understood how closely this union resembles Christ and His Church, they would be less likely to rush in and less likely to be unfaithful.

 

[Samuel63]

Here is an older reason for marriage in a church.

In the church you have to be accepted for marriage by the church. You have to submit to scrutiny of the community as well.

Without this, and think back about 1500 years, you could witness some woman that is expecting a child accuse someone else of being the father. And what would the community do? The logical course is make people get married before a public forum before having children. Everyone agrees and all is OK.

Without this agreement, you have … chaos!

Our Lord’s commandments look better all the time.

 

[TheMc]

Why must marriage be done in a church, with a priest, etc?

It seems that the two parties of a marriage really cause the sacrament, so the priest is superfluous since anyone can be a witness to the marriage and the sacrament would still hold its character.

Also, since God is everywhere, and since He causes everything good, surely He could cause a marriage. But when God causes a marriage, does that mean it becomes a sacrament, Since the two people perform the actions by which the sacrament imparts grace?

need help on this one…

Here’s one way to think about it:

You get ordained in a church
You get confirmed in a church
Heck, you celebrate Mass in a church
Confession, normally, is celebrated in a church
Anointing of the sick is not, for obvious reasons

A church is the place to celebrate the sacraments. Why is marriage any different? That’s what churches are for: celebrating the sacraments. You are declaring your consent before God, it is only fitting to do it in a church.

 

[PennyinCanada]

The Church has provided a great service by record keeping over the centuries. How else would we know who married who, and had babies, who grew and got married, and had babies, and when all of these persons died.

The question of why must be marriage done in a church seems to present it in a negative light, like I am perfectly capable of marrying with my fiancee without the church interfering. Certain persons *get the privilege *of being married in a church. Such a great moment in one’s life calls for the King of kings to be present! I know I saw plenty of Sir Elton John with his life partner present at the recent royal wedding. I would rather have a humble servant of God, a priest, and Christ the King at mine. He didn’t turn water to wine but wine to His Precious Blood. How incredible is that? :bowdown2::heaven:

 

[fakename]

Catechism:
1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ. In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but “one body” in Christ.

Hope that helps.

This is still difficult for me because if the celebration of a marriage in church is so important, then why should such a celebration be open to things like dispensations of form or dispensations of cult?

 

[brianwalden]

The requirement to be married in a church (or more specifically to be have permission from your bishop to marry) is a matter of discipline not doctrine. That’s why there can be dispensations and whatnot. It is really the couple who marries themselves (which is why, for example, Protestant marriages are valid).

The original reason for the discipline is to prevent people from running off and getting married in secret without others knowing it. Today, this is perhaps (in my opinion), not as much of a problem as it once was. In America, at least, everyone gets married by their state which is a matter of public record. Of course, there are many other problems with the marriages people attempt to enter into today. One can be a faithful Catholic and still advocate for the Church to change this discipline.

 

[fakename]

The requirement to be married in a church (or more specifically to be have permission from your bishop to marry) is a matter of discipline not doctrine. That’s why there can be dispensations and whatnot. It is really the couple who marries themselves (which is why, for example, Protestant marriages are valid).

The original reason for the discipline is to prevent people from running off and getting married in secret without others knowing it. Today, this is perhaps (in my opinion), not as much of a problem as it once was. In America, at least, everyone gets married by their state which is a matter of public record. Of course, there are many other problems with the marriages people attempt to enter into today. One can be a faithful Catholic and still advocate for the Church to change this discipline.

Then why should those parts of the Catechism so unequivocal about the necessity of a minister, the reception of the Eucharist, etc.?

 

[brianwalden]

Then why should those parts of the Catechism so unequivocal about the necessity of a minister, the reception of the Eucharist, etc.?

Read the catechism closely. It says receiving the Eucharist is fitting, not necessary. And indeed it is fitting, the Eucharist and Marriage are intimately related. I was validly married in a Presbyterian Church (I got permission to do so).

About a minister:

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means:

• not being under constraint;

• not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

• Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);

• The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

It’s clear that the parties needed for a marriage are a baptized man and woman. It explains why a minister is normally required: there are very good consequences from doing so. But since a minister isn’t theologically required, the Church permits exceptions. I for one am lucky that She does. If I hadn’t gotten validly married I likely wouldn’t be Catholic today (I wasn’t practicing at the time when we were preparing for marriage). And If I had to get married at a Catholic Mass to get validly married, I wouldn’t have gotten validly married. Going through Catholic marriage preparation is a big reason why I’m Catholic today.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why must marriage be done in a church, with a priest, etc?

It seems that the two parties of a marriage really cause the sacrament, so the priest is superfluous since anyone can be a witness to the marriage and the sacrament would still hold its character.

…

wrong, the witness to the marriage of a Catholic must be ordained. and no there would be no sacrament if the Catholic did not adhere to Catholic law on marriage. part of that means, except in extraordinary circumstances, that it take place in a sacred space.

if “God is everywhere” meant sacraments could be celebrated anywhere we would have Mass on the beach

I suggest you begin with all the OT language on building the Temple for God’s (name removed by moderator)ut on what sacred space means

 

[brianwalden]

wrong, the witness to the marriage of a Catholic must be ordained. and no there would be no sacrament if the Catholic did not adhere to Catholic law on marriage. part of that means, except in extraordinary circumstances, that it take place in a sacred space.

if “God is everywhere” meant sacraments could be celebrated anywhere we would have Mass on the beach

I suggest you begin with all the OT language on building the Temple for God’s (name removed by moderator)ut on what sacred space means

I think you’re being overly strict. What’s strictly necessary for the sacrament to take place are the consent of a man and a woman who are free to marry.

The requirements for a minister and for marriage to take place at a church are discipline but not doctrine. They are not essential for the sacrament in and of itself - this is why Protestant marriages are valid. The reason why marriages by Catholics who attempt to marry civilly are invalid is because canon law imposes the discipline upon them that they cannot consent to marriage without the Church’s permission.

 

[puzzleannie]

I think you’re being overly strict. What’s strictly necessary for the sacrament to take place are the consent of a man and a woman who are free to marry.

.

this is a Catholic site, OP is asking about marriage for a Catholic, since only Catholics are required to be married in church. no I am not strict. if OP cares to go the Sacraments forum he will find a dozen discussions of his question that give all the paragraphs and cites. I am not strict at all because I don’t make up my own rules, only repeat the rules that already exist.

 

[brianwalden]

this is a Catholic site, OP is asking about marriage for a Catholic, since only Catholics are required to be married in church. no I am not strict. if OP cares to go the Sacraments forum he will find a dozen discussions of his question that give all the paragraphs and cites. I am not strict at all because I don’t make up my own rules, only repeat the rules that already exist.

I was under the impression that the OP was asking about the nature of the sacrament itself. If this isn’t what he was asking I apologize.

The requirement for a minister is not doctrinal just as the requirement for priests to be unmarried is not doctrinal. You are not clear in your advice. You said, “wrong, the witness to the marriage of a Catholic must be ordained” but this is not true. A Catholic must, under canon law, have permission from his Ordinary to marry (in practice most people get this from a priest who has authority from the Bishop to provide such permission). If a Catholic is marrying a non-Catholic he can get permission to marry without necessarily being married by a minister (priest, deacon, etc.).

P.S. you can have Mass on the beach. It’s not the location that makes a Mass valid, the sacraments can take place anywhere (think of military chaplains saying Mass on the hood of a jeep).