Why must married couples abstain until their marriage is blessed?

[chain]

I understand that the Catholic Church recognizes Christian baptisms (if in correct form).

I also understand that the Catholic Church reviews prior (including non-Catholic) marriages to deterimine if they were valid before blessing or performing a subsequent marrage. This implies to me that a non-Catholic marrage could be recognized as valid.

So other than the possibility of committing adultery (if the current marriage is invalid) why should the married couple abstain until their marriage is blessed? Especially since that process can easily last 1-2 years (due to RCIA or tribunal).

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

HI Chain, I never herd of this, I know they recognize your marraige so if they do you shouldbe able to act as a married couple. Nancy

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

Catholics who marry outside the Church must go through the proper channels with their priest to be approved, otherwise the marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church. If it’s not valid, then the couple is cohabitating (a mortal sin). Only Catholics are bound by this requirement.

Non-Catholic Christians married by a clergyman are considered to have a valid marriage that will then be blessed when they enter the Church (as we did). Because it is valid, they can behave as married because, in the eyes of the Church, they are.

Now, if a non-Catholic Christian, married by a clergyman, has been divorced and is going to marry a Catholic, the previous marriage must undergo the examination of the Tribunal to determine if an annulment may be granted.

If a non-Catholic Christian couple is going to enter the Church and there has been a divorce in the past of one or both of them, then they must live as brother and sister until it has been determined that the past marriages were invalid and the couple can now marry in the Church.

These requirement are safeguards for the souls of the couples involved.

Hope this helps!
Tracy

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Catholics who marry outside the Church must go through the proper channels with their priest to be approved, otherwise the marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church. If it’s not valid, then the couple is cohabitating (a mortal sin). Only Catholics are bound by this requirement.

Non-Catholic Christians married by a clergyman are considered to have a valid marriage that will then be blessed when they enter the Church (as we did). Because it is valid, they can behave as married because, in the eyes of the Church, they are.

Now, if a non-Catholic Christian, married by a clergyman, has been divorced and is going to marry a Catholic, the previous marriage must undergo the examination of the Tribunal to determine if an annulment may be granted.

If a non-Catholic Christian couple is going to enter the Church and there has been a divorce in the past of one or both of them, then they must live as brother and sister until it has been determined that the past marriages were invalid and the couple can now marry in the Church.

These requirement are safeguards for the souls of the couples involved.

Hope this helps!
Tracy

Tracy, If you are a Catholic and marry a non Catholic and he wants to be a Catholic and is going to classes for it and you are recieving communion but he cannot do you have to live as brother and sister until all the annulment and re marraige is done?

 

[chain]

I suspect weather or not your marriage has been blessed would matter (if not, I suspect you should ask your priest if you can receive communion as a Catholic).

My personal interest is more in former/fallen Catholics. I can see the necessity for the Church to withhold sacraments until a marriage is blessed - for the public good to prevent the possibility of scandal. I can see the absence as a good thing for the couple to prevent the possibly of Adultery (if their marriage is untimely invalid and can not be blessed).

But in cases where cohabitation is required (children), and sacraments are duly suspended - I do not fully understand why abstinence is required rather than merely highly encouraged (especially when the abstinence itself puts the couple at risk for serious sin (1Cor 7 warns about abstaining during marriage - so dealing with a possible sin versus a certain one)

 

[Corki]

I suspect weather or not your marriage has been blessed would matter (if not, I suspect you should ask your priest if you can receive communion as a Catholic).

My personal interest is more in former/fallen Catholics. I can see the necessity for the Church to withhold sacraments until a marriage is blessed - for the public good to prevent the possibility of scandal. I can see the absence as a good thing for the couple to prevent the possibly of Adultery (if their marriage is untimely invalid and can not be blessed).

But in cases where cohabitation is required (children), and sacraments are duly suspended - I do not fully understand why abstinence is required rather than merely highly encouraged (especially when the abstinence itself puts the couple at risk for serious sin (1Cor 7 warns about abstaining during marriage - so dealing with a possible sin versus a certain one)

ok, let me see if I understand this. The situation you are describing is a baptized Catholic who fell away from practicing his/her faith and married a non-Catholic Christian in a wedding that was not in a Catholic Church or with dispensation. Right.

In that case, the wedding is invalid. It will never be found to be valid. A Catholic who marries outside of the Church does not enter into a valid marriage. That marriage can be convalidated by the priest but it does not take years and the tribunal isn’t involved. The couple must behave as if they are unmarried, because they are unmarried.

---

What is confusing to some is that, if neither party was a baptized Catholic, their marriage would be considered valid (assuming there was no impediment like a former marriage). If they decided to become Catholic, their marriage would be blessed when they come into the Church to make it Sacramental. But it would already be considered a valid marriage. That couple does not have to behave as if they are unmarried prior to their marriage becoming blessed.

 

[Drawmack]

Catholics who marry outside the Church must go through the proper channels with their priest to be approved, otherwise the marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church. If it’s not valid, then the couple is cohabitating (a mortal sin). Only Catholics are bound by this requirement.

Non-Catholic Christians married by a clergyman are considered to have a valid marriage that will then be blessed when they enter the Church (as we did). Because it is valid, they can behave as married because, in the eyes of the Church, they are.

I don’t understand something here. In a marriage the couple marries each other and the priest or deacon simply officiates. But, two Catholics who marry without a priest or deacon officiating are not considered validly married by default. However, if two non-Catholics marry in front of clergy, but not Catholic clergy, the marriage is valid. This doesn’t make any sense. Either the sacrament is validly performed or it’s not. Something cannot be both A and not A at the same time, but that is exactly what this says.

 

[Drawmack]

But in cases where cohabitation is required (children), and sacraments are duly suspended - I do not fully understand why abstinence is required rather than merely highly encouraged (especially when the abstinence itself puts the couple at risk for serious sin (1Cor 7 warns about abstaining during marriage - so dealing with a possible sin versus a certain one)

Because in Catholic theology marital intercourse is a renewal of the marriage sacrament. You cannot renew a sacrament that does not exist. That is a mortal sin.

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

Either the sacrament is validly performed or it’s not. Something cannot be both A and not A at the same time, but that is exactly what this says.

A Catholic is bound by Catholic teaching.

The other aspect is to say that just having someone witness the marriage would mean that even a judge or a buddy could do the same.

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

Tracy, If you are a Catholic and marry a non Catholic and he wants to be a Catholic and is going to classes for it and you are recieving communion but he cannot do you have to live as brother and sister until all the annulment and re marraige is done?

That depends on if you were married in the Catholic Church to begin with or at least had a dispensation from the Church to marry in another church. If one of those requirements has been met, then you are validly married.

However, if you were married outside the Church without a dispensation, then you are not validly married and should live as brother and sister.

The issue of whether or not he’s becoming Catholic does not affect the situation. As long as your marriage is valid you continue to receive the sacraments as usual.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I suspect weather or not your marriage has been blessed would matter (if not, I suspect you should ask your priest if you can receive communion as a Catholic).

My personal interest is more in former/fallen Catholics. I can see the necessity for the Church to withhold sacraments until a marriage is blessed - for the public good to prevent the possibility of scandal. I can see the absence as a good thing for the couple to prevent the possibly of Adultery (if their marriage is untimely invalid and can not be blessed).

But in cases where cohabitation is required (children), and sacraments are duly suspended - I do not fully understand why abstinence is required rather than merely highly encouraged (especially when the abstinence itself puts the couple at risk for serious sin (1Cor 7 warns about abstaining during marriage - so dealing with a possible sin versus a certain one)

Not only that but it can cause a withdrawal symptom to just like if you were taking medicine and withdrew all at once there would be some consequences.

 

[Corki]

I don’t understand something here. In a marriage the couple marries each other and the priest or deacon simply officiates. But, two Catholics who marry without a priest or deacon officiating are not considered validly married by default. However, if two non-Catholics marry in front of clergy, but not Catholic clergy, the marriage is valid. This doesn’t make any sense. Either the sacrament is validly performed or it’s not. Something cannot be both A and not A at the same time, but that is exactly what this says.

It does seem contradictory, doesn’t it. But there are two issues:

1. The Church does not control the actions of non-Catholics. There is no way two non-Catholics could marry according to the laws of the Church. To consider those marriages invalid would be illogical since there is no way for them to be celbrated according to the laws of the Church.
2. All Sacraments must have valid form, matter and intent. When a Catholic gets married outside the Church without dispensation he/she has a Sacrament with valid matter (the couple exchanging vows), valid intent (to get married) but an invalid form (not following the laws of the Church on marriage). For non-Catholics, the form the Church looks at is the form required by their own Church (Protestant) at the time of their marriage. Most Protestant denominations are pretty relaxed about marriage and don’t have strict requirements.

And the Church has every right to expect that, unlike the non-Catholics, that Catholics will follow the laws of the Church regarding Sacraments.

 

[Corki]

Not only that but it can cause a withdrawal symptom to just like if you were taking medicine and withdrew all at once there would be some consequences.

But if the only thing invalidating the marriage is lack of form by getting married outside the Church, the “withdrawl” will be quite short. Convalidations don’t take long to arrange and priests are usually eager to normalize the family. If a couple can’t take a few weeks of abstinence, they have much bigger problems.

If, on the other hand, the couple weren’t free to marry in the first place (if, for example, there was a previous marriage), there is a real chance that the impediment (former marriage) cannot be removed. In which case, they won’t be able to get validly married for a long time and might need to get used to an alternate scenario. If a former marriage is going to a tribunal to be examined, it would be unwise to prepresume the response they are hoping for.

 

[Drawmack]

A Catholic is bound by Catholic teaching.

The other aspect is to say that just having someone witness the marriage would mean that even a judge or a buddy could do the same.

That is simply untrue. That Catholic Church says that if a Baptist minister weds two Baptists they are validly married, but that if a Baptist minister weds two Catholics they may not be validly married. Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that something is A and not A at the same time. Either the Baptist minister performs valid marriages or he does not, which is it? The problem is with only calling the validity into question when those married are Catholic.

 

[Drawmack]

It does seem contradictory, doesn’t it. But there are two issues:

1. The Church does not control the actions of non-Catholics. There is no way two non-Catholics could marry according to the laws of the Church. To consider those marriages invalid would be illogical since there is no way for them to be celbrated according to the laws of the Church.
2. All Sacraments must have valid form, matter and intent. When a Catholic gets married outside the Church without dispensation he/she has a Sacrament with valid matter (the couple exchanging vows), valid intent (to get married) but an invalid form (not following the laws of the Church on marriage). For non-Catholics, the form the Church looks at is the form required by their own Church (Protestant) at the time of their marriage. Most Protestant denominations are pretty relaxed about marriage and don’t have strict requirements.

And the Church has every right to expect that, unlike the non-Catholics, that Catholics will follow the laws of the Church regarding Sacraments.

That seems to make sense. But it raises another question. What constitutes valid form for this sacrament? After all the Catholic Church recognizes sacraments (i.e. baptism) practiced by other denominations because it has valid form. It does not require a priest, deacons can marry people, so what does constitute a valid marriage?

 

[Corki]

That seems to make sense. But it raises another question. What constitutes valid form for this sacrament? After all the Catholic Church recognizes sacraments (i.e. baptism) practiced by other denominations because it has valid form. It does not require a priest, deacons can marry people, so what does constitute a valid marriage?

A valid form for marriage is the free exhange of vows, in front of witnesses, according to the rules of the couple’s church.

The Church recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics even if no clergy is involved (ie justice of the peace wedding) as long as it is allowed by thier own church.

In the case of a wedding with a Catholic, it is the Catholic who is "practicing’ the Sacrament and doing so illicitly unless they are following the rules of the Catholic Church. The very fact that this Sacrament, like no other, is ministered by the couple themselves, means that they are the ones responsible for the validity. If one is Catholic, that responsibility is to follow Church law on marriage.

Baptism is the only Sacrament that the Church recognizes when completed by a non-Catholic, in a non-Catholic venue. For example, a Catholic who goes to an Episcopal Church for Confirmation, is not viewed as having received the Sacrament of Confirmation until it is repeated in a Catholic Church.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

But if the only thing invalidating the marriage is lack of form by getting married outside the Church, the “withdrawl” will be quite short. Convalidations don’t take long to arrange and priests are usually eager to normalize the family. If a couple can’t take a few weeks of abstinence, they have much bigger problems.

If, on the other hand, the couple weren’t free to marry in the first place (if, for example, there was a previous marriage), there is a real chance that the impediment (former marriage) cannot be removed. In which case, they won’t be able to get validly married for a long time and might need to get used to an alternate scenario. If a former marriage is going to a tribunal to be examined, it would be unwise to prepresume the response they are hoping for.

Contre, if the one person is Catholic and the other is not and has never been baptized then you will have to wait a year for RCIA right? But it can be done, I know. God Bless Nancy

 

[Corki]

That is simply untrue. That Catholic Church says that if a Baptist minister weds two Baptists they are validly married, but that if a Baptist minister weds two Catholics they may not be validly married. Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that something is A and not A at the same time. Either the Baptist minister performs valid marriages or he does not, which is it? The problem is with only calling the validity into question when those married are Catholic.

Sorry, I was reading from the bottom up. If I had responded to this first, my last post might have been clearer.

Here’s the problem, I think.

a **Baptist minister weds **two Baptists they are validly married, but that if a Baptist minister weds two Catholics they may not be validly married

In the Sacrament of marriage the minister is the couple, not the clergyman. So it isn’t correct to say “the Baptist minister weds”. The Baptist minister witnesses the couple in the Sacrament.

Either the Baptist minister performs valid marriages or he does not, which is it?

He doesn’t. The only marriage a Baptist minister can perform is his own along with his wife.

The Church isn’t ruling on the Baptist minister’s abilty. She is saying that if you are Catholic, you must follow the rules when you want to be a minister of the Sacrament of Marriage. By not following the rules, a Catholic is actually committing a sin by attempting to marry assuming he/she knew he/she was required to get married in the Church. It would not make any sense that a person could sin by Sacrament.

 

[Corki]

Contre, if the one person is Catholic and the other is not and has never been baptized then you will have to wait a year for RCIA right? But it can be done, I know. God Bless Nancy

RCIA is not a pre-condition for marriage. If a couple was engaged, I think the priest might delay the wedding until after the non-Catholic had finished RCIA just for simplicity. But Catholics can marry non-baptized persons with dispensation. The marriage is considered valid but not Sacramental. If the couple is already living together in a civilly legal but invalid marriage, I would think that the more prudent course would be to have a simple non-Sacramental but Catholic wedding as soon as possible. When the non-baptized person is baptized after RCIA, the marriage becomes automatically Sacramental.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

RCIA is not a pre-condition for marriage. If a couple was engaged, I think the priest might delay the wedding until after the non-Catholic had finished RCIA just for simplicity. But Catholics can marry non-baptized persons with dispensation. The marriage is considered valid but not Sacramental. If the couple is already living together in a civilly legal but invalid marriage, I would think that the more prudent course would be to have a simple non-Sacramental but Catholic wedding as soon as possible. When the non-baptized person is baptized after RCIA, the marriage becomes automatically Sacramental.

HI Corki, can you please explain that a little better as i cannot understand( dispensation) i dont know what that is? And he makes you wait until the RCIA is over so he can annul the other marraige because it was in another faith and church. So it will be next Easter. BBUt you can live like Brother and sister you realy can. Love of Christ Nancy