Why must married couples abstain until their marriage is blessed?

[Drawmack]

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.

This will probably seem jaded and might come across as rude or confrontational but it is not intended that way. I might accept this a little more readily if having a Catholic marriage didn’t cost money.

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.

That’s a rather silly comparison. Of course only the Catholic Church can confirm someone into the Catholic Church.

 

[Drawmack]

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.

Okay, but why? Why does a Catholic have to be married in the Catholic Church? Why must a Catholic be married in a wedding officiated by a member of the Catholic Clergy? It just doesn’t make any sense to me. Is there a theological, biblically based, reason for this? Where is the scripture to support this?

 

[Corki]

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

You didn’t mention the other marriage. What you are talking about is probably either a Pauline or Petrine privalege, probably the latter. It it a petition to the Vatican to allow a marriage in “favor of the faith” if one of two unbaptized persons wants to become Catholic and marry a Catholic. You make it sound like the Catholic and the person in RCIA are in a civil marriage. I have never heard of the Petrine privalege being used after a couple has married civilly but I suppose it’s possible.

And yes, since the Catholic is not married to the person in RCIA, they should separate or, if there is a good reason such as children, abstain from premarital relations. But that is for them to discuss with their priest.

BTW, a dispensation is just an exception. A Catholic is not supposed to marry an unbaptized person. But an exception can be made by the Bishop for good reason.

 

[Corki]

This will probably seem jaded and might come across as rude or confrontational but it is not intended that way. I might accept this a little more readily if having a Catholic marriage didn’t cost money.

It doesn’t. A couple can get married in a Catholic Church without spending a dime.

That’s a rather silly comparison. Of course only the Catholic Church can confirm someone into the Catholic Church.

I wasn’t comparing. I was pointing out that Baptism is treated uniquely.

 

[Corki]

Okay, but why? ?

Because Catholics are bound to follow the precepts of the Church, one of which is to obey the Church’s rules on marriage.

Why does a Catholic have to be married in the Catholic Church?

They don’t. They just need to follow the rules on marriage.

Why must a Catholic be married in a wedding officiated by a member of the Catholic Clergy?

They don’t. There is no rule that Catholic clergy must officiate a wedding in order for it to be valid.

It just doesn’t make any sense to me. Is there a theological, biblically based, reason for this? Where is the scripture to support this?

Now you are getting beyond my knowledge base. But it ultimately comes down to binding and loosing.

 

[Drawmack]

Because Catholics are bound to follow the precepts of the Church, one of which is to obey the Church’s rules on marriage.

And, what are those Church rules? Who made them up? I thought the sacraments were gifts from Jesus, so when did he make these rules concerning marriage?

They don’t. They just need to follow the rules on marriage.

Which are?

They don’t. There is no rule that Catholic clergy must officiate a wedding in order for it to be valid.

Then why might it be invalid if it happened outside the Catholic Church or was officiated by someone is not a member of Catholic Church.

Now you are getting beyond my knowledge base. But it ultimately comes down to binding and loosing.

So Catholicism teaches that a married couple is married in heaven too. The only other Christian group I know of that teaches that is Mormons. If the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that a married couple remains married in heaven then it what does it have to do with binding and loosing which is based on “What you loose on Earth you loose in Heaven…”

 

[Corki]

And, what are those Church rules? Who made them up? I thought the sacraments were gifts from Jesus, so when did he make these rules concerning marriage?

I don’t know them all by heart but they are contained in canon law. They have evolved over the centuries as have all the disciplines of the Church. This is not a matter of doctrine, it is discipline and that can change. I’m not getting into a sola scriptura debate about Church disciplines.

Which are?

See above. The basics are: of a proper age, properly prepared, disposed to receive the Sacrament, with permission if officiated by other clergy or in a place other than a Catholic Church.

Then why might it be invalid if it happened outside the Catholic Church or was officiated by someone is not a member of Catholic Church.

There are two kinds of invalid marriages. One is when the couples weren’t free to marry. The other is when the proper steps weren’t taken. The latter can be easily corrected. If you marry in another place without permission, it is called invalid for “lack of form”.

So Catholicism teaches that a married couple is married in heaven too. The only other Christian group I know of that teaches that is Mormons. If the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that a married couple remains married in heaven then it what does it have to do with binding and loosing which is based on “What you loose on Earth you loose in Heaven…”

I need to do some research on this. I don’t know if the Church has teaching on that (remaining married in heaven). I am pretty sure the Orthodox do, though.

You are not correctly stating the teaching of binding and loosing as taught by the Catholic Church. As used here, it is the authority of the Church to bind the faithful to obedience on pain of sin. In other words, it is what makes breaking a discipline a sin. I am not refering to the “binding” of two spouses because, as discussed above, the Church does not bind them, the spouses confer the Sacrament to each other.

 

[chain]

My humble understanding is that Catholic should be married by Catholic priests or deacons - but there can be a dispensation. So technically it is not a must, rather it is simply the norm. I also understand why the Church has these rules and do not disagree with them - they can allow the church to prevent situations that could be scandalous.

As for the cost of a Catholic marriage - I highly suspect a Catholic marriage could be performed with costing a dime (private ceremony with a deacon or priest). I also suspect that any required engagement encounters/retreats could be either recieve dispensation or be done at a reduced cost if there was hardship. (I read that was the case with tribunal costs as well).​

I think marriage preparation is under rated, likewise I think the normal encounters with the priest associated with a catholic marriage are probably under rated.​

I also can see that the Catholic who knows the rules and avoids them has actively followed incorrect form form of marriage - while the non-catholic would have followed the correct form as they know it.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

My humble understanding is that Catholic should be married by Catholic priests or deacons - but there can be a dispensation. So technically it is not a must, rather it is simply the norm. I also understand why the Church has these rules and do not disagree with them - they can allow the church to prevent situations that could be scandalous.

As for the cost of a Catholic marriage - I highly suspect a Catholic marriage could be performed with costing a dime (private ceremony with a deacon or priest). I also suspect that any required engagement encounters/retreats could be either recieve dispensation or be done at a reduced cost if there was hardship. (I read that was the case with tribunal costs as well).​

I think marriage preparation is under rated, likewise I think the normal encounters with the priest associated with a catholic marriage are probably under rated.​

I also can see that the Catholic who knows the rules and avoids them has actively followed incorrect form form of marriage - while the non-catholic would have followed the correct form as they know it.

That was a good point, chain, If you dont know better you cannot have sinned if you were inncorect. Thank you Nancy

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

So Catholicism teaches that a married couple is married in heaven too. The only other Christian group I know of that teaches that is Mormons. If the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that a married couple remains married in heaven then it what does it have to do with binding and loosing which is based on “What you loose on Earth you loose in Heaven…”

Drawmack,

First of all, the Catholic Church does not teach that we are married in Heaven and there was nothing in the previous post to indicate that was what was meant. Please don’t go off on ridiculous rabbit trails.

Second, if you want to know what the Church teaches, get a Catechism of the Catholic Church and look it up. It’s not hard to read and is extremely understandable.

What is being discussed in this post is for a Catholic involved in the situation who is asking for clarification. If you’re not Catholic, then you’re already missing a lot of info. that the original poster understands.

Being Catholic is like being in a family–you grow up just knowing how things work because you were taught them so young they’re second nature. Or, if you “married” into the family, you’ve studied and come to understand what’s going on. The guest visiting is a little confused by the family rules and traditions only because he didn’t grow up with it. As Catholics we often discuss things that don’t make sense to others because they aren’t part of the “family.” That’s why Catholics get accused of stuff like “Mary worship” and other ridiculous things–because outsiders don’t “get it.”

And to answer why Catholics are bound by these “rules”–for the same reason my kids are bound by my rules, but the neighbor’s kids aren’t—because they’re MY KIDS. We are Catholics and we obey because Holy Mother Church SAID SO! (But, unlike me sometimes, the Church encourages us to study and understand our faith and practices, not just blindly obey them.)

Tracy

 

[Drawmack]

I don’t know them all by heart but they are contained in canon law. They have evolved over the centuries as have all the disciplines of the Church. This is not a matter of doctrine, it is discipline and that can change. I’m not getting into a sola scriptura debate about Church disciplines.

I wasn’t asking you to. I was asking you to defend how exactly Jesus instituted the sacrament including all the rules. As you have stated Jesus did not institute these rules, the Catholic Church did, you have answered the question sufficiently.

See above. The basics are: of a proper age, properly prepared, disposed to receive the Sacrament, with permission if officiated by other clergy or in a place other than a Catholic Church.

You have previously stated that the couple can marry in the Catholic Church without spending a penny. Could you please explain what it means to be properly prepared and include a means of accomplishing this preparation which does not cost any money?

There are two kinds of invalid marriages. One is when the couples weren’t free to marry. The other is when the proper steps weren’t taken. The latter can be easily corrected. If you marry in another place without permission, it is called invalid for “lack of form”.

I keep asking what those proper steps are and you keep avoiding the question or being vague with the answers. I want to know those proper steps, who defined them and when?

I need to do some research on this. I don’t know if the Church has teaching on that (remaining married in heaven). I am pretty sure the Orthodox do, though.

I’m pretty sure that they don’t!

You are not correctly stating the teaching of binding and loosing as taught by the Catholic Church. As used here, it is the authority of the Church to bind the faithful to obedience on pain of sin. In other words, it is what makes breaking a discipline a sin. I am not refering to the “binding” of two spouses because, as discussed above, the Church does not bind them, the spouses confer the Sacrament to each other.

So, the Church has the right to declare something sinful? Interesting, I wonder if Jesus is aware that humans have the right to decide what is sinful and what is not.

 

[Drawmack]

My humble understanding is that Catholic should be married by Catholic priests or deacons - but there can be a dispensation. So technically it is not a must, rather it is simply the norm. I also understand why the Church has these rules and do not disagree with them - they can allow the church to prevent situations that could be scandalous.

Aside from a divorced person remarrying without getting an annulment what could cause scandal?

As for the cost of a Catholic marriage - I highly suspect a Catholic marriage could be performed with costing a dime (private ceremony with a deacon or priest). I also suspect that any required engagement encounters/retreats could be either recieve dispensation or be done at a reduced cost if there was hardship. (I read that was the case with tribunal costs as well).

I would suspect that you’re right about the actual ceremony being performed for free, or a very minimal fee to cover costs of communion supplies. However, I’ve never heard of couple getting those encounter weekends for free.

I think marriage preparation is under rated, likewise I think the normal encounters with the priest associated with a catholic marriage are probably under rated.

I agree that marriage preparation is extremely important. But, it doesn’t change the fact that I suspect the Catholic Church’s desire for Catholics to marry in the Catholic Church is monetary in nature.

I also can see that the Catholic who knows the rules and avoids them has actively followed incorrect form form of marriage - while the non-catholic would have followed the correct form as they know it.

Yeah, gotta obey all those rules. After all Jesus did say, “He who believes in me and follows all the rules of the Church will be saved.”

 

[Drawmack]

First of all, the Catholic Church does not teach that we are married in Heaven and there was nothing in the previous post to indicate that was what was meant. Please don’t go off on ridiculous rabbit trails.

Some Churches teach that so it’s not a ridiculous rabbit trail. Maybe I shouldn’t seek to be apologized in the apologetics forum.

Second, if you want to know what the Church teaches, get a Catechism of the Catholic Church and look it up. It’s not hard to read and is extremely understandable.

Already have two, would you like to borrow one?

What is being discussed in this post is for a Catholic involved in the situation who is asking for clarification. If you’re not Catholic, then you’re already missing a lot of info. that the original poster understands.

Just because I am not Catholic now doesn’t mean I never was. It also doesn’t mean that I don’t possess the knowledge that others here have.

Being Catholic is like being in a family–you grow up just knowing how things work because you were taught them so young they’re second nature.

I guess that makes adult converts the red headed step child? The only real Catholics are those who are taught the ways so young they’re second nature. I guess that Catholicism doesn’t make enough sense for adults to learn it?

Or, if you “married” into the family, you’ve studied and come to understand what’s going on. The guest visiting is a little confused by the family rules and traditions only because he didn’t grow up with it. As Catholics we often discuss things that don’t make sense to others because they aren’t part of the “family.” That’s why Catholics get accused of stuff like “Mary worship” and other ridiculous things–because outsiders don’t “get it.”

What about someone who was Catholic and left because they understand those teaching all to well?

And to answer why Catholics are bound by these “rules”–for the same reason my kids are bound by my rules, but the neighbor’s kids aren’t—because they’re MY KIDS. We are Catholics and we obey because Holy Mother Church SAID SO! (But, unlike me sometimes, the Church encourages us to study and understand our faith and practices, not just blindly obey them.)

And, this is the crux of it. You’re bound because the Church said so. Not because Jesus said so. Not because God said so. Because the Church said so. That’s all I wanted someone to admit.

 

[Pug]

I agree that marriage preparation is extremely important. But, it doesn’t change the fact that I suspect the Catholic Church’s desire for Catholics to marry in the Catholic Church is monetary in nature.

I didn’t pay for my pre-cana meetings, nor for that test they give you, the one with all the questions that they ask the couple separately. There was no charge. I tend to agree with you, though, that religious education, and that is what a pre-cana class probably amounts to, best ought to be free.

I wonder if you are suggesting that my parish is turning a nice profit off weddings? If so, the priest was hiding the money under the lumpy carpet until very recently.

It is true, though, that the Church appears to deem herself able to enumerate impediments to marriage, to the best of my knowledge. Two Catholics who refuse to follow form are impeded from contracting a valid marriage. You might look into the history of how the Church has regulated marriage. It didn’t used to, so much. For a simple example, I don’t recall that “abduction”, that is, abducting a woman and forcing her to marry you, used to be listed as an impediment. Now it is so listed.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I don’t understand something here. In a marriage the couple marries each other and the priest or deacon simply officiates.

yes

But, two Catholics who marry without a priest or deacon officiating are not considered validly married by default.

basically correct

However, if two non-Catholics marry in front of clergy, but not Catholic clergy, the marriage is valid.

roughly correct

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.

I thought you said you understood catholism, these are different types of marriages. Many types of marriage exist some examples are civil marriage, polygamy, arranged, forced, natural, etc. etc. So the different forms have different rules or laws if you like the word laws. For example the forced marriages as when one tribe overtook their enemies and took their widows as wives had no requirement of consent, yet civil marriage requires consent(1) and even obtaining an age of reason(2). So your “a” comes in many forms.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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 determine if they were valid before blessing or performing a subsequent marriage. This implies to me that a non-Catholic marriage could be recognized as valid.

If a person asked to enter the church they are asked if they have married, if they answer no marriage or only once married then the one marriage is “presumed” valid. Also remember this is the church’s definition of “valid” not a common english definition of “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).

Which couple??? This implies but does not state that the couple has at least another marriage. Celibacy is not always an option. This implies but does not state one was free to marry and one was not, so the free to marry party can use celibacy but the one with multiple marriage attempts should not use celibacy as means to sacraments.

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)

This post is difficult to follow, if a man has promised two different women himself in weddings then he has issues. If that is compounded by him living with the second woman the issues have complex implications. Because the possibilities expand rapidly maybe you want to look at a specific example?

My humble understanding is that Catholic should be married by Catholic priests or deacons - but there can be a dispensation. So technically it is not a must, rather it is simply the norm. I also understand why the Church has these rules and do not disagree with them - they can allow the church to prevent situations that could be scandalous.

As for the cost of a Catholic marriage - I highly suspect a Catholic marriage could be performed with costing a dime (private ceremony with a deacon or priest). I also suspect that any required engagement encounters/retreats could be either recieve dispensation or be done at a reduced cost if there was hardship. (I read that was the case with tribunal costs as well).​

I think marriage preparation is under rated, likewise I think the normal encounters with the priest associated with a catholic marriage are probably under rated.​

I also can see that the Catholic who knows the rules and avoids them has actively followed incorrect form form of marriage - while the non-catholic would have followed the correct form as they know it.

When two Catholics marry they receive a sacrament, do not confuse that with a civil marriage which requires no sacrament. So all sacrament rules apply also which makes things seem complex

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Drawmack,

First of all, the Catholic Church does not teach that we are married in Heaven and there was nothing in the previous post to indicate that was what was meant. Please don’t go off on ridiculous rabbit trails.

Second, if you want to know what the Church teaches, get a Catechism of the Catholic Church and look it up. It’s not hard to read and is extremely understandable.

What is being discussed in this post is for a Catholic involved in the situation who is asking for clarification. If you’re not Catholic, then you’re already missing a lot of info. that the original poster understands.

Being Catholic is like being in a family–you grow up just knowing how things work because you were taught them so young they’re second nature. Or, if you “married” into the family, you’ve studied and come to understand what’s going on. The guest visiting is a little confused by the family rules and traditions only because he didn’t grow up with it. As Catholics we often discuss things that don’t make sense to others because they aren’t part of the “family.” That’s why Catholics get accused of stuff like “Mary worship” and other ridiculous things–because outsiders don’t “get it.”

And to answer why Catholics are bound by these “rules”–for the same reason my kids are bound by my rules, but the neighbor’s kids aren’t—because they’re MY KIDS. We are Catholics and we obey because Holy Mother Church SAID SO! (But, unlike me sometimes, the Church encourages us to study and understand our faith and practices, not just blindly obey them.)

Tracy

Dear Tracy, you are very wise and I apprectate people who are truthful and can explain things so one can understand. i was born Catholic but as I got older i strayed from my faith and though I went to Catholic schools when I left lost alot of my teachings. It’s like an instrument once you put it down it’s a little harder to pick back up and it takes practice all over again. All my family are Catholics and they all know the rules but we are not close so I come here to learn, and it is hard to learn if 2 people are not agreeing that are of the same faith. But if I came here less I think I could study alot better the Cathchism. Thank you God Bless Nancy

 

[Drawmack]

yes basically correct roughly correct
I thought you said you understood catholism, these are different types of marriages. Many types of marriage exist some examples are civil marriage, polygamy, arranged, forced, natural, etc. etc. So the different forms have different rules or laws if you like the word laws. For example the forced marriages as when one tribe overtook their enemies and took their widows as wives had no requirement of consent, yet civil marriage requires consent(1) and even obtaining an age of reason(2). So your “a” comes in many forms.

This is an attempt to end run the point. You have four adults (two couples) who are married in front of a Baptist minister. For all intents and purposes it’s the same ceremony, the couples say the same words. One of these is valid and one might not be. I’m not attempting to compare two types of marriage. This is a straw man argument.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

yes basically correct roughly correct
I thought you said you understood catholism, these are different types of marriages. Many types of marriage exist some examples are civil marriage, polygamy, arranged, forced, natural, etc. etc. So the different forms have different rules or laws if you like the word laws. For example the forced marriages as when one tribe overtook their enemies and took their widows as wives had no requirement of consent, yet civil marriage requires consent(1) and even obtaining an age of reason(2). So your “a” comes in many forms.

This is an attempt to end run the point. You have four adults (two couples) who are married in front of a Baptist minister. For all intents and purposes it’s the same ceremony, the couples say the same words. One of these is valid and one might not be. I’m not attempting to compare two types of marriage. This is a straw man argument.

Which argument is the straw man? This thread is very problematic because the questions are far to vague to be answered. For example lets let one couple be two males, and the other be a divorce woman on her second trip down the isle she is marrying a guy twice divorced. Do you see any problems? btw- does this state recognize gay marriage? So your issue is all marriages are equal right?

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

Some Churches teach that so it’s not a ridiculous rabbit trail. Maybe I shouldn’t seek to be apologized in the apologetics forum…

If you know so much, then you would know the Catholic Church doesn’t teach there is marriage in Heaven.

Already have two, would you like to borrow one?.

Have you read it cover to cover?

I guess that makes adult converts the red headed step child? The only real Catholics are those who are taught the ways so young they’re second nature. I guess that Catholicism doesn’t make enough sense for adults to learn it? .

I am an adult convert–an Evangelical pastor’s wife, to be specific. If I can get it, so can anyone else who has the desire to truly learn and not just try to argue.

What about someone who was Catholic and left because they understand those teaching all to well?.

Haven’t found one yet who ever studied the “whys.” Just folks who didn’t “feel” like it was right or they didn’t like what it was going to cost them.

And, this is the crux of it. You’re bound because the Church said so. Not because Jesus said so. Not because God said so. Because the Church said so. That’s all I wanted someone to admit.

Obviously you know almost nothing about the Catholic Church. Start reading the Early Church Fathers and what the disciples of the Apostles believed. Then look at the 1500 years of Christian life before Martin Luther came along. According the you, the Holy Spirit just couldn’t get the hang of guiding Christ’s Church until the Protestants came along to come up with their thousands of interpretations of Jesus’ teaching.

However, I will admit I didn’t realize this was the apologetics forum. I thought it was discussion on a marriage issue–not a spot to argue the Church’s teachings to those who are not familiar with them.

Tracy