May 22, 2011 at 2:02 am #2059
I became a practicing Catholic 5 years ago through the RCIA program. I am still learning things. My brother is nondenominational. He is getting married in an outside ceremony. What is the belief of this with the Catholic faith? I have a sister that became Catholic at a different time through the RCIA program also, and she says this is just completely wrong and refuses to attend the ceremony. Does anyone have any input? ThanksMay 22, 2011 at 7:45 pm #10071
About Catholics TeamKeymaster
Hi Jonisue. My understanding is that if he is not Catholic then he is not bound by the prescriptions of the Catholic Church. However, if he were Catholic, my understanding is that marriage in a church by a priest or a deacon is required.June 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm #10075
I think what is going on here are two different issues. Normally the Catholic Church instructs us that we are not to participate in or attend the worship services of those Denominations, (including those who call themselves “Non-Denominational”) who have cut themselves off from the Church. However the Church does make an exception for special occasions, weddings, funerals, etc. In cases like this we are attending not to show our agreement with or communion with the false teachings of another Denomination, but to honor the bride and groom, or the life of someone who has died. We would not participate in the service in an active way, such as receiving communion, or reading from the pulpit etc. However sitting and standing when the congregation does so, and saying our own private prayers for the newly-weds when the minister is leading a prayer for them is permitted.
As for the Churches teaching on Marriage, when two baptized people marry, they are who preforms the sacrament. In the Catholic Church the Priest or Deacon represents the Church to wittness and bless the union, but it is the couple who preform the Sacrament, and Jesus who offers the Graces of any Sacrament. Unless the vows are changed to say something like “As long as we love each other.” or “until we find someone else” If both parties are baptized, and married in their Church, we have no reason to believe that they are not married.January 14, 2012 at 9:46 pm #10241
If you love your brother,and he love`s you,and he has invited you. I say go. It`s dead simple if you read what Jesus taught,Jesus even said he would invite pagan`s to his table. I was brought up a very strict catholic,and the catholic church has a lot to answer for. Think what Jesus would have said?February 8, 2012 at 10:54 pm #10287"LARobert":vvt0ec1d wrote:I think what is going on here are two different issues. Normally the Catholic Church instructs us that we are not to participate in or attend the worship services of those Denominations, (including those who call themselves “Non-Denominational”) who have cut themselves off from the Church. However the Church does make an exception for special occasions, weddings, funerals, etc….
As for the Churches teaching on Marriage, when two baptized people marry, they are who preforms the sacrament. In the Catholic Church the Priest or Deacon represents the Church to wittness and bless the union, but it is the couple who preform the Sacrament, and Jesus who offers the Graces of any Sacrament. Unless the vows are changed to say something like “As long as we love each other.” or “until we find someone else” If both parties are baptized, and married [b:vvt0ec1d]in their Church[/b:vvt0ec1d], we have no reason to believe that they are not married.[/quote:vvt0ec1d]
Hello LA Robert,
I agree with you on your first point, however, Your opinion on Sacramental marriage is Not Roman Catholic teaching, in fact its more protestant. The Church cannot deny to marry any man and woman who are baptized.
[b:vvt0ec1d]Any marriage outside the Catholic Church is non-Sacramental,[/b:vvt0ec1d] the Protestants Reformation made it a “Civil Ceremony’ (Matin Luther). You see, in the Protestant Faiths a divorce is simply a civil action, whereas in the Catholic Faith we look upon it as a spiritual disunion as well as physical, What God joins cannot be separated the two become one flesh… So the Catholic seeks to find how, where and why the union is failing or failed, and tries to show each partner where and when they began to ‘fall apart’ to possibly bring them back together. The Annulment process helps each party see for themselves what faults lie in each party, that led to the separation. And until such process is completed both parties are deemed married.
So marriage outside of the Catholic Church is not Sacramental, its a Civil Ceremony.
by 1521 he was arguing that there should be no priests
By Faith alone, individuals are justified, are made able to meet God’s justice, Good works, penances, priests, the whole system , all of it was irrelevant.
Everyone was a priest; any Christian could perform the rites of the faith, and beyond these no Christian held any special religious station.
He rejected penance, extreme unction, confirmation was reduced to a rite, he only kept baptism, and Communion but as consubstantian, he did not believe that at the raising of the Eucharist during Consecration
was changed, he did believe in Christ presence in essence in the bread and wine.
It’s because of those changes as catholics we do not participate in other religious rituals. Personally I’ve been there, I use to think a Church is a Church is a Church! Eventually through study and devotion I had to stop this participation, I began to feel that my presence in these other religions rituals were saying It’s okay! And that is the wrong message.
CCC #1603 “The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.” The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. [b:vvt0ec1d]Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes.[/b:vvt0ec1d] These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. …
1622 “Inasmuch as it is a sacramental action of sanctification,[b:vvt0ec1d] the liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid, worthy, and fruitful.[/b:vvt0ec1d]” It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to [b:vvt0ec1d]prepare themselves [/b:vvt0ec1d]for the celebration of[b:vvt0ec1d] their marriage by receiving the sacrament of penance.[/b:vvt0ec1d]
1623 [b:vvt0ec1d] According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church.[/b:vvt0ec1d] In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary
1644 “The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, [b:vvt0ec1d]the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons,[/b:vvt0ec1d] which embraces their entire life: “[b:vvt0ec1d]so they are no longer two, but one flesh.[/b:vvt0ec1d] [u:vvt0ec1d]They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.[/u:vvt0ec1d]” This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.
johnFebruary 9, 2012 at 4:59 am #10288
I stand by what I wrote…. Here is a paragraph from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject….
[quote:11soh5nd]As we have several times emphasized, not every marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism. Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized, whether he has remained true to the Christian faith, or become a heretic, or even an infidel. Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Church. Through baptism one “becomes a member of Christ and is incorporated in the body of the Church”, as declared in the Florentine Decree for the Armenians; so far as law is concerned, he remains irrevocably subject to the Church, and is therefore, in legal questions, always to be considered a Christian. Hence it is a general principle that all baptized persons are subject to universal ecclesiastical laws, especially marriage laws unless the Church makes an exception for individual cases or classes. [i:11soh5nd]Hence not only the marriage between Catholics, but also that contracted by members of the different sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize, is undoubtedly a sacrament. It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacrament or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacrament or not. Provided only he intends to contract a true marriage, and expresses the requisite consent, this intention and this expression are sufficient to constitute a sacrament. But if he is absolutely determined not to effect a sacrament, then, of course, the production of a sacrament would be excluded, but the marriage contract also would be null and void. By Divine ordinance it is essential to Christian marriage that it should be a sacrament; it is not in the power of the contracting parties to eliminate anything from its nature, and a person who has the intention of doing this invalidates the whole ceremony. [/i:11soh5nd]It is certain, therefore, that marriage contracted between baptized persons is a sacrament, even the so-called mixed marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, provided the non-Catholic has been validly baptized. It is equally certain that marriage between unbaptized persons is not a sacrament in the strict sense of the word.[/quote:11soh5nd]
While it is true that many Non-Catholics and Catholics alike may have entered into an invalid marriage for several reasons including a contraceptive mentality, or entereing into the marriage with the mental state of, “If this does not work out, I can always get a divorce.” Such declarations are left to compitent authorities and not you or me, (Unless you are part of a Diocecan Marriage Tribunal and we don’t know it.) But even so, it would only be when you were given a case to review and decree on under the authority of the local Ordinary. The fact that most Lutherans only hold two Sacraments, or that Some Anglican only believe that two Sacraments exhist and others seven, does not invalidade their marriages. The Church is so sure of this that it requires that a Protestant Convert who is divorced and enters the Church be granted an annulment if they wish to remarry, but if a Pagan converts, they can apply for the Pauline Privilage should their spouse not convert and they wish to end their natural, and non-sacramental marriage and enter into a valid sacramental marriage with a different, (hopefully in this case) Catholic marriage partner.February 9, 2012 at 7:56 pm #10289
joeyvandelmeyerMemberFebruary 10, 2012 at 5:25 am #10290"LARobert":of25sb8q wrote:I stand by what I wrote…. Here is a paragraph from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject….
Through baptism one “becomes a member of Christ and is incorporated in the body of the Church”, as declared in [b:of25sb8q]The Florentine Decree for the Armenians; [/b:of25sb8q]so far as law is concerned, …
While it is true that many Non-Catholics and Catholics alike may have entered into an invalid marriage for several reasons including a contraceptive mentality, or entereing into the marriage with the mental state of, “If this does not work out, I can always get a divorce.”[/quote:of25sb8q]
Hello LA Robert,
I don’t know what legs you have left to stand on? However:
Context is important:
[b:of25sb8q]The Florentine decree for the Armenians[/b:of25sb8q]? Wow! That’s in [b:of25sb8q]1439[/b:of25sb8q] [u:of25sb8q]A.D[/u:of25sb8q]. The Reformation hasn’t even happened yet. This was a decree concerning the Greek Orthodox Church, Also Catholic. A council concerned with bringing together the East and Western Church.
There is a differnce in Baptisms they fully immerse in water, As catholics we sprinkle, but believe in [u:of25sb8q]the full immersion of the holy Spirit[/u:of25sb8q] either way
Nobody is denying Grace given in Marriage, that’s God’s prerogative, but then again there’s too many outs, and again even the protestants themselves admit to a civil ceremony.
Marriage in the Catholic church is Covenantal, indissoluble til death, unless proven it was entered into with wrong intention or hidden vices.
I quote Vatican II Catechism, you give me ‘YE OLD Catholic Encyclopedia’
[quote:of25sb8q]The Old Catholic Encyclopedia was designed to serve the Roman Catholic Church, concentrating on information related to the Church and explaining matters from the Catholic point of view.
…Since the encyclopedia was first published starting in 1907 and has never been updated, many of its entries may be out of date either with respect to the wider culture or to the Catholic ecclesiastical world. In particular it predates the creation of the Vatican City State (1929) and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) which introduced many significant changes in Catholic practice.[/quote:of25sb8q]
[i:of25sb8q]I’ll give you its convenient because it is considered public Property [being prior to copyright laws] and can be easily found on line[/i:of25sb8q]. But then again so is the catechism
And until Vatican II the Church was staunch on ‘No Salvation outside the Catholic Church’ CCC #848, but we lightened up because we could not hold accountable people born and baptized 100 yrs. after the reformation who lived in accordance with the Christ based faith they were raised in CCC #847, We do however believe that if they seek, ask, and knock diligently about Scriptures that truth found in these religions will lead to the True gospels, and the Church CCC# 843, [i:of25sb8q]they can’t help but to become Catholic.[/i:of25sb8q]
Again Luther took away the ‘power’ of the Priesthood, by denying it.
Remember Protestants live by ‘faith alone,’ believe in personal relationship with Christ only, and these are not biblical based but man made principals against the Church.
If you don’t believe the Catechism of the Present church I suggest see your Pastor. or find me a better reference.
p.s. read more about the council Of Florentine 1439, from what i remember the Two church’s we to become one again, however the initiating Patriarch died and his successor backed out of the agreement.. the statute is still on the books.February 12, 2012 at 2:24 am #10291
Yes I am well aware of the Council of Florence. Where all except Bishop Mark of Ephesus agreed to the Primacy of the Pope, the Filioque, Purgatory as a dogma, as well as several other Dogmas that were defined either after the Schism, or were used as excuses for the Schism.
As to the Original Catholic Encyclopedia, it still has very sound Catholic Teachings, Vatican II did not change Catholic Dogma, nor did it reverse any teachings of the Church. There was in fact a revision or rather an updated edition in entitled the New Catholic Encyclopedia after Vatican II, published in 1967 in 15 volumes with suppluments over the next five years. It was re-edited and published again in 2002, Now I have print copies of both the original 1917 and the 1967 editions, but unless there is a major difference between the two I post using the 1917 for two reasons. Catholic Scholars both Traditionalist and Modern both accept it as a source document. and more importantly to me, is that it is availible in an electronic format, which saves typing and my typos.
There are those who have written quite horrid things about the Church prior to Vatican II and those who have taken the opposite stance saying that the Church after Vatican II is no longer Catholic. The truth is that the Catholic Church that existed before Vatican II and after are the Same Catholic Church with the same teachings.
I think where you may be getting things confused is if a Catholic attempts Marriage before a Justice of the Peace, or in a Non-Catholic Church (to a non-Catholic or a Catholic) the Church holds those marriages as invalid because the Catholic is obliged to follow Catholic Canon Law according to their Rite. So a Latin Rite Catholic must follow Latin Rite Canon Law, and recieve the consent or dispensation from his or her bishop to Marry a Non-Catholic and for a Protestant Service or Service with both Catholic and Protestant Clergy to participate in. This dispensation can be given for grave reasons, after the couple has been educated on the dangers of Mixed Marriages, and the non-catholic is instructed in the Faith so he or she knows what the Catholic partner’s responcibilities are to the Church, and that all Children will be raised as Catholics.
As for two baptized Protestants who enter into Marriage, they are not under an obligation to follow Catholic Canon Law, and a Marriage in a Church or by a Justice of the Peace is seen as valid, inviolate and a Sacrament by the Catholic Church. At least according to the Canon Law Seminars that I attended a couple of years ago.
St, Charles Borromeo is a good resource, but the CCC does not fully cover what the Church holds for marriages contracted between non-Catholics, because it is after all a summary of teachings focused on what Catholics are to hold and believe. To find how the Church views Non-Catholics we need additional resources.
In another thread we had Lionel from Italy who still holds to Fr. Feeney and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart’s teachings on Extra Ecclesia Nula Salus. And take a very strict interpretation of it. However long before Vatican II, Pope Pius IX, who’s Pontificate ran from 1848 to 1878 as well as Pope Pius XII who’s Pontificate ran from 1939 to 1958 both combatted the idea that one had to be a formal member of the Catholic Churc. Both Popes clarified that the statements that Fr. Feeney’s followers adhere to in a very strict defention of the Earlier pronouncements of the Church were being taken out of context by Feeney and his followers. While the Feeney group tries to gloss over the issue either by omitting the clarifications of these two Popes, and the Statements of Pope Pius XI who called the Jews, “Our Elder Brother’s in Faith” and established a commission for dialogue between Jews and Catholics before World War II, (which continues to this day) are evidence that the entire Catholic Church did not back Fr. Feeney’s radical ideas that only Formal members of the Catholic Church would be saved. While Feeney did influence many people’s thinking, it was not the Official teaching of the Catholic Church. Many of the Clergy in the USA were Irish, who had been persecuted by the British and had suffered while the Catholic Faith was illegal in Ireland, Scotland and England. There was much contampt between the two parties, which influenced both Feeney and others, and still does today on both sides. Ian Paisley a Member of Parlament from Northern Ireland has a website devoted to his allegations that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and even during sessions of Parlament denounces the Pope and the Church. Bad blood on both sides, but that does not mean that because some people professed it that is was officially the teaching of the Church.February 12, 2012 at 4:42 am #10292
Here is what the current Code of Canon Law states. Note that the Marriage of two Catholics, and a Catholic and Non-Catholic, then later two baptized persons are mentioned in the various sections. Once we get to the two baptized persons, per the Canon Lawyer at the Confrence I attended, refers to Either two Catholics, a Catholic and Baptized Non-Catholic, or Two baptized non-Catholics, be they Orthodox or Protestants.
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.
Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.
Can. 1058 All persons who are not prohibited by law can contract marriage.
Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.
Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.
§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.February 15, 2012 at 3:03 am #10296"LARobert":3cne2v06 wrote:I think where you may be getting things confused is if a Catholic attempts Marriage before a Justice of the Peace, or in a Non-Catholic Church (to a non-Catholic or a Catholic) the Church holds those marriages as invalid because the Catholic is obliged to follow Catholic Canon Law according to their Rite….
…As for two baptized Protestants who enter into Marriage, they are not under an obligation to follow Catholic Canon Law, and[b:3cne2v06] a Marriage in a Church or by a Justice of the Peace is seen as valid, inviolate and a Sacrament by the Catholic Church. [/b:3cne2v06] At least according to the Canon Law Seminars that I attended a couple of years ago….
[Apology I didn’t notice your prior post til after I posted this.]
A civil marriage ceremony, outside the Church is non Sacramental, The Church recognizes the commitment the couple has made to each other, but it does not recognize it as Sacramental.
You gonna have to show me the Canon on that.
I believe I found what your referring to:
found this looking up a reference in another forum:
Valid marriage between non-Catholics that are baptized is a real marriage and a real sacrament.
Can. 1055 §1. The [b:3cne2v06]matrimonial covenant[/b:3cne2v06], by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
§2. For this reason, [b:3cne2v06]a valid matrimonial contract [/b:3cne2v06]cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Can. 1108 §1. [b:3cne2v06]Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses [/b:3cne2v06]according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.
A local ordinary is a Church official of any faith… So why is it we see it as Sacramental, and they themselves claim it as ‘Civil’ ??
Martin Luther only Kept two Sacraments Baptism, and Communion.
Then there is this:
[quote:3cne2v06]Bl. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio:
“82. There are increasing cases of [b:3cne2v06]Catholics who for ideological [/b:3cne2v06]or practical reasons,[b:3cne2v06] prefer to contract a merely civil marriage[/b:3cne2v06], and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, [b:3cne2v06]such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.[/b:3cne2v06]
The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. [b:3cne2v06]While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.”
[b:3cne2v06]This is way down the Document Part 4 of Part IV [/b:3cne2v06][/quote:3cne2v06]
So we say any ecclesiastical Marriage, is a Sacramental, while a cvil ceremony outside a church is not.
Then there is this:
Ecc 7:13 Consider the work of God; who can make straight what he has made crooked?
johnFebruary 16, 2012 at 6:21 am #10300
Again we need to stress that Canon Law does not apply to Non-Catholics. It is one thing to apply it to those who are under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, however when we read the CCC or the Codex Juris Canonnici, we need to keep in mind who it applies to.
One section of the Code refers only to Clergy, there are laws that only apply to Religious who are bound by vows, and those laws that apply only to Lay people, then those that apply to every Catholic. The Code for Eastern Catholics is different. There are also special Canon Laws for Catholics of the Eastern and Latin Rites who marry, and how they should raise their children. So it gets quite technical.
In the last section of your posting regarding Civil Marraige, we are looking once again at legislation that is directed toward Catholics of the Latin Rite. I have a copy of the Code for Eastern Catholics, but have not yet had the opportunity to read through it, thankfully it is much smaller than the Code for Latin Catholics.
Now that we’ve discussed that, I will look when I have a little more time to see what other sources from the Church I can find, as well as look for the resources we were given at the Seminar on Marriage and Canon Law presented by two JCL and one JCD, the priest with the JCL was a professor of Canon Law at the seminary I taught at. So I would trust his learned opinon on what the Canons say and mean, rather than my own, unaided by a commentary on the Code. As the majority of my books are still in boxes, I will have to see if I can find the Commentary on the Code online or in a local book store I know. As soon as I have a chance, I’ll post it.
In summary, from the Conference I attended, just as Baptism by most Protestant and all Orthodox is accepted by the Catholic Church as a valid Sacrament, even where the baptized or the sect consisted of those who do not accept the Sacramental nature, but simply symbolic act, the Catholic Church has pronounced that the Sacrament in most all cases does exhist. While she takes care to investigate it to see if there was anything that could have effected the validity, such as using rose petals, or baptizing in the name of the “Creator, Savior and Sustainer” as “Bp.” Pike of the Epsicopal Church promoted. So too the Sacramental bonds of Matramony are not deminised by the lack of belief that Marriage is a Sacrament. Until I’ve found and posted the information you reaquest I remain confident in what I have posted as being the Authentic teaching of the Church. As I am not infallible, and as our memories are not always faithful servants, I may have to change my postion, but if it is what the Church teaches, I would bend to the Church over my own private opinion.February 16, 2012 at 7:07 am #10301
Just happened upon this before taking the dogs our for their last walk of the night.
[quote:21ezfyd8]When both the husband and the wife are baptized Christians, this natural marriage takes on the element of sacramentality. A marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, a visible sign of God’s love in the world. This means that the couple finds in their relationship a source of God’s grace, and through their partnership they assist one another in coming closer to God.
By the very fact that both the husband and the wife are baptized, their marriage becomes a sacrament. It is not a matter of where the wedding takes place or who officiates at the ceremony. Whether marriage is a sacrament is completely based upon the baptismal status of the parties.[/quote:21ezfyd8]
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl … f0044.html
Please read through the entire page. Happily it was taken from an article in Envoy magazine by two of the presenters at the Conference I attended. I do have to correct my previous posting, it was the Canon Lawyer who has his Doctorate in Canon Law, that is a priest, not the Licenciate.February 20, 2012 at 12:59 am #10305"LARobert":hqjb1bj2 wrote:Just happened upon this before taking the dogs our for their last walk of the night.
[quote:hqjb1bj2]When both the husband and the wife are baptized Christians, this natural marriage takes on the element of sacramentality. A marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, a visible sign of God’s love in the world. [b:hqjb1bj2]This means that the couple finds in their relationship a source of God’s grace, and through their partnership they assist one another in coming closer to God. [/b:hqjb1bj2]
By the very fact that both the husband and the wife are baptized, their marriage becomes a sacrament. It is not a matter of where the wedding takes place or who officiates at the ceremony. Whether marriage is a sacrament is completely based upon the baptismal status of the parties.[/quote:hqjb1bj2]
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl … f0044.html
Please read through the entire page. Happily it was taken from an article in Envoy magazine by two of the presenters at the Conference I attended. I do have to correct my previous posting, it was the Canon Lawyer who has his Doctorate in Canon Law, that is a priest, not the Licenciate.[/quote:hqjb1bj2]
this was in reply to a specific question:
“If you are trying to determine whether you need an annulment, these explanations may be helpful”
This would be for people entering into marriage through the Church who may have been in a previous marriage outside the Church.
It speaks of natural marriage, two people who vow to to remain Love and loyal to each other, outside the Church.
Which from your reference would place as sacramental between two baptized peoples (Man and Woman). Sacramental which is based on the baptismal status of the couple.
[i:hqjb1bj2]I am okay with that, and it is understandable, however when two choose/ refuse not to marry in the Church, that is frowned upon.[/i:hqjb1bj2]
[quote:hqjb1bj2]Pope John Paul II Humanae Vitae;
The human person is a union of body and soul. Only God can bring into existence the immortal and spiritual soul of the human person. Referring to this truth of faith, the Catholic Catechism says: “The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God — it is not produced by the parents.”
Consequently, contraceptive acts are a negation of the honor due to the Creator since by engaging in them a married couple seek to impede any possible creative intervention by God.[/quote:hqjb1bj2]
Your reference is from Jacqueline Rapp, JD, JCL and Pete Vere, JCL. “Do I Need and Annulment? ” Envoy (November, 2003). Who happens to be a convert from the Protestant Church.
At the bottom of the Page:
[b:hqjb1bj2]Not all articles published on CERC are the objects of official Church teaching, but these are supplied to provide supplementary information.
[u:hqjb1bj2]What the Catholic Church ‘Binds and looses is bound on Earth as in heaven,” regardless of how man reacts to it.[/u:hqjb1bj2]
This discussion had come up in my Parish Church awhile ago, and that’s how I came to the Pope John Paul II’s letter, I dug it up to back a Local Priests statement, In which He stated “The Church recognizes the commitment made but not the marriage.”
For a Catholic to Marry outside the church without a dispensation, has to be addressed for him/ her to receive the Sacraments, even to another baptized person.
Contraception practices have made Trial marriages, living together, even civil marriages of convenience all to common.
Even divorced Catholics who remarry outside the Church are
“are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.”
It just seems to say that any marriage between two baptized persons is Sacramental is a generalization which can be taken out of the context it is written in.
The Catholic Church before the Reformation, from your reference of the Counsel of Florence wasn’t addressing instances which it could not foresee.
After the reformation well the Counsel of Trent affirmed Catholic teachings which the protestants would deny. The issues dealing with the status of those born into different religions til Vatican II.
So unless your gonna tell me the Pope is wrong in his encyclical from 1981. The Church recognizes the commitment a couple has made to each other, however, marrying outside of any church in
Civil marriages, marriages outside the church are just a few ways to get around dealing with the truth and teachings of the church, for catholics and the World.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ … io_en.html
entering in a marriage and planning to use contraception would negate the ‘sacramental’ considerations of the Church.
Again it is the intent of each party that makes it a Sacramental, In God. Marrying civilly is doing so outside of God especially between two baptized persons.
I’ll Take John Paul II’s letter over a former protestant Convert, Canon Lawyer any day!
JohnFebruary 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm #10306
Again John I think you are missing the point. You made a statement about Protestants who marry in a civil ceremony, as well as a statement about Protestant Marriages not being Sacramental, because (in part) Martin Luther denied all the Sacraments except for Baptism and the Eucharist (Which he taught a flawed understanding of). However the Church holds a different understanding than what you have posted, that being that Protestants, even though they may not understand or adhere to it, can and do enter into sacramental marriages, if both are baptized. The Church also holds these marriages to be so, until there is proof to the contrary. you then added to the mix, Catholics, either practicing or those who have defected from the Faith. My statements are with regard only to Protestants who have never been Catholics.
The Papal Statements, as well as the Canon Law and CCC are all addressing Catholics, be they practicing Catholics or lapsed Catholics, baptized as infants in a Catholic Ceremony or Adult Converts who later breached Ecclesiastical law. Not Protestants who were baptized and brought up in a Protestant Church.
Yes there are any number of Catholics and Protestants who have entered into invalid mariiages for one reason or another, however the standards that the Church holds for Catholics are different than those imposed on Non-Catholics. The reason is that a Catholic who is (hopefully) better informed and has greater availiblity of the Graces which God provides through His Church is held to a higher standard than someone who has been raised in an enviornment which does not hold the Fullness of the Faith. As Catholics we are not simply given a more extensive and comprehensive access to the Truths of God, but a greater responsibility to live up to and proclaim that Truth.February 20, 2012 at 11:13 pm #10307"LARobert":a1fwo2oe wrote:Again John I think you are missing the point. You made a statement about Protestants who marry in a civil ceremony, as well as a statement about Protestant Marriages not being Sacramental, because (in part) Martin Luther denied all the Sacraments except for Baptism and the Eucharist (Which he taught a flawed understanding of). However the Church holds a different understanding than what you have posted, that being that Protestants, even though they may not understand or adhere to it, can and do enter into sacramental marriages, if both are baptized. The Church also holds these marriages to be so, until there is proof to the contrary. ..
As Catholics we are not simply given a more extensive and comprehensive access to the Truths of God, but a greater responsibility to live up to and proclaim that Truth.[/quote:a1fwo2oe]
I thought as I was posting the line was getting blurred, however it was starting to sound to me more like a generalization.
Yes, Luther taught a
I still cannot agree with the Justice of the peace by Catholic or protestant standards [what is it 33% of the world believes are christians], so those knowingly avoiding Official Nuptials to me are skirting the Religious aspect, or may just have a spiritually ill idea of the Church, i.e. a church is a church, is a church. that’s where they are in their journey, coming to the Church they’ll still have to get right with the Church.
if you apply marriage in the civil form to the 40% pagan population through no fault of their own I give in! And as you stated it’s two different issues.
Thanks for bearing with me!
JohnFebruary 20, 2012 at 11:54 pm #10308
My postings can be long winded, so I don’t blame you if they were not clear to you, or anyone else on the board.
Did the last post clarify the difference between Catholics, (active or lapsed) and baptized non-Catholics?February 22, 2012 at 6:09 pm #10309"LARobert":1i2za820 wrote:John:
My postings can be long winded, so I don’t blame you if they were not clear to you, or anyone else on the board.
Did the last post clarify the difference between Catholics, (active or lapsed) and baptized non-Catholics?[/quote:1i2za820]
this made good sense:
[quote:1i2za820]LA Robert, “Again John I think you are missing the point. You made a statement about Protestants who marry in a civil ceremony, as well as a statement about Protestant Marriages not being Sacramental, because (in part) Martin Luther denied all the Sacraments except for Baptism and the Eucharist (Which he taught a flawed understanding of). [b:1i2za820]However the Church holds a different understanding than what you have posted, that being that Protestants, even though they may not understand or adhere to it, can and do enter into sacramental marriages, if both are baptized. The Church also holds these marriages to be so, until there is proof to the contrary.[/b:1i2za820] you then added to the mix, Catholics, either practicing or those who have defected from the Faith. My statements are with regard only to Protestants who have never been Catholics.[/quote:1i2za820]
It reminds of the ancient Hebrews and three ways to Worship the One God:
[u:1i2za820] True Worship[/u:1i2za820] = The law given to the people through the Prophets by God.
[u:1i2za820]Stange Worship[/u:1i2za820]= similar to the Samaritans, acknowledged the One God differently .
[u:1i2za820]Wrong Worship[/u:1i2za820]= which was Worship to aspects of God through hHis creation, though many, There Being One God alone it could only be worship to Him.
So Contary to luther’s theology, against/ opposite of the teachings of the Catholic Church it doesn’t change How the Church views these marriages. We still see these as valid Sacramental, because that’s what the Apostles and the Church taught through the ages their teaching [protestant] may be strange or may be wrong however we (the church) recognize them for what they actually are.
Thanks! I can appreciate and acknowledge that.
and by the way, my posts can also be long winded, but that’s necessary to get the point across, it is in my experience, protestants will call out a single verse in Scripture to disprove a teaching, and then don’t stick around long enough for our explanation. Explanations take time and thank you for yours!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.