Author Topic: non catholic marriages (Read 2063 times)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2016, 03:08:58 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
A marriage between two unbaptized Jews, Muslim , atheist, is nothing but a weird form of concubinage. Am I right? It is not sacramental and divorce can be encouraged in these so called Marriages right? I'm very confused.

If we're getting to the point that Catholics themselves think they're the only people with valid marriages, then we need to reevaluate our faith. It starts a slippery slope and sooner or later, we'll be having people saying that shooting a non-Catholic child is a good thing.

Yes, the non-baptized have valid, indissoluble marriages.

Well it's hard to really clear up the issue. For instance, on what authority and by whom exactly are two heathens conjoined in (not holy but natural) matrimony?

Is it the shaman/rabbi/pastor/lezbian civil clerk's?
Surely not.

So, it must be their own vows performed before God implicitly and unvoluntarily sometimes even.

How to be sure it is even a valid bonding?

What it is exactly required of the two spouses? Good intention? A bare-minimum formula?

What if I, being unmarried, were to just walk up to some girl and ask her to marry me and she'd play along and we'd pretend to? Would it be a valid natural law marriage? Indissoluble at that?
What if we were honest about it and impromptu married "before God" without anyone around? Is that valid?

How does all this even work?

Miseremini · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2016, 03:30:38 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
A marriage between two unbaptized Jews, Muslim , atheist, is nothing but a weird form of concubinage. Am I right? It is not sacramental and divorce can be encouraged in these so called Marriages right? I'm very confused.

If we're getting to the point that Catholics themselves think they're the only people with valid marriages, then we need to reevaluate our faith. It starts a slippery slope and sooner or later, we'll be having people saying that shooting a non-Catholic child is a good thing.

Yes, the non-baptized have valid, indissoluble marriages.

Well it's hard to really clear up the issue. For instance, on what authority and by whom exactly are two heathens conjoined in (not holy but natural) matrimony?

Is it the shaman/rabbi/pastor/lezbian civil clerk's?
Surely not.

So, it must be their own vows performed before God implicitly and unvoluntarily sometimes even.

How to be sure it is even a valid bonding?

What it is exactly required of the two spouses? Good intention? A bare-minimum formula?

What if I, being unmarried, were to just walk up to some girl and ask her to marry me and she'd play along and we'd pretend to? Would it be a valid natural law marriage? Indissoluble at that?
What if we were honest about it and impromptu married "before God" without anyone around? Is that valid?

How does all this even work?

60 years ago we were taught marriage was valid between 2 willing persons (male and female) before witnesses.
Most governments require a licensed somebody as one of the witnesses for the state.
The nuns told of people in third world countries professing their vows before witnesses, having children and several years later when the priest made his rounds to their remote village the priest blessed and recorded the marriage for the church.

As to your scenario about you and the girl pretending....if you consumated the marriage I think before God you could be married. Remember you were both willingly pretending. When a priest teaches another priest or seminarian to offer Mass he doesn't pronounce the words of consecration.
There are things you don't fool around with.. ... a ouiji board and marriage are just two examples.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2016, 04:15:57 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Well it's hard to really clear up the issue. For instance, on what authority and by whom exactly are two heathens conjoined in (not holy but natural) matrimony?

The Church recognizes civil marriages between a man and a woman as valid marriages. So if the man and woman were free to marry and the state recognizes the marriage, so does the Church. The Church will always and everywhere side with the sacrament, never against it unless proven otherwise.

In the case of two unbaptized, the Church has no jurisdiction over unbaptized persons yet still recognizes the marriage contract as valid for the same reasons She recognizes all marriages as valid - for the good of the family so that the children are not bastards, that they have a mother and father to take care of their material needs, so that divorce is discouraged so that there are not multiple step children/step parents/step cousins and step grand parents and step etc. to the point that the family is far separated from itself - as is common place today.

The safest way to be is to say, if they were free to marry and the two said the words "I do" after taking their vows, the Church always presumes that marriage indissoluble unless or until the contrary is proven.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2016, 06:30:35 PM »

Please note that when unbaptized persons marry, the Church does not recognize a right of either spouse to remarry when one of the parties is converted unless the non-converted party rejects the new Christian and refuses to continue to be married. If the non-converted party is willing to have a Christian spouse and does not put away the spouse, the new Christian must remain in the marriage and has no right to a divorce and remarriage. This is often called the Pauline Privilege.

Marriage is not that hard a thing to understand. It is not complicated. As Father Wathen once said in a debate with Conciliar apologists, men and women have been marrying for thousands of years. Only in the recent past has there been some sort of confusion about what constitutes a marriage.

Author Topic: non catholic marriages (Read 2063 times)

Änσnymσus