Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on July 22, 2025, 04:07:59 PM
-
Looking for some insight on my status. I have a sede perspective now but in Tradition since at least 1990
I was engaged to a heathen who was previously “married” to a Ukrainian catholic - they were married in a Protestant service
My fiancé petitioned the NO tribunal for relief. It was decided that the Petrine Privelege was the best route (better than Lack of Form). This was granted in favor of the husband
My fiancé was baptized (and confirmed by a NO bishop)
We were then “married” by a NO priest (who was likely ordained in the old rite) in the traditional manner
Now I’m divorced from her for two decades
I’ve maintained my vows
AM I A MARRIED MAN ?
I don’t believe the NO structures have authority
Thoughts?
Thanks
m
-
Why are you asking here and not a priest?
-
Looking for some insight on my status. I have a sede perspective now but in Tradition since at least 1990
I was engaged to a heathen who was previously “married” to a Ukrainian catholic - they were married in a Protestant service
My fiancé petitioned the NO tribunal for relief. It was decided that the Petrine Privelege was the best route (better than Lack of Form). This was granted in favor of the husband
My fiancé was baptized (and confirmed by a NO bishop)
We were then “married” by a NO priest (who was likely ordained in the old rite) in the traditional manner
Now I’m divorced from her for two decades
I’ve maintained my vows
AM I A MARRIED MAN ?
I don’t believe the NO structures have authority
Thoughts?
Thanks
m
Why wouldn't you be married? The mariage is a contract between you and your wife whilst the priest is a witness
I suspect all trad groups from Sede to SSPX would consider a mariage witnessed by a Novus Ordo priest as valid.
-
I’ve asked to meet my priest but nothing set up yet. But also, I don’t think a parish priest can make an authoritative judgement on this issue and there’s a wealth of knowledge in this forum. Looking to inform my conscience
-
Godefroy - understood
BUT
Was she validly married to the other guy first?
-
Godefroy - understood
BUT
Was she validly married to the other guy first?
Your question has promted me rethink my previous answer. Now I'm not so sure, because a trad priest would say that a protestant mariage has no validity, yet it could also be argued that a Novos Ordo mariage is akin to a protestant mariage.
Let us know if you hear from a priest :)
-
Godefroy - understood
BUT
Was she validly married to the other guy first?
She was an unbaptized person married to a Catholic? Doesn't that mean there was no marriage? She got baptized and married you, correct?
It would seem that your marriage is valid and the first marriage was not. (But I have no authority and little understanding, this is just my gut reaction.)
-
Godefroy, I will follow-up
The validity question is much more nuanced though. The religion(s) involved, prior “marriages”, the place and form of the ceremony, the ordinary’s approval, etc.
Previously I had moral faith in the NO Tribunal tasked with wading through all the complicating factors. I don’t have that certitude now and in this day and age I don’t see a competent authority on the horizon
-
Gray
I believe baptized can validly marry the un-baptized though it wouldn’t be a sacramental marriage
-
Have you heard of natural marriages? Even the pagans have marriage which we must respect.
It's not a game of - I don't like the priest now. The Church is looking for evidence of a marriage....
-
Looking for some insight on my status. I have a sede perspective now but in Tradition since at least 1990
I was engaged to a heathen who was previously “married” to a Ukrainian catholic - they were married in a Protestant service
My fiancé petitioned the NO tribunal for relief. It was decided that the Petrine Privelege was the best route (better than Lack of Form). This was granted in favor of the husband
My fiancé was baptized (and confirmed by a NO bishop)
We were then “married” by a NO priest (who was likely ordained in the old rite) in the traditional manner
Now I’m divorced from her for two decades
I’ve maintained my vows
AM I A MARRIED MAN ?
I don’t believe the NO structures have authority
Thoughts?
Thanks
m
I have questions, please forgive their intrusive nature. Why does this matter, really? Have you found a new person? If so, prayers because this is very difficult situation to sort through, and you really need to talk to a priest who understands these things well. Or is this just a matter of curiosity?
-
Nobody new but more than curious - shooting for moral certainty. In the absence of that, I’ll hang onto my vows
Indeed, it been a rough go…
-
She was an unbaptized person married to a Catholic? Doesn't that mean there was no marriage? She got baptized and married you, correct?
It would seem that your marriage is valid and the first marriage was not. (But I have no authority and little understanding, this is just my gut reaction.)
The first marriage can still be valid. It's possible that non-catholics and Catholics can be married. A good priest will need ALL the details.
-
Infidels cannot validly marry the baptized. If your wife was unbaptized when she married the Ukrainian, that was not a valid marriage.
-
Infidels cannot validly marry the baptized. If your wife was unbaptized when she married the Ukrainian, that was not a valid marriage.
This isn't true. A mixed marriage can infact be valid.
-
I am a cradle Catholic and my husband was not. We were married by a NO priest in a private ceremony and requested a dispensation due to my husband being an unbaptized non-Catholic, which the priest granted.
We were married for 32 years before he passed. I was assured by an SSPX priest during our marriage that our marriage was valid and legit.
-
This isn't true. A mixed marriage can infact be valid.
Mixed marriages are only valid if... the marriage is done by a priest, through the Catholic Faith, with the Church granting an exception.
The OP said the first marriage was by a protestant service. That's probably why the novus ordo priest said it was invalid. A catholic cannot validly marry in a protestant service. And I would agree.
In regards to the "2nd" marriage in the novus ordo...If both you and your spouse were baptized, then it's valid. Novus ordo marriages are valid because the sacrament mainly depends on the 2 people, not on the priest (even if he's an invalid priest). You are still married "in the Church" (that was your intention).
-
I think this is correct IN NORMAL CIRcuмSTANCES
The church will always presume that the first marriage is valid until adjudged otherwise by a competent authority
What I thought was that authority that dissolved that first marriage - that made that judgement - was a NO tribunal.
My concern now is that if in reality that tribunal was not legitimate then the first marriage IS STILL PRESUMED VALID and the following marriage is not valid
All sorts of disputes look to the church for resolution from a pope or a tribunal or in canon law. Unfortunately, most of that kind of authority is missing now
-
Please provide all the details on the first marriage -- persons, baptism status, pastor details, etc
-
Baptized Ukrainian catholic + unbaptized
Marriage occurred in a Protestant church
NO tribunal offered two options
- Lack of Form
- Petrine privilege
Tribunal recommended Petrine route as being a more expeditious solution. This was granted
-
Baptized Ukrainian catholic + unbaptized
Marriage occurred in a Protestant church
NO tribunal offered two options
- Lack of Form
- Petrine privilege
Tribunal recommended Petrine route as being a more expeditious solution. This was granted
The marriage to the heathen Ukie is a valid, non-sacramental marriage. Were the Ukie subsequently baptised, the marriage would become sacramental.
Non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved in favour of the Faith (Petrine Privilege, Pauline Privilege), but sacramental marriages can only dissolved by the death of one or both spouses.
Understanding marriage validity can be complicated and confusing to those untrained in canon law, whether Corpus or 17 Code or 83 Code. For example, the marriage between two baptised Protestants would be presumed valid and invalidity would need to be proved. Or, Catholics are bound to canonical form for validity. Or, certain defects can be sanated (cleansed) at the root validating a marriage ex post facto. Or, a civil marriage or one attempted before a non-Catholic minister can be validated by convalidation before a Catholic minister with delegation. Ah ... delegation! For validity, one must contract marriage before a priest or deacon with faculties from the ordinary bishop or with delegation from a parish pastor. Oh ... oh ... and Eastern Catholics must have their marriages conferred by a priest, never a deacon which would likely invalidate the marrige because, whereas in the Latin Church, the spouses marry each other before ecclesiastical witness, in the Eastern Churches the priest (and never a deacon) confers the sacrament on the couple.
-
Thanks Elwin - all good info
For clarity, the original parties were the ukie catholic AND the un-baptized woman
A myriad of complexities no doubt
Starting with the initial presumption that the first marriage was valid, is it reasonable to conclude that a NO tribunal is not competent to judge otherwise?
(on the face of it, you mention plenty of reasons why the first marriage would not be valid it’s just that I don’t see anybody that can make that judgement let alone me)
-
I was engaged to a heathen who was previously “married” to a Ukrainian catholic - they were married in a Protestant service
Baptized Ukrainian catholic + unbaptized
Marriage occurred in a Protestant church
NO tribunal offered two options
- Lack of Form
- Petrine privilege
Tribunal recommended Petrine route as being a more expeditious solution. This was granted
The marriage to the heathen Ukie is a valid, non-sacramental marriage. Were the Ukie subsequently baptised, the marriage would become sacramental.
Non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved in favour of the Faith (Petrine Privilege, Pauline Privilege), but sacramental marriages can only dissolved by the death of one or both spouses.
I think this is the timeline. The OP is horrible at describing the story:
1. The Ukrainian catholic MAN + unbaptized WOMAN = valid, non-sacramental marriage.
2. unbaptized WOMAN meets OP MAN and seeks the pauline privelege. NO tribunal says yes.
3. unbaptized WOMAN gets baptized and marries OP baptized MAN in the novus ordo, by (probable) old-rite priest.
I think the original valid, non-sacramental marriage is replaced by the pauline privelege/catholic marriage #2.
-
Thanks for the commentary…
The question remains: Is a NO tribunal competent to judge this case?
-
Thanks for the commentary…
The question remains: Is a NO tribunal competent to judge this case?
The most complicated cases to "judge" are annulments, because it involves 2 baptized persons and a "possible" sacramental marriage. There's nothing trickier than this.
The case of an unbaptized + baptized + protestant minister is a pretty straightforward 'not sacramental' answer. This is textbook stuff. Pretty simple.
-
Indeed
The question remains: Is a NO tribunal competent to judge this case?
-
Looking for some insight on my status. I have a sede perspective now but in Tradition since at least 1990
I was engaged to a heathen who was previously “married” to a Ukrainian catholic - they were married in a Protestant service
My fiancé petitioned the NO tribunal for relief. It was decided that the Petrine Privelege was the best route (better than Lack of Form). This was granted in favor of the husband
My fiancé was baptized (and confirmed by a NO bishop)
We were then “married” by a NO priest (who was likely ordained in the old rite) in the traditional manner
Now I’m divorced from her for two decades
I’ve maintained my vows
AM I A MARRIED MAN ?
I don’t believe the NO structures have authority
Thoughts?
Thanks
m
Yes you are still married. I'm sorry if that's not the news you wanted. The authority to marry validly comes from the couple themselves (lack of impediments, valid consent). NO marriages are valid.
Many of us were divorced against our will and must stay single the rest of our lives. Kinda stinks when you are relatively young.
-
Agreed, it stinks
But there seems to be a conflict between marriage #1 and marriage #2
I’m trying to resolve that conflict
The question seems to be - IS A NOVUS ORDO TRIBUNAL COMPETENT TO RENDER JUDGEMENT of the conflict ?
-
Agreed, it stinks
But there seems to be a conflict between marriage #1 and marriage #2
I’m trying to resolve that conflict
The question seems to be - IS A NOVUS ORDO TRIBUNAL COMPETENT TO RENDER JUDGEMENT of the conflict ?
Marriage 1 was a natural marriage, not a sacrament. The Pauline privelege allows the replacement of a NATURAL marriage with a SACRAMENTAL marriage. Marriage 2 was a SACRAMENTAL marriage. Marriage 2 takes precedent and is still valid.
It doesn't take a "tribunal" to discern that Marriage 1 was only natural. This is basic stuff. The tribunal is right. Any Trad priest would tell you the same thing.
-
Yes you are still married. I'm sorry if that's not the news you wanted. The authority to marry validly comes from the couple themselves (lack of impediments, valid consent). NO marriages are valid.
Many of us were divorced against our will and must stay single the rest of our lives. Kinda stinks when you are relatively young.
If it's any consolation, the world is headed to hell in a handbasket. Nuclear war, economic disaster, another pandemic. Most of us aren't going to be alive in the next 10 years, maybe sooner. Being unmarried may be a big blessing. Use this time to start prepping and you may survive to see the Church come back and see Her glory. This is something to look forward to.
-
Agreed, it stinks
But there seems to be a conflict between marriage #1 and marriage #2
I’m trying to resolve that conflict
The question seems to be - IS A NOVUS ORDO TRIBUNAL COMPETENT TO RENDER JUDGEMENT of the conflict ?
Tribunals don't judge conflicts. They judge the validity of sacraments, particularly matrimony. You are being vague and I wonder why.
-
The marriage to the heathen Ukie is a valid, non-sacramental marriage. Were the Ukie subsequently baptised, the marriage would become sacramental.
Non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved in favour of the Faith (Petrine Privilege, Pauline Privilege), but sacramental marriages can only dissolved by the death of one or both spouses.
Understanding marriage validity can be complicated and confusing to those untrained in canon law, whether Corpus or 17 Code or 83 Code. For example, the marriage between two baptised Protestants would be presumed valid and invalidity would need to be proved. Or, Catholics are bound to canonical form for validity. Or, certain defects can be sanated (cleansed) at the root validating a marriage ex post facto. Or, a civil marriage or one attempted before a non-Catholic minister can be validated by convalidation before a Catholic minister with delegation. Ah ... delegation! For validity, one must contract marriage before a priest or deacon with faculties from the ordinary bishop or with delegation from a parish pastor. Oh ... oh ... and Eastern Catholics must have their marriages conferred by a priest, never a deacon which would likely invalidate the marrige because, whereas in the Latin Church, the spouses marry each other before ecclesiastical witness, in the Eastern Churches the priest (and never a deacon) confers the sacrament on the couple.
A Catholic, even if fallen away, can never marry in a non-Catholic ceremony. Ever. There's no such thing as valid non-sacrament. There is natural/putative marriage which exists between pagans, Jews, etc.
The OP is still married to his 2nd wife UNLESS there is evidence that the first union (his or hers) was valid and rendered the second union invalid.
I'm guessing he wants to prove his 2nd marriage was invalid so that he can contract a 3rd marriage.
They won't go the Novus Ordo mass but they want Novus Ordo annulments.....weird.
-
Nobody new but more than curious - shooting for moral certainty. In the absence of that, I’ll hang onto my vows
Indeed, it been a rough go…
A Catholic, even if fallen away, can never marry in a non-Catholic ceremony. Ever. There's no such thing as valid non-sacrament. There is natural/putative marriage which exists between pagans, Jews, etc.
The OP is still married to his 2nd wife UNLESS there is evidence that the first union (his or hers) was valid and rendered the second union invalid.
I'm guessing he wants to prove his 2nd marriage was invalid so that he can contract a 3rd marriage.
They won't go the Novus Ordo mass but they want Novus Ordo annulments.....weird.
The above quote seems to be from the OP. And answers the above post. Let's not make assumptions. He just wants moral certainty.
-
Thanks Gray. Lots of silly assumptions…
In the future I’ll leave out unnecessary context - it piques interest and engagement but sure does muddy the waters (tho many of the responses have also been intelligent and thought-provoking if not quite getting to the heart of my particular matter)
If anyone is still interested, here is what I consider the critical issue:
IS A NOVUS ORDER MARRIAGE TRIBUNAL A COMPETENT/AUTHORITATIVE BODY ???
-
Thanks Gray. Lots of silly assumptions…
In the future I’ll leave out unnecessary context - it piques interest and engagement but sure does muddy the waters (tho many of the responses have also been intelligent and thought-provoking if not quite getting to the heart of my particular matter)
If anyone is still interested, here is what I consider the critical issue:
IS A NOVUS ORDER MARRIAGE TRIBUNAL A COMPETENT/AUTHORITATIVE BODY ???
Do we need to know the year in question? As we get further and further from Vatican 2, I think the competency weakens (that might not be the right way to say it). Did the person/people judging the tribunal (again not sure if my terminology is correct) have the authority to decide? Did the authority of the priests and bishops after Vatican 2, immediately cease to exist?
Sorry no answers, only many questions.
-
Thanks Gray. Lots of silly assumptions…
In the future I’ll leave out unnecessary context - it piques interest and engagement but sure does muddy the waters (tho many of the responses have also been intelligent and thought-provoking if not quite getting to the heart of my particular matter)
If anyone is still interested, here is what I consider the critical issue:
IS A NOVUS ORDER MARRIAGE TRIBUNAL A COMPETENT/AUTHORITATIVE BODY ???
You are asking the wrong question. You don’t need a marriage tribunal (no matter if traditional or novus ordo) to answer the question of “Is marriage 1 valid?”. No, it’s not. Marriage 1 isn’t a sacramental marriage, which is the entire reason why the Pauline privilege exists. Your questions around marriage 1 can simply be answered by anyone who has a basic knowledge of canon law. The tribunal was correct. But it doesnt take a tribunal to answer the question.
-
Disagree. I think my question is correct and I’ll let it stand. You don’t have to answer it - I give you leave sir
-
:facepalm: The Pauline privilege rules have been around since, well, St Paul. So 2,000 yrs. Your situation isn’t that unique or special. I personally know multiple similar circuмstances. Ask any Trad priest and you’ll get the same answer.
-
Timeline
1st marriage mid-‘80s. Tribunal early ‘90s
Bishops with jurisdiction (in law/tribunals) that accepted V2 and abandoned Tradition were certainly gone from my diocese by 1970
By 1970, with few exceptions, the NO has a firm grasp on all structures formerly associated with the true church
DURING the Council you could argue for grey areas but afterwards I think Tradition faded exponentially
-
I get the Pauline rules, etc have been around since forever. I’m not disputing that. WHO gets to enforce those rules is the question
-
Seems to me that when this issue was put before “the court”
- the court was high on Vat2
- Mr bezzlebub bribed the court
- the court swore an altered oath
- the court was appointed by an imposter
Is this a legit court ?
-
Plenty of Trad priests use the Pauline privilege and marry a person that was previously “married” to a non-catholic. A tribunal isn’t necessary.
-
And I reckon plenty more don’t do it because they believe, as I do, that ordinary priests don’t have that authority and only bishops with jurisdiction do have it
-
Essentially, for a Catholic to marry an unbaptized person outside of the Catholic Church and have it recognized as valid by the Church, the Catholic party needs to follow the necessary procedures to obtain a dispensation from their local bishop, which involves certain promises and a commitment to their faith and the religious upbringing of any children.
—- The above describes your situation. Since the original marriage didn’t get a dispensation (it was done by a Protestant minister), I doubt it was even valid.
The Pauline privilege may not even apply. Marriage 1 may not have needed this privilege. May have been null to begin with.
Why are you asking this site for advice? You need to get an opinion of a Trad Priest.
-
Respectfully, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the the entirety of the thread before spouting-off
I’ll get my advice from whom I choose including trads from all walks of life. There are also kooky trad clergy I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole