Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?  (Read 9636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2022, 10:20:05 PM »

So, it was actually the case of Pius IX that made me reconsider my erstwhile dogmatic sedevacantism.  I ran into a man who had decided that Pius IX was an anti-pope, a heretic.  That gave me pause to consider whether this guy, or Father Cekada's infamous "Aunt Helen," could just denounce any Catholic pope as a non-Catholic anti-pope.  There are a fair number of people who are starting jump on the bandwagon of declaring Pius IX an anti-Pope, therefore rejecting papal infallibility, and basically becoming Old Catholics and/or Orthodox.


Just out of curiosity, do these people just reject Pius IX, or all popes after him as well?  That would be a very long period of sede vacante.  Shades of Richard Ibranyi!

Not saying I embrace this WRT Pius IX --- I don't --- but couldn't any given pope just be an antipope in isolation, assuming that subsequent conclaves were able to elect valid popes?  Or if you maintain that one pope is an antipope, then does the papacy basically "die" until... until what?  The latter doesn't really make sense.

Offline TheRealMcCoy

  • Supporter
Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2022, 10:31:18 PM »
This thread seems to be straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.


Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2022, 11:25:35 PM »
So, this is precisely why the code treats of those who are baptized into the Catholic Church, as the Church has the right and the authority to impose legal obligations for the conditions required to contract a valid marriage over and above the requirements of Divine Law.  Church has no such authority over those who were not baptized in the Catholic Church, and that is precisely the reason why this legal requirement does not apply to non-Catholics.  Conversely, the Church could at any time lift this requirement and declare that a Catholic could marry validly even in a civil ceremony.  But the Church in her wisdom realizes what grave harm this would do to the Sacrament of Matrimony.

So it is incorrect to call them legal fictions.  When the Church binds on earth, it is bound in heaven, and vice versa.  It's the Church's actual law and it determines reality, and not merely a legal fiction.  To use the term "fiction" suggests that such people are not REALLY married, but the Church is merely pretending that they are for the purposes of subsequent application of law.  When the Church declares a sanatio, the couple do in fact become married in reality, reality being "in the eyes of God".
No, WRT sanatio in radice, the Church is not saying that there is no marriage, rather, she is saying that there is a marriage now and henceforth, and that she will treat it as though there was a valid marriage from the beginning, even though from the time it was illicitly and invalidly contracted, up to the moment the sanatio is promulgated, there was, in fact, no valid marriage.  It is basically convalidation without requiring the spouses to renew their vows, i.e., retroactive validation.  There could be any one (or more) of several reasons for so doing.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent):

The dispensation called sanatio in radice consists in the revalidation of a marriage by reason of a consent formerly given, but ineffective at the time owing to some ecclesiastical impediment. When the impediment is removed, the consent is ipso facto ratified and no renovation is required. In such a case, it is requisite that the consent of both parties to the marriage had not ceased and that their wedlock had had the external appearance of a true marriage. Sanatio is resorted to when there is urgent reason for not acquainting the parties with the nullity of their marriage, or when one of the parties alone is cognizant of the impediment and the other cannot be informed without grave consequences, or when one party would be unwilling formally to renew a consent that is presumably existent. The pope has power to give the dispensation called sanatio in radice for all marriages which are invalid in consequence of an ecclesiastical impediment. Bishops generally have no such power, even when by particular indult they can dispense in diriment impediments. For the granting of sanatio in radice a special apostolic faculty is required. In the United States, the ordinaries may grant such dispensation, under certain limitations, when only of the parties to the marriage is aware of the impediment.

I always liken it to the assertion made by some, that Ohio was never properly admitted to the Union in 1803, due to a procedural error, so in 1953, Congress retroactively made Ohio a state from the time of its putative 1803 admission up until that moment.  The case can be made that from 1803 to 1953, without anyone realizing it, Ohio was not a state, but was, in fact, the sole remaining rump remnant of the Northwest Territory.  It's entirely possible that without this, any laws passed by Congress, where Ohio's Senate and/or House votes would have made the difference between ratifying them and not ratifying them, would be invalid.  That would be, as the saying goes, like trying to make fish soup into an aquarium, as opposed to making an aquarium into fish soup (which would be relatively easy by comparison).

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2022, 06:47:55 AM »
If only a valid Catholic priest can administer the sacraments(marriage being one of them) then doesn't it
stand to reason that all the people who were married in false churches and sects or the local courthouse or by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, aren't really married at all?
If they then get a divorce are they free to marry in the Catholic faith since their first "marriage" wasn't really valid?
I think you may be forgetting about the Marriage Contract:

Quote
Canon 1012
§ 1. Christ the Lord raised the marriage contract itself to the dignity of a sacrament among the baptized.
§ 2. Therefore among the baptized there can be no valid contract of marriage without its also being a sacrament.

For Catholics who marry in the Church, while the sacrament itself suffices to assist the married spouses for their whole lives in all the duties they have till one of them dies, it is the contract that binds them to their vows until one of them dies.

Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.

Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.

The Church recognizes all marriages as valid initially - 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.    

Re: Are People Married In Non Catholic Ceremonies Really Married?
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2022, 06:53:13 AM »
I think you may be forgetting about the Marriage Contract:

For Catholics who marry in the Church, while the sacrament itself suffices to assist the married spouses for their whole lives in all the duties they have till one of them dies, it is the contract that binds them to their vows until one of them dies.

Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.

Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.

The Church recognizes all marriages as valid initially - 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.   
Good question.  Wouldn't the canons regarding reasons for annulment provide some insight?