Author Topic: a question on marriage (Read 805 times)

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **on:** October 29, 2013, 01:14:25 PM »

This is a delicate question that I am having difficulty understanding, so I thought I might inquire here for other perspectives.

I understand that traditionally, Catholics are to marry in the Church, but I don't think this directive is literal because on some occasions the marriage might take place other than physically in the Church (i.e. a home or large hall). Also, I understand that the Sacrament is confected by the two people exchanging vows, and that the priest's role is as a witness, of which two or more are required.

So where in this is "the Church" that the two people are required to be married in?
I would like to hear the various perspectives from people that frequent this forum.

Thank you for your time!

May God bless you and yours, now and always.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2013, 02:14:36 PM »

Before: a physical Church

Now: just have a non-heretic priest around.

My H and I were married in an out-of-state parish (***tricky***). We had to fly people in, and we rented a vacation house for people to stay in for a long weekend. It made our honeymoon a weekend celebration with family and friends, primarily to have a "Church" wedding in a building that wasn't wrecked by modernism. The memories are priceless, but these days, I wouldn't bother going to those extremes to find a Church with an attached altar and a priest who retains the Faith. Just a priest that believes that Jesus is God would be a Godsend.

(But if you have a nice parish around, I think it's preferable so as many Faithful can witness as possible. That's the idea.)

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:02:45 PM »

The reason why I would marry in a traditional catholic church by a valid priest: To receive a "sacrament" which has the powers of the Precious Blood, the Graces much needed for the vocation. I wouldn't have it any other way. I would think everyone would desire the Precious Blood of Christ be on their marriage.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:08:32 PM »

To marry "in the Church" has two meanings. The one broader meaning simply means to observe the Church's laws regarding marriage. It is true that Catholics ought to marry in a Church (i.e., in a place of Catholic worship) but the validity of the marriage does not hinge on this, inasmuch as with permission, and in cases of emergency a couple may lawfully and validly contract marriage in another place.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:10:13 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

This is a delicate question that I am having difficulty understanding, so I thought I might inquire here for other perspectives.

I understand that traditionally, Catholics are to marry in the Church, but I don't think this directive is literal because on some occasions the marriage might take place other than physically in the Church (i.e. a home or large hall). Also, I understand that the Sacrament is confected by the two people exchanging vows, and that the priest's role is as a witness, of which two or more are required.

So where in this is "the Church" that the two people are required to be married in?
I would like to hear the various perspectives from people that frequent this forum.

Thank you for your time!

May God bless you and yours, now and always.

This isn't a difficult question; it's a simple one with a definitive and clear-cut answer.

Marrying "in the Church" means following all the Church laws regarding marriage. That includes having a priest as witness for the marriage itself, and following all his instructions.

Marrying "outside the Church" is when a person decides to circuмvent the Church in some way, such as getting married by a protestant minister or Justice of the Peace.

The Church, having authority from Christ Himself, is the final arbiter of who can and can't get married. If one of the couple has been married before, or fails to receive a dispensation for an impediment that exists, the Church can refuse to allow a marriage. The couple must then either go along with the Church's decision, or marry "outside the Church" (usually, such a couple gives up the Catholic Faith from that day forward).

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** October 29, 2013, 08:14:00 PM »

Traditionally, a priest would give some decent marriage preparation to the engaged couples. This would prevent future annulments.

For example, the priest would teach the couple what marriage involves, the proper male/female roles within marriage, the marriage debt, the duties of husband and wife, the nature of marriage (lifelong, exclusive contract), Church doctrine on birth control, etc.

If a couple was awake during this training, it would be morally impossible for them to claim later, "Hey, I had no IDEA marriage was permanent!" or, "I had no idea married couples couldn't use _____. You mean I gotta have all the kids nature allows!?!?"

As you can see, this marriage preparation (and preemptive disqualification for any future annulments) was a great boon for society and the family.

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2013, 10:51:34 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

This is a delicate question that I am having difficulty understanding, so I thought I might inquire here for other perspectives.

I understand that traditionally, Catholics are to marry in the Church, but I don't think this directive is literal because on some occasions the marriage might take place other than physically in the Church (i.e. a home or large hall). Also, I understand that the Sacrament is confected by the two people exchanging vows, and that the priest's role is as a witness, of which two or more are required.

So where in this is "the Church" that the two people are required to be married in?
I would like to hear the various perspectives from people that frequent this forum.

Thank you for your time!

May God bless you and yours, now and always.

Marrying in the Church is traditionally in the Church itself. If it is in some other place physically then there has to be permission given for that. (i.e. home, hall etc...)
The ministers of teh sacrament are the couple exchanging vows. The form requires that there be witnesses in order to protect the integrity of the sacrament.
The "Church" that you are asking about is in the Catholic Church, that is folloowing the form set up by the ppe and the bishops in union with the pope. The Church has been defined as the "People of God." I know this sounds like what you don't like to hear. But for example if someone were to throw a bomb into the church building and flatten it out, The parish would still continue They would just rebuild the church building. The same applies to the SSPX. If someone were to throw a bomb in one of their chapels they could rebuild. That is because in the sense that you are asking about the word "church" has two meanings. One meaning is the building itself and the other meaning has to do with the community. So that mean that when you are married in the Church even if the actual marriage took place in a hall or a house (that presuposes that the required permissions were acquired) it would be a valid marriage if teh correct form was followed according to Canon Law.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #7 on:** October 29, 2013, 11:38:45 PM »

If I may list some of the variables in play,

#1 Two baptized, practicing Catholics,
a. married "in the Church" with the priest's blessing - a valid and binding marriage
b. married "outside the Church" with non-Catholic witnesses - not a valid marriage

#2 Two baptized, non-practicing Catholics (not rejecting the Faith, but not practicing it),
a. not able to marry "in the Church" without returning to a practicing status, so
b. married "outside the Church" - would their marriage be valid and binding?

#3 Two baptized, practicing non-Catholics (Protestants),
a. not able to marry "in the Church" without becoming becoming Catholic first, so
b. married "outside the Church" in their Protest religion, a valid and binding marriage

Did the ability to marry "in the Church" change after the Second Vatican Council?

Is marriage the modern, novus ordo, post Vatican II religion #1, #2, or #3 above?

Is marriage in the SSPX #1 above?
Is marriage with an independent Catholic priest #1 above?
Is marriage with a CMRI priest #1 above?

What if (unaware of SSPX or CMRI) the two just went off and exchanged vows privately with two witnesses?

One further variable, what if two baptized, traditionally practicing Catholics (say for example SSPX or CMRI) return to the modern Catholic practice; Was their marriage in either of these traditionally oriented organizations "in the Church"?

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:05:39 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

If I may list some of the variables in play,

#1 Two baptized, practicing Catholics,
a. married "in the Church" with the priest's blessing - a valid and binding marriage
b. married "outside the Church" with non-Catholic witnesses - not a valid marriage

#2 Two baptized, non-practicing Catholics (not rejecting the Faith, but not practicing it),
a. not able to marry "in the Church" without returning to a practicing status, so
b. married "outside the Church" - would their marriage be valid and binding?
Their marriage would be consdered invalid. If they were to divorce and return to the faith they would be free to marry. There is the possibility that it could be valid but it would need to be convalidated. (i.e. blessed in the Catholic Church) I would strongly recommend seeing a priest for more details regarding that that situation.

#3 Two baptized, practicing non-Catholics (Protestants),
a. not able to marry "in the Church" without becoming becoming Catholic first, so
b. married "outside the Church" in their Protest religion, a valid and binding marriage
That would be considered valid if the Protestant religion also had valid baptisms. If they are validly baptized Christians then they are able to have the sacrament of matrimony.

Did the ability to marry "in the Church" change after the Second Vatican Council?
The details in Canon Law changedd. Before Vatican II the Catholic Church did not investigate the validity of non Catholic marriages. Today they do.

Is marriage the modern, novus ordo, post Vatican II religion #1, #2, or #3 above?

Is marriage in the SSPX #1 above?
Is marriage with an independent Catholic priest #1 above?
Is marriage with a CMRI priest #1 above?
Non of these marriagegs are considered valid because in order to be validly married the priest who is the witness and presides over the ceremony has to have faculties. The local ordinaries have not given faculties priests in the above categories.

What if (unaware of SSPX or CMRI) the two just went off and exchanged vows privately with two witnesses?
Before the Council of Trent that type of marriageg was recognized as valid. However there were a lot of problems. (i.e. people making multiple private promises)

One further variable, what if two baptized, traditionally practicing Catholics (say for example SSPX or CMRI) return to the modern Catholic practice; Was their marriage in either of these traditionally oriented organizations "in the Church"?
The marraiges in these cases would be considered invalid. In order for them to be in good standing there would have to be a convalidation. In these circuмstances they would have to see their parish priest for more details.

Zeitun · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2013, 09:55:32 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

If I may list some of the variables in play,

#1 Two baptized, practicing Catholics,
a. married "in the Church" with the priest's blessing - a valid and binding marriage CORRECT
b. married "outside the Church" with non-Catholic witnesses - not a valid marriage WITHOUT A DISPENSATION CORRECT

#2 Two baptized, non-practicing Catholics (not rejecting the Faith, but not practicing it),
a. not able to marry "in the Church" without returning to a practicing status, so
b. married "outside the Church" - would their marriage be valid and binding? NO

#3 Two baptized, practicing non-Catholics (Protestants),
a. not able to marry "in the Church" without becoming becoming Catholic first, so
b. married "outside the Church" in their Protest religion, a valid and binding marriage YES THEIR MARRIAGE IS VALID

Did the ability to marry "in the Church" change after the Second Vatican Council? IN DOCTRINE/LAW NO BUT IN PRACTICE YES

Is marriage the modern, novus ordo, post Vatican II religion #1, #2, or #3 above?

Is marriage in the SSPX #1 above?
Is marriage with an independent Catholic priest #1 above?
Is marriage with a CMRI priest #1 above?

What if (unaware of SSPX or CMRI) the two just went off and exchanged vows privately with two witnesses? NOT VALID BECAUSE MARRIAGES IN THE NOVUS ORDO ARE VALID UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER IMPEDIMENT

One further variable, what if two baptized, traditionally practicing Catholics (say for example SSPX or CMRI) return to the modern Catholic practice; Was their marriage in either of these traditionally oriented organizations "in the Church"? YES

BTW, another reason to marry with a real priest is the nuptial blessing which can only be given once in a woman's lifetime.