I have relatives in the US South who are protestants. I forgot, either Baptist or Methodist. One of them has been engaged to marry. I'm concerned as to its validity in the eyes of God and the Church as the Catholic Church is out of the picture completely. Would this purported marriage have properties which Catholic Marriages have like indisolubility, the sacrament etc? Would their children be bastards? Not sure how protestant "marriages" work.

Marriages among Protestants are certainly valid (barring any impediments, defective consent, etc., which would nullify even a marriage between two Catholics).

A mixed marriage of a Catholic with a non-Catholic (baptized or not) is invalid unless the Catholic receives a dispensation from his or her bishop.

Even if raised as Protestants their entire lives, their marriage would be invalid if they were baptized Catholic.

No, they're presumed valid:

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.

cf. 1917 Canon 1014

I have relatives in the US South who are protestants. I forgot, either Baptist or Methodist. One of them has been engaged to marry. I'm concerned as to its validity in the eyes of God and the Church as the Catholic Church is out of the picture completely. Would this purported marriage have properties which Catholic Marriages have like indisolubility, the sacrament etc? Would their children be bastards? Not sure how protestant "marriages" work.

If there were no previous marriage between the two of them and they were baptized then the marriage is valid and indissoluble in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Baptism and matrimony are the only two valid sacraments in the Protestant church.  

Looks to me like your quotes contradict each other. I'd stick with Ladislaus explanation, which is what I was always taught.

Marriages among Protestants are certainly valid (barring any impediments, defective consent, etc., which would nullify even a marriage between two Catholics).

A mixed marriage of a Catholic with a non-Catholic (baptized or not) is invalid unless the Catholic receives a dispensation from his or her bishop.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Even if raised as Protestants their entire lives, their marriage would be invalid if they were baptized Catholic.

No, they're presumed valid:

Quote from: 1983

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.

cf. 1917 Canon 1014

Sorry for the sloppiness:

Quote from: Geremia

A mixed marriage of a Catholic with a non-baptized, non-Catholic (baptized or not) is invalid

The Church has matrimonial jurisdiction over the baptized (cf. '83 Can. 1075 §2: "Only the supreme authority has the right to establish other impediments for the baptized.").

Baring diriment impediments, which render an attempted marriage invalid,
1. a baptized Catholic marries a non-baptized person invalidly ('83 Can. 1076 §1)
2. a baptized Catholic marries a baptized non-Catholic validly but illicitly (cf. '83 Can. 1124).

Regarding point #2, the 1917 Can. 1060 says that in cases where the non-Catholic presents "a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law;" however, it is still an "impeding impediment," which is "a grave prohibition against contracting marriage; but nevertheless, it does not render it invalid if, notwithstanding the impediment, [marriage] is contracted." ('17 Can. 1036 §1).

Quote from: poche

Baptism and matrimony are the only two valid sacraments in the Protestant church.  

There is no such church.

Correct. There is no such church, and Protestants do not recognize sacraments at all, especially matrimony.

But as for Baptism, when Protestants baptize, they might out of habit or even ignorance have no opposition to doing what the Church does, in which case the baptism is valid (providing the same person speaks the proper words while pouring the water which RUNS over the skin of the recipient). Anyone can baptize, even a heretic or a pagan or a satanist. The water does not need to be holy water, but Protestants generally deny that holy water exists.

There have been many Protestant baptisms that have been annulled because of one or more defects, the most instructive of which is their erroneous belief that they are only doing this "baptism" thing to initiate or enroll the recipient into their own particular congregation, sort of like a hazing ritual or a induction ceremony for joining a fraternity, a club or a gang.  The implication is clearly that nothing spiritual is intended or thought to be taking place, as it is only a worldly or materialist action. When they do this with any opposition to doing what the Catholic Church does in Baptism, it is invalid, and at least a conditional Baptism must be done in the future to be sure that Baptism has been validly done.

There have been cases of so-called Catholic clerics administering "Baptism" which have been authoritatively declared invalid because they used words like "I baptize you (insert name) in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier."

You can thank the makers of the modern mind for this heresy of invalid baptisms.

Hegel, Hume, Kant, Comte, Fuerbach, Darwin, and last but not least John Paul Sartre (whose name is arguably the inspiration for one Wojtyla's choice).

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: poche

Baptism and matrimony are the only two valid sacraments in the Protestant church.  

There is no such church.

Correct. There is no such church, and Protestants do not recognize sacraments at all, especially matrimony.

But as for Baptism, when Protestants baptize, they might out of habit or even ignorance have no opposition to doing what the Church does, in which case the baptism is valid (providing the same person speaks the proper words while pouring the water which RUNS over the skin of the recipient). Anyone can baptize, even a heretic or a pagan or a satanist. The water does not need to be holy water, but Protestants generally deny that holy water exists.

There have been many Protestant baptisms that have been annulled because of one or more defects, the most instructive of which is their erroneous belief that they are only doing this "baptism" thing to initiate or enroll the recipient into their own particular congregation, sort of like a hazing ritual or a induction ceremony for joining a fraternity, a club or a gang.  The implication is clearly that nothing spiritual is intended or thought to be taking place, as it is only a worldly or materialist action. When they do this with any opposition to doing what the Catholic Church does in Baptism, it is invalid, and at least a conditional Baptism must be done in the future to be sure that Baptism has been validly done.

There have been cases of so-called Catholic clerics administering "Baptism" which have been authoritatively declared invalid because they used words like "I baptize you (insert name) in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier."

You can thank the makers of the modern mind for this heresy of invalid baptisms.

Hegel, Hume, Kant, Comte, Fuerbach, Darwin, and last but not least John Paul Sartre (whose name is arguably the inspiration for one Wojtyla's choice).

If the minister intends to do what the Church does and says what teh Church says tehn the baptism is valid. Even if he were not baptized himself (like for esample a Jєωιѕн rabbi or an Islamic mullah) the baptism would still be valid. As for matrimony what matters here is what teh Church teaches. The ministers of the sacrament of Matrimony are the couple themselves when they give consent. It doesn't matter what their erroneous ideas are, the marriage is a sacrament and it is indissoluble.    

Technically they are called ecclesial communities.  

What do they have to do with the ecclesia? They're not members of the Church. "Heretical communities" would be more descriptive.