FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Irregular marriages recognized?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Báo giá cột đá nhà thờ họ chi tiết tại Đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh

Báo giá cột đá nhà thờ họ chi tiết tại Đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh. Giá cột đá là yếu tố được quan tâm hàng đầu khi khách hàng tham khảo các sản phẩm về cột đá cho nhà thờ họ. Bài viết này Đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh xin báo giá cho các bạn về cột cho nhà thờ họ bằng đá.
[Image: bao-gia-cot-da-nha-tho-ho.jpg]

Báo giá cột đá nhà thờ họ chi tiết tại Đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh


Báo giá cột đá

Để đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh báo giá chi tiết nhất thì qúy khách cần cung cấp các thông tin như kích thước của cột, kích thước công trình nhà thờ họ, và loại đá khách hàng mong muốn làm cột. Ngoài ra giá cột đá nhà thờ còn phụ thuộc vào kiểu mẫu và địa chỉ nhận hàng, phụ thuộc vào thời điểm đặt hàng. Qúy khách có nhu cầu cần tham khảo giá cột đá, vui lòng liên hệ Hotline:0912.957.222 để được tư vấn và báo giá cụ thể , chi tiết hơn.
[Image: mau-cot-da-nha-tho-ho-dep-gia-tot.jpg]

Mẫu cột đá nhà thờ họ đẹp do Đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh chế tác và lắp đặt


Đôi nét về cơ sở đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh

Cơ sở đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh được thành lập tại làng đá mỹ nghệ truyền thống tại Ninh Vân – Hoa Lư – Ninh Bình. Là nơi sản xuất, chế tác các hạng mục tâm linh bằng đá nổi tiếng khắp cả nước.
  • Đá mỹ nghệ Thái Vinh với đội ngũ thợ làm đồ đá có kinh nghiệm, tay nghề cao, cung cấp sản phẩm đá mỹ nghệ chất lượng tốt nhất , giá cả phù hợp nhất,
  • Đội ngũ nhân viên, thợ nghề lành nghề làm việc với phương châm ” tạo ra những sản phẩm tốt nhất”
  • Sẩn phẩm đá mỹ nghệ của Thái Vinh với hoa văn, đường vân sắc sảo, rõ nét. Được chế tác bởi những nghê nhân tốt nhất Làng Nghề Ninh Vân
  • Cam kết 100 % các sản phẩm đều được chế tác từ đá tự nhiên
  • Tư vấn, hướng dẫn miễn phí thiết kế, chọn mẫu sản phẩm phù hợp với mong muốn khách hàng
  • Tiến độ thi công nhanh và cam kết bàn giao đúng thời hạn
  • Bảo hành nghiêm túc theo quy định.
My understanding, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, is that the marriage of two validly baptised people. regardless of denomination. is considered a valid marriage. So, yes, the former faith does make a difference. I know there are rules concerning non-Christians, but I'll let someone more knowledgable than I am handle that.
As a general rule when two baptized people are married they are married for life. If there is a prior divorce in one of the marriages and they want to convert then the question of the prior marriage would have to be resolved before they could enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.
There are some technicalities. There is the pauline privilege.
If one or both of the parties were baptized in the Catholic Church and they were brought up outside the Church then they would have to be married in the Church again as they would technically be living in an irregular marital situation.
(12-09-2017, 02:20 AM)lupacexi2 Wrote: [ -> ]So after being confused by Amoris Laetitia and all the reporting around it, I'm wondering what, if any, "irregular marriages" are recognized by the Church.

My wife and I were raised Catholic, were married in the Catholic Church, so obviously if I left my wife and got civilly remarried, that's adultery.  Got it.

My question is how does this apply to people who came from other faiths?  If we were not Catholic, and so were married outside the Church, then divorced, then one of us became Catholic and wanted to remarry in the Church, would the now-Catholic be considered on a 2d marriage?  And would it make any difference regarding the former faith?  Especially if we didn't acknowledge Christ when we were married, for example Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist.  Just curious.
Peace.....no, the now/new Catholic would not be considered in a 2nd marriage.  The issue is being married IN the Catholic Church and getting a divorce - the divorce then is civil but one needs an annulment in the Church to remarry if the marriage was in the Catholic Church to begin with.....angeltime  That's how it has been for a long time, but now Francis has his own views on things.....?
Canon 1086, Section 1 states: "A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid."  But, Section 2 of that Canon allows for dispensations therefrom: "A person is not to be dispensed (i.e., dispensations are allowed) from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in Cannons 1125 and 1126 have been fulfilled."   Those Canons deal with mixed marriages (i.e. marriages between the baptized and un-baptized).

It would therefore appear that marriages conducted between two baptized persons, regardless if they were Catholic or not at the time of marriage, are indissoluble.  Further, regarding mixed marriages, it would appear to depend if the marriage was entered into with the proper dispensation.  If it were, then it would appear to be indissoluble.  If it were not, it would appear to be an invalid marriage (and grounds for a petition of annulment?). Finally, marriage between two un-baptized persons would not at all be recognized as being valid.
(12-09-2017, 11:13 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Finally, marriage between two un-baptized persons would not at all be recognized as being valid.

A marriage between two unbaptised persons is valid, but not sacramental, and can be dissolved in favour of the faith if one of them becomes Catholic or wants to marry a Catholic.
(12-09-2017, 02:05 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]A marriage between two unbaptised persons is valid, but not sacramental, and can be dissolved in favour of the faith if one of them becomes Catholic or wants to marry a Catholic.

Could you please cite the Canon supporting that?
(12-09-2017, 02:46 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2017, 02:05 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]A marriage between two unbaptised persons is valid, but not sacramental, and can be dissolved in favour of the faith if one of them becomes Catholic or wants to marry a Catholic.

Could you please cite the Canon supporting that?

That's the Pauline privilege, so named because of I Cor. 7, 10-15.

But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.
   
If one is baptised and one is not, it can be dissolved by the Petrine privilege, which is discussed here. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Norms on the Preparation of the Process for the Dissolution of the Marriage Bond in Favour of the Faith), and is in Canon 1142 and 1150.

Can.  1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can.  1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

Can.  1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.

§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without aVront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

Can.  1144 §1. For the baptized party to contract a new marriage validly, the non-baptized party must always be interrogated whether:

1/ he or she also wishes to receive baptism;

2/ he or she at least wishes to cohabit peacefully with the baptized party without aVront to the Creator.

§2. This interrogation must be done after baptism. For a grave cause, however, the local ordinary can permit the interrogation to be done before baptism or can even dispense from the interrogation either before or after baptism provided that it is evident at least by a summary and extrajudicial process that it cannot be done or would be useless.

Can.  1145 §1. The interrogation is regularly to be done on the authority of the local ordinary of the converted party.

This ordinary must grant the other spouse a period of time to respond if the spouse seeks it, after having been advised, however, that his or her silence will be considered a negative response if the period passes without effect.

§2. Even an interrogation made privately by the converted party is valid and indeed licit if the form prescribed above cannot be observed.

§3. In either case, the fact that the interrogation was done and its outcome must be established legitimately in the external forum.

Can.  1146 The baptized party has the right to contract a new marriage with a Catholic party:

1/ if the other party responded negatively to the interrogation or if the interrogation had been omitted legitimately;

2/ if the non-baptized party, already interrogated or not, at first persevered in peaceful cohabitation without aVront to the Creator but then departed without a just cause, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 1144 and 1145.

Can. 1147 For a grave cause, however, the local ordinary can allow a baptized party who uses the pauline privilege to contract marriage with a non-Catholic party, whether baptized or not baptized; the prescripts of the canons about mixed marriages are also to be observed.

Can.  1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.

§2. In the cases mentioned in §1, marriage must be contracted in legitimate form after baptism has been received, and the prescripts about mixed marriages, if necessary, and other matters required by the law are to be observed.

§3. Keeping in mind the moral, social, and economic conditions of places and of persons, the local ordinary is to take care that the needs of the first wife and the others dismissed are sufficiently provided for according to the norms of justice, Christian charity, and natural equity.

Can.  1149 A non-baptized person who, after having received baptism in the Catholic Church, cannot restore cohabitation with a non-baptized spouse by reason of captivity or persecution can contract another marriage even if the other party has received baptism in the meantime, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1141.

Can.  1150 In a doubtful matter the privilege of faith possesses the favor of the law.
Thanks Paul.

Can. 1143 appears to be on point.  However, that canon itself is silent to the terms 'valid' or 'invalid' and that's what I'm trying to get my head around.  For example, compare/contrast Can. 1143 with Can. 1086, first section, wherein it states "...a marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid."  So if both persons are unbaptized, how could that ever be considered a 'valid' marriage?  Or is the distinction of Can. 1086 the fact that if one of the parties is a baptized Catholic, then a higher standard is to be applied?  How else could a marriage between two unbaptized be considered 'valid' whereas a marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized be invalid--without dispensation?
(12-10-2017, 11:42 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks Paul.

Can. 1143 appears to be on point.  However, that canon itself is silent to the terms 'valid' or 'invalid' and that's what I'm trying to get my head around.  For example, compare/contrast Can. 1143 with Can. 1086, first section, wherein it states "...a marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid."  So if both persons are unbaptized, how could that ever be considered a 'valid' marriage?  Or is the distinction of Can. 1086 the fact that if one of the parties is a baptized Catholic, then a higher standard is to be applied?  How else could a marriage between two unbaptized be considered 'valid' whereas a marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized be invalid--without dispensation?

Because the requirement of form isn't part of divine law - the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, unlike sacraments such as Baptism and Penance, where you can't baptise yourself and only a priest can forgive sins. But because of problems with secret marriages centuries ago, the Church added the requirement of witnesses. But the Church's laws only bind Catholics. It's not a sin for the unbaptised to eat meat on Friday, but it is for Catholics. So if a Catholic gets married without dispensation, he's violated Church law, and the attempted marriage is invalid.

Only the baptised can receive the other sacraments, so someone who's unbaptised can't receive the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. But marriage pre-dates Christ, and before He made it a sacrament, it was still valid. Two atheists who get married by a judge or two Jews who get married by a rabbi are validly married, and when they have sex, they aren't fornicating. Since they're unbaptised, though, they can't receive the sacrament, and it's only sacramental marriage that's indissoluble.