Irregular marriages recognized?
#10
(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.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • Bonaventure, jovan66102
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Irregular marriages recognized? - by lupacexi2 - 12-09-2017, 02:20 AM
RE: Irregular marriages recognized? - by Poche - 12-09-2017, 06:05 AM
RE: Irregular marriages recognized? - by Paul - 12-09-2017, 02:05 PM
RE: Irregular marriages recognized? - by Paul - 12-09-2017, 08:34 PM
RE: Irregular marriages recognized? - by Paul - 12-10-2017, 03:24 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)