Irregular marriages recognized?
#9
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?
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 Bonaventure - 12-10-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: Irregular marriages recognized? - by Paul - 12-10-2017, 03:24 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)