Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If a Catholic Marries a Non-Christian, How is it a Sacrament?
www.canonlawmadeeasy.com ^ | January 17, 2013 | Cathy Caridi, J.C.L.

Posted on 01/18/2013 3:57:43 AM PST by Weiss White

Q: An unbaptized person can’t receive any of the other sacraments unless he gets baptized first, right? So how is it possible for a Catholic to marry a non-Christian in a Catholic ceremony? I don’t see how the non-Christian spouse can be receiving the sacrament of matrimony, if he’s never received the sacrament of baptism! Is the marriage a sacrament for the Catholic but not for the non-Christian? How does this work? –Ashley

A: It’s a very astute observation! By thinking it through logically, Ashley has spotted a genuine theological/canonical quandary.

(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Theology
KEYWORDS: blogspam; canonlaw; catholic; checkoutmyblog; comeseemyblog; didjareadmyblog; ihaveablog; iminteresting; listentome; lookatme; marriage; payattentiontome; pimpmyblog; readme; readmyblog; readmyramblings; sacrament; trollingforhits
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 01/18/2013 3:57:50 AM PST by Weiss White
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

I don’t know. Would like to know the answer, though, as our daughter has been dating a non-Catholic lately and they seem somewhat serious at times.


2 posted on 01/18/2013 4:00:50 AM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

While I’m not a Catholic, it is my understanding that true Catholics aren’t advised to marry non-Catholics, if at all.


3 posted on 01/18/2013 4:01:52 AM PST by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
"While I’m not a Catholic, it is my understanding that true Catholics aren’t advised to marry non-Catholics, if at all."

Just as the Bible says Christians should not marry non-Christians.

4 posted on 01/18/2013 4:07:37 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

a catholic cannot have a catholic ceremony if marrying a non catholic...

sometimes dual ceremonies are allowed, but they will not receive the blessing of the catholic church...


5 posted on 01/18/2013 4:10:31 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

When true love happens, even man-made religions succumb in attempts at preventing it.


6 posted on 01/18/2013 4:23:25 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Good luck with explaining that to my Catholic father and Presbyterian mother.


7 posted on 01/18/2013 4:24:48 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

God bestows marriage, not the Catholic church.

And He bestows it - even on unbelievers - in accordance with the first marriage He ordained in the Garden of Eden.


8 posted on 01/18/2013 4:31:58 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White
There are two parts to any church wedding. One is the marriage itself, which is a secular part empowered by the state and that is the part a non-Catholic participates in. The other is the sacrament which only Catholics participate in. Non Catholics can be in a Catholic wedding under the condition that all children are raised Catholic.
9 posted on 01/18/2013 4:41:25 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Two religions I never date are LDS and RC. One wants you to share their cult, the other wants you to share their guilt.


10 posted on 01/18/2013 4:44:13 AM PST by fattigermaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks
The nuns taught us that a Catholic could marry any baptized Christian, but that a non-Catholic intended spouse had to agree to raise the children as Catholics. Marriage to an unbaptized person was not allowed.

My mother’s father and my father’s mother were both Irish Catholics, who married non-Catholics. My father’s father was from a Huguenot strain and a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and vehemently anti-Catholic. My mother’s mother was nominally Anglican, a Mayflower descendant and more or less indifferent to religion and mildly dismissive of Romanism. Neither my father nor my mother were raised in religous households, though both joined the Catholic Church when I was about seven. Prior to that, we attended a local Protestant Church. Protestant Sunday School was much more pleasant than Catholic catechism class.

11 posted on 01/18/2013 4:57:16 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Please, don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

my uncle is a catholic priest..

sometimes, an individual priest will bend the rules, but for the most part it is not allowed...

there are immediate members of the family that he could not perform the wedding for because he basically is not allowed..

he still came to the weddings, just could not partake in any official way


12 posted on 01/18/2013 4:57:58 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

First of all, Roman Catholics recognize the baptism of non Catholics (protestants)

Second of all this non Catholic married a Catholic by meeting with priest and agreeing to raise children in Catholic faith

The priest then reneged on participating in our marriage ceremony

So we were married in Methodist church - no marriage sacrament for him but

for 34 years while he attends Mass and partakes of all Catholic sacraments except “marriage” (as do the kids) I do not

he’ll take his chances before God of living in sin with a Methodist vs being a “good Catholic” who marries in the Catholic church- like Pelosi and the Kennedys...LOL


13 posted on 01/18/2013 4:58:33 AM PST by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Amen!


14 posted on 01/18/2013 5:06:32 AM PST by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100; LibsRJerks; metmom; boatbums

I am an evangelical Christian but the answer given is that a Catholic can marry a baptized Christian, like a Baptist, if permission is granted from their bishop, while marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person is invalid according to Rome. It can only take place in the Church if the bishop agrees to grant a dispensation from the law.

However being married to an unbeliever is one of the many grounds (psychological abnormality, stubbornness, etc.) for possible annulment (another of which is entering marriage with the intention of never having children, although that is what Mary did according to Catholicism).

Yet in Scripture, marriage is covenanted “leaving and cleaving,” and all consummated marriages are called marriage, even ones that were between Israelites and pagans, or other things which are possible grounds for annulment. Where dissolution is allowed, it is divorce, not annulment.

As regards baptism, Rome allows non-Catholics to even baptize infants, providing they use the right matter (water; except in case of absolute necessity), form (Trinitarian forumla), and intention, that of intending to do what the Church does in baptism. This is apart from (the sometimes disputed) baptism of desire.

But pressed more precisely, “intending to do what the Church does” in baptism would exclude almost all Baptists and Protestants from having been “properly baptized,” as they do not intend baptize in order to have sins forgiven, versus expresses the faith that appropriates forgiveness and justification.

Thus whether a baptist is considered to have been validly baptized can be a matter of interpretation, as can whether the baptized Protestant will be saved even if he does not convert to Catholicism, which Lumen Gentium seems to affirm, but which is difficult to reconcile with some past EENS statements.


15 posted on 01/18/2013 5:11:31 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

I’ve always been told that a Catholic could marry a non-Catholic in the Catholic church if the non-Catholic agreed to raise the children of said marriage as Catholics.


16 posted on 01/18/2013 5:24:44 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks; Weiss White
I know quite a few Catholic-nonCatholic marriages, between Catholics and Buddhists, Athiests, non-Catholic other Christians etc.

In all the cases the Church hold is that the Sacrament of marriage is true, but on the one side -- i.e. the Catholic half. If your daughter marries a non-Catholic, then she truly receives the sacrament of Matrimony including the responsibilities. He, on the other hand, also receives it, but as he is not Catholic, he will not be held under it

The marriage is still valid

17 posted on 01/18/2013 5:26:59 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
... entering marriage with the intention of never having children, although that is what Mary did according to Catholicism).

That's news to me.

18 posted on 01/18/2013 5:30:00 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

I have a friend who looked into this. Her son married an unbaptized woman. They had to get approval from the bishop, there was a wedding with a priest but no Mass as it was not a sacrament. The groom stays in good standing with the Church and there was wording in the ceremony to raise the children Catholic. In older times it was more strict. My dad was Serbian Orthodox and my mom Catholic. They had a ceremony with a priest but no Mass and dad had to sign a letter saying the kids would be raised Catholic. The Orthodox are not that far removed from the Catholic Church. He was baptized and a member in good standing. The Catholic Church now accepts the baptisms of many other churches.


19 posted on 01/18/2013 5:33:09 AM PST by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100; circlecity
"aren’t advised to marry non-Catholics" -- sorry, that is incorrect. And I can say that from experience. We do have pre-marriage counselling as a Must-do and during that, one of the themes is that the partners must understand where the other comes from

Say if a Lutheran married a follower of Benn Hinn -- there is a difference of opinion and of belief. There can be conflict, but doesn't have to be if both partners go into the marriage knowing the differences and accepting it

A cousin of mine married a Hindu and they've been married for 15 years, happily.

Even among Christians -- if a CAtholic marries an Orthodox or a Lutheran, the differences as not as acute as say for a Lutheran to marry a Baptist

I've never heard of any one being advised, once they have decided to marry, against marrying a non-Catholic

All that they are taught during this pre-marital course is "recognize the differences and accept it, or don't get married" -- and it's not only religious differences, but also other topics -- children, money, living with the family etc. -- people should go into marriage KNOWING about the other person and accepting it -- if a Catholic/Lutheran marries say a Baptist, then the Baptist should recognize that the Catholic will go for mass and that the Lutheran believes in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

They don't have to believe it, but accept that their partner does. Otherwise, it is not going to be a successful marriage.

20 posted on 01/18/2013 5:34:28 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

not really — suppose if a Hindu girl gets married to a Moslem and doesn’t convert. It can still work if both accept the views of the other


21 posted on 01/18/2013 5:35:39 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

I have a friend who looked into this. Her son married an unbaptized woman. They had to get approval from the bishop, there was a wedding with a priest but no Mass as it was not a sacrament. The groom stays in good standing with the Church and there was wording in the ceremony to raise the children Catholic. In older times it was more strict. My dad was Serbian Orthodox and my mom Catholic. They had a ceremony with a priest but no Mass and dad had to sign a letter saying the kids would be raised Catholic. The Orthodox are not that far removed from the Catholic Church. He was baptized and a member in good standing. The Catholic Church now accepts the baptisms of many other churches.


22 posted on 01/18/2013 5:37:00 AM PST by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

We are in the same boat and are concerned about our daughter. We are hoping we can get her to talk to a priest about this so she is aware of what she may be getting into.


23 posted on 01/18/2013 5:38:56 AM PST by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
... a Catholic could marry any baptized Christian, but that a non-Catholic intended spouse had to agree to raise the children as Catholics.
That's exactly what happened with my parents.
24 posted on 01/18/2013 5:42:31 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; Weiss White; DuncanWaring

sorry, joe, you are wrong. Just in 2011 my wife and I organized my sister-in-law marrying a Buddhist (ok, pretty much a Japanese athiest). The Church both in Japan and here in Poland gave their blessings, the marriage is valid and the wedding was in Church with the Church blessing and the complete ceremony.


25 posted on 01/18/2013 5:46:29 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Dear Cronos,

As the article points out, the marriage of a Catholic and a non-Christian is an actual marriage, accepted by the Church (if the proper forms are followed), but is not a sacramental marriage, because non-Christians can receive no sacraments other than baptism. Such a marriage is a natural marriage rather than a sacramental marriage, and thus, is not valid in the way we generally use that word in the Church.

As the article further points out, the Catholic party does nothing wrong, is not in sin, is still a Catholic in good standing, even if contracting marriage with a non-Catholic. But it isn't a valid sacramental marriage.


sitetest

26 posted on 01/18/2013 6:07:50 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Sir, with all due respect, you are not a Catholic. Why don't you let Catholics explain Catholic belief? I don't presume to lecture Protestants about Baptist beliefs, or AOG, etc.

Your post is correct in some areas, but wrong in many others. For example:

However being married to an unbeliever is one of the many grounds (psychological abnormality, stubbornness, etc.) for possible annulment

Wrong. A marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.

Where dissolution is allowed, it is divorce, not annulment.

And that makes it okay? Are you serious at all? How many divorced and remarried people in your congregation? Your "reformation" is what reduced marriage from a sacred covenant to a mere church-recognized contract. If you dispute that, study up on what Luther and Calvin had to say on the subject.

water; except in case of absolute necessity

Wrong again; water is always required.

But pressed more precisely, “intending to do what the Church does” in baptism would exclude almost all Baptists and Protestants from having been “properly baptized,” as they do not intend baptize in order to have sins forgiven

Wrong again. Sacramental intent in baptism consists in intending to administer Trinitarian Christian baptism. Belief in a specific theology of baptism is not required. For a cogent discussion of this, see this essay

27 posted on 01/18/2013 6:07:55 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
I may be incorrect, but that is up to the particular diosceses...
28 posted on 01/18/2013 6:27:25 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

You wrote:

“a catholic cannot have a catholic ceremony if marrying a non catholic...”

Actually I think they can. They just can’t have a Mass. They can still have the marriage ceremony.


29 posted on 01/18/2013 6:43:35 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; DuncanWaring

Canon Laws on marriage really are not created by dioceses. All of them follow the same Code of Canon Law.


30 posted on 01/18/2013 6:48:00 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Here is the answer to all... from Catholic Answers,
The question was about canon law and the role of the local ordinary in granting the request....

The local ordinary is the bishop. He must give permission for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic. The Catholic party must promise to do all in his or her power to raise the children Catholic. The non-Catholic party must be informed of this promise at an appropriate time. The Catholic party also must declare that he or she is prepared to remove and dangers of defecting from the faith. Notice it is the Catholic that is doing the promising. The Church is trying to protect the Catholic faith of the Catholic and any children that may come along.

A dispensation may be granted by the local bishop, on a case by case basis, to allow the marriage celebration to occur in a place other than a Catholic Church.

You should contact your priest who will assit you in getting the necessary permissions and dispensations.

The decision is with the local bishop. As stated above it is a case by case decision. Your local bishop may allow what the next bishop may not...


31 posted on 01/18/2013 6:59:27 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

In contradiction. Thereby again religion falls for love. All religions which demand such restrictions fall that way.


32 posted on 01/18/2013 7:30:32 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

it is still a valid marriage, not a sacrament for the non-Catholic side.


33 posted on 01/18/2013 7:57:20 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; joe fonebone; DuncanWaring
They just can’t have a Mass. They can still have the marriage ceremony.

Vlad is correct, though all of the Catholic-nonCatholic marriages I've been for, have been with a mass. This was probably the dispensation that joe was referring to

34 posted on 01/18/2013 8:02:28 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Dear Cronos,

It is a real, natural marriage.

It is not a valid sacramental marriage. It is not a valid Catholic marriage. The sacrament didn't happen. Not for the non-Catholic, not for the Catholic.


sitetest

35 posted on 01/18/2013 8:38:40 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

But I bet your Presbyterian mother was baptized and is a Christian. This was about a non-Christian.


36 posted on 01/18/2013 8:43:10 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fattigermaster

LDS = Mormon, correct?

RC = Reformed Calvinist — correct?

The Catholic Church has many rites, among them, the Latin rite, which most people mistakenly call the Roman rite.

Is your lack of knowledge of Catholicism showing?


37 posted on 01/18/2013 8:45:19 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

And many non-Catholic spouses eventually do join an RCIA class and become Catholic.

We have had many such cases at our RCIA class.


38 posted on 01/18/2013 8:47:16 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The assertion to which I was responding was that a Catholic cannot marry a non-Catholic - not that a Catholic cannot marry a non-Christian.


39 posted on 01/18/2013 8:54:01 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Is your lack of knowledge of Catholicism showing

I never claimed to be an expert on Catholicism. I've dated Catholic women, and I make certain judgements based on that. I've seen the attitude of Catholics at FR and it does nothing but confirm it.

If you have a problem with my prejuduces, take it up with Eric Holder.

40 posted on 01/18/2013 10:38:23 AM PST by fattigermaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MomwithHope

My daughter is very concerned about it herself. I know she has reservations ...but she and this kid really seem perfect for each other — at this point. It’s a real shame. He 100% respects her Catholicism, but doesn’t usually accompany her to Mass. He has been known to do it, but not regularly.

If they end up marrying, I will only be able to pray for his conversion. She knows it’s all problematic. I feel badly for her.

However, we sent her to a very reputable Catholic University ..and who does she pick out? The ONE atheist/agnostic kid on campus!!! He’s a very good kid, though, and treats her like a queen. I am so torn.


41 posted on 01/18/2013 5:38:31 PM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

Our situation is a little worse. But I’d rather not get into it. Suffice to say sounds like your daughter has had good judgement so far and the pre-Cana counseling if they get it I’ve heard it is quite good. If they at least start talking about this issue that’s a very good thing.


42 posted on 01/18/2013 7:45:28 PM PST by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

thank you for the explanation?


43 posted on 01/20/2013 11:13:25 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Scooter100; LibsRJerks; metmom; boatbums


Sorry for not seeing your post until last night when i was going through my posts.

Sir, with all due respect, you are not a Catholic. Why don't you let Catholics explain Catholic belief? I don't presume to lecture Protestants about Baptist beliefs, or AOG, etc.

The answer is that no one had addressed the issue with more than cursory statements as yet, and second, often Catholics show only give a superficial answer or indicate more ignorance of Roman Catholicism than me, and or make absolute statements when in reality valid theological debate exists due to lack of clarity. And it was not my intent to falsely present Roman Catholic teaching, while you should be allowed to sincerely explain Protestant beliefs if needed,

Your post is correct in some areas, but wrong in many others. For example: “However being married to an unbeliever is one of the many grounds (psychological abnormality, stubbornness, etc.) for possible annulment.”

Wrong. A marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.

Marriage” here refers to civil type marriage, not Catholic sacramental marriage, and how can my statement on annulment be wrong if there was no valid marriage according to Rome in the first place? [emp. mine throughout]

SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS [to valid marriage], Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM) Can. 1125” The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled.

And a regards Pauline Privilege, according to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272,

Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural (not sacramental) marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. But if a Catholic marries an unbaptized;/non-Christian person is not a sacrament. The church says (based on a passage in Paul) that such a marriage can be dissolved for a grave reason, like if the unbaptized party makes it impossible for the Catholic to practice his faith.

However, they seem to contradict the invalid state of mixed marriage according to Can. 1086, as they state: The Pauline Privilege does not apply when a Christian has married a non-Christian. In those cases, a natural marriage exists and can be dissolved for a just cause, but by what is called the Petrine Privilege rather than by the Pauline Privilege. The Petrine Privilege is so-named because it is reserved to the Holy See, so only Rome can grant the Petrine Privilege.

Thus if this site is accurate and marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is indeed marriage then i would be wrong by using “annulment” rather than “dissolved” — the latter resulting in Rome sanctioning divorce in this case — while you would be in error by invoking Pauline Privilege for dissolution of marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, versus between two non-Christians, one of whom later becomes a believer.

et in Scripture, marriage is covenanted “leaving and cleaving,” and all consummated marriages are called marriage...Where dissolution is allowed, it is divorce, not annulment.”

And that makes it okay? Are you serious at all? How many divorced and remarried people in your congregation? Your "reformation"....

My statement is not wrong, and going on the attack mode against divorce, and making Luther like a pope, will not negate the truth of my statement against liberal Catholic grounds for annulment. And given the tens of thousands of annulments granted on various grounds, multitudes of other RCs may not have valid marriages — though it is to be presumed they are valid unless determined otherwise.

water; except in case of absolute necessity'

Wrong again; water is always required.

I refer you to such Catholic teaching as, “When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) as in cases in which what we normally call water was not available. Which gets into technicalities, but i do not think there is an absolute rule that would disallow a baptism such as in the case of an unconscious man dying in a foxhole if the only liquid they had was natural runny mud. Thomas at least allowed for river water that turned somewhat muddy. And clear authoritative rules are what would be needed.

But pressed more precisely, “intending to do what the Church does” in baptism would exclude almost all Baptists and Protestants from having been “properly baptized,” as they do not intend baptize in order to have sins forgiven”

Wrong again. Sacramental intent in baptism consists in intending to administer Trinitarian Christian baptism. Belief in a specific theology of baptism is not required. For a cogent discussion of this, see this essay.

That was framed more as a hypothesis, as it “can be a matter of interpretation,” and thanks for the link, but as the discussions shows, there is a deeper understanding of the theology of baptism than simply intending to baptize in water using the Trinitarian formula. And which allows for some valid debate, and in making an absolute statement you may be choosing one Catholic authority over another. The issue is the “intention of doing what the Church does,” and as one inquiring poster (who was told to ask a priest) expressed, Trent speaks of valid baptism consisting of having the intention of doing what the Church does, not simply an intention of baptizing. The CCC states “The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.” (1256) And the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect [which in Catholicism includes baptismal regeneration], in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual [see 2nd paragraph; and for the following]. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm

CIC Canon 869: Those baptised in a non-catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptised conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptised or of that of the baptising minister. (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2W.HTM)

Nor is there any Eucharistic consecration if a priest does not intend to consecrate the host but only to make a pretense. (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm)

Historically, even Luther held to baptismal regeneration, and baptism by heretics was generally considered valid, and yet before Vatican Two, “Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration...Still...if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid.” (ibid)

Yet most Protestant churches today cannot be thought of intending to do “what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect” according to Rome. Both the Protestant and Catholic churches intend to baptize, but for Catholics baptism is not simply an outward confession of the Lord Jesus in body language, and testifying to an inward reality, but baptism is defined as an act by which “all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin,” (CCC 1263) and the baptized are incorporated into the Church, (1267) sealing the Christian “with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ.” (1272) and is “the beginning of new life.” (1275)

Insufficient faith” by the minister may not itself invalidate baptism, but which is rather ambiguous, however, “Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does.” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html)

Thus, valid baptism may be presumed unless serious ground exists for doubting that the ministers intent was “kosher,' and similarly a couple who may later be granted an annulment, meaning no valid marriage took place, are to be considered married until determined otherwise.

And in case, whatever ecumenical tenor and affirmation of Protestant baptism Lumen Gentium was meant to have is offset by past seemingly absolute statements (though i understand how Rome seeks to reconcile them):

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (ex cathedra according to  Manning):
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be
subject to the Roman Pontiff..."
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only
one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). — http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html (Note, some translations say “when the Greeks..") 

Papal Bull Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV, 1441 No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. -
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm

In summary, as regards corrections, if marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is indeed marriage then i should have used “dissolved”, while my parenthetical statement, “ water; except in case of absolute necessity'” should have clarified what was meant and what was debatable, likewise that debate exists over what “intent” means as regards the requirements for valid Roman Catholic baptism, and “could” (my rather than “would” exclude almost all Baptists should have been stated.

And I do want to thank you for at least bringing some need for correction to my attention and which warranted further investigation, as i do not want or need to misrepresent Catholic teaching (and i typically document my work), but which i sometimes see done by Catholics (besides Protestants) by making statements on things which are not as absolute, clear or as uniform as they sometimes make them out to be.

44 posted on 01/22/2013 3:50:44 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

When I was a protestant, I participated on several occasions in emergency baptisms of infants, in each case using sugar water by cutting open an IV bag and pronouncing the trinitarian formula.

My intention was to join the child to the Church and to the people of God, at the time I was quite ignorant of baptismal theology. I relied on my own baptism for authority.

I was always told, afterwards, that I did the right thing and that these baptisms were efficacious.

By the way, emergency baptisms are always moments of high drama, when Heaven is joined to earth. It’s hard to imagine that, properly performed, that they are not valid due to lack of theological sophistication. The Father sees the heart.


45 posted on 01/22/2013 4:11:36 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Ans then you have baptism of desire, and perfect contrition, in which Rome allows for regeneration preceding baptism, if it takes place at all.

And in Acts 10, Peter simply told them:

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? “ (Acts 10:43-47)


46 posted on 01/22/2013 8:34:05 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; circlecity
"Does the Church forbid Catholics to contract marriage with non-Catholics? Yes; the Church does forbid Catholics to contract marriage with non-Catholics."

Taken from:

--"My Catholic Faith - A Manual of Religion" by Most Reverend Louis LaRavoire Morrow, D.D., Section 166 - Church Laws on Marriage (pp 344-352), (All material from "A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, 3rd Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism, 1954").

Are you saying that something changed between 1954 and now? Can you please refer to the document or decision that changed this?

47 posted on 01/23/2013 11:27:42 AM PST by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100; circlecity
Evidently yes. I don't have any documents, but as I said above, my cousin married a Hindu, my sister-in-law a Buddhist/agnostic and I know of a couple of friends who married Christians from the denominations. In all of these there were masses. I also went for pre-marriage courses (mandatory in the Church) where there were a few mixed marriages

In all of these, my personal experience was that they had masses, there was no priest during the pre-marital course or when we were arranging the masses (for cuz and sis-in-law) who said "this is forbidden".

48 posted on 01/24/2013 1:54:03 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100; circlecity; LibsRJerks
the Baltimore Catechism seems to be not correct on that aspect. I don't know why, perhaps changed as per Vatican II, but as I said above, what I know from experience is that the Church recognizes that marriage to non-Catholics (even to non-Christians) -- note of course that this question is not a fundamental dogma, so, just like celibacy among priests can be changed with no change to the fundamentals of Christianity

From the Catechism I see In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person) requires even greater circumspection.

Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.137 In case of disparity of religion (between a Catholic and a non-baptised person) an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.138 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.139

So what the Church holds is that:

I think it makes sense -- between say a Catholic and a Baptist, there are similarities in our lives of fidelity to Christ, but there is a lot of room for disputes and it can get hard with children (do we baptise them, etc. etc.) -- right, scooter, circ?

Between Catholic and non-Christian it's even more difficult -- between Christians it is not insurmountable. -- LibsrJerks - you only need permission, not a dispensation, to marry a non-Catholic Christian. The conditions are that you should try to bring up your offspring in the Church (note, you don't HAVE to), and your spouse should know about these obligations and both of you should attend the pre-marital courses so that the other knows that Marriage is a sacrament for Catholics, with all the deeper meaning that that conveys

49 posted on 01/24/2013 2:09:56 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Weiss White

According to my understanding of the relevant Canon Laws (1108 and 1124- about 1129)
1) A Catholic can marry a baptized Non-Catholic (Protestant)only with a dispensation from the Ordinary (Bishop)note: A Priest can NOT grant a dispensation.
2) A Catholic can marry a Non- Christian (unbaptized, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc) only with a dispensation from Rome. note: The local Bishop can NOT grant a dispensation for Non-Christian marriages.
3) A Catholic can get married in a Protestant parish (or anyWHERE outside a Catholic parish, yet the vows (promises) can only be voiced to a Catholic priest and the priest must be the one that ask for the promises (ie “Do you John take...)
4) If the Catholic in any way knowingly avoids these “laws” (one which includes getting “married” by a Justice of the Peace) they have incurred excommunication
It may seem harsh, yet there are good valid reasons for these Church laws. Rogue priests have ignored these laws at the expense of many Catholics.


50 posted on 01/24/2013 8:58:54 AM PST by BDHKTM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson