another question


#1

Hi! I have another question…are two people considered married in the ‘eyes’ of God if they are not married during a Mass? (if they confer the sacrament on each other; no priest present)
Thanks.

God bless,
coralewis


#2

[quote=coralewis]Hi! I have another question…are two people considered married in the ‘eyes’ of God if they are not married during a Mass? (if they confer the sacrament on each other; no priest present)
Thanks.

God bless,
coralewis
[/quote]

How can they confer the sacrament of marriage on one another without a priest present? I think the answer is no.


#3

It is not the blessing of the priest that is the matter/form of the sacrament. It is the Christian man and woman indicating to each other that they contract to the marriage that makes the marriage as I understand it.

I am not a history person, but I thought that in Japan for like maybe 150 years there was a Catholic community that lived without any priests, so the only sacraments they had were baptism and marriage.

Nevertheless, if two Catholics in America were to decide to get married before a justice of peace for some reason, they would not be complying with the laws of the Church, unless they had some sort of permission not to get married in a Church building. I don’t know exactly what a dispensation could allow in those matters. The Church can make laws about marriage, and if two Catholics are ignoring the laws, then I think they are not married because of the Church laws thing. Someone who knows canon law would be able to answer for a specific case.

But if you are asking about two Protestants who get married, so of course there is no priest there, then the Church considers them married because there is no violation of laws there.

Just a note: you do not have to have a nuptual mass. The priest can just do a service without the mass. But of course it is more ideal to have one if possible.


#4

[quote=coralewis]Hi! I have another question…are two people considered married in the ‘eyes’ of God if they are not married during a Mass? (if they confer the sacrament on each other; no priest present)
Thanks.

God bless,
coralewis
[/quote]

The Catholic Church recognizes a marriage as Sacramental and valid when two baptized Christians (one male and one female :slight_smile: ) give valid consent to be married. A priest is not necessary for a valid marriage because the Sacrament is conferred by the two consenting adults.

So, in short, the answer to your question is Yes.


#5

[quote=funkyhorn]The Catholic Church recognizes a marriage as Sacramental and valid when two baptized Christians (one male and one female :slight_smile: ) give valid consent to be married. A priest is not necessary for a valid marriage because the Sacrament is conferred by the two consenting adults.
[/quote]

This used to be true, but the Council of Trent changed this:

Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them.


#6

[quote=Pug]I am not a history person, but I thought that in Japan for like maybe 150 years there was a Catholic community that lived without any priests, so the only sacraments they had were baptism and marriage.
[/quote]

Canon law provides for an extraordinary form of marriage when a priest is not available:

Can. 1116 §1 If one who, in accordance with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses only:

1° in danger of death;

2° apart from danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this state of affairs will continue for a month.

§2 In either case, if another priest or deacon is at hand who can be present, he must be called upon and, together with the witnesses, be present at the celebration of the marriage, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage in the presence of only the witnesses.


#7

[quote=Catholic2003]This used to be true, but the Council of Trent changed this:
[/quote]

Trent changed a few things about marriage, but they’ve changed even since then. Several popes have exceptions–especially in the case of mixed marriages–and issued declarations of validity for different localities:

“Pope Benedict XIV, choosing the lesser of two evils, issued a declaration concerning marriages in Holland and Belgium (Nov. 4, 1741), in which he declared mixed unions to be valid, provided they were according to the civil laws, even if the Tridentine prescriptions had not been observed. A similar declaration was made concerning mixed marriages in Ireland by Pope Pius, in 1785, and gradually the “Benedictine dispensation” was extended to various localities. The object of the Council of Trent in issuing its decree had been partly to deter Catholics from such marriages altogether, and partly to hinder any communion in sacred things with heretics. By degrees, however, the Popes felt constrained to make various concessions for mixed marriages, though they were always careful to guard the essential principles on which the Church found her objections to such unions. Thus Pius VI allowed mixed marriages in Austria to take place in the presence of a priest, provided no religious solemnity was employed, and with the omission of public banns, as evidence of the unwillingness of the Church to sanction such unions. Similar concessions were later made, first for various states of Germany, and then for other countries.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this about the subject:

“However, it has been likewise emphasized that marriage must be contracted with the blessing of the priest and the approbation of the Church, for otherwise it would be a source not of Divine grace, but of malediction. Hence it might easily be inferred that the sacerdotal blessing is the grace-giving element, or form of the sacrament, and that the priest is the minister. But this is a false conclusion…
…As we have several times emphasized, not even marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism…
…Hence not only the marriage between Catholics, but also that contracted by members of the different sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize, is undoubtedly a sacrament. It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacrament or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacrament or not. Provided only he intends to contract a true marriage, and expresses the requisite consent, this intention and this expression are sufficient to constitute a sacrament.”

And James Akin has this to say…

“However, merely because a marriage is between two non-Catholics does not mean it is invalid. If two baptized non-Catholics marry each other then they can have a valid sacramental marriage. This is because a priest is not necessary to perform the sacrament of matrimony. It is formed by the two partners, who create the sacrament between them by giving valid matrimonial consent to the other and then consummating the union. In Catholic churches the priest serves as the Church’s witness and overseer of the event, but he is not necessary for the sacrament itself to be performed.”


#8

The requirement of canonical form (marriage before a priest) isn’t a matter of necessity (e.g., due to divine law), but a matter of ecclesiastial law, which the Pope can change, and which in fact has been changed over the history of the Church.

Currently, if at least one party is Catholic, then the marriage needs to be conducted before a priest, unless a dispensation from the bishop has been obtained. If both of the parties are non-Catholic, then the marriage needs to be valid in the eyes of the state. For example, a non-Catholic couple exchanging vows in secret in the U.S., without obtaining a state marriage license, would not be considered a valid marriage from the point of view of the Catholic Church.


#9

Mention was made in an earlier post concerning the “Banns of Marriage”

I came across the suggestion on another Forum that “Banns of Marriage” still have to be posted. In my youth I remember seeing "Banns"pinned to the door of the Parish Church and also hearing them read out at Mass. When I married almost 50 years ago, I had to have the “Banns” read, yet I can honestly say that I have not seen “Banns” posted or read for over 30 years.

The question is, Is it still necessary when getting married to have the Marriage Banns read out in church?
Thanks


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.