Not all Orthodox communions accept Methodist baptisms even though they are baptized with the Trinitarian formula. Some require re-baptism — at least of Catholics who join one of the Orthodox communions. And because all of the various Orthodox communions are not united on this topic shows forth the need for a central authority.
Although not mentioned in the article, but probably something Frank became well aware of after becoming a Catholic is the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the sacrament of marriage in the civil union of baptized Protestants, regardless of the theology of any particular denomination. Therefore Frank and his wife Patricia were benefitting from the grace of that sacrament when he was Methodist, then Orthodox, and then as Catholic even though his wife remained Methodist. Along with his wife’s valid Presbyterian baptism and his Methodist baptism, their entering into an unbeknownst sacramental marriage as Methodists channeled God’s grace along his faith journey.
Although not mentioned in the article, but probably something Frank became well aware of after becoming a Catholic is the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the sacrament of marriage in the civil union of baptized Protestants, regardless of the theology of any particular denomination.
This statement confuses validity and sacramentality. All marriages, including civil marriages, are considered by the Catholic Church as valid unless and until proved otherwise. However, by its very nature, a civil marriage cannot be sacramental. Only a Christian (religious) marriage can be sacramental. This requires that the couple’s vows be exchanged before a valid Christian clergyman.
The Catholic Church, therefore, does recognize as sacramental the religious marriages of baptized Protestant Christians (both parties must be baptized). The Church also recognizes civil marriages as valid, but not as sacramental.
Here is Frank the author chiming in. You all may be interested to know that before I could be chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Church I had to have my marriage blessed in that church. What that meant was that my wife and I went through the whole Greek Orthodox marriage liturgy–crowns and all, plus receiving a new marriage certificate at the end. So when I moved into the Catholic Church I am not sure if they were accepting my earlier Protestant wedding in my young wife’s Presbyterian church or my later wedding in the Greek Orthodox Church. And then even later, on a Catholic pilgrimage tour to Israel, we renewed our wedding vows with a Catholic priest in the Wedding Church at Cana in Israel. So we feel like we have been married 3 times now! LOL!
Your Presbyterian church wedding would have been valid and sacramental, Frank. The Orthodox apparently wanted to “make sure” you were married, so they did it again. Your renewal of vows in Israel was just that — a renewal of vows, not another wedding. Blessings to you for all three, anyway!
All Orthodox do not have the same policy. Had I entered Orthodoxy through the OCA (Orthodox Church in America, with Russian heritage) I would not have had to have my marriage “blessed.” But the Greek Orthodox (at least the Atlanta diocese in 2001) insisted that I have my marriage “blessed” which as I indicated meant going through the whole Greek Orthodox wedding liturgy. Yes, the event in Israel was just a renewal of vows–but the event in the Greek Orthodox parish was more than that–they were apparently “sacramentalizing” my earlier Protestant wedding.
According to Catholic Answers, “Non-Catholics are not generally under the authority of canon law concerning marriage, so marriages between non-Catholics are generally recognized to be valid unless proven otherwise. Some of these marriages are sacramental (when both parties are baptized) and some are not (when one or both are not baptized).” http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament
No distinction is made here between validity and sacramentality when both the man and the woman are validly baptized. Also, no mention is made “that the couple’s vows be exchanged before a valid Christian clergyman.”
The quote from CA is referring to Catholic marriage (where the Catholic Church has jurisdiction), not Protestant marriage. This explains the difference in criteria.
There is nothing in the canon law of the Catholic Church stating that two baptized Protestants must be married before a Protestant minister in order for them to receive a valid sacramental marriage. I was pleasantly surprised to learn this in my Liturgy and the Sacraments course when studying for a masters in theology since it shows the generosity of the Catholic Church with regards to non-Catholics. To reformulate: Two baptized Protestants (man and woman) receive a valid sacramental marriage when contracting a civil marriage. Don’t take my word for it, ask a priest. My main point and on which we both agree (since you seem to believe that Frank and Patricia received the sacrament of marriage only through the witness of a Protestant clergyman) was that the sacramental grace of Frank’s and Patricia’s baptisms made it possible for them unbeknownst at the time to enter into a valid sacramental marriage as Protestants. So Frank had both the sacramental graces of baptism and marriage propelling his journey towards the Catholic Church where he could encounter the other five, and in particular, the pearl of great price, the sacrament of the Eucharist.
A marriage can be valid without being sacramental, but a marriage cannot be sacramental unless it is also valid. The conditions for validity are that the wedding be exclusively between one man and one woman and that there be no circumstance or intent which vitiates their consent. The additional conditions for sacramentality are that the wedding be between two baptized Christians, and that it be officiated by a Christian clergyman; this is the minimal condition for a sacrament to take place. Further additional conditions apply when one or both of the parties are baptized Catholics. The wedding must then either take place in a Catholic church, chapel or oratory and be officiated by a Catholic clergyman, or a dispensation must be obtained to allow the wedding to take place in another venue or under another jurisdiction.
The Catholic Church does not have jurisdiction where two non-Catholic Christians are marrying. This is why canon law says nothing regarding them. But the very definition of “sacramental” requires a Christian religious wedding officiated by a clergyman. If the couple qualifies, the marriage is sacramental; if not, the marriage is natural. In any case, their marriage is, like all marriages, assumed to be valid until proved otherwise.
Therefore, the person who told you that two Protestants who marry through a civil wedding are by that fact in a sacramental marriage is simply wrong. If a baptized Protestant couple has been married by a justice of the peace, their marriage would, by definition, not be sacramental, and if they then desire to become Catholic, the Catholic Church would require their marriage to be convalidated.
If you would be so kind as to reference an authoritative source supporting your most recent post, particularly this statement: “Therefore, the person who told you that two Protestants who marry through a civil wedding are by that fact in a sacramental marriage is simply wrong.” It was a priest who told this to our class.
I received my information from a priest, too, Charles. However, my point rests, not solely on canon law, but on the definition of what constitutes a sacrament. In order to have a religious result (sacrament), you have to have a religious action. A civil wedding is not a religious action; therefore, it cannot be a sacrament.
The quote from Catholic Answers confirmed what I learned in the Liturgy and the Sacraments course: (1) A marriage between an un-baptized man and woman is valid; (2) a marriage between the baptized non-Catholic man and woman is both valid and sacramental. Nothing dictates what the manner of setting should be. You are the one who is imposing a non-Catholic religious setting in order to validate the sacramental nature of a Protestant marriage where none is required. Again, I provided a source. Where’s yours?
You are all bound up in legalities, Charles. My argument is not about legalities, but about sacramentality.
Regarding the definition of “sacrament,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
774 The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms: mysterium and sacramentum. In later usage the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mysterium. In this sense, Christ himself is the mystery of salvation: “For there is no other mystery of God, except Christ.” The saving work of his holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church’s sacraments (which the Eastern Churches also call “the holy mysteries”). The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit spreads the grace of Christ the head throughout the Church which is his Body. The Church, then, both contains and communicates the invisible grace she signifies. It is in this analogical sense, that the Church is called a “sacrament.”
1084 “Seated at the right hand of the Father” and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.
1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.
As you see, there is not a word about legalities or civil authorities. How can any civil authority celebrate a sacrament? That is the office of the Christian clergy, for they act in the name of Christ. How can any couple receive a sacrament they do not want, do not seek and prefer to ignore — isn’t that why they go to a civil authority to be married according to civil law? These people are not properly disposed; even if they were to go through the motions of the rite, they would not receive the grace of the sacrament. This is why the Church cannot accept a civil marriage as sacramental.
Because you know the beauty of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, I hope you have the opportunity to attend a Traditional Solemn High Latin Mass. Although Latin “Low Mass” (without music) eventually became the Roman Rite norm until the 1960s, the Solemn High Mass (sung and including deacon and sub-deacon) is THE form of Mass that was celebrated in the West at the time of the Great Schism. Its emphasis is virtually the same as the Byzantine Divine Liturgy: the Transcendent God, our unworthiness to be in the Divine Presence yet longing for deification, the eternal heavenly liturgy offered by the communion of saints and to which we join our liturgy, the silent recitation of the Canon–corresponding to the closing of the Royal Doors–at that awesome moment when heaven comes down to earth. It’s the Mass that the overwhelming majority of saints in the Roman Martyrology knew. And, thanks to Pope Benedict, we still can experience this ancient Mass–in full communion with the Pope.
You provide no authoritative external source supporting your view that baptized Protestants who contract a civil marriage only do not have a valid sacramental marriage. There is no negative prohibition in your quotations from the catechism but only in your concluding opinion. I’ll stick with Catholic Answers and may the peace of Christ be with you.
Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter promulgating the Catechism, refers to it as “authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith” and a “sure and authentic reference text.” The Catechism provides clear evidence that sacramentality is the domain of the Church, and not of civil authorities. Civil marriage is not a religious act; therefore, it does not involve a sacrament.
Percy Gryce asks– Frank, why weren’t you received into the Catholic Church in your rite, i.e., the Byzantine rite? There is a Melkite parish in Atlanta. Here is my answer: I live in Orlando, FL, area which is part of the geographically-large Atlanta diocese of the Greek Orthodox Church. In Orlando also there are Eastern Rite Catholic churches–3 that I know of. However all 3 of them are a great distance from my home, and I really do not want to drive a long distance to get to church. Also, though I do love the Eastern Rite, I also love the Ordinary Western Rite of the Catholic Church which is essentially similar to the Eastern Rite but just a lot less wordy and repetitious. Also back when I was a Methodist pastor the ritual I used for the administration of the Lord’s Supper was a watered-down version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which ultimately came from the Roman Catholic mass. So I am also very used to and comfortable with the Western Rite.
Your recurring method is to quote and then state your opinion. If you ever do find an authoritative source in the Catholic Church specifically stating that the sacrament of marriage among baptized Protestants can only be received in a Protestant Church wedding ceremony, I would be most grateful. Thanks for your time.
I don’t know where your head is, Charles. I quoted a pope who stated that the Catechism is authoritative. Evidently you recognize neither the Catechism nor the pope. In my quotes from the Catechism, you will find this sentence: “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church.” In my last reply, I simply reiterated this point; I did not assert my own opinion. Somehow you missed that, when it says that the sacraments are entrusted to the Church, this means that they are not entrusted to civil authorities. The remainder of the quotes from the Catechism refer to the fact that a sacrament is a sacred religious act. Civil marriage is not a sacred religious act, but a secular one. How, then, can it produce sacramentality? It’s all there. You just need to open your eyes and see.
Are you aware that according to the Catholic Church, anyone can validly confer the sacrament of baptism, even an atheist or civil magistrate, provided they use the correct matter and form and intend to do what Christ wants for His Church in response to the desire of the party requesting baptism? So in these cases, an atheist or civil magistrate would be involved in producing sacramentality, even though baptism as one of the seven sacraments is a sacred religious act entrusted to the Church. God willing, tomorrow I will call my diocese and ask for their judgment pertaining to the sacramentality of Protestant marriage and request an authoritative reference in support of their position.
It is not by virtue of their secularity that non-Christians can baptize, but only insofar as they intend to do “what the Church does” in baptizing. From the Catechism:
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
The footnotes reference the Code of Canon Law, canon 861:
Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 530, n. 1.
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
Meanwhile, here is what the Catechism says about the minister of marriage:
1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.
It goes on to describe how a wedding should take place in a church setting — indeed, if possible, in the context of the Mass. The point being that, in the Catholic Church, a clergyman must be present to officiate, or the wedding is invalid. See canon 1059, where the Church’s law states that civil authority has competence only “concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.” The sacrament, then, is conferred, not through any civil authority, but only through the Church — reflecting Catholic dogma when it states that all divine grace come from Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic Christians have contact with this grace only insofar as they are united with the Catholic Church. If they adhere to their own denomination’s regulations concerning marriage, they will be that much more united as the denomination is united to the Catholic Church by way of faith and act. This is why a clergyman is required to officiate even at Protestant marriages, for such marriages to be considered sacramental.
As you can see, the Catholic faith does not live by canon law alone. There is theology, there is doctrine, and above all, there is faith involved. Therefore, you should not base yourself solely on the law, or on the word of some priest, but following your faith inquire of the Tradition of the Church and of Christ himself, who is embodied in the Church.
It’s late. My final word: Remember that we are speaking here of CIVIL marriages by non-Catholic Christians. We are therefore not speaking of marriages authorized by Protestant bodies, but of individual Christians who defy even their own denominational faith to marry “outside the church.” Such marriages are no more sacramental in a non-Catholic context than they are within the Church.
It’s early and my diocese’s offices are not open yet. But here’s one scenario: Based on the Catholic Answers quote above, in the case of two non-baptized people, a man and a woman, they can contract a valid non-sacramental marriage in a civil ceremony. If they both receive a valid sacramental baptism outside of the Catholic Church (or even outside any Protestant denomination, let’s say they both baptize each other using the correct matter and form), their valid marriage automatically becomes a sacramental marriage without any ecclesial ceremony. The above happened when Christianity first came to Korea in an unusual manner: Korean emissaries to China brought back a catechetical book by the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci to their country and began what they thought was the Catholic Church. Decades later, when the first foreign Catholic missionaries were finally allowed to enter “the hermit kingdom”, they were astonished to discover a community of Christians who had already had valid sacramental baptisms and valid sacramental marriages, even though their other attempts at ‘sacramentality’ were ineffective due to their inexposure to the bearers of Holy Orders who could legitimately confer the other sacraments.
Exceptions do not prove the rule, Charles. Stop wasting your time and mine. Just go ask your bishop if a deliberately civil marriage can, for Christian, be a sacrament.
These exceptions demonstrate that Jesus Christ, the good shepherd, provides the sacramental graces of baptism and marriage to the scattered members of His Body who unknowingly find themselves outside of any ecclesial boundaries, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. What a magnificent and generous Lord and God He is! I am getting ready to contact my diocese.
OnlyOne001: The priest in charge of the marriage tribunal at the chancery is off today so I must wait until tomorrow to speak to the official diocesan subject matter expert. The suspense for me is as good as an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
OnlyOneoo1: Exceptions abound in my family: (1) My father, raised Unitarian, married my baptized Protestant mother in the Episcopal Church in 1946. Due to my father’s status, in the eyes of the Catholic Church theirs was considered a valid non-sacramental marriage. 32 years later in 1978, my father was baptized in the United Church of Christ. Their marriage immediately became sacramental in the eyes of the Catholic Church without the requirement of another Protestant wedding ceremony and they attended both Protestant churches regularly together for the next 31 years until his death in 2009. (2) A similar situation occurred with my father’s brother, Uncle Jerre, who married my Aunt Rose in her United Church of Canada in the early 1950s. They lived a valid non-sacramental marriage until he was validly baptized in the Episcopal Church over 40 years later in 1994. Whereupon, according to Catholic understanding, they immediately received the sacramental grace of marriage without the requirement of another Protestant wedding ceremony. Sadly, Uncle Jerre lived this state of marital sacramentality with Aunt Rose for only a few years before his death.
The information you supply shows that these instances in your family history are not exceptions. In both cases, there was a church wedding. The marriages became sacramental once both parties were validly baptized. If they had not had a church wedding, but were instead married by a civil authority, the marriages could not have become sacramental.
It is becoming apparent, Charles, that you are misunderstanding this entire issue. You evidently are not differentiating between a religious act and a secular act. Only a religious act can be or become sacramental. This is because a sacrament is, by definition, a religious act. No secular authority, and no secular intention of the couple marrying, can have any sacramental effect whatsoever. I quoted above the applicable canon from the Code of Canon Law on this point and again refer you to it.
I suggest that you talk with the canon lawyer at the chancery office, as you had planned to do. You will receive no further response from me.
The first since the sacrament of marriage is constituted by mutual consent between two Baptised persons (if you had been Catholic at the time it would require proper “form” for validity as declared by Trent), the East Orthodox see the marriage bond as constituted also by the priests blessing whearas the Latin Church sees it as constituted by the consent of the spouses (such that before the Council of Trent a couple could enter into a valid, though illicit marriage simply by exchanging vows even without any witness present, in the 1917 code it is allowed that if a priest were not available for two months a couple could enter into a valid and licit marriage before two witnesses, probably an analogous principle would apply today if say they were stranded on a desert Island or in danger of death), though in the Eastern rite the Blessing is also co-constitutive (something on this can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s treatment of marriage). But I’m sure the ceremony was a very beautiful experience.
I don’t live in Atlanta. I live in Orlando, FL, area which is part of the geographically-large Atlanta diocese of the Greek Orthodox Church. In Orlando also there are Eastern Rite Catholic churches–3 that I know of. However all 3 of them are a great distance from my home, and at my age I really do not want to drive a long distance to get to church. Also, though I do love the Eastern Rite, I also love the Ordinary Western Rite of the Catholic Church which is essentially similar to the Eastern Rite but just a lot less wordy and repetitious. Also back when I was a Methodist pastor the ritual I used for the administration of the Lord’s Supper was a watered-down version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which ultimately came from the Roman Catholic mass. So I am also very used to and comfortable with the Western Rite.
Ah, my young old friend and former co-catechist at Good Shepherd, how did you ever find my story on CHN? Are you still in Indiana? And are you teaching theology which is definitely your forte? I hope so. If you are ever back in Orlando, please look me up and give me a call.
Frank, thank you for your story. I too grew up Methodist, went to Asbury College decades ago. Always something missing. Breaking point was when my parents died while in my 30’s. Nowhere to go with my suffering. Protestant Church doesn’t know what to do with that. Walked into a Catholic Church, saw Jesus up there on the cross, knelt down and I have never looked back. That was 18 years ago. G.K. Chesterton says the Catholic Church is like a good steak, a cigar and a fine wine or something like that. It has been the grandest decision I have ever made in my life. I still cry every Easter Vigil when I see all those new converts coming into the Church!
OnlyOne001: This morning, Friday, July 24, 2015, at ~11:00 AM EST (USA), I spoke with Father Workman of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington who works in the Marriage Tribunal of the Chancery. He informed me that baptized Protestants receive the sacrament of marriage in a civil ceremony because they are not bound by ecclesial law, but divine law. He referenced Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium of the Vatican II Council Documents and the proper understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding marriage between baptized persons. You may contact him at (703) 241-2751. Pax Christi.
Sacramentality is constituted simply by a valid marriage entered into by two Baptised Christians, whether civil or what have you. However for Catholics except for some rare circumstances, Canonical form has been required for the validity of marriages between Catholics since Trent (a civil marriage between two Catholics would therefore be invalid), a mere civil marriage is not valid between them period, but in the case of two Baptised Christians in general any valid marriage is a sacramental marriage, simply by the fact of their being Christians.
It need only be a valid marriage between two Christians, it need not be before a clergyman (1), the sacramentality is constituted simply by their being Christian. There can be no valid non-sacramental marriage between two Christians. A marriage between two non Christians, or between a Christian and a non-Christian can be valid but not a sacrament. But between two Christians there are no valid non-sacramental marriages. 1. For those in communion with the Church of Rome there is a requirement of form for validity which would normally require officiation by a priest or deacon, but that is a particular requirement ordained by the council of Trent. (before marriage could be entered into validly, and sacramentaly, simply by mutual consent even without witness (though such would be illicit though not invalid)).
You are the grass under the concrete, slow but driven to the light.
Not all Orthodox communions accept Methodist baptisms even though they are baptized with the Trinitarian formula. Some require re-baptism — at least of Catholics who join one of the Orthodox communions. And because all of the various Orthodox communions are not united on this topic shows forth the need for a central authority.
Welcome home!
Although not mentioned in the article, but probably something Frank became well aware of after becoming a Catholic is the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the sacrament of marriage in the civil union of baptized Protestants, regardless of the theology of any particular denomination. Therefore Frank and his wife Patricia were benefitting from the grace of that sacrament when he was Methodist, then Orthodox, and then as Catholic even though his wife remained Methodist. Along with his wife’s valid Presbyterian baptism and his Methodist baptism, their entering into an unbeknownst sacramental marriage as Methodists channeled God’s grace along his faith journey.
This statement confuses validity and sacramentality. All marriages, including civil marriages, are considered by the Catholic Church as valid unless and until proved otherwise. However, by its very nature, a civil marriage cannot be sacramental. Only a Christian (religious) marriage can be sacramental. This requires that the couple’s vows be exchanged before a valid Christian clergyman.
The Catholic Church, therefore, does recognize as sacramental the religious marriages of baptized Protestant Christians (both parties must be baptized). The Church also recognizes civil marriages as valid, but not as sacramental.
Here is Frank the author chiming in. You all may be interested to know that before I could be chrismated into the Greek Orthodox Church I had to have my marriage blessed in that church. What that meant was that my wife and I went through the whole Greek Orthodox marriage liturgy–crowns and all, plus receiving a new marriage certificate at the end. So when I moved into the Catholic Church I am not sure if they were accepting my earlier Protestant wedding in my young wife’s Presbyterian church or my later wedding in the Greek Orthodox Church. And then even later, on a Catholic pilgrimage tour to Israel, we renewed our wedding vows with a Catholic priest in the Wedding Church at Cana in Israel. So we feel like we have been married 3 times now! LOL!
Your Presbyterian church wedding would have been valid and sacramental, Frank. The Orthodox apparently wanted to “make sure” you were married, so they did it again. Your renewal of vows in Israel was just that — a renewal of vows, not another wedding. Blessings to you for all three, anyway!
All Orthodox do not have the same policy. Had I entered Orthodoxy through the OCA (Orthodox Church in America, with Russian heritage) I would not have had to have my marriage “blessed.” But the Greek Orthodox (at least the Atlanta diocese in 2001) insisted that I have my marriage “blessed” which as I indicated meant going through the whole Greek Orthodox wedding liturgy. Yes, the event in Israel was just a renewal of vows–but the event in the Greek Orthodox parish was more than that–they were apparently “sacramentalizing” my earlier Protestant wedding.
Agreed, Frank.
BTW,, we recently celebrated our 48th wedding anniversary–and they said it wouldn’t last! Ha!
According to Catholic Answers, “Non-Catholics are not generally under the authority of canon law concerning marriage, so marriages between non-Catholics are generally recognized to be valid unless proven otherwise. Some of these marriages are sacramental (when both parties are baptized) and some are not (when one or both are not baptized).” http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament
No distinction is made here between validity and sacramentality when both the man and the woman are validly baptized. Also, no mention is made “that the couple’s vows be exchanged before a valid Christian clergyman.”
The quote from CA is referring to Catholic marriage (where the Catholic Church has jurisdiction), not Protestant marriage. This explains the difference in criteria.
There is nothing in the canon law of the Catholic Church stating that two baptized Protestants must be married before a Protestant minister in order for them to receive a valid sacramental marriage. I was pleasantly surprised to learn this in my Liturgy and the Sacraments course when studying for a masters in theology since it shows the generosity of the Catholic Church with regards to non-Catholics. To reformulate: Two baptized Protestants (man and woman) receive a valid sacramental marriage when contracting a civil marriage. Don’t take my word for it, ask a priest. My main point and on which we both agree (since you seem to believe that Frank and Patricia received the sacrament of marriage only through the witness of a Protestant clergyman) was that the sacramental grace of Frank’s and Patricia’s baptisms made it possible for them unbeknownst at the time to enter into a valid sacramental marriage as Protestants. So Frank had both the sacramental graces of baptism and marriage propelling his journey towards the Catholic Church where he could encounter the other five, and in particular, the pearl of great price, the sacrament of the Eucharist.
A marriage can be valid without being sacramental, but a marriage cannot be sacramental unless it is also valid. The conditions for validity are that the wedding be exclusively between one man and one woman and that there be no circumstance or intent which vitiates their consent. The additional conditions for sacramentality are that the wedding be between two baptized Christians, and that it be officiated by a Christian clergyman; this is the minimal condition for a sacrament to take place. Further additional conditions apply when one or both of the parties are baptized Catholics. The wedding must then either take place in a Catholic church, chapel or oratory and be officiated by a Catholic clergyman, or a dispensation must be obtained to allow the wedding to take place in another venue or under another jurisdiction.
The Catholic Church does not have jurisdiction where two non-Catholic Christians are marrying. This is why canon law says nothing regarding them. But the very definition of “sacramental” requires a Christian religious wedding officiated by a clergyman. If the couple qualifies, the marriage is sacramental; if not, the marriage is natural. In any case, their marriage is, like all marriages, assumed to be valid until proved otherwise.
Therefore, the person who told you that two Protestants who marry through a civil wedding are by that fact in a sacramental marriage is simply wrong. If a baptized Protestant couple has been married by a justice of the peace, their marriage would, by definition, not be sacramental, and if they then desire to become Catholic, the Catholic Church would require their marriage to be convalidated.
If you would be so kind as to reference an authoritative source supporting your most recent post, particularly this statement: “Therefore, the person who told you that two Protestants who marry through a civil wedding are by that fact in a sacramental marriage is simply wrong.” It was a priest who told this to our class.
I received my information from a priest, too, Charles. However, my point rests, not solely on canon law, but on the definition of what constitutes a sacrament. In order to have a religious result (sacrament), you have to have a religious action. A civil wedding is not a religious action; therefore, it cannot be a sacrament.
The quote from Catholic Answers confirmed what I learned in the Liturgy and the Sacraments course: (1) A marriage between an un-baptized man and woman is valid; (2) a marriage between the baptized non-Catholic man and woman is both valid and sacramental. Nothing dictates what the manner of setting should be. You are the one who is imposing a non-Catholic religious setting in order to validate the sacramental nature of a Protestant marriage where none is required. Again, I provided a source. Where’s yours?
Charles, how do you define what is a sacrament? And how, given that definition, is a person to partake of a sacrament?
As I did for you, please provide an authoritative source external to yourself supporting your position. If you cannot, then let us depart in peace.
Frank, why weren’t you received into the Catholic Church in your rite, i.e., the Byzantine rite? There is a Ruthenian parish in Orlando:
http://orlandobyzantine.com/
You are all bound up in legalities, Charles. My argument is not about legalities, but about sacramentality.
Regarding the definition of “sacrament,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
As you see, there is not a word about legalities or civil authorities. How can any civil authority celebrate a sacrament? That is the office of the Christian clergy, for they act in the name of Christ. How can any couple receive a sacrament they do not want, do not seek and prefer to ignore — isn’t that why they go to a civil authority to be married according to civil law? These people are not properly disposed; even if they were to go through the motions of the rite, they would not receive the grace of the sacrament. This is why the Church cannot accept a civil marriage as sacramental.
Because you know the beauty of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, I hope you have the opportunity to attend a Traditional Solemn High Latin Mass. Although Latin “Low Mass” (without music) eventually became the Roman Rite norm until the 1960s, the Solemn High Mass (sung and including deacon and sub-deacon) is THE form of Mass that was celebrated in the West at the time of the Great Schism. Its emphasis is virtually the same as the Byzantine Divine Liturgy: the Transcendent God, our unworthiness to be in the Divine Presence yet longing for deification, the eternal heavenly liturgy offered by the communion of saints and to which we join our liturgy, the silent recitation of the Canon–corresponding to the closing of the Royal Doors–at that awesome moment when heaven comes down to earth. It’s the Mass that the overwhelming majority of saints in the Roman Martyrology knew. And, thanks to Pope Benedict, we still can experience this ancient Mass–in full communion with the Pope.
You provide no authoritative external source supporting your view that baptized Protestants who contract a civil marriage only do not have a valid sacramental marriage. There is no negative prohibition in your quotations from the catechism but only in your concluding opinion. I’ll stick with Catholic Answers and may the peace of Christ be with you.
Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter promulgating the Catechism, refers to it as “authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith” and a “sure and authentic reference text.” The Catechism provides clear evidence that sacramentality is the domain of the Church, and not of civil authorities. Civil marriage is not a religious act; therefore, it does not involve a sacrament.
Percy Gryce asks– Frank, why weren’t you received into the Catholic Church in your rite, i.e., the Byzantine rite? There is a Melkite parish in Atlanta. Here is my answer: I live in Orlando, FL, area which is part of the geographically-large Atlanta diocese of the Greek Orthodox Church. In Orlando also there are Eastern Rite Catholic churches–3 that I know of. However all 3 of them are a great distance from my home, and I really do not want to drive a long distance to get to church. Also, though I do love the Eastern Rite, I also love the Ordinary Western Rite of the Catholic Church which is essentially similar to the Eastern Rite but just a lot less wordy and repetitious. Also back when I was a Methodist pastor the ritual I used for the administration of the Lord’s Supper was a watered-down version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which ultimately came from the Roman Catholic mass. So I am also very used to and comfortable with the Western Rite.
Your recurring method is to quote and then state your opinion. If you ever do find an authoritative source in the Catholic Church specifically stating that the sacrament of marriage among baptized Protestants can only be received in a Protestant Church wedding ceremony, I would be most grateful. Thanks for your time.
I don’t know where your head is, Charles. I quoted a pope who stated that the Catechism is authoritative. Evidently you recognize neither the Catechism nor the pope. In my quotes from the Catechism, you will find this sentence: “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church.” In my last reply, I simply reiterated this point; I did not assert my own opinion. Somehow you missed that, when it says that the sacraments are entrusted to the Church, this means that they are not entrusted to civil authorities. The remainder of the quotes from the Catechism refer to the fact that a sacrament is a sacred religious act. Civil marriage is not a sacred religious act, but a secular one. How, then, can it produce sacramentality? It’s all there. You just need to open your eyes and see.
Are you aware that according to the Catholic Church, anyone can validly confer the sacrament of baptism, even an atheist or civil magistrate, provided they use the correct matter and form and intend to do what Christ wants for His Church in response to the desire of the party requesting baptism? So in these cases, an atheist or civil magistrate would be involved in producing sacramentality, even though baptism as one of the seven sacraments is a sacred religious act entrusted to the Church. God willing, tomorrow I will call my diocese and ask for their judgment pertaining to the sacramentality of Protestant marriage and request an authoritative reference in support of their position.
It is not by virtue of their secularity that non-Christians can baptize, but only insofar as they intend to do “what the Church does” in baptizing. From the Catechism:
The footnotes reference the Code of Canon Law, canon 861:
Meanwhile, here is what the Catechism says about the minister of marriage:
It goes on to describe how a wedding should take place in a church setting — indeed, if possible, in the context of the Mass. The point being that, in the Catholic Church, a clergyman must be present to officiate, or the wedding is invalid. See canon 1059, where the Church’s law states that civil authority has competence only “concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.” The sacrament, then, is conferred, not through any civil authority, but only through the Church — reflecting Catholic dogma when it states that all divine grace come from Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic Christians have contact with this grace only insofar as they are united with the Catholic Church. If they adhere to their own denomination’s regulations concerning marriage, they will be that much more united as the denomination is united to the Catholic Church by way of faith and act. This is why a clergyman is required to officiate even at Protestant marriages, for such marriages to be considered sacramental.
As you can see, the Catholic faith does not live by canon law alone. There is theology, there is doctrine, and above all, there is faith involved. Therefore, you should not base yourself solely on the law, or on the word of some priest, but following your faith inquire of the Tradition of the Church and of Christ himself, who is embodied in the Church.
It’s late. My final word: Remember that we are speaking here of CIVIL marriages by non-Catholic Christians. We are therefore not speaking of marriages authorized by Protestant bodies, but of individual Christians who defy even their own denominational faith to marry “outside the church.” Such marriages are no more sacramental in a non-Catholic context than they are within the Church.
It’s early and my diocese’s offices are not open yet. But here’s one scenario: Based on the Catholic Answers quote above, in the case of two non-baptized people, a man and a woman, they can contract a valid non-sacramental marriage in a civil ceremony. If they both receive a valid sacramental baptism outside of the Catholic Church (or even outside any Protestant denomination, let’s say they both baptize each other using the correct matter and form), their valid marriage automatically becomes a sacramental marriage without any ecclesial ceremony. The above happened when Christianity first came to Korea in an unusual manner: Korean emissaries to China brought back a catechetical book by the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci to their country and began what they thought was the Catholic Church. Decades later, when the first foreign Catholic missionaries were finally allowed to enter “the hermit kingdom”, they were astonished to discover a community of Christians who had already had valid sacramental baptisms and valid sacramental marriages, even though their other attempts at ‘sacramentality’ were ineffective due to their inexposure to the bearers of Holy Orders who could legitimately confer the other sacraments.
Exceptions do not prove the rule, Charles. Stop wasting your time and mine. Just go ask your bishop if a deliberately civil marriage can, for Christian, be a sacrament.
These exceptions demonstrate that Jesus Christ, the good shepherd, provides the sacramental graces of baptism and marriage to the scattered members of His Body who unknowingly find themselves outside of any ecclesial boundaries, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. What a magnificent and generous Lord and God He is! I am getting ready to contact my diocese.
OnlyOne001: The priest in charge of the marriage tribunal at the chancery is off today so I must wait until tomorrow to speak to the official diocesan subject matter expert. The suspense for me is as good as an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
OnlyOneoo1: Exceptions abound in my family: (1) My father, raised Unitarian, married my baptized Protestant mother in the Episcopal Church in 1946. Due to my father’s status, in the eyes of the Catholic Church theirs was considered a valid non-sacramental marriage. 32 years later in 1978, my father was baptized in the United Church of Christ. Their marriage immediately became sacramental in the eyes of the Catholic Church without the requirement of another Protestant wedding ceremony and they attended both Protestant churches regularly together for the next 31 years until his death in 2009. (2) A similar situation occurred with my father’s brother, Uncle Jerre, who married my Aunt Rose in her United Church of Canada in the early 1950s. They lived a valid non-sacramental marriage until he was validly baptized in the Episcopal Church over 40 years later in 1994. Whereupon, according to Catholic understanding, they immediately received the sacramental grace of marriage without the requirement of another Protestant wedding ceremony. Sadly, Uncle Jerre lived this state of marital sacramentality with Aunt Rose for only a few years before his death.
The information you supply shows that these instances in your family history are not exceptions. In both cases, there was a church wedding. The marriages became sacramental once both parties were validly baptized. If they had not had a church wedding, but were instead married by a civil authority, the marriages could not have become sacramental.
It is becoming apparent, Charles, that you are misunderstanding this entire issue. You evidently are not differentiating between a religious act and a secular act. Only a religious act can be or become sacramental. This is because a sacrament is, by definition, a religious act. No secular authority, and no secular intention of the couple marrying, can have any sacramental effect whatsoever. I quoted above the applicable canon from the Code of Canon Law on this point and again refer you to it.
I suggest that you talk with the canon lawyer at the chancery office, as you had planned to do. You will receive no further response from me.
The first since the sacrament of marriage is constituted by mutual consent between two Baptised persons (if you had been Catholic at the time it would require proper “form” for validity as declared by Trent), the East Orthodox see the marriage bond as constituted also by the priests blessing whearas the Latin Church sees it as constituted by the consent of the spouses (such that before the Council of Trent a couple could enter into a valid, though illicit marriage simply by exchanging vows even without any witness present, in the 1917 code it is allowed that if a priest were not available for two months a couple could enter into a valid and licit marriage before two witnesses, probably an analogous principle would apply today if say they were stranded on a desert Island or in danger of death), though in the Eastern rite the Blessing is also co-constitutive (something on this can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s treatment of marriage). But I’m sure the ceremony was a very beautiful experience.
I don’t live in Atlanta. I live in Orlando, FL, area which is part of the geographically-large Atlanta diocese of the Greek Orthodox Church. In Orlando also there are Eastern Rite Catholic churches–3 that I know of. However all 3 of them are a great distance from my home, and at my age I really do not want to drive a long distance to get to church. Also, though I do love the Eastern Rite, I also love the Ordinary Western Rite of the Catholic Church which is essentially similar to the Eastern Rite but just a lot less wordy and repetitious. Also back when I was a Methodist pastor the ritual I used for the administration of the Lord’s Supper was a watered-down version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which ultimately came from the Roman Catholic mass. So I am also very used to and comfortable with the Western Rite.
Ah, my young old friend and former co-catechist at Good Shepherd, how did you ever find my story on CHN? Are you still in Indiana? And are you teaching theology which is definitely your forte? I hope so. If you are ever back in Orlando, please look me up and give me a call.
Frank, thank you for your story. I too grew up Methodist, went to Asbury College decades ago. Always something missing. Breaking point was when my parents died while in my 30’s. Nowhere to go with my suffering. Protestant Church doesn’t know what to do with that. Walked into a Catholic Church, saw Jesus up there on the cross, knelt down and I have never looked back. That was 18 years ago. G.K. Chesterton says the Catholic Church is like a good steak, a cigar and a fine wine or something like that. It has been the grandest decision I have ever made in my life. I still cry every Easter Vigil when I see all those new converts coming into the Church!
OnlyOne001: This morning, Friday, July 24, 2015, at ~11:00 AM EST (USA), I spoke with Father Workman of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington who works in the Marriage Tribunal of the Chancery. He informed me that baptized Protestants receive the sacrament of marriage in a civil ceremony because they are not bound by ecclesial law, but divine law. He referenced Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium of the Vatican II Council Documents and the proper understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding marriage between baptized persons. You may contact him at (703) 241-2751. Pax Christi.
Sacramentality is constituted simply by a valid marriage entered into by two Baptised Christians, whether civil or what have you. However for Catholics except for some rare circumstances, Canonical form has been required for the validity of marriages between Catholics since Trent (a civil marriage between two Catholics would therefore be invalid), a mere civil marriage is not valid between them period, but in the case of two Baptised Christians in general any valid marriage is a sacramental marriage, simply by the fact of their being Christians.
It need only be a valid marriage between two Christians, it need not be before a clergyman (1), the sacramentality is constituted simply by their being Christian. There can be no valid non-sacramental marriage between two Christians. A marriage between two non Christians, or between a Christian and a non-Christian can be valid but not a sacrament. But between two Christians there are no valid non-sacramental marriages. 1. For those in communion with the Church of Rome there is a requirement of form for validity which would normally require officiation by a priest or deacon, but that is a particular requirement ordained by the council of Trent. (before marriage could be entered into validly, and sacramentaly, simply by mutual consent even without witness (though such would be illicit though not invalid)).