|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 16, 2017 23:39:49 GMT -5
If a traditional catholic gets married by an old catholic line priest, would that be a valid marriage? At the time I don't think they knew the priest was old catholic or possibly they didn't even know what an old catholic was. But I do think their regular priest wouldn't marry them, if that makes any difference. The groom had been married previously but apparently the Pauline privilege was asserted.
Do old catholics still have valid orders? I believe Fr. Cekada says, "No."
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 17, 2017 18:00:59 GMT -5
If a traditional catholic gets married by an old catholic line priest, would that be a valid marriage? At the time I don't think they knew the priest was old catholic or possibly they didn't even know what an old catholic was. But I do think their regular priest wouldn't marry them, if that makes any difference. The groom had been married previously but apparently the Pauline privilege was asserted. Do old catholics still have valid orders? I believe Fr. Cekada says, "No." Pauline privilege cannot be just asserted, it must be declared by the Pope. Since we have no Pope, we have no living authority with the power to make this judgment. I think this is a very major issue regarding the validly of this marriage. Some Old Catholics have valid orders others are questionable. The Utrecht Old Catholics have certainly valid orders, but there are many doubts about the Old Catholics in the U.S. Catholics must get married in their territorial parish or get permission from the pastor to marry in another church. I realize the times are such that this law is no longer applicable in the Latin Church, so in this situation the law permits Catholics to marry each other of no clerics are available, which IMO justifies the use of "traditional" priests for Latin rite Catholics, but this cannot be extended to non-Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 17, 2017 18:35:13 GMT -5
Marriage does not require a Priest...just a valid witness and an intent to uphold the sacrament. At least that is my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 17, 2017 20:00:51 GMT -5
Marriage does not require a Priest...just a valid witness and an intent to uphold the sacrament. At least that is my understanding. This is true if there is no qualified priest available for 30 days. There must be two witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 17, 2017 20:47:41 GMT -5
How is "available" defined? Her priest said, "No." Does that mean he's not "available"?
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 17, 2017 20:48:42 GMT -5
I, too, have my doubts about the validity. Just so you know...I'm not writing about myself, thank heavens.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 17, 2017 21:10:13 GMT -5
How is "available" defined? Her priest said, "No." Does that mean he's not "available"? When it talks about the priest available, it means the authorized priest, which is the pastor or curate at the parish in which you have domicile. Under canon law you must be married by him or at the very least, he must authorize you to marry at a different Catholic parish. If for some reason you could not get ahold of your local pastor, or are for some reason far away from home and want to marry, and are unable to contact the local clergy for 30 days, you can marry each other without a priest. I think most Latin rite Catholics would fall into the situation of not having access to an authorized priest in our times. If your local canonical pastor says no, you would have recourse to the local ordinary. I don't think that's what you are referring to though. If it's a "traditional" priest, then he has no authority over anyone to begin with.
|
|
turin
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by turin on Sept 18, 2017 1:33:42 GMT -5
I wonder, how do these traditional priests/bishops ordained by Old Catholics go about getting their ordination? Do they pay or sweet talk them to into getting ordained, or do they act as if they are actually going to become priests in the Old Catholic Church and then leave afterwards?
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Sept 18, 2017 15:36:56 GMT -5
What exactly is the situation? The couple involved, I mean, with the "first marriage."
The involvement of an Old Catholic minister won't make it valid or invalid, so long as there were witnesses. What would make it invalid is if one party was not free to marry due to already being married. That's the real question, i.e., whether or not there was an existing marital bond between the person in question and their previous "spouse."
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 18, 2017 16:59:22 GMT -5
What exactly is the situation? The couple involved, I mean, with the "first marriage." The involvement of an Old Catholic minister won't make it valid or invalid, so long as there were witnesses. What would make it invalid is if one party was not free to marry due to already being married. That's the real question, i.e., whether or not there was an existing marital bond between the person in question and their previous "spouse." Good to see you old friend.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 18, 2017 21:23:25 GMT -5
What exactly is the situation? The couple involved, I mean, with the "first marriage." The involvement of an Old Catholic minister won't make it valid or invalid, so long as there were witnesses. What would make it invalid is if one party was not free to marry due to already being married. That's the real question, i.e., whether or not there was an existing marital bond between the person in question and their previous "spouse." Pre Ne Temere you would be correct, but after the new law, it is clear that Catholics who marry outside the Church would not be validly married. I am not merely asserting that it would be illicit, it is clear that the marriage would be invalid. I will post some sources later.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 18, 2017 21:31:47 GMT -5
What exactly is the situation? The couple involved, I mean, with the "first marriage." The involvement of an Old Catholic minister won't make it valid or invalid, so long as there were witnesses. What would make it invalid is if one party was not free to marry due to already being married. That's the real question, i.e., whether or not there was an existing marital bond between the person in question and their previous "spouse." Well that's another part of it. From what I understand, the baptismal status of the two in the first marriage could not be determined. I forget if it was the groom or bride, but one of their families refused to answer any questions about it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 18, 2017 22:16:46 GMT -5
I don't have the time right now to dig through the books, but this answer from Radio Replies, Volume 3, 1942 , sums up the Church's teaching succinctly. If anyone wants more in depth sources, let me know and I will get them.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 19, 2017 5:01:04 GMT -5
This seems to make it easier to get an annulment...after all an invalid marriage is no marriage at all...yes?
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Sept 19, 2017 6:28:22 GMT -5
It would also seem to make many modern "marriages" for Catholics invalid.
|
|