Active Users:313 Time:02/05/2024 12:00:27 AM
Dragonsoul is wrong Roland00 Send a noteboard - 01/07/2011 09:21:43 AM
Wouldn't that mean that a divorced protestant could get married in a Catholic church, or even more importantly: a protestantly married person could become a bigamist?


I did not respond to him, for I posted a link, and it is quite clear from the link that you can marry outside the church. Did Dragonsoul even look at the link?

3. What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

4. If a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic, how can they assure that the marriage is recognized by the Church?

In addition to meeting the criteria for a valid Catholic marriage (see question #3), the Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic. If the person is a non-Catholic Christian, this permission is called a "permission to enter into a mixed marriage." If the person is a non-Christian, the permission is called a "dispensation from disparity of cult." Those helping to prepare the couple for marriage can assist with the permission process.
US Conference of Catholic Bishops
Reply to message
New York Senate approves same-sex marriage - 25/06/2011 03:47:43 AM 1094 Views
Good. *NM* - 25/06/2011 07:40:52 AM 356 Views
Re: Federalism is so fucking slow. *NM* - 25/06/2011 02:47:11 PM 188 Views
I'm actually not opposed to this. - 25/06/2011 03:48:32 PM 489 Views
Makes sense to me. - 25/06/2011 04:00:07 PM 654 Views
I'm not sure why there was even any need for such explicit protection. - 25/06/2011 04:04:47 PM 461 Views
There are two reasons, depending on ones position on the issue. - 25/06/2011 06:04:27 PM 513 Views
Meh, you never know. - 26/06/2011 12:58:37 AM 605 Views
so in your only Catholics are really married? - 26/06/2011 12:04:07 AM 461 Views
Church Doctrine. - 26/06/2011 12:57:39 AM 591 Views
That is simply not true - 26/06/2011 08:20:59 AM 511 Views
Yes it is. - 26/06/2011 05:14:29 PM 546 Views
That's patently wrong in that Orthodox weddings are explicitly recognized by the Church. - 26/06/2011 02:42:00 PM 479 Views
Yeah okay... - 26/06/2011 05:16:05 PM 517 Views
Are you sure about this? - 30/06/2011 04:47:57 PM 371 Views
Dragonsoul is wrong - 01/07/2011 09:21:43 AM 516 Views
Glad to hear it. *NM* - 25/06/2011 04:05:15 PM 188 Views
Seems fine to me - 25/06/2011 05:44:30 PM 450 Views
Voting on civil rights constitutes tyranny of the majority, not legitimate democracy. - 25/06/2011 09:37:28 PM 585 Views
Direct democracy is the only true democracy. *NM* - 26/06/2011 01:01:26 AM 199 Views
Sometimes it is grand not being a True Scottsman *NM* - 26/06/2011 08:21:49 AM 187 Views
Re: Voting on civil rights constitutes tyranny of the majority, not legitimate democracy. - 26/06/2011 03:11:06 AM 535 Views
Good luck telling that to the deeply religious right. - 26/06/2011 03:20:04 AM 434 Views
I am a deeply religious member of the right, and I tell them that all the time *NM* - 26/06/2011 03:30:14 AM 198 Views
Then you're a rare person. *NM* - 26/06/2011 03:36:11 AM 200 Views
After a number of years of gay marriage - 26/06/2011 06:57:07 AM 432 Views
That's more or less true of virtually everything, not a great example - 26/06/2011 07:09:03 AM 460 Views
People shouldn't turn their own religion and/or opinion into law - 28/06/2011 07:33:48 PM 455 Views
I don't recall mentioning religion beyond confirming that I was religious - 28/06/2011 08:22:51 PM 484 Views
I admit I wasn't replying to you directly - 29/06/2011 07:20:10 AM 446 Views
I think you should give this subject a bit more thought - 29/06/2011 02:16:04 PM 482 Views
I'll address the bulk of this later - 29/06/2011 07:58:48 PM 365 Views
Believing things without strong supporting evidence is not rational. - 30/06/2011 12:11:33 AM 548 Views
Requiring different degrees of proof for things isn't particularly rational - 30/06/2011 01:14:44 PM 619 Views
I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 07:43:51 PM 995 Views
Re: I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 08:59:00 PM 633 Views
Re: I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 09:47:30 PM 895 Views
We're gonna have to pick this up another time - 01/07/2011 04:37:25 AM 462 Views
No, I used the word irrational to mean that it's not rational. - 30/06/2011 09:12:19 PM 471 Views
Fair Enough - 01/07/2011 04:32:44 AM 527 Views
Btw, in case you were wondering, I do like you - 01/07/2011 02:17:42 PM 522 Views
Empire State Building was lit up in rainbow colors, looked cool *NM* - 25/06/2011 08:21:03 PM 209 Views
Good. *NM* - 25/06/2011 11:41:30 PM 179 Views
So, fifth time is a charm? - 26/06/2011 06:38:26 AM 568 Views

Reply to Message