Active Users:380 Time:13/05/2025 03:06:19 PM
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 1234 Views
Good. *NM* - 25/06/2011 07:40:52 AM 408 Views
Re: Federalism is so fucking slow. *NM* - 25/06/2011 02:47:11 PM 246 Views
I'm actually not opposed to this. - 25/06/2011 03:48:32 PM 596 Views
Makes sense to me. - 25/06/2011 04:00:07 PM 784 Views
I'm not sure why there was even any need for such explicit protection. - 25/06/2011 04:04:47 PM 589 Views
There are two reasons, depending on ones position on the issue. - 25/06/2011 06:04:27 PM 639 Views
Meh, you never know. - 26/06/2011 12:58:37 AM 734 Views
so in your only Catholics are really married? - 26/06/2011 12:04:07 AM 594 Views
Church Doctrine. - 26/06/2011 12:57:39 AM 716 Views
That is simply not true - 26/06/2011 08:20:59 AM 653 Views
Yes it is. - 26/06/2011 05:14:29 PM 668 Views
That's patently wrong in that Orthodox weddings are explicitly recognized by the Church. - 26/06/2011 02:42:00 PM 611 Views
Yeah okay... - 26/06/2011 05:16:05 PM 653 Views
Are you sure about this? - 30/06/2011 04:47:57 PM 511 Views
Dragonsoul is wrong - 01/07/2011 09:21:43 AM 665 Views
Glad to hear it. *NM* - 25/06/2011 04:05:15 PM 230 Views
Seems fine to me - 25/06/2011 05:44:30 PM 585 Views
Voting on civil rights constitutes tyranny of the majority, not legitimate democracy. - 25/06/2011 09:37:28 PM 719 Views
Direct democracy is the only true democracy. *NM* - 26/06/2011 01:01:26 AM 250 Views
Sometimes it is grand not being a True Scottsman *NM* - 26/06/2011 08:21:49 AM 240 Views
Re: Voting on civil rights constitutes tyranny of the majority, not legitimate democracy. - 26/06/2011 03:11:06 AM 664 Views
Good luck telling that to the deeply religious right. - 26/06/2011 03:20:04 AM 580 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 251 Views
Then you're a rare person. *NM* - 26/06/2011 03:36:11 AM 252 Views
After a number of years of gay marriage - 26/06/2011 06:57:07 AM 563 Views
That's more or less true of virtually everything, not a great example - 26/06/2011 07:09:03 AM 585 Views
People shouldn't turn their own religion and/or opinion into law - 28/06/2011 07:33:48 PM 578 Views
I don't recall mentioning religion beyond confirming that I was religious - 28/06/2011 08:22:51 PM 623 Views
I admit I wasn't replying to you directly - 29/06/2011 07:20:10 AM 580 Views
I think you should give this subject a bit more thought - 29/06/2011 02:16:04 PM 625 Views
I'll address the bulk of this later - 29/06/2011 07:58:48 PM 504 Views
Believing things without strong supporting evidence is not rational. - 30/06/2011 12:11:33 AM 683 Views
Requiring different degrees of proof for things isn't particularly rational - 30/06/2011 01:14:44 PM 749 Views
I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 07:43:51 PM 1148 Views
Re: I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 08:59:00 PM 761 Views
Re: I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 09:47:30 PM 1029 Views
We're gonna have to pick this up another time - 01/07/2011 04:37:25 AM 599 Views
No, I used the word irrational to mean that it's not rational. - 30/06/2011 09:12:19 PM 610 Views
Fair Enough - 01/07/2011 04:32:44 AM 655 Views
Btw, in case you were wondering, I do like you - 01/07/2011 02:17:42 PM 663 Views
Empire State Building was lit up in rainbow colors, looked cool *NM* - 25/06/2011 08:21:03 PM 259 Views
Good. *NM* - 25/06/2011 11:41:30 PM 236 Views
So, fifth time is a charm? - 26/06/2011 06:38:26 AM 699 Views

Reply to Message