Active Users:626 Time:14/10/2025 11:18:05 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 1316 Views
Good. *NM* - 25/06/2011 07:40:52 AM 428 Views
Re: Federalism is so fucking slow. *NM* - 25/06/2011 02:47:11 PM 262 Views
I'm actually not opposed to this. - 25/06/2011 03:48:32 PM 633 Views
Makes sense to me. - 25/06/2011 04:00:07 PM 856 Views
I'm not sure why there was even any need for such explicit protection. - 25/06/2011 04:04:47 PM 629 Views
There are two reasons, depending on ones position on the issue. - 25/06/2011 06:04:27 PM 681 Views
Meh, you never know. - 26/06/2011 12:58:37 AM 772 Views
so in your only Catholics are really married? - 26/06/2011 12:04:07 AM 634 Views
Church Doctrine. - 26/06/2011 12:57:39 AM 761 Views
That is simply not true - 26/06/2011 08:20:59 AM 699 Views
Yes it is. - 26/06/2011 05:14:29 PM 706 Views
That's patently wrong in that Orthodox weddings are explicitly recognized by the Church. - 26/06/2011 02:42:00 PM 651 Views
Yeah okay... - 26/06/2011 05:16:05 PM 691 Views
Are you sure about this? - 30/06/2011 04:47:57 PM 555 Views
Dragonsoul is wrong - 01/07/2011 09:21:43 AM 706 Views
Glad to hear it. *NM* - 25/06/2011 04:05:15 PM 248 Views
Seems fine to me - 25/06/2011 05:44:30 PM 626 Views
Voting on civil rights constitutes tyranny of the majority, not legitimate democracy. - 25/06/2011 09:37:28 PM 759 Views
Direct democracy is the only true democracy. *NM* - 26/06/2011 01:01:26 AM 267 Views
Sometimes it is grand not being a True Scottsman *NM* - 26/06/2011 08:21:49 AM 258 Views
Re: Voting on civil rights constitutes tyranny of the majority, not legitimate democracy. - 26/06/2011 03:11:06 AM 702 Views
Good luck telling that to the deeply religious right. - 26/06/2011 03:20:04 AM 622 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 269 Views
Then you're a rare person. *NM* - 26/06/2011 03:36:11 AM 268 Views
After a number of years of gay marriage - 26/06/2011 06:57:07 AM 596 Views
That's more or less true of virtually everything, not a great example - 26/06/2011 07:09:03 AM 624 Views
People shouldn't turn their own religion and/or opinion into law - 28/06/2011 07:33:48 PM 618 Views
I don't recall mentioning religion beyond confirming that I was religious - 28/06/2011 08:22:51 PM 668 Views
I admit I wasn't replying to you directly - 29/06/2011 07:20:10 AM 624 Views
I think you should give this subject a bit more thought - 29/06/2011 02:16:04 PM 669 Views
I'll address the bulk of this later - 29/06/2011 07:58:48 PM 549 Views
Believing things without strong supporting evidence is not rational. - 30/06/2011 12:11:33 AM 730 Views
Requiring different degrees of proof for things isn't particularly rational - 30/06/2011 01:14:44 PM 811 Views
I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 07:43:51 PM 1200 Views
Re: I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 08:59:00 PM 809 Views
Re: I require the same standard of evidence to be confident in anything. - 30/06/2011 09:47:30 PM 1075 Views
We're gonna have to pick this up another time - 01/07/2011 04:37:25 AM 640 Views
No, I used the word irrational to mean that it's not rational. - 30/06/2011 09:12:19 PM 658 Views
Fair Enough - 01/07/2011 04:32:44 AM 697 Views
Btw, in case you were wondering, I do like you - 01/07/2011 02:17:42 PM 702 Views
Empire State Building was lit up in rainbow colors, looked cool *NM* - 25/06/2011 08:21:03 PM 281 Views
Good. *NM* - 25/06/2011 11:41:30 PM 252 Views
So, fifth time is a charm? - 26/06/2011 06:38:26 AM 743 Views

Reply to Message