Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Rite of Marriage
ROME, JULY 1, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
In the wake of our column on the rite of marriage (June 17), a reader from Malmo, Sweden, asked about a particular situation: "I know some married couples who converted from the Protestant 'church' to the Catholic Church; they had to be reconfirmed because their bishop isn't in line with the apostolic succession. (I've learned in the Catechism that only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have kept the unbroken line of the apostolic succession.) My question is: What is the reason that they aren't remarried according to Catholic rite as well, since the priest/minister who married them isn't in line with apostolic succession?"
There are two basic reasons. First of all, according to traditional Catholic doctrine, the minister of the sacrament of matrimony is not the priest, deacon or other official witness. Rather, the bride and groom themselves act as ministers in bringing about the sacrament. The official rite of marriage and the presence of an ordained minister as official witness are canonical requirements for the validity of the sacrament under normal circumstances. Canon law, however, foresees some circumstances when a couple can validly marry without the presence of an ordained minister, although never without the presence of some witnesses.
Therefore, in the case at hand the Protestant minister's lack of apostolic succession is irrelevant to the sacramental validity of the wedding.
The second reason is closely related to the first. Catholic teaching is that any valid marriage between baptized Christians is ipso facto a sacramental bond, even among Christians who do not recognize matrimony as being among the seven sacraments. Thus if two validly wed Protestants become Catholic, there is usually no need to perform a new ceremony since the marriage is already fully sacramental.
It is necessary to repeat the wedding only if some circumstances strongly suggest that the original wedding might not be valid. But the marriage normally enjoys the presumption of validity.
For the same reason, when non-baptized spouses, joined in a valid natural marriage, are baptized, there is usually no reason to repeat the wedding, since the very fact of baptism automatically converts their natural bond into a sacramental unity. It is sufficient to note the fact of the sacramental marriage in the margin of the baptismal register.
Another reader asked about scheduling: "A wedding is scheduled to take place in our parish at our usual 6 p.m. Mass. Some few parishioners are upset about this and claim that weddings must be done at a separate Mass. Is this permissible? I should tell you that we are in a semirural community and our pastor, as with so many priests, must take care of two parishes."
There is no rule that weddings must be held in a separate Mass and, indeed, because the sacrament is not just a private event involving two families but a joy for the entire faith community, it is recommended that, on occasion, weddings be held during regular community Masses. The same principle holds for some other sacraments such as infant baptisms.
Although the practice is allowed, there are some restrictions regarding what prayers and readings may be used, depending on the liturgical season and particular feast days. For this reason it is not always possible to use the full ritual Mass and the readings of matrimony if joined to a regular Sunday Mass.
Since such a Mass is a bit longer than usual, the faithful should always be advised ahead of time so that those who need to can make alternative plans.
In the wake of our column on the rite of marriage (June 17), a reader from Malmo, Sweden, asked about a particular situation: "I know some married couples who converted from the Protestant 'church' to the Catholic Church; they had to be reconfirmed because their bishop isn't in line with the apostolic succession. (I've learned in the Catechism that only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have kept the unbroken line of the apostolic succession.) My question is: What is the reason that they aren't remarried according to Catholic rite as well, since the priest/minister who married them isn't in line with apostolic succession?"
There are two basic reasons. First of all, according to traditional Catholic doctrine, the minister of the sacrament of matrimony is not the priest, deacon or other official witness. Rather, the bride and groom themselves act as ministers in bringing about the sacrament. The official rite of marriage and the presence of an ordained minister as official witness are canonical requirements for the validity of the sacrament under normal circumstances. Canon law, however, foresees some circumstances when a couple can validly marry without the presence of an ordained minister, although never without the presence of some witnesses.
Therefore, in the case at hand the Protestant minister's lack of apostolic succession is irrelevant to the sacramental validity of the wedding.
The second reason is closely related to the first. Catholic teaching is that any valid marriage between baptized Christians is ipso facto a sacramental bond, even among Christians who do not recognize matrimony as being among the seven sacraments. Thus if two validly wed Protestants become Catholic, there is usually no need to perform a new ceremony since the marriage is already fully sacramental.
It is necessary to repeat the wedding only if some circumstances strongly suggest that the original wedding might not be valid. But the marriage normally enjoys the presumption of validity.
For the same reason, when non-baptized spouses, joined in a valid natural marriage, are baptized, there is usually no reason to repeat the wedding, since the very fact of baptism automatically converts their natural bond into a sacramental unity. It is sufficient to note the fact of the sacramental marriage in the margin of the baptismal register.
Another reader asked about scheduling: "A wedding is scheduled to take place in our parish at our usual 6 p.m. Mass. Some few parishioners are upset about this and claim that weddings must be done at a separate Mass. Is this permissible? I should tell you that we are in a semirural community and our pastor, as with so many priests, must take care of two parishes."
There is no rule that weddings must be held in a separate Mass and, indeed, because the sacrament is not just a private event involving two families but a joy for the entire faith community, it is recommended that, on occasion, weddings be held during regular community Masses. The same principle holds for some other sacraments such as infant baptisms.
Although the practice is allowed, there are some restrictions regarding what prayers and readings may be used, depending on the liturgical season and particular feast days. For this reason it is not always possible to use the full ritual Mass and the readings of matrimony if joined to a regular Sunday Mass.
Since such a Mass is a bit longer than usual, the faithful should always be advised ahead of time so that those who need to can make alternative plans.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home