Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You both don't need to be Catholic. One of you should be and also registered at the church or a church that his family is registered at. You can't just waltz into any church and demand a wedding ceremony. You will need to be registered parishioners, or use his family church, and complete the wedding prep (Pre-Cana), and just jump through all the hoops.
But your post is very off putting all about you, and what you want. You're supposed to be getting married, it's not all about you.
No. One of them must be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church.
Well, the fiancé is. But the point in this case is that the fiancé is Catholic enough to meet the criteria. But he is not practicing and might say he's not Catholic. But if he was raised Catholic he's been baptized, had his Communion and is confirmed. As far as the Church is concerned, he's Catholic.
Yes, the fiancé is Catholic. The point you’re ignoring is the first pp said one
should be Catholic. There’s no
should about it with the Catholic church. That’s a
must.
I said that. Then I clarified.
I said "should" because most people getting married in the Church are there because they want to be, they are in good standing. The fiancé is Catholic, being born and raised, but seems now to be lapsed. If you're lapsed should you still consider yourself Catholic?
You are making zero sense. There is no
should about it with a Catholic wedding. It’s a must or there’s no Catholic wedding.
He is a Catholic in the eyes of the church. We know this. But, how he identifies is another thing. Which goes back to OP's point that should they just go along with it for appeasement or is it a mockery? They can have the Catholic wedding, but should they?
That’s all that matters if he wants to be married in a Catholic church. What’s a mockery is OP’s suggestion of lying.
You act as if it's so easy to get married in the church. An indifferent, non-practicing couple still has to meet certain criteria. Maybe it's church attendance, pre-cana, meetings with the priest, good standing, before they will be allowed to book their date. It varies. It's not just "does the one person meet the basic criteria". Sounds like they already have a date and venue for their non religious wedding. Trying to plan a Catholic ceremony into an existing timeline might be a huge hurdle.
Nope. You’re inventing something never said. I only commented that 1 person must be Catholic not should be Catholic. If you don’t meet the minimum of one person being Catholic, the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because there is no chance of a Catholic wedding.
No chance? Hardly. A non practicing Catholic who has no intention of raising their kids Catholic can still have one if their parents set it all up.
NP: PP was clearly commenting that "should" in that sentence needed to be "must." One party must already be Catholic. There is a difference between non-practicing and not at all Catholic. Your scenario likely involved the non-practicing Catholic having evidence of Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation, and being willing to take the vows of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Sure, you could fudge your way through that, even if they don't mean it, though dishonesty is truly a terrible way to start a marriage. But, two people, neither of whom has ever had any of the Catholic sacraments will not be able to have parents "pull strings," even if the parents sign the document avowing that the child was not fully catechized through no fault of their own but due to the fault of the parent (that's a thing). There would be some steps before that sacrament was conferred.
Exactly.
The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous.
So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.
Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.
I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off.
You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you
should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.
Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!
I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.
Being a “registered parishioner” is a canonical intricacy. If you live in the geographic bounds of the parish, they have to provide the sacraments if you are suitably disposed. If not they don’t.
“Irrelevancy.” Not “intricacy.”
Have to? What a joke. I wasn't registered and couldn't find a church that would marry me (Catholic) and fiancé (Lutheran) since we weren't members of their parish at the time. So we got married at the campus nondenominational chapel which opened us with open arms. The church certainly didn't believe in your "have to".
Yes. “Have to.” Period. Full stop.
There are pastors who will raise the “registration” issue, sometimes from ignorance, other times not. A call to the chancery typically resolves the matter promptly. Parish membership in the Catholic Church is geographic. The pastor of a parish is responsible for the pastoral care of all Catholics within his parish boundaries.
Yeah sure. Honestly, if the gatekeepers are going to be such pills about it who would want to do it anyway? Many churches aren't nearly as rule following and eager to help as you're pretending. Get real.
Plenty of people authentically want a sacramental marriage but run into a technical obstacle that has to be overcome. Sometimes that takes some work.
More commonly, there are situations where the issue lies not with the pastor but the parties.
Not everyone considers “churches” or more properly denominations fungible.
“Pretending” doesn’t work when the final judge is the omniscient God.
You’re free to believe or not and to act as you decide. Everyone is.
But it is important for people to whom it might matter to know that the distortions, misinformation, half-truths and exaggerations they’ve come to believe and even repeat are inaccurate.
Parish “registration” is a canonical irrelevancy in the Roman Church.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}