MilesVitae
Well-Known Member
- Nov 12, 2012
- 473
- 61
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes, it would be a true marriage.
This surprises me, actually.... Are there any circumstances under which the Church would "annul" or recognize that a marriage had not truly taken place? Perhaps a better way to put it is, does the Church believe there any impediments to marriage in which cases a marriage would truly occur, even if the people went through the motions of receiving the sacrament?
What I meant was, if someone were coerced into taking the Eucharist, would that make it NOT the Body and Blood?
The man and the woman are an essential part of the sacrament of marriage, the uniting of the two, so the consent and the capability for the two persons to be able to enter into that union seems, from my perspective, a relevant factor - a factor which is not present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, when one receives the Eucharist, he receives what is the Body and Blood of Christ before and independent of whether he takes it, and his consent is not relevant - but, there is no "sacrament of marriage" separate from the uniting of the spouses themselves in the way the Eucharist exists separate from an individual receiving it, so it is a rather different situation.
Another comparison might be confession. If I go to confession, but deliberately withhold my sins or am deliberately not repentant (in my own heart - presumably if I revealed this to a priest he would not absolve me), the sacrament is "invalid," or at least it certainly does not have it's proper effect on me. In the same way, there may be certain conditions which would render two people from truly entering into a marriage/receiving the sacrament, even if they went through the motions of doing so.
Upvote
0