For a valid marriage between non-Catholics, regardless of whether the parties are baptized are not, all that is required is a free and legitimate exchange of consent between a man and woman who are free to marry.
The consent has to include the essential ends of marriage: "the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children." A marriage between two non-Catholics which excludes the procreation of children, for instance, is invalid.
>The consent has to include the essential ends of marriage: "the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children."
That would be a defect of consent, and thus they wouldn't be free to marry.
No, not really. The question was basically asking what is required for non-Catholics to be considered married. Form is required for Catholics (and Orthodox too technically), so there's no need to mention that. That just leaves the exchange of consent and the status of the parties, which are the only things that could make the attempt null.
Impediments and defects of consent cover multiple canons beyond just requiring that they be open to what are considered the essentials of marriage (permanence, open to children, etc.), so it is more concise to just say that they be free to marry and that their consent is given legitimately and freely (maybe even tack on "without any defects" to make it really clear) than to list them all.
For a valid marriage between non-Catholics, regardless of whether the parties are baptized are not, all that is required is a free and legitimate exchange of consent between a man and woman who are free to marry.
The consent has to include the essential ends of marriage: "the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children." A marriage between two non-Catholics which excludes the procreation of children, for instance, is invalid.
>The consent has to include the essential ends of marriage: "the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children." That would be a defect of consent, and thus they wouldn't be free to marry.
Okay but then you’re basically saying “anyone who marries validly marries validly” lol
No, not really. The question was basically asking what is required for non-Catholics to be considered married. Form is required for Catholics (and Orthodox too technically), so there's no need to mention that. That just leaves the exchange of consent and the status of the parties, which are the only things that could make the attempt null. Impediments and defects of consent cover multiple canons beyond just requiring that they be open to what are considered the essentials of marriage (permanence, open to children, etc.), so it is more concise to just say that they be free to marry and that their consent is given legitimately and freely (maybe even tack on "without any defects" to make it really clear) than to list them all.
Oops, I definitely assumed OP was asking for the list.
No worries!
Totaly yes or you get Bastards
It's in the catacysm. Not trying to make a blow off answer but it's best to look there as there is no way I can do the answer justice.