Those are excellent comments but I want answer those questions you posed if I can.
- The Assyrian Church of the East, would then appear to be in heresy?
From the Catholic perspective, invincible ignorance would make then not culpable for heresy.
- … if they married each other, the church wedding would never be necessary. In fact, the USCCB quote sort of makes the Latin rite marriage look as if it were Eastern rite, including a blessing.
That same statement from USCCB contains is explicit that it is only exceptional marriage situation where there is not a clergy witness. The main difference being in the sacramental discipline of the eastern Church preserves the Catholic priests blessing (but is it not required for validity in the exceptional situations).“The Catholic Church accepts as sacramental those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity
which are witnessed by a Catholic bishop or priest (or, in more recent discipline, a deacon), but it also envisages some exceptional situations in which, whether by law or by dispensation, Catholics may enter into a sacramental marriage in the absence of a bishop, priest or deacon.”
3. But, you don’t mean to imply the particular Eastern blessing which “makes” the couple to be joined by Christ, Jesus, was “invented” laster in history do you ?!
and
4. Do you have links or sources which explain
exactly what changes the Eastern Emperor instituted?
There is a betrothal and crowning. The betrothal is the marriage contract, not the crowning. See John Meyendorf:From the sixth to the ninth centuries, imperial state legislation tended to
grant the Church an ever increasing control over marriages (see, for example,
novella 64 of Justinian), but it never made “crowning” a legal obligation. The
decisive step in this direction was taken at the beginning of the tenth century,
and this measure coincided with the appearance of a rite of crowning separate
from the Eucharist. What provided this change which modified fundamentally, if
not the meaning of marriage, at least its understanding by the vast majority
of faithful? The answer can easily be found in the imperial decree which
enforced the change. In his novella 89 (novella: “new law”) the Byzantine
Emperor Leo VI (d. 912) first expresses regrets that in previous imperial
legislation the two legal acts of adoption of a child and of marriage were
considered as purely civil formalities. He then declares that both of these
acts – as long as they involve free citizens, and not slaves *- will henceforth be
sanctioned by a Church ceremony. A marriage not blessed by the Church “will not
be considered as marriage,” but as an illegitimate concubinage.’ (1)
…
So the betrothal service is the marriage contract as the Church understands it.
It involves not only the bridal pair, but God Himself. This is the reason why
canon 98 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council stipulates: He who brings to the
intercourse of marriage a woman who is betrothed to another man, who is still
alive, is to lie under the charge of adultery.
…
Thus a betrothal, solemnly celebrated in Church, is more than a simple
“engagement.” It represents the real bond of marriage, lacking only the ultimate
sacramental fulfilment. This is certainly why it is generally celebrated just
before the crowning service itself. (2)
(1) John Meyendorf, Marriage, an Orthodox Perspective, SVS Press, New York, 1975. pp. 25-26
(2) ibid. p. 33
5. And older usually means being more likely to be a Tradition and not merely a tradition.
That seems to be true. But then with marriage, much development happened both east and west.
And older usually means being more likely to be a Tradition and not merely a tradition.
So, I see a very serious reason that the Latin Church would desire place laws upon the eastern Church to stem the loss of the faithful by trying to make such remarriage at least appear to be invalid/illegal… even if they do contradict Eastern theology.