Arbitrarily choosing between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

[Reuben_J]

It is only the Orthodox Church that has the crowning ceremony. The Catholic Church does not have it. As Fr. Anthony Yazge said in his article posted on the Antiochian Orthodox web site (antiochian.org/1285), “We witness the groom and bride being crowned (visibly proclaimed) as the king and queen, respectively, of a new family, entrusted by God with the authority to rule their family in faith and love and harmony with Christ. They both share in this responsibility and privilege as a newly married couple. This is not simply being declared by the priest or even the Church, but by God Himself, as the following hymn is chanted three times: “O Lord, our God, crown them with glory and honor.”"

I can’t comment much on what the Orthodox do, but in Catholicism, there would be external varieties as to how the wedding (Matrimony) is conducted. Yet the main thing here is that the couple are wedded in a marriage Sacrament thus rendering the marriage valid and sacramental. Probably that too is the principle of marriage in the Orthodox Church and we should not be distracted by the outward ceremony in itself.

Christian marriage is a gift from God. God gives us marriage, not us inventing it. That’s the idea with Christian marriage. Thus, in that, there are not two in a Christian marriage but three, the third person being God. Allowing God to enter one’s marriage is a sure protection for the marriage itself as how God wants and designs it. Thus a spouse cannot do anything laterally in that marriage without taking the unseen partner, God, into consideration. A spouse may be absent but he/she cannot transgress the commandment of God because God is never absent in a Christian marriage.

Having accepting the involvement of God in the marriage and that it is his gift, the couple thus should guard and treasure it and never should destroy it in unchristian behavior, infidelity and divorce. This, I would say in a nutshell, is the principle of a Christian marriage when it is contracted out. It is a covenant between wife and husband and God. God being the Lord of the marriage.

The most important aspect of the marriage is spiritual, not the outward ceremony though these are important too if they constituted part of the Sacrament.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is only the Orthodox Church that has the crowning ceremony. The Catholic Church does not have it. As Fr. Anthony Yazge said in his article posted on the Antiochian Orthodox web site (antiochian.org/1285), “We witness the groom and bride being crowned (visibly proclaimed) as the king and queen, respectively, of a new family, entrusted by God with the authority to rule their family in faith and love and harmony with Christ. They both share in this responsibility and privilege as a newly married couple. This is not simply being declared by the priest or even the Church, but by God Himself, as the following hymn is chanted three times: “O Lord, our God, crown them with glory and honor.”"

This is totally wrong. All Eastern Catholic Churches have the Crowning and a priest is REQUIRED for validity even if only one of the spouses is Eastern (for ex. an Eastern marrying a Latin). Also, even in many Orthodox Churches, annulment is possible although exceptionally rare since some form of divorce is tolerated although not encouraged.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is totally wrong. All Eastern Catholic Churches have the Crowning and a priest is REQUIRED for validity even if only one of the spouses is Eastern (for ex. an Eastern marrying a Latin). Also, even in many Orthodox Churches, annulment is possible although exceptionally rare since some form of divorce is tolerated although not encouraged.

Right. The Eastern Catholic Churches also have the crowning. My mistake. But I don’t think that the Roman Catholic Churches, ordinary Roman rite, have the crowning , or at least I have not seen it.
Thanks for that correction.

 

[commenter]

Both RC and EO have a similar view of marriage as indissoluble and sacramental. Both RC, EO, Protestants, Jews, and non believers have had a huge problem with marriage/anullment/divorce since the late 1960s in the US and other Western countries. This has everything to do with secular trends impacting on everyone; this has nothing to do with differences between RC and EO. Bringing up that alleged difference belongs in another thread. For THIS thread, let’s look at actual differences between RCC and EO.

For starters,

How is Tradition interpreted, and who decides if an interpretation is correct?

If theologians and bishops have different views on how to respond to a given issue, who decides which response is consistent with the Tradition of the Church? If you argue it is based on consensus, who determines that consensus has, or has not yet, been reached?

 

[prodromos]

Right. The Eastern Catholic Churches also have the crowning. My mistake. But I don’t think that the Roman Catholic Churches, ordinary Roman rite, have the crowning , or at least I have not seen it.
Thanks for that correction.

Easy mistake to make when your statement was true for 99% of the Catholic Church

 

[Tomdstone]

For THIS thread, let’s look at actual differences between RCC and EO.

To see what the Eastern Orthodox consider to be serious and grave differences between RCC and EO, you might consider what teachings a Roman Catholic priest has to renounce in order to convert and become an Eastern Orthodox priest. He has to renounce the filioque, and the supremacy and the infallibility of the Pope, for example, at least in this conversion which occurred in Russia.
youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A&feature=youtu.be

 

[SyroMalankara]

To see what the Eastern Orthodox consider to be serious and grave differences between RCC and EO, you might consider what teachings a Roman Catholic priest has to renounce in order to convert and become an Eastern Orthodox priest. He has to renounce the filioque, and the supremacy and the infallibility of the Pope, for example, at least in this conversion which occurred in Russia.
youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A&feature=youtu.be

This shows what this particular priest’s bishop prefer he do in his particular care, nothing more or less.

 

[Vico]

Hi, Tom - it’s not the crowning in & of itself that changes the meaning of marriage. In Orthodoxy, the priest is the minister of the sacrament (all sacraments), he joins the couple in matrimony. In RC (though I’m not certain if the ECs have adopted the Latin rules here, or if they are still bound to be married by a priest, rather than “in the presence of” a priest), the man/woman are the ministers…somehow. That’s the loophole that allows for annulment findings. Because the couple are their own ministers, there’s room for there to be some (unknown at the time) flaw that prevents the sacrament. (It would be MUCH harder to have the priests do the marrying, and then say all those priests were deficient somehow.)

For eastern Catholic, per CCEO canon law, the canonical form is to receive the blessing of the priest. However the canons cover the extreme minimal case before witnesses alone:
Canon 817 -
§1. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage.
§2. No human power can replace this matrimonial consent.

Canon 828 -
§1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor, or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according, however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
§2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.

Canon 832 -
§1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:

1° in danger of death;
2° outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
§2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
§3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.
​

 

[prodromos]

How is this different from the heresy of Donatism

No one willing to respond to this?

 

[commenter]

(from earlier poster) “That’s the loophole that allows for annulment findings. Because the couple are their own ministers, there’s room for there to be some (unknown at the time) flaw that prevents the sacrament. (It would be MUCH harder to have the priests do the marrying, and then say all those priests were deficient somehow.”

How is this different from the heresy of Donatism

I think your post was contingent on the earlier post being true - that there is a “loophole”. But I, and perhaps other posters, didn’t respond to your post, because there isn’t a loophole, to fit your comparison. The massive increase in marriage problems in the US for all denominations isn’t due to the Catholic sacrament form, since that is the same now as when anullments, and marriage problems in general, were fairly rare.

 

[Tomdstone]

The massive increase in marriage problems in the US for all denominations isn’t due to the Catholic sacrament form, since that is the same now as when anullments, and marriage problems in general, were fairly rare.

It is not the same across all denominations. IT is only the Roman Catholic Church that has experienced a surge in marriage annulments from 9 per year in the US in 1929 to as high as 50,000 per year in recent years. The divorce rate for US has not gone up by that much over the same period.

 

[prodromos]

I think your post was contingent on the earlier post being true - that there is a “loophole”. But I, and perhaps other posters, didn’t respond to your post, because there isn’t a loophole, to fit your comparison. The massive increase in marriage problems in the US for all denominations isn’t due to the Catholic sacrament form, since that is the same now as when anullments, and marriage problems in general, were fairly rare.

Is deficiency of intent, on the part of one or both parties in a marriage, reason to declare a marriage null and void or not?

 

[Tomdstone]

Is deficiency of intent, on the part of one or both parties in a marriage, reason to declare a marriage null and void or not?

Yes, I think so in the Roman Catholic Church.
Would defect of consent be allowed as a reason to declare a marriage null and void in the Orthodox Church?

 

[Vico]

Yes, I think so in the Roman Catholic Church.
Would defect of consent be allowed as a reason to declare a marriage null and void in the Orthodox Church?

Concerning Orthodox, some conditions make marriage *void from the beginning *(religion, previous marriage, degrees of relationship) and some factors make it voidable (age, duress, mistaken identity).

The Catholic eastern canon law recognizes the Eastern Orthodox law also:Canon 780 -

§1. Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is regulated not only by divine law but also by canon law, with due regard for the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of such a marriage.

§2. In addition to divine law, marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic is also regulated by:

1° the law proper to the Church or ecclesial community to which the non-Catholic belongs, if that community has its own matrimonial law;
2° the law that binds the non-Catholic, if it is an ecclesial community, if proper matrimonial law is lacking.
​