Catholics marry validly before an Orthodox priest - how?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Moderator
Staff member
If I am understanding correctly, a Catholic who marries an Orthodox Christian, in an Orthodox liturgy, by an Orthodox priest, without the permission of his Catholic priest or bishop, is indeed married validly (though illicitly). How is this possible? Does the requirement of canonical form for validity not exist in such cases?

I am neither condoning nor recommending this — marrying illicitly but validly — but this has never quite made sense to me. Does it have anything to do with the fact that, in Orthodox sacramental theology (again, if I’m understanding it correctly), the spouses do not confer the sacrament upon each other, but rather, the priest confers the sacrament through the crowning ceremony? Do we say, then, that the sacrament is valid because it was conferred by a priest, and that an Orthodox priest can never invalidly marry two baptized Christians who are free to marry? (At that point I’m probably over-thinking it.)

I’ve never understood this, and would welcome any knowledge I could get.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Despite being a separate denomination, Catholics acknowledge that Orthodox have valid sacraments. It’s one thing they got right.
 
Given that current RCC policy and guidance for such mixed marriages is that they should occur in the Orthodox parish (due to the differences in which each recognize of the other), the permission should be trivially easy to get.

I’ve never heard of a case where the Catholic party didn’t have permission . . .
 
dochawk said:
Given that current RCC policy and guidance for such mixed marriages is that they should occur in the Orthodox parish (due to the differences in which each recognize of the other), the permission should be trivially easy to get.

I’ve never heard of a case where the Catholic party didn’t have permission . . .
Click to expand...
There are plenty of cases in which the Catholic party does not have permission. Mostly, it is in the case of a non-practicing Catholics who wouldn’t have bothered to ask for permission even if they knew it was required.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
If I am understanding correctly, a Catholic who marries an Orthodox Christian, in an Orthodox liturgy, by an Orthodox priest, without the permission of his Catholic priest or bishop, is indeed married validly (though illicitly). How is this possible? Does the requirement of canonical form for validity not exist in such cases?

I am neither condoning nor recommending this — marrying illicitly but validly — but this has never quite made sense to me. Does it have anything to do with the fact that, in Orthodox sacramental theology (again, if I’m understanding it correctly), the spouses do not confer the sacrament upon each other, but rather, the priest confers the sacrament through the crowning ceremony? Do we say, then, that the sacrament is valid because it was conferred by a priest, and that an Orthodox priest can never invalidly marry two baptized Christians who are free to marry? (At that point I’m probably over-thinking it.)

I’ve never understood this, and would welcome any knowledge I could get.
Click to expand...
This blog post should help you understand better.

 
Dougbro1 said:
Despite being a separate denomination, Catholics acknowledge that Orthodox have valid sacraments. It’s one thing they got right.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox have virtually everything “right”, as you put it. They are a “sister Church” and deserving of great reverence by Catholics. I make the sign of the cross, in Eastern fashion, whenever I pass an Orthodox church, as an act of worship to the Blessed Sacrament therein.
babochka said:
This blog post should help you understand better.
Click to expand...
Very helpful, thanks so much.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
How is this possible?
Click to expand...
Because the church says so.

Corollary: if the Church ever changes the law and says it’s not valid, then it’s not.
HomeschoolDad said:
Does the requirement of canonical form for validity not exist in such cases?
Click to expand...
The Church accepts that form has been met when the marriage is contacted in front of a priest with valid orders in an Orthodox Church and two witnesses.

This is solely because the Church says so.
HomeschoolDad said:
Does it have anything to do with the fact that, in Orthodox sacramental theology (again, if I’m understanding it correctly), the spouses do not confer the sacrament upon each other, but rather, the priest confers the sacrament through the crowning ceremony?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Last edited:
It is neither proper to refer to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox as denominations. They are Churches
 
1ke said:
Does it have anything to do with the fact that, in Orthodox sacramental theology (again, if I’m understanding it correctly), the spouses do not confer the sacrament upon each other, but rather, the priest confers the sacrament through the crowning ceremony?
Click to expand...
So, as I suspected, I was “overthinking” this part. My reasoning was that a sacrament is either valid or invalid, and I was speculating in my own mind, that Our Lord might have willed two separate, and equally valid, ways of confecting the same sacrament — by mutual consent of the spouses in the Western church (thereby conferring it on each other), and through crowning by the priest in the Eastern church (thereby conferring it upon the spouses). In His Providence, He surely did permit the evolution of different forms of divine worship and sacraments, each accomplishing the same things, in East and West.
Click to expand...
 
Simply by virtue of Catholic law and the power of the keys.

In other words, because the Church sez so.

Other than its divine institution and matter, all criteria for validity are of ecclesiastical law.
 
porthos11 said:
Simply by virtue of Catholic law and the power of the keys.

In other words, because the Church sez so.

Other than its divine institution and matter, all criteria for validity are of ecclesiastical law.
Click to expand...
OK, I see. I was just wondering if the Orthodox Churches had some sort of “secret sauce” that made their administration of the sacrament of matrimony ipso facto valid where one of the spouses is a Catholic, similar to the way that their Divine Liturgies are indeed valid Masses, not because the Catholic Church says so, but because they are valid in and of themselves.

Even schismatic and heretical priests, if they have valid orders and intend to do what the Church does, can celebrate valid Masses. (Yes, I realize the Orthodox are not heretical. The matter of using economia to dissolve sacramental marriages is a little shaky, though. The idea of “toll booths” after death is also a little bizarre.)

I think the Orthodox would be a little amused, and probably some other things too besides “amused”, to know that the Roman Church is making judgments as to whether their sacraments are valid or invalid. What would our reaction be, if (let’s say) the Archbishop of Canterbury assured everyone, including ourselves, that yes, Roman Catholic sacraments are indeed valid?

(Side note: why do Anglicans confirm Roman Catholics who become Anglicans? If the convert is already confirmed, are they attempting to repeat a sacrament? They should know better.)
 
I’m not aware of Anglicans doing any such. They normally receive RC clergy in their orders, too.

But then, Anglicans are …variegated.

Who do you know in the tribe that 're-confirms" a validly confirmed RC convert?
 
Fair enough, I know about Catholicism being the Church rather than a denomination, but I wasn’t sure what to say the Orthodox are to distinguish it from the Church (they are pretty close, though, so I suppose that makes sense). That wasn’t the main point of my post though.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
The matter of using economia to dissolve sacramental marriages is a little shaky,
Click to expand...
Their approach existed without challenge or significant controversy for centuries before the great schism and persisted in some Greek Catholic churches well into the 1900s.
 
GKMotley said:
Who do you know in the tribe that 're-confirms" a validly confirmed RC convert?
Click to expand...
The wife of an Anglican who worked for me at one point. He was a militant Freemason and took great pride in boasting how he got his wife away from Catholicism and into Anglicanism. She was confirmed as part of her reception into Anglicanism. (They are both deceased now, and I did not get to hire my own employees — they were hired for me.)
babochka said:
The matter of using economia to dissolve sacramental marriages is a little shaky,
Click to expand...
I would be very interested to know what justification was given for this by the East (both pre- and post-schism), and why Rome and the East had different practices in this regard.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I realize it was not the main point. Its just a dumb pet peeve of mine to hear Catholics refer to our Church as a denominations. I suppose it’s the same with the Orthodox.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
I realize it was not the main point. Its just a dumb pet peeve of mine to hear Catholics refer to our Church as a denominations. I suppose it’s the same with the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
“Denomination” is a Protestant term. I once heard Orthodox describe themselves as “pre-denominational”. Catholics could describe themselves likewise.

It’s not a term I like, and not one that I use in referring to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
 
Dougbro1 said:
Catholics acknowledge that Orthodox have valid sacraments
Click to expand...
The celebration of marriage, however, does not need the sacrament of the order. Marriage needs jurisdiction, which is provided by the canon law. This jurisdiction is ordinarily given to priests and deacons, but it can also be given to laypeople in extraordinary cases. A laicized priest would retain the sacramental character but would lose the jurisdiction to celebrate marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top