Eastern Churches and the sacrament of marriage

[twf]

In the Latin Church, the emphasis is on the exchange of vows witnessed by the priest (or deacon). The priest blesses the marriage but he does not confer the sacrament. In the Eastern Churches, the emphasis is on the priestly blessing - the priest does confer the sacrament. That being said, to what extent are vows, either implicit or explicit, relevant to the validity of Eastern sacramental marriages? In the Latin tradition, if a woman is pressured into a marriage against her will, the marriage may later be found null by a Church tribunal. Would this be the case in Eastern Christianity? I imagine for Eastern Catholics it often would be as there may be a certain degree of latinizations involved (I know of at least one UGCC eparchy which uses the local Latin metropolitan tribunal for its cases…), but what about among the Eastern Orthodox? I met a Greek woman recently who said her parents arranged her first marriage and she never had any desire to marry the man whatsoever - is this more viable due to the Eastern understanding of marriage being conferred by the Church rather than by the mutual consent of the couple?

 

[RyanBlack]

I am certain that the free consent of both parties is required in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and I believe that it is required in the Orthodox Churches as well. The exchange of vows is not a part of the marriage ceremony in the Eastern Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the Latin Church, the emphasis is on the exchange of vows witnessed by the priest (or deacon). The priest blesses the marriage but he does not confer the sacrament. In the Eastern Churches, the emphasis is on the priestly blessing - the priest does confer the sacrament. That being said, to what extent are vows, either implicit or explicit, relevant to the validity of Eastern sacramental marriages? In the Latin tradition, if a woman is pressured into a marriage against her will, the marriage may later be found null by a Church tribunal. Would this be the case in Eastern Christianity? I imagine for Eastern Catholics it often would be as there may be a certain degree of latinizations involved (I know of at least one UGCC eparchy which uses the local Latin metropolitan tribunal for its cases…), but what about among the Eastern Orthodox? I met a Greek woman recently who said her parents arranged her first marriage and she never had any desire to marry the man whatsoever - is this more viable due to the Eastern understanding of marriage being conferred by the Church rather than by the mutual consent of the couple?

The Eastern understanding of Sacraments and of everything in the Church involves implicit cooperation by those who are there gathered. Thus a priest cannot just force Sacraments on people, he never does anything alone. Priests and Bishops are seen as “presiders” of the Sacraments, that is they act in behalf of the people and not separate from the people. For example, with the Eucharist, the priest cannot just say some words over bread and wine while locked in a closet and he gets the Eucharist. The people must be there gathered (whenever two or three are gathered…). The same with marriage. While it is the priest who Sacramentalizes the marriage, the couple’s participation in Sacramentalizing the marriage is as important, as well as the other people there gathered. So don’t think a priest can marry two comatosed people, while it is the priest who makes the marriage Sacramental, the willing participation of both parties is as important.

 

[MorEphrem]

I’m quite sure in the rite of marriage for the Maronite Church we’ve had explicit vows jammed into the text.

Anyway, in terms of consenting to receive the sacraments, I think Constantine gave a very good answer. Although slightly problematic because not all sacraments are consented to explicitly, i.e. there are some your guardians consent for you (baptism/chrismation, eucharist for a bit and extreme unction in some cases). Although it seems a bit like you make it sound like the validity of a sacrament is contingent upon popular participation, which is also not true; a sacrament is independently present because of a dispensation of God’s mercy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m quite sure in the rite of marriage for the Maronite Church we’ve had explicit vows jammed into the text.

Anyway, in terms of consenting to receive the sacraments, I think Constantine gave a very good answer. Although slightly problematic because not all sacraments are consented to explicitly, i.e. there are some your guardians consent for you (baptism/chrismation, eucharist for a bit and extreme unction in some cases). Although it seems a bit like you make it sound like the validity of a sacrament is contingent upon popular participation, which is also not true; a sacrament is independently present because of a dispensation of God’s mercy.

That is why you have godparents at baptisms and chrismation. The onus is on them to assist in bringing you up in the faith together with your parents. Remember, they are the ones who respond to the baptismal questions.

Participation is important, at least in the Byzantine tradition. Which is why all Sacraments are given by name (the name of the person who receives the Sacrament is mentioned).

 

[Aramis]

In the Latin Church, the emphasis is on the exchange of vows witnessed by the priest (or deacon). The priest blesses the marriage but he does not confer the sacrament. In the Eastern Churches, the emphasis is on the priestly blessing - the priest does confer the sacrament. That being said, to what extent are vows, either implicit or explicit, relevant to the validity of Eastern sacramental marriages? In the Latin tradition, if a woman is pressured into a marriage against her will, the marriage may later be found null by a Church tribunal. Would this be the case in Eastern Christianity? I imagine for Eastern Catholics it often would be as there may be a certain degree of latinizations involved (I know of at least one UGCC eparchy which uses the local Latin metropolitan tribunal for its cases…), but what about among the Eastern Orthodox? I met a Greek woman recently who said her parents arranged her first marriage and she never had any desire to marry the man whatsoever - is this more viable due to the Eastern understanding of marriage being conferred by the Church rather than by the mutual consent of the couple?

Eastern Catholic Canon law does NOT support that view.

It’s clear that a sacramental marriage can exist without the priestly blessing but that the blessing is required when it can be obtained for completeness of the sacrament.

When a priest will not be available within a reasonable period, a deacon or even a subdeacon or lector may be delegated as celebrant of the public wedding, tho’ they do not give the blessing. In case where no clergy is available, two witnesses approved by the bishop can instead witness the public vows. If the bishop is unreachable, and the absence of clergy is prolonged, then even prior permission can be abrogated.

The CCEO does take a belt-and-suspenders approach to the sacrament of marriage - the sacramental marriage exists from the witnessed public exchange of vows, but it isn’t fully completed in form until the priest blesses it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Eastern Catholic Canon law does NOT support that view.

It’s clear that a sacramental marriage can exist without the priestly blessing but that the blessing is required when it can be obtained for completeness of the sacrament.

When a priest will not be available within a reasonable period, a deacon or even a subdeacon or lector may be delegated as celebrant of the public wedding, tho’ they do not give the blessing. In case where no clergy is available, two witnesses approved by the bishop can instead witness the public vows. If the bishop is unreachable, and the absence of clergy is prolonged, then even prior permission can be abrogated.

The CCEO does take a belt-and-suspenders approach to the sacrament of marriage - the sacramental marriage exists from the witnessed public exchange of vows, but it isn’t fully completed in form until the priest blesses it.

I guess this confirms that Eastern Catholics are not “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

 

[malphono]

While it is the priest who Sacramentalizes the marriage, the couple’s participation in Sacramentalizing the marriage is as important, as well as the other people there gathered. So don’t think a priest can marry two comatosed people, while it is the priest who makes the marriage Sacramental, the willing participation of both parties is as important.

No argument that the participation of the parties is necessary, but the “willing” part is debatable. Look at the unfortunate custom of “arranged marriages” (which equally exist in the EO/OO) as a primary example.

I’m quite sure in the rite of marriage for the Maronite Church we’ve had explicit vows jammed into the text.

Yes, that’s true. And the word “jammed into” is right on target. IOW, it’s really a latinization.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I guess this confirms that Eastern Catholics are not “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

I wonder what do the priest-less Old Believer Orthodox communities do? And what about in far-flung unreachable places? Faithful underground during the time of persecution?
What of the Western Rite Orthodox? Do they have a crowning inserted into the vows? Do they allow ordained Deacons to witness the marriage?

 

[ConstantineTG]

No argument that the participation of the parties is necessary, but the “willing” part is debatable. Look at the unfortunate custom of “arranged marriages” (which equally exist in the EO/OO) as a primary example.

Well, there is that argument of what “consent” truly means. I guess we need to let go of our Western (ie. Western European/North American) concept of “willing” to understand how arrange marriages work with willing participants. Not just because a marriage is arranged means the parties are forced into it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I wonder what do the priest-less Old Believer Orthodox communities do? And what about in far-flung unreachable places? Faithful underground during the time of persecution?

I don’t know, they’re not canonical Orthodox so we don’t worry about them too much

But there is also a thing in Orthodoxy that we do not have a strict enforcement of the norm if the norm cannot be enforced at all. I’m not sure what they exactly do, but if I am to take a guess, they would go through the motions of a marriage rite with only the lay people gathered. If they are able to find an acceptable priest in the future, then they will have the priest bless the marriage then.

What of the Western Rite Orthodox? Do they have a crowning inserted into the vows? Do they allow ordained Deacons to witness the marriage?

Good question, I have never seen a Western Rite marriage. I highly doubt a deacon will officiate a marriage in a Western Rite. It is intrinsic in Orthodox belief that only a priest (ie. presbyter and bishop) can preside over the Sacraments. While I’m guessing here, I’m very confident to say that a Deacon is not allowed to preside over a wedding in the Western Rite. Now I have to dig up videos of a Western Rite wedding.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t know, they’re not canonical Orthodox so we don’t worry about them too much

But there is also a thing in Orthodoxy that we do not have a strict enforcement of the norm if the norm cannot be enforced at all. I’m not sure what they exactly do, but if I am to take a guess, they would go through the motions of a marriage rite with only the lay people gathered. If they are able to find an acceptable priest in the future, then they will have the priest bless the marriage then.

That’s exactly what the Eastern Catholics and Latins have, except the Latins like everything codified, and Eastern Catholics comply with their wishes to maintain harmony. If a bishop or priest is available, they would of course bless and witness the marriage, if not, a deacon extraordinarily. If neither and no practical wait is preferred, then the bishop can exercise episcopal options - extremely extraordinary and not to be considered the normal means. Seems like what the Orthodox do, but haven’t written down.

 

[Celticnovice]

That’s exactly what the Eastern Catholics and Latins have, except the Latins like everything codified, and Eastern Catholics comply with their wishes to maintain harmony. If a bishop or priest is available, they would of course bless and witness the marriage, if not, a deacon extraordinarily. If neither and no practical wait is preferred, then the bishop can exercise episcopal options - extremely extraordinary and not to be considered the normal means. Seems like what the Orthodox do, but haven’t written down.

Totally agree with this post… I’m having trouble seeing how the Eastern Catholic practice is incongruent with their Orthodox/Oriental counterparts.

Just a comment on arranged marriages, I know of one happening in the Latin church amongst folks of Western European ethnicities only two generations ago…Its something I have never studied but suspect happened a lot more in the West than one would think.

 

[malphono]

Just a comment on arranged marriages, I know of one happening in the Latin church amongst folks of Western European ethnicities only two generations ago…Its something I have never studied but suspect happened a lot more in the West than one would think.

Yes, it did. And still does in certain places/cultures.

 

[Aramis]

I guess this confirms that Eastern Catholics are not “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

The OCA do likewise in remote villages.

 

[chimo]

In the Latin Church, the emphasis is on the exchange of vows witnessed by the priest (or deacon). The priest blesses the marriage but he does not confer the sacrament. In the Eastern Churches, the emphasis is on the priestly blessing - the priest does confer the sacrament. That being said, to what extent are vows, either implicit or explicit, relevant to the validity of Eastern sacramental marriages? In the Latin tradition, if a woman is pressured into a marriage against her will, the marriage may later be found null by a Church tribunal. Would this be the case in Eastern Christianity? I imagine for Eastern Catholics it often would be as there may be a certain degree of latinizations involved (I know of at least one UGCC eparchy which uses the local Latin metropolitan tribunal for its cases…), but what about among the Eastern Orthodox? I met a Greek woman recently who said her parents arranged her first marriage and she never had any desire to marry the man whatsoever - is this more viable due to the Eastern understanding of marriage being conferred by the Church rather than by the mutual consent of the couple?

It is to my understanding the vows in an Eastern wedding is done at the Betrothal service which is a separate service from the service of “the crowning of marriage”. The Church however has put both these services together into one complete ceremony. I have my own thoughts towards this Sacrament which implies that the priest is the administer of the Sacrament. Since all the Sacraments of the Church must have some priestly function for them to be valid the only exception to this is baptism which can be performed by a lay person who is also a Christian. The validity of the sacrament at an Orthodox wedding occurs at the crowning of the man and woman. When the priest places crowns on both man and woman and says three times “Oh Lord our God, crown them with glory and honor” the Church sees this moment as the epiclesis as invocating the Presence of the Holy Spirit to be put both in the man and woman to be married. The vows are important for they are part of the Betrothal service. Any act of the Sacrament must have the consent of the two who are getting married. However if couples have prearranged marriages there is always room to have the Church to exercise that the marriage can be dissolved if there was no intention in the first place from at least one of the couple. Since the Orthodox Church does not use the annulment process as does the Latin Church she often will allow such cases to allow the couple to separate and to have a second marriage.

The issue between East and West tends to be on the side who is the person who administers the Sacrament. In the West it was drawn more on the vows of certain persons which meant you didn’t need a priest to administer the Sacrament. Even a deacon in the Catholic Church can be there as a witness. This I believe was the cornerstone for Catholic marriages. It was the emphasis placed more on the vows between two people rather than on the priest. In the East the emphasis was placed more on the priest. The vows were done beforehand and it was considered more the priest who administers the Sacrament. In my observations of seeing marriages in both East and West that both parties are correct. The vows done in the West seem to offer more importance than what the East considered it to be. Does this mean the East need not to offer more? I believe to answer that question just go to one of the many Eastern marriages to find out they do give a way lot more but to me it is good and even more beneficial. May be the West was giving out what you can call the minimal when celebrating marriage to make it valid. The East in my opinion made it more like what the Sacrament of marriage can be in its fullest expression.

This does not take anything away from what a Catholic marriage gives out. However to make the marriage to be more of a significant the Church established it to be part of Holy Communion especially if two Catholics are to be married. This was good since the marriage ceremony was very short. In the East the marriages were performed with the Divine Liturgy in the beginnings but as time progressed for the Church the wedding ceremony came into the form which the Church has today so the Eastern Church allowed the marriage ceremony to be separated from its Divine Liturgy. The reason was the marriage service was long enough.