Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[mardukm]

In the west, the priest is a witness to the marriage whereas in the East, the priest is the one who marries the couple.

In both Traditions, the priest is necessary for the Sacrament to be valid. In both Traditions, the role of the priest is to be representative of the Church, and to give the blessing of the Church. The belief of whether the Grace of the Sacrament is conferred by the priest or the couple is not a necessary element of the Sacrament, but is a scholastic/philosophical consideration that the Church as a whole did not even think about until much, much later, perhaps at the end of the first millenium, or even later.

Further, in the west the bishop confers the confirmation, whereas in the East the priest confers the chrismation. The Lord did not say that it was to be done in the West differently from how it is done in the East.

Ask yourself these two questions:

1. Is the bishop the ONLY one who can confer Confirmation in the Latin CC? Brother Formosus has provided a worthy correction to you on that matter.
2. Can a priest in the Eastern or Oriental Churches confer Confirmation without the participation of the Bishop? No he can’t, because it is the Bishop alone who can bless the Holy Chrism that is a necessary matter for the Sacrament…

Bottom line - In both Traditions, a priest can confer the Sacrament, and the Bishop is necessary for the validity of Sacrament.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

In the west, the priest is a witness to the marriage whereas in the East, the priest is the one who marries the couple. Further, in the west the bishop confers the confirmation, whereas in the East the priest confers the chrismation. The Lord did not say that it was to be done in the West differently from how it is done in the East.

In both Traditions, the priest is necessary

for the Sacrament to be valid. In both Traditions, the role of the priest is to be representative of the Church, and to give the blessing of the Church…

In both Traditions, a priest can confer the Sacrament, and the Bishop is necessary for the validity of Sacrament.

Matrimony

For both Latin and Eastern: marriage consent is before an authorized minister and two witnesses, but with grave exceptions, there can be witnessed consent alone, but in any case it is within the laws of the Church and with Church recognition. The minister in the Eastern Catholic Churches excludes the deacon, but in exceptional cases there may be no minister in Latin or Eastern. And it is the proper consent that makes it a sacrament for the baptised. (Proof: a radical sanation is based upon proper consent and is a dispensation from lack of form or other dispensible impediments.)

CIC Canon 1121 §2 Whenever a marriage is contracted in accordance with canon 1116, the priest or deacon, if he was present at the celebration, otherwise the witnesses, are bound jointly with the contracting parties as soon as possible to inform the parish priest or the local Ordinary about the marriage entered into.

CCEO 832 §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.

Chrismation

The bishop has to consecrate the chrism in both the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches. Either bishop or presbyter can confirm in Latin or Eastern Catholic Churches. (Normally bishop in Latin, normally presbyter in Eastern.)

CIC Canon 880 §1. The sacrament of confirmation is conferred by the anointing of chrism on the forehead, which is done by the imposition of the hand and through the words prescribed in the approved liturgical books.
§2. The chrism to be used in the sacrament of confirmation must be consecrated by a bishop even if a presbyter administers the sacrament.

CCEO Canon 693
Holy myron, which is made from the oil of olives or other plants and from aromatics, is confected only by a bishop, with due regard for particular law which reserves this power to the patriarch.

 

[JohnVIII]

In both Traditions, the priest is necessary for the Sacrament to be valid. In both Traditions, the role of the priest is to be representative of the Church, and to give the blessing of the Church.

Of all the issues that stand as a stumbling block to reunion between East and West I think the issue of marriage recognition is the worst. A marriage between two Orthodox Christians in an Orthodox Church is a marriage that can easily obtain an annulment in the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that it “lacked canonical order”, meaning that it was performed by a priest that was not in communion with the Pope. So in essence the Roman Catholic Church really only recognizes fully only six of the seven sacraments in the Orthodox Church.

The lack of recognition of the validity of a second marriage by the Roman Catholic Church (after a church divorce) can also be a stumbling block, and it also goes against the canons of the First Ecumenical Council. Anyone who refuses to commune with someone twice married - the Church, the First Ecumenical Council says, is schismatic. By my non-Catholic / Orthodox interpretation this would make the Roman Catholic Church schismatic. So even if there were true canonical communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches this canonical issue would have to be settled somehow. - I would like to know how the Eastern Catholic Churches have settled this issue. Probably they have fully capitulated to the Roman view on this matter. - If so, how then is the matter of the rule of canon law in the first ecumenical handled?

 

[Aramis]

John, for a Catholic to have a licit marriage at all, the bishop’s permission is required. Thatt approval is automatic and mandated if both are Catholic; it’s easily obtained for the Orthodox (The bishop being almost required to assent if the orthodox hierarch does).

The thing is, no mixed marriage is valid as a christian marriage* unless done within the Catholic or Orthodox churches, for only those churches routinely defend the permanence and sanctity of marriage.**

If the Catholic got permission to marry an orthodox, the lack of form is not present unless the Orthodox priest messed it up. And if they notified the bishop or even their own Catholic pastor, or were a member of an Orthodox parish***, there is no issue of form.

It’s far harder to annul a Catholic-Orthodox marriage done in the Orthodox Church than it would look. Especially since, if it was done in the first place, the Orthodox bishop was the set of hoops to jump through, and most would require the Catholic either convert, or get their bishop or pastor’s permission.

*it may be a valid natural marriage, however.
**accepting that the economia within both are economia, not doctrinal change in process
*** can and does happen, especially in the middle east between Antiochian and Melkite… and is permitted by the CCEO.

 

[sidbrown]

Well, the Lord did not say so when he instituted the Sacrament. .

When He instituted the Sacrament of Marriage, did the Lord say that before 1965 marriage annulments would be allowed for only serious and grave reasons, but that after 1965, marriage annulments would be allowed in the USA for the most trivial of reasons?

 

[JohnVIII]

If the Catholic got permission to marry an orthodox, the lack of form is not present unless the Orthodox priest messed it up. And if they notified the bishop or even their own Catholic pastor, or were a member of an Orthodox parish***, there is no issue of form.

It’s far harder to annul a Catholic-Orthodox marriage done in the Orthodox Church than it would look. Especially since, if it was done in the first place, the Orthodox bishop was the set of hoops to jump through, and most would require the Catholic either convert, or get their bishop or pastor’s permission.

In my case is was easy, very easy. My first marriage was was to a (triple-immersed) Orthodox baptized woman and the marriage was done canonically in the Russian Orthodox Church. Years later there was a legal divorce and I wished to re-marry to a Roman Catholic woman in the Roman Catholic Church. I needed to get an annulment and I did. It took about a month and the cost was about $25. Real easy! The basis of the annulment was that the marriage lacked canonical order because the priesthood that performed the marriage was not in communion with the Pope.

 

[Vico]

In my case is was easy, very easy. My first marriage was was to a (triple-immersed) Orthodox baptized woman and the marriage was done canonically in the Russian Orthodox Church. Years later there was a legal divorce and I wished to re-marry to a Roman Catholic woman in the Roman Catholic Church. I needed to get an annulment and I did. It took about a month and the cost was about $25. Real easy! The basis of the annulment was that the marriage lacked canonical order because the priesthood that performed the marriage was not in communion with the Pope.

John, I am wondering if it is because of the prior 1917 code of canon law. From Vatican Il, decree on the Oriental Church, the Fathers of the Council declared a new law to let Eastern Rite Catholics contract marriage validly with Eastern Orthodox in the Eastern Orthodox Church, even though it would be illicit without the usual dispensation or permission. Tribunals use the law in effect at the time the marriage took place.

So now Roman Catholic marriages celebrated by a Latin Catholic with an **Orthodox Christian **on or after March 25, 1967 or for most Eastern Catholics January 21, 1965, the canonical form of marriage is necessary only for liceity not for validity. The current law is CIC 1983 and CCEO 1990, plus any rescripts published in AAS.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

Of all the issues that stand as a stumbling block to reunion between East and West I think the issue of marriage recognition is the worst. A marriage between two Orthodox Christians in an Orthodox Church is a marriage that can easily obtain an annulment in the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that it “lacked canonical order”, meaning that it was performed by a priest that was not in communion with the Pope. So in essence the Roman Catholic Church really only recognizes fully only six of the seven sacraments in the Orthodox Church.

The lack of recognition of the validity of a second marriage by the Roman Catholic Church (after a church divorce) can also be a stumbling block, and it also goes against the canons of the First Ecumenical Council. Anyone who refuses to commune with someone twice married - the Church, the First Ecumenical Council says, is schismatic. By my non-Catholic / Orthodox interpretation this would make the Roman Catholic Church schismatic. So even if there were true canonical communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches this canonical issue would have to be settled somehow. - I would like to know how the Eastern Catholic Churches have settled this issue. Probably they have fully capitulated to the Roman view on this matter. - If so, how then is the matter of the rule of canon law in the first ecumenical handled?

Before I give a more detailed response, may I ask if you were ever Catholic?

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

Before I give a more detailed response, may I ask if you were ever Catholic?

Blessings

Yes, I was Catholic. My first wife was Catholic from childhood, but converted to Russian Orthodox (via triple-immersion baptism). I converted to Catholic briefly at a point after my legal divorce. (I can’t remember if that was before or after I got the annulment). Then I re-converted back to Orthodoxy and my second (current) wife also converted to Orthodoxy (via triple-immersion baptism as well). We made an effort to get married in the Catholic Church at one point and at another point we made an effort to get married in the Orthodox Church. Neither Church wedding happened and we got married legally only. Not very long ago we were separated and she returned to Catholic and I to Orthodox (but not Russian, Antiocian). So the only Church wedding I have had was Orthodox to my first wife and this is the one that got the Roman Catholic annulment.

Although I don’t know this part of it by experience, I bet that had I got an Orthodox Church divorce but no Catholic annulment and had a second Orthodox marriage, then after that we wished to both convert to Catholic, then the Catholic Church would not recognize the second marriage even though the canons of the First Ecumenical Council would require Rome to do so. Here’s a portion of Canon 8, 1st Ecumenical: “ … it is fitting for them [schismatic’s who wish to unite with the Church] … to adhere to the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is, that they will hold communion with persons married a second time, …”. So, just like the schismatic’s at the time of the 1st Ecumenical could not unite with the Church unless they were willing to commune with those who were married twice, from my point of view, Rome cannot unite with the Church unless they too are willing to “adhere to the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church” by communing with those who were twice married.

 

[Vico]

When He instituted the Sacrament of Marriage, did the Lord say that before 1965 marriage annulments would be allowed for only serious and grave reasons, but that after 1965, marriage annulments would be allowed in the USA for the most trivial of reasons?

None of the canons determining validity of marriage are trivial, therefore none of the reasons for the determination of invalidity (an annulment) are trivial either.

One can never know absolutely if their marriage is valid because at some time in the future it may be shown that the consent was not correct, or that one was incapable of giving that consent, under duress, lying, etc., or the laws of the Church, which a Catholic is bound to follow, were not observed. But the marriage consent is assumed to be valid.

But one can know if a marriage is invalid or that it does not exist at all (like lack of form).

Sometimes the Church marriage laws change, so it means that a marriage at one time period may be valid, that if it occurred in a different time period it would not be.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII

Yes, I was Catholic. My first wife was Catholic from childhood, but converted to Russian Orthodox (via triple-immersion baptism). I converted to Catholic briefly at a point after my legal divorce. (I can’t remember if that was before or after I got the annulment). Then I re-converted back to Orthodoxy and my second (current) wife also converted to Orthodoxy (via triple-immersion baptism as well). We made an effort to get married in the Catholic Church at one point and at another point we made an effort to get married in the Orthodox Church. Neither Church wedding happened and we got married legally only. Not very long ago we were separated and she returned to Catholic and I to Orthodox (but not Russian, Antiocian). So the only Church wedding I have had was Orthodox to my first wife and this is the one that got the Roman Catholic annulment.

Your new information here explains everything. I ask you at this point to forget what everyone else stated (not that they couldn’t have given you the following information with the new info you gave).

The reason that the marriage in an Orthodox Church to your first wife was considered invalid due to lack of form was not because marriage in the Orthoodox Church was considered lacking. THE REAL REASON IS THAT YOUR WIFE WAS A FORMER CATHOLIC.

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church regards Baptism as an unrepeatable Sacrament that places an indelible mark on your soul that can never be removed. But what fewer people know is that someone who is baptized in the Catholic Church remains a Catholic in the eyes of the Church for the rest of that person’s life, even if that person converts or apostasizes. Being once a Catholic, always a Catholic in the eyes of the Church, your wife was under the laws of the Catholic Church. For your marriage to have been valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, it needed at least the assent of a Catholic priest.

If neither of you were Catholic from the beginning, it is not likely you could have gotten an annulment (though the Petrine privilege might have been invoked if you were willing to translate - i.e., “convert” - to the Catholic Church).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

None of the canons determining validity of marriage are trivial, therefore none of the reasons for the determination of invalidity (an annulment) are trivial either.

One can never know absolutely if their marriage is valid because at some time in the future it may be shown that the consent was not correct, or that one was incapable of giving that consent, under duress, lying, etc., or the laws of the Church, which a Catholic is bound to follow, were not observed. But the marriage consent is assumed to be valid.

But one can know if a marriage is invalid or that it does not exist at all (like lack of form).

Sometimes the Church marriage laws change, so it means that a marriage at one time period may be valid, that if it occurred in a different time period it would not be.

I don’t see where Our Lord said that He was going to have in place strict rules for annulling a marriage until the year 1965, when He would loosen the rules for granting an annulment to the extent that just about everyone who applies for an annulment will be granted it in the USA.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother JohnVIII…

The reason that the marriage in an Orthodox Church to your first wife was considered invalid due to lack of form was not because marriage in the Orthoodox Church was considered lacking. THE REAL REASON IS THAT YOUR WIFE WAS A FORMER CATHOLIC. …

Blessings,
Marduk

And that explains the quickness of the determination. When a Catholic with a civil or non-Catholic marriage may not need a declaration of invalidity, rather a documentary process because the marriage is null for "lack of form.”

 

[JohnVIII]

The reason that the marriage in an Orthodox Church to your first wife was considered invalid due to lack of form was not because marriage in the Orthoodox Church was considered lacking. THE REAL REASON IS THAT YOUR WIFE WAS A FORMER CATHOLIC.

And that explains the quickness of the determination. When a Catholic with a civil or non-Catholic marriage may not need a declaration of invalidity, rather a documentary process because the marriage is null for "lack of form.”

So, if one or both the man & the woman were ever once in communion with the Pope prior to a non-Catholic wedding then the wedding is lacking validity, but if neither were in communion with the Pope prior to a non-Catholic wedding then the validity is ok?!?

I don’t doubt that what you say is “Catholic” teaching, but it sounds like utter non-sense to me! This hyper-ultra multi-layered legalistic teaching based on “union with the Pope” will serve mainly to cause & maintain disunion between Catholic & Orthodox. If a priest has the authority from Christ to perform sacraments, though he is NOT in union with the Pope, he has FULL authority to perform a marriage without any regards to whether or not one or both the man or the woman were ever at one time prior in communion with the Pope!

Episcopal unity flows from the Pope only if the Pope is not separated from that unity. I know that this statement is not “Roman Catholic” teaching, but it is “Catholic” Teaching. And if we wish to get closer to full communion between East & West we will HAVE TO start by not having such extremely dogmatic rules with regards to marriage validity based on Papal unity.

 

[RyanBlack]

If they are not under Rome, how come it was Cardinal Ratzinger who turned down the Zoghby initiative of the Melchite Church? And how come Cardinal Ratzinger turned down the request by the Ruthenian Church for a more liberal attituded toward married priests in the USA?

It is a mischaracterization to refer to the desire of Ruthenians to have married priests as “a more liberal attitude.” For us to be able to have married priests is for us to be able to have another authentic aspect of our Eastern Catholic tradition.

 

[Vico]

So, if one or both the man & the woman were ever once in communion with the Pope prior to a non-Catholic wedding then the wedding is lacking validity, but if neither were in communion with the Pope prior to a non-Catholic wedding then the validity is ok?!?

I don’t doubt that what you say is “Catholic” teaching, but it sounds like utter non-sense to me! This hyper-ultra multi-layered legalistic teaching based on “union with the Pope” will serve mainly to cause & maintain disunion between Catholic & Orthodox. If a priest has the authority from Christ to perform sacraments, though he is NOT in union with the Pope, he has FULL authority to perform a marriage without any regards to whether or not one or both the man or the woman were ever at one time prior in communion with the Pope!

Episcopal unity flows from the Pope only if the Pope is not separated from that unity. I know that this statement is not “Roman Catholic” teaching, but it is “Catholic” Teaching. And if we wish to get closer to full communion between East & West we will HAVE TO start by not having such extremely dogmatic rules with regards to marriage validity based on Papal unity.

It is very simple, the marriage of a baptized Catholic cannot be valid unless it has the approval of the Catholic Church. One baptized as a Catholic is always a Catholic and bound to observe it’s marriage laws.

If neither spouse was Catholic, then the Catholic form of marriage is not required, but that of their church. This is looked at in evaluating marriage validity.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

So, if one or both the man & the woman were ever once in communion with the Pope prior to a non-Catholic wedding then the wedding is lacking validity, but if neither were in communion with the Pope prior to a non-Catholic wedding then the validity is ok?!?

I don’t doubt that what you say is “Catholic” teaching, but it sounds like utter non-sense to me! This hyper-ultra multi-layered legalistic teaching based on “union with the Pope” will serve mainly to cause & maintain disunion between Catholic & Orthodox. If a priest has the authority from Christ to perform sacraments, though he is NOT in union with the Pope, he has FULL authority to perform a marriage without any regards to whether or not one or both the man or the woman were ever at one time prior in communion with the Pope!

Episcopal unity flows from the Pope only if the Pope is not separated from that unity. I know that this statement is not “Roman Catholic” teaching, but it is “Catholic” Teaching. And if we wish to get closer to full communion between East & West we will HAVE TO start by not having such extremely dogmatic rules with regards to marriage validity based on Papal unity.

I don’t understand your complaint at all.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches will also deem a marriage as invalid if it is not done by an EO or OO priest. Do you have a problem with that? I suspect not. The million dollar question is, why is it that in your eyes, if the Catholic Church does not recognize a marriage for the same reason, it is called “legalistic?” Please explain the apparent inconsistency in your reasoning.

Also, please explain how you extrapolate adherence to Catholic marriage law as being subjugated by the Pope. That the marriage of a Catholic that is not performed by a Catholic priest is invalid is a law of every sui juris Catholic Church. The law indeed has papal approval (indicating its universality), but even if it did not, it would still be the law for each sui juris Catholic Church. The exact same law exists in the EOC’s and OOC’s.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

It is very simple, the marriage of a baptized Catholic cannot be valid unless it has the approval of the Catholic Church. One baptized as a Catholic is always a Catholic and bound to observe it’s marriage laws.

If neither spouse was Catholic, then the Catholic form of marriage is not required, but that of their church. This is looked at in evaluating marriage validity.

Ok, this is fine. But let’s at least call this what it really is. If being at any one time in communion with Rome somehow puts some sort of special spiritual “mark” on ones soul in the same way that baptism or confirmation does than ‘being at any one time in communion with Rome’ is an ‘eighth sacrament’ that only the local church at Rome has the authority to confer.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches will also deem a marriage as invalid if it is not done by an EO or OO priest. Do you have a problem with that? I suspect not.

If any Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments done by Rome (and many do) then I do indeed have a problem with the Orthodox likewise not recognizing one sacrament (marriage) yet recognizing the other 6 sacraments. This is almost as bad & non-condusive to unity and concord. All errors of this sort flow from the deeper error made by the creation of Patriarchs. This error started with the East and it made one bishop greater than another. Of course this leads to false non-recognition of some bishops authority, and thus systemically causing disunity.

The million dollar question is, why is it that in your eyes, if the Catholic Church does not recognize a marriage for the same reason, it is called “legalistic?” Please explain the apparent inconsistency in your reasoning.

As you should be able to see from what I have said so far, my apparent inconsistency is only a matter of degree. I’m sorry if I sounded too harsh at first; you see some if this issue hits home to me & has an emotional charge to it. But you see I think this whole error started in the East and it spread to the West by Rome over-reacting to the East. One ‘for-instance’ is this: At first, right after the separation between East & West, the Eastern bishops would re-baptize Westerners. Rome reacted to this by not recognizing marriage in the East (Rome could not start to re-baptize Easterners as this would have gone against their local custom of always recognizing the baptism of schismatics). This I believe was the real reason this matter all started; and the problem all began in the East.

Also, please explain how you extrapolate adherence to Catholic marriage law as being subjugated by the Pope.

Any law that that has direct relevance to whether or not a person was at any time in their life in communion with Rome makes ‘communion with Rome’ unequal to communion with any other bishop and thus goes against Apostolic Canon #35 and results it dis-unity. If any Eastern bishop likewise introduced different levels of communion (and they have! See canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council), in violation of the One communion of the Church, their error is alike; however, the degree of damage done by this error depends on the degree of influence the bishop that makes this error has!

 

[Vico]

…At first, right after the separation between East & West, the Eastern bishops would re-baptize Westerners. Rome reacted to this by not recognizing marriage in the East (Rome could not start to re-baptize Easterners as this would have gone against their local custom of always recognizing the baptism of schismatics). …

Also, please explain how you extrapolate adherence to Catholic marriage law as being subjugated by the Pope.

As you mention, Roman Catholic Church does not re-baptise: Baptism, regardles of which church, are valid if the correct method and words is used, so valid baptism is not repeated.

One is Catholic due to baptism or reception (for the validly baptised) in a Catholic Church sui iuris, so bound, only after that to it’s marriage laws, if not formally defected (1983 - 2010) – but soon the canon law will have no exception for formal defection.

Latin Canon 1124 (ammended by Omnium in Mentem):
“Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

Full communion with the Catholic Church is being united in hierarchy, mysteries (sacraments), and faith. Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Assyrian Church of the East, are not united in hierarchy with the Catholic Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

If Orthodox Catholics are reconciled, what is the fate of all who lived before the reconciliation? According to Roman tradition and law there is no salvation without submission to the Roman Pontiff.