I'm becoming Catholic, wife is Orthodox.. marriage question

[1ke]

Well, yes, what level of teaching, if any, is necessary prior to reception is up to the pastor. But, as I said, all that is required for reception of an Orthodox Christian into full communion with the Catholic Church is a profession of faith.

And, since the OP is actually at CATHOLIC, not Orthodox, really all he needs to do is go to Confession if he hasn’t. He should be receiving the Eucharist now. He has already completed his sacraments of initiation.

 

[iammarshallarts]

The one question we have not asked the OP, is when he was baptized Catholic was it in the Latin Rite or in one of the Eastern Rites. Since he said he was baptized but received no other sacraments of initiation we can infer it was Latin Rite. BUT, we do not know that for sure.

If the OP is an Eastern Rite Catholic then the Eastern Code of Canon Law applies to him. And, moreover, when he is reconciled with the Church he would still be an Eastern Rite Catholic.

OP, were you baptized in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?

I was baptized Latin rite

 

[mark_a]

See this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8852439&postcount=52

Basil’s first canonical epistle, which was ratified at the synod of Trullo, prescribes that those outside of the Church, should be baptized. He also, however, allows for the possibility that those baptized outside of the Church may be received by Chrismation out of economy (that is to say that the grace of Chrismation makes up for whatever grace was lacking at baptism), if the bishops determine that this method is better. From the Orthodox perspective, there is no true baptism outside of the Orthodox Church, so Catholics may be received by baptism, although some, like the Russians (excluding ROCOR), generally will receive Catholics by Chrismation only. The policy on this varies from bishop to bishop and synod to synod.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!!

 

[Vico]

Hello,

If they actually did “formally defect,” then yes, they would have had no obligation to observe canonical form and the marriage would be valid on that account. However, as “1ke” stated, “formal defection” was defined in such a way that the act of joining another Church (such as the OP describes in his own life) would not have met the requirements of that restrictive definition. If you are interested, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts issued this explanation in 2006 and it can be found here: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

Dan

And the actual dates that formal defection would apply to marriage was from the promulgation of the 1983 CIC till three months after the change was published in A.A.S. So that range is:

November 27, 1983 - December 21, 2010 (inclusive)

And there is a little elaboration here, revised March 2007:

ARCHDIOCESE OF INDIANAPOLIS INVESTIGATION GUIDES FOR FREEDOM TO MARRY IN CASES OF LACK OF CANONICAL FORM

INSTRUCTIONS
2. Significance of Item #5: Did the Catholic leave the Church?

Canon 1117 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the Canonical form is to be observed as long as one or the other of the parties has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from the Church by formal act. This law limits somewhat the applicability of the Canonical Form of marriage. However, it only affects those marriages which have taken place on or after November 27, 1983. On this date the 1983 Code of Canon Law became effective. Although we have little experience with this law, it would seem to be self-evident that if a Catholic has formally joined another church or has in writing or before witnesses indicated a firm purpose of withdrawal from the Catholic Church, and it is evident that in neither of these situations is the action jocose or obviously ephemeral, then such a person is not bound to the Canonical Form. If such a person after November 27, 1983, entered a marriage with a non-Catholic, a tribunal process would have to be instituted to establish freedom to marry. In doubts about these matters, the form recommends consultation with the Tribunal or the Chancery Office so that assistance can be given in making a judgement about those matters.

1. Significance of Item #6: Was this a marriage in an Eastern Orthodox Church?

At the Second Vatican Council, in the decree on the Oriental Churches, the Fathers of the Council declared a new law which enabled Eastern Rite Catholics to contract marriage validly with Eastern Orthodox in the Eastern Orthodox Church, even though such marriages would be illicit without the usual dispensation or permission. In post-Vatican II legislation, the Congregation for the Oriental Church, with the full approval of His Holiness, extended this provision to those cases in which Latin Rite Catholics contract marriage with Eastern Orthodox before the Eastern Orthodox priest. Thus, in those situations, after March 25, 1967, when a Latin Rite Catholic married an Eastern Orthodox person in the Eastern Orthodox Church, such marriages are to be considered valid even though illicit. If you ever seem to have a case like this, it would be well to consult the Tribunal or the Chancery Office.

 

[dochawk]

This would seem to be a much bigger obstacle to reunion than anything in the Creed or the role of the papacy. Essentially, if I follow what you are saying, the Eastern Orthodox position is that Catholics are not baptized Christians. Is that correct? That would in effect mean that Catholics are not Christians. Followed to it’s logical conclusion, it would mean all the sacraments of the Catholic Church are invalid, because baptism is a pre-requisite. So if the Eastern Orthodox assertion was correct, then Our Lord would not be present in the Catholic Mass. It would also mean Catholics don’t go to heaven, barring they have a baptism of desire (presumably in which they desire to be baptized in the Eastern Orthodox church).

It’s not as bad as it sounds, when you look at orthodo praxis in practic (how’s that for a phrase?)

Anyway, look at where new “canonical” Orthodox churches come from.

A group (say the Serbs) decides that it’s a separate Orthdox church. It’s “mother” church denies this, as do the rest of the canonical churches.

Sometimes the new church survives, sometimes it doesn’t. In the meantime, they others describe it and it’s sacraments as without grace. Eventually, they recognize it, and, retroactively, all is well . . .

hawk

 

[Khalid]

Thanks for the correction.

But I stand by my statement that this user shoulfd be talking this over with his pastor and that opinions here at CAF are non-authoritative.

Does anyone actually think that the opinions of a bunch of internet windbags (including myself, as I am much more verbose than most other members of the forum) is authoritative in any sense, outside of the minds of the persons posting them?!

 

[Filii_Dei]

This would seem to be a much bigger obstacle to reunion than anything in the Creed or the role of the papacy. Essentially, if I follow what you are saying, the Eastern Orthodox position is that Catholics are not baptized Christians. Is that correct? That would in effect mean that Catholics are not Christians. Followed to it’s logical conclusion, it would mean all the sacraments of the Catholic Church are invalid, because baptism is a pre-requisite. So if the Eastern Orthodox assertion was correct, then Our Lord would not be present in the Catholic Mass. It would also mean Catholics don’t go to heaven, barring they have a baptism of desire (presumably in which they desire to be baptized in the Eastern Orthodox church).

I think the problem is that we are interpreting the Eastern Orthodox a position from a Western mindset. The Eastern approach to Christians outside their communion is that they completely disregard the validity of the sacraments (or divine mysteries, as is preferred in this context). The sacraments may be valid, or they may not, but they do not know, and they do not care. To them, non-Orthodox (heterodox and heretics alike) are considered to be separated from the true faith, and this lack of true faith is a bigger issue to them than having valid sacraments.

In their eyes, to speak of a group somehow confecting valid sacraments yet preaching wrong doctrine shows a clear lack of priorities and is seen as an attempt to separate God’s graces from correct belief as though one functioned in isolation from the other. They believe that valid sacraments must be administered in the context of the correct (orthodox) faith and doctrine. Sacraments are not simply seen as commodities that can be traded and received by people in the absence of an orthodox faith, hence they regard non-orthodox sacraments as “without grace” on the basis that God’s sacramental grace can only be certainly granted to those who are orthodox in belief. That is not to say with absolute certainty that non-Orthodox sacraments are necessarily invalid, but more of a positive affirmation that sacramental grace is certain to be valid in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Only if said Christians plan to enter communion with Eastern Orthodoxy will the issue be put up for evaluation (such as in the case of baptism), but until then, they simply do not regard any other churches part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and refuse to speculate on the validity of their sacraments either. This will not necessarily pose any impediment to reunion, as this issue will only be properly examined when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches declare a roadmap for corporate reunion.

Anyway, a Christian does not necessarily denote an individual who is baptised, since there are many groups which are regarded as ‘Christian’ yet do not believe in water baptisms at all. Likewise, one has received baptism in some point in his life is not necessarily a Christian, since he may have wandered off to a different faith or none at all. ‘Christian’ is simply a broad term of convenience to refer to people who associate or at least identify with a corporate body of believers, even if they themselves are not particularly fervent believers. I think the more shocking implication would be that no Catholic has ever been baptised, rather than calling us non-Christian. After all, we get called the latter by many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians anyway.

If there are any Easterners reading this, please correct me where I am wrong. I am still in the process of acquainting myself with the Eastern praxis.