Is it wrong to cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law

[dochawk]

@ dochawk How are you defining confer in this sentence

I don’t think I’m “defining” at all here.

In the West, the groom and bride are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony, while the priest or deacon is the witness.

In the East, both Orthodox and Catholic, this is categorically not the case. The couple are Crowned in Matrimony by the priest, and the priest, not the couple, is the minister of the Sacrament, conferring it upon them in the same sense as Confirmation by its minister.

In fact, when an an Eastern Catholic is married before a deacon to an RC, the marriage is not valid. The annulment tribunals were swamped with these cases some time ago.

It is not possible to get “permission” for a diaconal wedding in the east, either: the priest is required.

Hmm, I’m a lawyer, and this thread has inspired me to lecture the judge about the Articles of Confederation next time I have a constitutional issue :crazy_face:

hawk, esq.

 

[edward_george1]

Where are you doing your Canon Law studies at?

 

[Rau]

So an individual bishop could decide they weren’t appropriate for his diocese…

What he would be deciding is that he doesn’t like the idea of female servers and he prefers to have male altar servers, or none at all. I don’t think that the decision has much to do with the diocese per se.