D
divinefaith
Guest
I’ve heard of many marriages between couples of two different Rites. I’m wondering if any special process or permission is needed to do so.
Is there any special process needed for an Eastern Rite Catholic to marry a Latin Rite Catholic?
- Status
S
Spencerian
Guest
Hi.
Yes, there may be complications that only your diocese can specifically answer. To take an example, here is a question and answer from the marriage information page of the Diocese of Wilmington, Maryland regarding marriage between a Latin Rite Catholic and Eastern Rite Catholic in their diocese. It may or may not apply to your question, depending on your own diocese’s rules:
So, do check with your parish priest or contact your diocese for the specific requirements needed for this circumstance.
D
divinefaith
Guest
This issue isn’t a personal concern for me at the moment seeing I’m single lol.
But from what I’m understanding from your post, is that permission is needed for the ceremony to take place in the Latin Rite. Wondering if permission is needed in the opposite situation i.e. if the ceremony was to take place in the Eastern Rite instead.
R
runningdude
Guest
Probably not. Eastern Catholicism is a very tiny movement compared to the Latin church (50-ish million versus 1300-ish million!). Therefore, there are several protections in Canon Law to encourage Eastern Catholics to remain faithful to their rites and traditions.
The step of needed permission would encourage the couple to at least think about an Eastern ceremony, rather than just sail through with an automatic Latin ceremony. Requiring permission in the opposite case might encourage the couple to not “bother” and hold it the Latin spouses parish anyway.
G
grandfather
Guest
It does not make sense that a particular diocese should regulate sacraments. There are always universal norms that apply. While it is true that a Catholic needs to ask permission to marry a non-Catholic for example, imagine what would happen if some bishop decided that he would not allow Catholics of different rites to marry in a Latin rite church, or if a bishop decided he would refuse permission for Catholics to marry non-Catholics in his diocese.
Or imagine that a local bishop decided that the age children should be admitted to Holy Commuion should be 18. There are universal norms. It is the bishop’s responsiblity to enforce them in his diocese, not to make them up.
I have Catholic friends who have seven children. One of the sons got engaged to a girl who was not Catholic. They wanted to be married in his local parish. The priest there, although not orthodox in any way, liked to throw his weight around and be the boss. The kids could not attend the mandatory marriage prep program run by the ex-nun hired to run it, because the girl was in pharmacy school. They tried to explain their situation and she though not Catholic offered to attend a program in the Catholic parish in her area. The priest insisted the both attend “his” program. They were married in the local Presbyterian church where her family attended.
My children were all pretty well catechized growing up. The guy in the local RC parish running the confirmation program decided he was in control of who should or should not be confirmed and the teenagers needed to prove themselves worthy of Confirmation (earn the right to the sacrament) by meeting the arbitrary standards he determined would demonstrate their commitment to the faith. He had a series of accomplishments the kids were required to meet. One was that they spend three or four days living on skid row on $3.00 per day and spend time serving in the soup kitchen there. This was in an urban area in another part of the state. It did not sound like a good idea to me for my daughters who were rural small town kids. I wondered what right this guy had to impose his notions on how the sacrament should be approached? He loved exercising authority, making rules and insisting others follow them. He insisted he had the authority to deny Confirmation to anyone who did not play his game.
The parish must not have noticed that our family was missing, because for a decade or so after we still got notices of their financial appeals. The point is that there are universal norms. They are not arbitrary, or local.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
**grandfather **- it’s not for “regulation of sacraments”, per se, that canon laws require this type of consultation and episcopal permission even across Catholic Rites. It is mainly to ensure that sacraments are validly administered, so as to protect the practicing Catholic of either Rite, and to preserve the dignity of each Rite in the Catholic communion.
There have been other threads on this topic. Without going into full detail, for example, one important distinction that comes to mind regards the administration of the sacrament of marriage. Whereas a deacon is permitted to officiate in a Latin Rite marriage, this is not permitted in the Eastern Rites. One would not want a situation where, say, a Byzantine Catholic were married by a deacon in his wife’s Latin Rite church, only to have the validity of that marriage called into question because it was not officiated by a priest, as required by the husband’s Rite.
It is very regrettable and truly unfortunate that you have witnessed examples of these canonical requirements being used for other purposes, so to speak. This is what tends to drive people away from the Catholic Church (or any other, for that matter).
That said, the interests of the Catholic Church, the protection of the married couple and the future state of children from that marriage should be of primary importance in such matters. I was married in my wife’s church (Methodist), and accordingly needed to receive dispensation for my marriage to be valid and recognized. Part of that process required commitment on our part that we would raise our children in the [Byzantine] Catholic faith. They would be canonically Byzantine in any event, given my Baptism in that Church, so one must see that this matter would have been fairly discussed and conditional to my dispensation request under the circumstances.
Protecting the True Faith and its faithful should always be the goal!
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
With all due respect and genuine gratitude for this and all well intentioned posts, Eastern Catholicism is not a “movement”. And yes, while we are the minority, we are all encouraged and called as faithful Catholics to understand and appreciate the full depth and breadth of the Catholic Church, East and West.
The canonical requirements exist not to *promote *the Rites, but to protect the Church and its faithful. Unfortunately, some of what was suggested above might foster misunderstanding, which we are trying to avoid through the very existence of this sub-forum.
As mentioned in my previous post in this thread, these canonical requirements exist, especially as they relate to “inter-Rite” Catholic marriages, to ensure that the Sacrament is validly administered in accordance with the requirements of the Rite of each party, bride and groom. The due diligence required of a celebrating pastor serves to ensure that validity and to respect the traditions of the Rite of each party to the marriage.
The Latin Canons permit the marriage in either Church, and are seemingly less restrictive only in that it is known and recognized by the full Catholic Church that the requirements for validity by Latin Rite standards would be met in an Eastern Catholic ceremony. The Eastern Canons suggest (but do not insist), by tradition, that the ceremony take place in the groom’s church. However, modern American tradition is the opposite (bride’s church), and that is still accommodated. The only real “sticky” issue, if you will, in the instance of marriage is that an Eastern Catholic’s marriage must be blessed by a priest or bishop to be considered valid. A marriage by a deacon, as permitted in the Latin Church, would not be valid in the Eastern Church.
Peace be with you!
M
malphono
Guest
It seems to me that it would be more accurate to say that the sacrament is conferred by the bishop or priest, rather than the marriage being merely blessed by same.
Yes, but lest some readers misunderstand, let me add a clarification: a marriage contracted under the norms of law of the Latin Church, irrespective of whether it was witnessed by priest or deacon, is considered valid in the ECCs/OCCs.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
My dear friend, I do not think that is the case with respect to an officiating deacon …
This is taken directly from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Further, the Canons (834§2) go so far as to emphasize that in a marriage between and Eastern Catholic and an Eastern non-Catholic (e.g. Orthodox), the blessing of a priest is required for validity. This emphasizes the common requirement of Eastern Christianity generally in this regard.
Could perhaps the understanding be different in the context of the Syro-Maronite tradition?
I have heard many a priest, Byzantine Rite and Latin Rite, reaffirm this prohibition, and I have never heard of an instance where this was otherwise dispensed.
5
5Loaves
Guest
Agreed. I also had this discussion not many months ago with one of the canon lawyers at the local tribunal and was assured that when either the bride or groom is canonically Eastern Catholic (we were not discussing an Oriental Catholic) the marriage is invalid if not in the presence of a priest. (And we know that bishops and hierarchs are priests.) Since such a marriage done outside of an EC temple would require permission from the EC’s Church one would hope that such permission would also include the clear instruction as to this requirement so that there would be no question of there being only a Latin deacon witnessing the marriage. The troubles arise if those in charge of the marriage preparation fail to check with their chancery about proper handling of such a marriage between an EC and a Latin Catholic and even permissions are not sought.
Taking it another step, I consider this also a failure of the ECCs to properly catechize our own faithful. Ditto for the Orthodox in some instances as we saw here in the EC Section not long ago when an Orthodox poster spoke of his marriage to a Catholic, having been told by his Orthodox father there was nothing needed since he himself was also married in the Catholic Church, and apparently the Catholics failed to make the proper communications to find out what was required for the Orthodox. :sad_yes: Certainly the Latin Church where the wedding is to take place has their responsibility, but also the faithful of the East, EC and Orthodox, ought to know the requirements of their own Churches on this, IMHO.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, I understand full well what is required for the valid conferral of Matrimony in the East and Orient. I am also well aware that a deacon may not confer that Sacrament in the East and Orient. And no, there is no difference in context, Maronite or otherwise.
What I am saying is simply that, if two people are of the Latin Church, and are married in the Latin Church by a deacon, (which is in conformity with the applicable norms of the CIC), those persons are considered validly married. Period. So, e.g, if at some point in their lives they decide to transfer to one or another of the Eastern or Oriental Churches from the Latin Church, they are NOTt be required to be remarried.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Of course - so very sorry if I misread or misunderstood your earlier post. I probably should have said “would not be valid for an Eastern Catholic” …
Peace be with you!
M
malphono
Guest
No harm done.
My intent was only to head-off the question, and I’ve been around here long enough to know that such a question – as silly as it may seem to us – could well have been raised.
5
5Loaves
Guest
I misread/misunderstood it in the same way…
V
Vico
Guest
I did not see anyone else mention this, I may have missed it, usually an eastern Catholic groom is to be married by his own pastor. See CCEO 831.2 below:
CCEO Canon 831
- The local hierarch or pastor licitly blesses a marriage:
(1) after he has established the domicile, quasi-domicile, or month-long residence, or, if it is a case of a transient, actual residence of either party in the place of the marriage;
(2) if, when these conditions are lacking, he has the permission of the hierarch or pastor of the domicile or quasi-domicile of either of the parties, unless a just cause excuses;
(3) also, a place exclusively of another Church sui iuris, unless the hierarch who exercises power in that place expressly refuses. - The marriage is to be celebrated before the pastor of the groom, unless either particular law determines otherwise or a just cause excuses.
D
divinefaith
Guest
So there is no obstacle in the matter of a Latin Rite Catholic marrying a Catholic from another rite.
The only thing needed is a clarification on how Matrimony is to be carried out to accomodate for both rites, correct?
The only thing needed is a clarification on how Matrimony is to be carried out to accomodate for both rites, correct?
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Absolutely! There are procedures that the celebrant should follow to ensure the marriage is valid in accordance with the norms of both rites, but nothing stands in the way of Catholic marrying Catholic of any rite.
Not to be overly judicial, but that of course assumes there are no other impediments that would preclude either party from being properly married in the Catholic Church, irrespective.
With a good priest at the helm, I wouldn’t worry, but I would respectfully (and prudently) inquire at the onset of preparation.
For what its worth, I was married (with dispensation) in my wife’s Methodist church. Both the minister and the deacon who ran the Pre-Cana program were (i) both very aware that I was Catholic, Eastern Rite at that, and (ii) were fully versed in the requirements of the Catholic Church regarding validity of marriages celebrated in non-Catholic churches. Before I even knew better, they had advised that the minister (and not the deacon) would be the celebrant, among other details. The organist was even instructed to play “Ave Maria” (yes, I know - Latin hymn, but I do love it so and it was a great gesture). I was amazed how generously and efficiently they managed to get it done right, and with great respect for both of our faith traditions.
V
Vico
Guest
As ByzCathCantor points out, there are impediments that may block a marriage. The Latin and eastern Catholics have a similar, but different, set of these. Both must be met in an inter-ecclesial marriage. As an example, the eastern Churches have these that the Latin Church does not:
CCEO canon 806 - Abduction impediment applies to either man or woman.
CCEO canon 809.1 - Affinity invalidates a marriage in the direct line in any degree whatsoever; in the collateral line, in the second degree. The Latin canons does not prohibit collateral.
CCEO canon 810.1 - Impediment of public propriety of a null or non-existent marriage.
CCEO canon 811.1 - Impediment of spiritual relationships (sponsor & parents).
CCEO canon 826 - No conditional marriage (Latin Church allows for present of past prior conditions).
W
wjp984
Guest
Just to have fun with some technicalities.
My understanding is that marriage is one of two sacraments, along with baptism, which can be performed by lay people. This makes sense, since really, baptism is the only sacrament/mystery absolutely essential and according to western theology, two people need to be validly married or they can be living in mortal sin. So in a situation without priests those two mysteries would still be necessary.
However, since there is no mortal sin in the East, I guess it wouldn’t matter if the people were validly married or not. (I’m thinking mainly of the show LOST when they are stuck on the island. Although no one to my knowledge gets married, this thread made me think of that possibility.)
My understanding is that marriage is one of two sacraments, along with baptism, which can be performed by lay people. This makes sense, since really, baptism is the only sacrament/mystery absolutely essential and according to western theology, two people need to be validly married or they can be living in mortal sin. So in a situation without priests those two mysteries would still be necessary.
However, since there is no mortal sin in the East, I guess it wouldn’t matter if the people were validly married or not. (I’m thinking mainly of the show LOST when they are stuck on the island. Although no one to my knowledge gets married, this thread made me think of that possibility.)
- Status