Maronite Rite /Roman Rite Marriage

[Biblesavy99]

Two people are planning to get married. He is Maronite rite and she is Roman Rite. Which rite of the Catholic Church for Wedding? What about raising the kids?

Is there are certain process involved prior?

 

[Aramis]

Two people are planning to get married. He is Maronite rite and she is Roman Rite. Which rite of the Catholic Church for Wedding? What about raising the kids?

Is there are certain process involved prior?

**Ignoring for the moment who is which…
**
Nominally, his home parish. No matter where, must be a priest. Exception for her parish should be easily obtained, provided the intended cleric witness/celebrant is a priest.

Kids are enrolled by default in the Father’s church sui iuris, unless he wishes them enrolled in the mothers AND the mother’s isn’t the Latin.

She can change her enrollment to his church.

Enrollment in a given rite is by enrollment in a church sui iuris of that rite.

Men who marry a woman of a different church sui iuris have grounds to switch, unless she’s Latin Church… in which case, the Vatican II documents make it clear that it’s a no-no.

Given that he’s maronite…
Rome’s not going to give the approval for him to change enrollment to her church sui iuris.

They can raise the kids in a parish of either church, or another, but the expectation is that they should be raised with the Maronite traditions.

 

[marymary1975]

If I am correct, it follows the husband, both as to children and to the rite. My grandmother was Maronite and my grandfather was Roman Catholic. I know they were told the children had to be baptized under the Roman Catholic (which they did) and I know their wedding was under the rite of the Roman Catholic church. My grandmother says that if it had been the other way it would have been under the Maronite, not sure but at least that is what she says. What I know for sure is that in their case (Roman catholic husband) everything was under his church.

 

[Aramis]

If I am correct, it follows the husband, both as to children and to the rite. My grandmother was Maronite and my grandfather was Roman Catholic. I know they were told the children had to be baptized under the Roman Catholic (which they did) and I know their wedding was under the rite of the Roman Catholic church. My grandmother says that if it had been the other way it would have been under the Maronite, not sure but at least that is what she says. What I know for sure is that in their case (Roman catholic husband) everything was under his church.

The rules changed at Vatican II.

 

[Bergon]

Several statements, so I might better understand. Are these correct or wrong?

If the gentleman is an Eastern or Oriental Catholic and the lady is Latin Catholic:

• The couple must marry in the gentleman’s Eastern or Oriental Church;
• The lady can transfer from the Latin Catholic and enrol in the gentleman’s Eastern or Oriental Church;
• The gentleman cannot transfer from his Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church and enrol in the Latin Catholic Church;
• Any children with which the marriage may be blessed are to be baptised in their father’s Eastern or Oriental Church.

Which documents emanating from Vatican II or post-Vatican II from the Holy See make provision for this discipline?

 

[Aramis]

Several statements, so I might better understand. Are these correct or wrong?

If the gentleman is an Eastern or Oriental Catholic and the lady is Latin Catholic:

• The couple must marry in the gentleman’s Eastern or Oriental Church;
• The lady can transfer from the Latin Catholic and enrol in the gentleman’s Eastern or Oriental Church;
• The gentleman cannot transfer from his Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church and enrol in the Latin Catholic Church;
• Any children with which the marriage may be blessed are to be baptised in their father’s Eastern or Oriental Church.

Which documents emanating from Vatican II or post-Vatican II from the Holy See make provision for this discipline?

first point is wrong. see the CCEO.
2nd is in the CCEO.
3rd is in the Vatican II post conciliar documents. (My dead tree is packed.)
4th is in the CCEO.

 

[Bergon]

first point is wrong. see the CCEO.
2nd is in the CCEO.
3rd is in the Vatican II post conciliar documents. (My dead tree is packed.)
4th is in the CCEO.

Thank you very much for this information. But, I’m a little confused. If he can’t transfer Churches and the children must be enrolled in his Church, why must they marry in the Latin Church? Because of Eastern and Oriental understanding of marriage I assume in the Latin Church a priest must officiate, a deacon couldn’t witness the marriage for the Church?

(Just looked for the CCEO on Amazon; the price is horrendous)

 

[Bergon]

(Just looked for the CCEO on Amazon; the price is horrendous)

Urm, what’s the etiquette on replying to yourself (besides it pointing to insanity). Anyway, located a free pdf copy.

 

[Aramis]

Thank you very much for this information. But, I’m a little confused. If he can’t transfer Churches and the children must be enrolled in his Church, why must they marry in the Latin Church? Because of Eastern and Oriental understanding of marriage I assume in the Latin Church a priest must officiate, a deacon couldn’t witness the marriage for the Church?

(Just looked for the CCEO on Amazon; the price is horrendous)

They can marry in any church; the norm is his home parish, and both their pastors are supposed to be involved in the process.

But, in cases where a member of one of the Easter/oriental churches marries anyone, it must be a priest who presides over the ceremony, with exceptions for hardship.

 

[Denho]

They can marry in any church; the norm is his home parish, and both their pastors are supposed to be involved in the process.

But, in cases where a member of one of the Easter/oriental churches marries anyone, it must be a priest who presides over the ceremony, with exceptions for hardship.

I’m always slightly amused at the canon saying that a priest is required unless you don’t have access to one for a month. I always imagine couples waiting until Father goes on his summer vacation and then eloping.

 

[malphono]

I’m always slightly amused at the canon saying that a priest is required unless you don’t have access to one for a month. I always imagine couples waiting until Father goes on his summer vacation and then eloping.

Amusing isn’t the word. OMG, they’d have to wait a whole month??? Or maybe more? How could that be? I suppose if they lived in the wilds of Siberia or on a deserted atoll in the middle of the Pacific maybe, but in matter of fact, how many people are in that position? Whenever I see that silly canon I cannot help but think that it was inserted as a “last resort” measure after someone on the law commission saw a bad 1950s disaster movie.

 

[guardianangel1]

Two people are planning to get married. He is Maronite rite and she is Roman Rite. Which rite of the Catholic Church for Wedding? What about raising the kids?

Is there are certain process involved prior?

I really don’t think about marriage so I really don’t have an answer for this one

 

[Aramis]

Amusing isn’t the word. OMG, they’d have to wait a whole month??? Or maybe more? How could that be? I suppose if they lived in the wilds of Siberia or on a deserted atoll in the middle of the Pacific maybe, but in matter of fact, how many people are in that position? Whenever I see that silly canon I cannot help but think that it was inserted as a “last resort” measure after someone on the law commission saw a bad 1950s disaster movie.

They have to have completed whatever prep is required by the more conservative pastor (or that church sui iuris’ requirements).

For an American Ruthenian Greek Catholic, for example, the preparation requirement is at least a year, last I heard. So, to be justified, one would need to be in a place with no priest for a year and a month… or do the prep by teleconference. Which said, I’ve seen done. A couple in one of the remote islands did their prep by phone, and had to wait for a priest to arrive to do their wedding (they got the ABp of Anchorage… because he was the available priest with a plane for their deacon-run parish).

Technically, marriage requires the permission of one’s bishop. Most dioceses and eparchies presume permission of the bishop by completion of the preparation. (In my case, I had to get the local Archbishop’s permission in person, because the deacon doing my prep, in the Roman church, refused to consent, and the pastor would not override him. 18.5 years later, still with the same former lutheran (who has since apostatized from Christianity, and never has been Catholic, but that’s a whole 'nother issue - suffice it to say I don’t recommend trans-denominational marriages but have managed to make mine work, and it does take a LOT of compromise). Fortunately, I had a deacon, two priests, and a dominican nun in my corner… and was personally known to the ABp on a first-name basis. (It’s good to be the son of the Cathedral’s deacon.)

The requirement for the priest to be absent for at least 30 days doesn’t bypass the requirement for adequate preparation. See CCEO 783, 784, 796, 828, 832

The sum of these is that preparation is requisite to licity, and potentially to validity, and thus it is required that the customary preparation be done… it’s only if the permissions and preparations are done and there is still a “grave inconvenience” (CCEO 832) that a non-Catholic (read: Orthodox, Old Catholic, PNCC, etc) priest may be used, or in the absence of a valid non-catholic minister, then and only then by public affirmation before witnesses.

 

[malphono]

They have to have completed whatever prep is required by the more conservative pastor (or that church sui iuris’ requirements). …

The requirement for the priest to be absent for at least 30 days doesn’t bypass the requirement for adequate preparation. See CCEO 783:

Yes, I know. That’s one of the reasons why the whole canon seems rather silly to me.

 

[gmcbroom]

I can only give my experience. My wife is Roman and I’m Maronite. When we were getting married we got married in the Roman Catholic Church. I thought about it and as much as I thought about bringing up the Ceremony of Holy Crowning I chose against it. My reasons are as much as I think it would have been beautiful. I loved the woman who would become my wife. As a man I’ll admit I never gave much thought to how the ceremony would be done over my lifetime. My wife however, has wanted a Church wedding since she was a little girl. So as I was a recent convert to the Catholic Church in this case Maronite. I wanted her to have her dream wedding. Now, our daughter is canonically enrolled in the Maronite Catholic Church. Also we alternate when we go to church depending on time etc. Just my two cents.