Marriage in Roman Church/Eastern Churches

[Reclaim]

I try not to become one of the many amateur interpreters of Canon Law (not speaking about FrDavid96!) so I will just speak to the theology. One of the vestments that a priest in one of the Eastern Catholic churches or Eastern Orthodox churches is called the Epitrachil or Epictrachilion (roughtly like a stole). It has 7 crosses – one which is on the back of the back of the priest’s neck (symbolizing holy orders), and three on either side representing the mysteries (sacraments for we Romans) administered by the priest. There are beautiful vesting prayers, which remind me of the traditional Roman vesting prayers associated with the Extraordinary Form.

Nice commentary here stnickbyz.com/?archive&id=400

And a good picture here! liturgix.com/biz/index.html?loadfile=itemoep006.html

I post on here so that as Pope St. John Paul II said, The Church must breathe with both lungs (meaning East and West)

 

[Marty_E]

We do accept that the priest is the minister of the marriage, and it is encoded in our canon law, which requires a priest to perform the marriage when either party is an Eastern Catholic.

From the Catechism:

“1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.”

Although consent of the spouses is necessary, Byzantine Catholic wedding ceremonies do not traditionally include vows, as the couple are not administering the sacrament to one another. I’ll see if I can find a transcript of the ceremony online.

I don’t believe this quote establishes your proposition.

It is the mutual consent of the spouses which is the form of the Sacrament of Marriage. Marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties. In every contract there is the offering of a right and the acceptance of it. The offering of the marriage right is the matter and mutual acceptance the form.

In your citation the clergy are witnesses to the mutual consent, and the same is true in Latin Rite.

From the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Church:

“Canon 817 - §1. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage.

§2. No human power can replace this matrimonial consent.”

.

 

[Marty_E]

From a genuinely Eastern perspective, the priest is the minister of marriage. For “proof” of that (and I mean the word proof in the philosophical sense) one does need to look to the Eastern Orthodox.

The clarification within the Church as to the matter, form, and minister of Matrimony took place rather late in the Church’s history, certainly no sooner than the 16th century. As in many matters in the West, the clarification arose as a result of attacks by “reformers” and other heretics.

As a result the Eastern Orthodox outlook would not be consistent with the Church’s.

It is common in Latin Rite publications to see the priest referred to as the minister of Matrimony, which in an ordinary lay non-technical manner of speaking is correct - he is the one standing there before the couple.

.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t believe this quote establishes your proposition.

It is the mutual consent of the spouses which is the form of the Sacrament of Marriage. Marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties. In every contract there is the offering of a right and the acceptance of it. The offering of the marriage right is the matter and mutual acceptance the form.

In your citation the clergy are witnesses to the mutual consent, and the same is true in Latin Rite.

From the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Church:

“Canon 817 - §1. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage.

§2. No human power can replace this matrimonial consent.”

.

The 1990 Eastern Code says what it says—so there’s no disputing that.

However, the Code does not accurately express Eastern Christian theology.

It is true that the consent of the couple is the “form” for marriage; as far as the Code is concerned—the law, not the theology.

Canon 817 CCOE does not disprove the Eastern theology either.
There is a slight compromise there, because the canon does not say that the consent “makes” the marriage, but rather says that the consent must be present “in order to establish marriage.” To put that another way, Eastern theology would say that the consent of the couple is a pre-requisite to the marriage itself; meaning that a priest cannot marry a couple unless & until their consent has been expressed in some way.

 

[dans0622]

I don’t believe this quote establishes your proposition.

…

In your citation the clergy are witnesses to the mutual consent, and the same is true in Latin Rite. …

Hello,

It is interesting to note that the prior version of the Catechism had said this:

1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ’s grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called “Crowning”) is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P52.HTM

The official text, however, is as was quoted earlier in the thread. There was an obvious retreat from an explicit identification of the priest as the minister of this Sacrament.

Dan

 

[Marty_E]

The 1990 Eastern Code says what it says—so there’s no disputing that.

However, the Code does not accurately express Eastern Christian theology.

It seems unlikely that the form, matter, and minister of any Sacrament differs between rites in the Catholic Church. That would require that Christ established eight sacraments, including Matrimony E and Matrimony W with different ministers.

Perhaps the term “minister” is being used equivocally.

The priest witnesses the marriage. Canonically in the Latin Rite the presence of the priest can be dispensed with - for example in places where priests only visit rarely the couple exchanges vows and the priest provides a blessing and makes a record of the marriage when he visits.

It is the consent of the couple which binds the parties.

If the priest is the minister of marriage, persons living in remote areas without access to clergy could not marry.

.

 

[RyanBlack]

It seems unlikely that the form, matter, and minister of any Sacrament differs between rites in the Catholic Church. That would require that Christ established eight sacraments, including Matrimony E and Matrimony W with different ministers.

Perhaps the term “minister” is being used equivocally.

The priest witnesses the marriage. Canonically in the Latin Rite the presence of the priest can be dispensed with - for example in places where priests only visit rarely the couple exchanges vows and the priest provides a blessing and makes a record of the marriage when he visits.

It is the consent of the couple which binds the parties.

If the priest is the minister of marriage, persons living in remote areas without access to clergy could not marry.

.

No. In the East, the priest is the actual minister of matrimony, which is why our canon law requires a priest’s blessing for validity of marriage , even when an Eastern Catholic is married in the Latin Church.

 

[Vico]

No. In the East, the priest is the actual minister of matrimony, which is why our canon law requires a priest’s blessing for validity of marriage , even when an Eastern Catholic is married in the Latin Church.

It is possible for an eastern Catholic, according to the norm of law, to be validly and licitly married without the blessing of a priest:CCEO Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
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.
   [/INDENT]

 

[RyanBlack]

It is possible for an eastern Catholic, according to the norm of law, to be validly and licitly married without the blessing of a priest:CCEO Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
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.
   [/INDENT]

I’m aware of that–I discussed this very canon in posts 9 and 11 of this thread. However, as I’ve previously noted, these are allowances for exceptional circumstances, and the blessing of a priest must still be sought as soon as possible. Furthermore, I suspect this canon need almost never be invoked.

 

[thewanderer]

It seems unlikely that the form, matter, and minister of any Sacrament differs between rites in the Catholic Church. That would require that Christ established eight sacraments, including Matrimony E and Matrimony W with different ministers.

Perhaps the term “minister” is being used equivocally.

The priest witnesses the marriage. Canonically in the Latin Rite the presence of the priest can be dispensed with - for example in places where priests only visit rarely the couple exchanges vows and the priest provides a blessing and makes a record of the marriage when he visits.

It is the consent of the couple which binds the parties.

If the priest is the minister of marriage, persons living in remote areas without access to clergy could not marry.

.

Baptism is sometimes administered by a priest and sometimes by a lay person. Yet it is not two different sacraments despite having different ministers. The form and matter must be the same for the sacrament to be one and the same, but it is not necessary that the minister always be the same.

 

[Vico]

I’m aware of that–I discussed this very canon in posts 9 and 11 of this thread. However, as I’ve previously noted, these are allowances for exceptional circumstances, and the blessing of a priest must still be sought as soon as possible. Furthermore, I suspect this canon need almost never be invoked.

True, however you said the blessing was required for validity, which it is not. Tjhe marriage is valid, in those situations allowed, even before a blessing. That was my only reason for posting that.

 

[RyanBlack]

True, however you said the blessing was required for validity, which it is not. Tjhe marriage is valid, in those situations allowed, even before a blessing. That was my only reason for posting that.

The blessing is required for validity, other than in these narrow exceptions, and even in these very narrow exceptions, the couple is still required to seek the blessing as soon as possible.

Canon 828

1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a
   sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor,
   or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according,
   however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due
   regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention (of) a priest assisting and blessing.

 

[babochka]

Hello,

It is interesting to note that the prior version of the Catechism had said this:

1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ’s grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called “Crowning”) is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P52.HTM

The official text, however, is as was quoted earlier in the thread. There was an obvious retreat from an explicit identification of the priest as the minister of this Sacrament.

Dan

This is interesting, and I would be curious to know why the wording was changed from something that clearly reflects the theology of the Eastern Churches to something ambiguous. The newer wording in no way repudiates what the earlier edition said, however.

 

[babochka]

The form and matter must be the same for the sacrament to be one and the same, but it is not necessary that the minister always be the same.

The form varies in different rites for many of the sacraments. In the West, the words “I absolve you” constitute valid form for the Sacrament of Reconciliation and are absolutely necessary. There are several absolution formulas in the East that do not contain these words. In the west, the form for the sacrament is the exchange of consent and the vows. Vows are not traditionally present in the East, so the form is different - it is contained in the words of blessing from the priest. Two non-Catholic Christians married by a justice of the peace are considered to have valid form, even though their vows might have been self-composed and have little resemblance to the approved vows in a Catholic wedding. It is still valid form, though not for a Catholic. Still, the Latin Church can dispense from the “church approved” form and allow the wedding to take place elsewhere, with a different form. It is still valid. The Church determines valid form, and it has done so differently in different times and places throughout history. Sometimes, valid matter is even different - for example, as I understand it (and I could be wrong), children below the age of reason are not considered valid matter for Anointing of the Sick in the west, while the East has no such restriction. One is not incompatible - they are simply different. The Church doesn’t have a problem with these differences, and neither should we. We must remember that theology is not dogma.

 

[Marty_E]

Baptism is sometimes administered by a priest and sometimes by a lay person. Yet it is not two different sacraments despite having different ministers. The form and matter must be the same for the sacrament to be one and the same, but it is not necessary that the minister always be the same.

The fact that baptism may be validly ministered by anyone demonstrates that the minister of the Sacrament of Baptism is anyone.

.

 

[Marty_E]

No. In the East, the priest is the actual minister of matrimony, which is why our canon law requires a priest’s blessing for validity of marriage , even when an Eastern Catholic is married in the Latin Church.

Which then means we have eight Sacraments since the essentials of Matrimony differ from East to West.

The requirement of a blessing is a disciplinary, not doctrinal, issue. It can be waived, which means it is not the essence of the sacrament.

.

 

[Vico]

The blessing is required for validity, other than in these narrow exceptions, and even in these very narrow exceptions, the couple is still required to seek the blessing as soon as possible.

Canon 828

1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a
   sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor,
   or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according,
   however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due
   regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention (of) a priest assisting and blessing.

That is true, but the marriage is valid and licit in the extraordinary form before any blessing by a priest. Also note the wording “without prejudice to the validity of the marriage in the presence of witnesses alone” that appears in CCEO 832.2.

 

[dmar198]

Which then means we have eight Sacraments since the essentials of Matrimony differ from East to West.

I don’t think that follows. It may mean instead that the minister of Matrimony is either a priest or the couple, which can vary by tradition and discipline.

 

[FrDavid96]

Which then means we have eight Sacraments since the essentials of Matrimony differ from East to West.

The requirement of a blessing is a disciplinary, not doctrinal, issue. It can be waived, which means it is not the essence of the sacrament.

.

It does not mean that we have 8 Sacraments.

There is no problem with having one Sacrament/Mystery, namely marriage, that has 2 different theologies, East and West.

 

[Marty_E]

There is no problem with having one Sacrament/Mystery, namely marriage, that has 2 different theologies, East and West.

Indeed there is as far as essentials.

What distinguishes a Sacrament from a pious practice is the fact that it was established by Christ with a specific form, matter, and minister.

Those essentials cannot differ, else it is either not a Sacrament or one of the theologies is in error. That is the problem.

In the West internal - the Roman legal mindset - and external - the responses to the Protestant Revolt - tightened the theology of the Sacraments.

First, they were for the first time enumerated since Protestants argued that only those clearly defined in the Scriptures were Sacraments and wound up with two or three sacraments, excluding specifically Matrimony.

Second, the essentials took some time to sort out since in some cases - Matrimony and Orders for two examples - it was not clear (since it had never been an issue) what the three essentials of each were.

Again, if the the minister of Matrimony is either the priest or the couple depending on the tradition and discipline, then Matrimony lacks a specific form, matter, and minister. That means it is a pious liturgical practice, not a Sacrament.

The terms “form”, “matter”, and “minister” are technical terms - certainly specific words and actions in various rites differ.

.