Marriage in Roman Church/Eastern Churches

[Vico]

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.

.

And for the minister, it varies in the ordinary and extraordinary forms. For example, baptism. Catholic Encyclopedia:"The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs."
Fanning, W. (1907). Baptism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Also “it is certain, therefore, from the point of view of the Church that marriage as a sacrament is fulfilled only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties”

Lehmkuhl, A. (1910). Sacrament of Marriage. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

So we see the minimum requirement (the extraordinary form CIC and CCEO) to be both valid and licit, is the proper consent (with no invalidating impediments) of the couple in the presence of two witnesses.

 

[Marty_E]

And for the minister, it varies in the ordinary and extraordinary forms.

That is, the rites differ.

In sacramental theology, the minister of Baptism is anyone who uses water, invokes the Trinity, and intends to do what the Church does. Amazingly a pagan, as noted, can be the minister.

Perhaps distinguishing between “minister” and the “normal celebrant” would be helpful.

.

 

[FrDavid96]

People can use Western sources all day long to prove that the Western theology of marriage is that the couple marry each other. No one actually disputes this, yet that doesn’t seem to stop them from trying to prove it.

The East has a different theology of the rite of marriage. In the East, the priest is the minister of the sacrament (even though that sentence uses Western language, since I’m posting for a mostly Western audience here, I’ll leave it as is).

There is no doubt that the Eastern Code of 1990 expresses a Western theology of the question “who is the minister of marriage?” No doubt. But this does not prove that the Code accurately reflects Eastern theology.

One may point to countless examples over the centuries of Western theology being imposed on the Eastern Churches. There is certainly no shortage of that. Yet, these examples do not prove Eastern theology----on the contrary, what they do prove is that the Catholic Church still has some obstacles, yet to be overcome, in fully accepting the legitimate, and sometimes complementary, theology of Eastern Christians.

 

[dmar198]

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.

I don’t think Jesus had to bind the Sacraments to a specific form because the Church has the right to alter the form of certain sacraments. “[T]he Church has the power to determine what is the sacramental and canonical form of marriage.” [1]

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.

The Sacraments were enumerated long before the Reformation. At the 14th Ecumenical Council in 1274 the Byzantine delegation brought a letter that enumerated them clearly: “[T]he same holy Roman church holds and teaches that there are seven ecclesiastical sacraments: First, baptism, which has been mentioned above. Secondly, the sacrament of confirmation, which bishops confer by the imposition of hands, anointing the regenerate. Thirdly, penance. Fourthly, the Eucharist. Fifthly, the sacrament of orders. Sixthly, matrimony. And lastly, extreme unction, which, according to the teaching of the blessed James, is applied to the sick.” (Letter of Emperor Michael VIII to the 14th Ecumenical Council, as it appears in Roger Wendover, Flowers of History Volume 2 Chapter 21)

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.

I don’t think that follows. If baptism can have a minister of “anyone,” and yet the minister is specific, then it seems to me that matrimony can have a minister of “either the priest or the couple,” and that seems more specific than “anyone.”

[1] Paul Haffner, The Sacramental Mystery Chapter 1 Section 7. I cite this book because it was used as a textbook in my theology class when I was in the seminary.

 

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vico forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*And for the minister, it varies in the ordinary and extraordinary forms.

That is, the rites differ.

In sacramental theology, the minister of Baptism is anyone who uses water, invokes the Trinity, and intends to do what the Church does. Amazingly a pagan, as noted, can be the minister.

Perhaps distinguishing between “minister” and the “normal celebrant” would be helpful.

The rite does differ and so does the minister in the case of baptism. The canon law does indicate the ordinary (and extraordinary) ministers for the sacraments, except matrimony, which is not always a sacrament:**
CCEO Can. 677 **** §1.** Baptism is administered ordinarily by a priest; but, with due regard for particular law, the proper pastor of the person to be baptized, or another priest with the permission of the same pastor or the local hierarch, is competent for its administration, which permission, for a serious reason is lawfully presumed. 2. In case of necessity, baptism can be administered by a deacon or, in his absence or if he is impeded, by another cleric, a member of an institute of consecrated life, or by any other Christian faithful; even by the mother or father, if another person is not available who knows how to baptize.**

CIC Can. 861 §1**. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1

CCEO Can. 694. According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, Chrismation with holy myron is adminstered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism of separately.

**CIC Can. 882. **The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

CCEO Can. 699 §1. Only bishops and presbyters have the power to celebrate the Divine Liturgy.

CIC Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

CCEO Can. 722**** §1 Only a priest is the minister of the sacrament of penance.

CIC Can. 965. A priest alone is the minister of the sacrament of penance.

CCEO Can. 739 §1. All priests, and only priests, validly administer the anointing of the sick.

CIC Can. 1003 §1. Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.

CCEO Can. 744. Only a bishop validly administers sacred ordination by the imposition of hands and by the prayers prescribed by the Church.
**
CIC Can. 1012**. The minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop.
and the matrimonial covenant, sometimes a sacrament:**CCEO Can. 776 ****§1. The matrimonial covenant, established by the Creator and ordered by His laws, by which a man and woman by an irrevocable personal consent establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the generation and education of the offspring.
§2. From the institution of Christ a valid marriage between baptized persons is by that very fact a sacrament, by which the spouses, in the image of an indefectible union of Christ with the Church, are united by God and, as it were, consecrated and strengthened by sacramental grace.
§3. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in a marriage between baptized persons obtain a special firmness in virtue of the sacrament.

CIC Can. 1055 §1.** The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
To use normal terminology, Modern Catholic Dictionary has for Minister:… Those who administer the sacraments are ministers of the sacramental rites… Implicit in the title is the notion of service. …
(Etym. Latin minister, servant.)

 

[Marty_E]

The Sacraments were enumerated long before the Reformation. At the 14th Ecumenical Council in 1274 the Byzantine delegation brought a letter that enumerated them clearly …

That enumeration was made at the Council of Trent, in the Decree for the Armenians by the Council of Florence (1439), in the Profession of Faith of Michael Palaelogus, offered to Gregory X in the Council of Lyons (1274), in the council held at London, in 1237, under Otto, legate of the Holy See, and by Otto of Bamberg (1139), the Apostle of Pomerania. However, that the enumeration was not universally accepted is demonstrated by the rejection of four or five of the Sacraments by the Protestant heretics and the careful enumeration with accompanying anathemas at the Council of Trent.

And while the number seven was gradually accepted even by our separated brothers, the make-up of that seven is not universal:

assyrianchurch.org.au/about-us/the-sacraments/

If baptism can have a minister of “anyone,” and yet the minister is specific, then it seems to me that matrimony can have a minister of “either the priest or the couple,” and that seems more specific than “anyone.”

The priest cannot “marry” the couple without their assent. Therefore the assent, not the priest, is essential. Only the couple can give assent. Therefore, the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament.

We have already determined that under some circumstances the blessing of the priest can be dispensed with.

A priest is not required to perform Baptism. What is required is anyone with the right intent.

But the discussion does give one some sense of the problems that occurred when the Protestant Revolt called the number and nature of the Sacraments into question.

.

 

[Marty_E]

People can use Western sources all day long to prove that the Western theology of marriage is that the couple marry each other. No one actually disputes this, yet that doesn’t seem to stop them from trying to prove it.

The East has a different theology of the rite of marriage.

I would hope that people use Catholic sources for a discussion of the Catholic theology of the Sacrament of Marriage.

The notion that the Sacraments differ in some essential between East and West - and the matter, form, and minister of each Sacrament is essential - presents some serious problems which probably need to be sorted out before discussing Matrimony.

Since the form, matter, and minister of a Sacrament is of its essence, there cannot be disagreement on them within the Church itself.

.

 

[Marty_E]

I don’t think Jesus had to bind the Sacraments to a specific form because the Church has the right to alter the form of certain sacraments.

You’re using the word “form” in a different sense then it is used in sacramental theology.

Of course rites, ceremonies, and canonical requirements differ over time and place.

The word “form” entered the terminology of sacramental theology in the West during the 13th century when writers began to use terms derived from the philosophy of Aristotle. In a sacramental rite we find two elements, one undetermined called the matter, the other determining called the form.

For example water may be used for drinking, cooling, or cleansing the body, but the words pronounced by the minister of Baptism when water flows on the head of the child, with the intention of doing what the Church does, determines the meaning of the act so that it signifies the purification of the soul by grace.

The water is the matter, the words and intention the form, and the matter and form (res et verba) make up the external rite, which conveys its particular grace and derives its efficacy from the institution of Christ.

While the use of this terminology was new, the doctrine was old; the same truth had been expressed in former times in different words.

And since this occurred after the separation of our Orthodox brethren, their terminology differs somewhat.

.

 

[Vico]

I would hope that people use Catholic sources for a discussion of the Catholic theology of the Sacrament of Marriage.

The notion that the Sacraments differ in some essential between East and West - and the matter, form, and minister of each Sacrament is essential - presents some serious problems which probably need to be sorted out before discussing Matrimony.

Since the form, matter, and minister of a Sacrament is of its essence, there cannot be disagreement on them within the Church itself.

.

That difference, at least between Latin and eastern Catholics, can be explained as a matter of Church law rather than an essential. the Church preserves the matter and form of the Sacraments (Holy Mysteries) may add new conditions of validity for the purpose of the public welfare or other grave reasons, an when doing so, it does not change the essentials of the contract, but rather requires observance of formalities in addition to the contract. We see that operative in the eastern Catholic canon law where the eastern Catholics are always required to receive a blessing from the priest, but not for validity in the extraordinary case.

 

[ccmcmg]

Someone asked me in another thread what the difference was between the theology of marriage in the East and West. In the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox), the priest is the minister of the sacrament. In the Western/Roman Church, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament.

I post this just to highlight the beauty and diversity of our Faith.

Thank you. I appreciate your email and response. Although, I think I’m more confused at times after reading this thread than I was before; I had it straight in my head then for a minute. Thanks again for your help!!

 

[Vico]

People can use Western sources all day long to prove that the Western theology of marriage is that the couple marry each other. No one actually disputes this, yet that doesn’t seem to stop them from trying to prove it.

The East has a different theology of the rite of marriage. In the East, the priest is the minister of the sacrament (even though that sentence uses Western language, since I’m posting for a mostly Western audience here, I’ll leave it as is).

There is no doubt that the Eastern Code of 1990 expresses a Western theology of the question “who is the minister of marriage?” No doubt. But this does not prove that the Code accurately reflects Eastern theology.

One may point to countless examples over the centuries of Western theology being imposed on the Eastern Churches. There is certainly no shortage of that. Yet, these examples do not prove Eastern theology----on the contrary, what they do prove is that the Catholic Church still has some obstacles, yet to be overcome, in fully accepting the legitimate, and sometimes complementary, theology of Eastern Christians.

That is an interesting subject. The west and east developed differently from the time of Byzantine Emperor Leo VI The Wise (866-912), who began the requirement – for validity of the first marriage – that couples receive a blessing from the priest at the nuptial benediction, including the Crowning. So then the preconditions (vows) came to be no longer included and the blessing included. However, even in the west in the ninth century, there was argument made in the Frankish Church, for the blessing of the priest as necessary for validity. (The nuptial blessing is in the book of Tobit.) The blessing was not considered as a required for validity until the ninth century. Remarrying widowers did not receive the benediction.

 

[dmar198]

The priest cannot “marry” the couple without their assent. Therefore the assent, not the priest, is essential. Only the couple can give assent. Therefore, the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament.

As a syllogism, this argument is invalid for several reasons. One is, one of the key terms in the conclusion does not appear in the premises: “ministers.” In a valid argument, all the terms in the conclusion have to appear in the premises, at least synonymously.

It appears to me that you are arguing that the necessity of consent means the consent is the causative agent. But that is not true with regard to other Sacraments, e.g. baptism. In adults, consent is obviously necessary, and in infants, consent is given by proxy. But the consent the adult gives does not make the adult the minister of his own baptism. Similarly, although the consenting parties are the ministers of matrimony in the Western rite, I don’t think it follows that they are the ministers of matrimony in the Eastern rite, except in the exceptions mentioned above. It seems to me that although consent is necessary, in the Eastern rites consent does not (ordinarily) cause the two to be united, but rather the blessing of the priest does.

Therefore, I think the Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted by Christ in such a way that two possibilities exist for who may administer it. Similarly to how the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted in such a way that it may have a minister of anyone, so, it seems to me, the Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted in such a way that it may have a minister who is a priest or two ministers who are the man and the woman. And the use of these ministers depends on the laws of the Church, which currently differ in the East and in the West for customary reasons.

Anyway, that is how I see it. To my mind it resolves all the apparent theological contradictions.

 

[Marty_E]

As a syllogism, this argument is invalid for several reasons.As a syllogism, this argument is invalid for several reasons. One is, one of the key terms in the conclusion does not appear in the premises: “ministers.” In a valid argument, all the terms in the conclusion have to appear in the premises, at least synonymously.

If we remove something and it renders the Sacrament invalid, that something is essential. We can remove the priest and have a valid marriage. We cannot remove the parties, we cannot remove their assent, and have a valid marriage.

It appears to me that you are arguing that the necessity of consent means the consent is the causative agent.

If you by “causative agent” you mean that which determines the meaning of the act, yes, that is the consent.

Similarly, although the consenting parties are the ministers of matrimony in the Western rite, I don’t think it follows that they are the ministers of matrimony in the Eastern rite …

So you argue that an essential - minister, form, or matter - of a Sacrament can be different in the East than in the West, which if Catholic doctrine as to the institution of the Sacraments is correct cannot be true.

It is true that the Church, with the power of the keys, may impose requirement for validity over and above the bare requirements of form and matter are universally the same since the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, not by the Church.

For example, in the Latin Rite the witness of the priest is required under Canon Law for a valid marriage - except for certain situations of necessity - but for non-Catholic Christians it is not since the discipline of the Church does not bind them. In the event non-Catholic Christians contract a marriage and then after a divorce one of them wishes to marry a Catholic, the validity of that non-Catholic marriage is considered by the same criterion as a Catholic marriage.

The essentials of a Sacrament, which includes the minister, exist by themselves since they were created by Christ and gifted to the Church.

In Western sacramental theology we are used to distinguishing between fundamentals and the small “t” traditions and discipline of the Church, which may vary from time to time and place to place.

Making those distinctions accurately removes the apparent theological contradictions.

As Vico wrote:

“That difference, at least between Latin and eastern Catholics, can be explained as a matter of Church law rather than an essential. the Church preserves the matter and form of the Sacraments (Holy Mysteries) may add new conditions of validity for the purpose of the public welfare or other grave reasons, an when doing so, it does not change the essentials of the contract, but rather requires observance of formalities in addition to the contract.”

.

 

[FrDavid96]

If we remove something and it renders the Sacrament invalid, that something is essential. We can remove the priest and have a valid marriage. We cannot remove the parties, we cannot remove their assent, and have a valid marriage.

If you by “causative agent” you mean that which determines the meaning of the act, yes, that is the consent.

So you argue that an essential - minister, form, or matter - of a Sacrament can be different in the East than in the West, which if Catholic doctrine as to the institution of the Sacraments is correct cannot be true.

It is true that the Church, with the power of the keys, may impose requirement for validity over and above the bare requirements of form and matter are universally the same since the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, not by the Church.

For example, in the Latin Rite the witness of the priest is required under Canon Law for a valid marriage - except for certain situations of necessity - but for non-Catholic Christians it is not since the discipline of the Church does not bind them. In the event non-Catholic Christians contract a marriage and then after a divorce one of them wishes to marry a Catholic, the validity of that non-Catholic marriage is considered by the same criterion as a Catholic marriage.

The essentials of a Sacrament, which includes the minister, exist by themselves since they were created by Christ and gifted to the Church.

In Western sacramental theology we are used to distinguishing between fundamentals and the small “t” traditions and discipline of the Church, which may vary from time to time and place to place.

Making those distinctions accurately removes the apparent theological contradictions.

As Vico wrote:

“That difference, at least between Latin and eastern Catholics, can be explained as a matter of Church law rather than an essential. the Church preserves the matter and form of the Sacraments (Holy Mysteries) may add new conditions of validity for the purpose of the public welfare or other grave reasons, an when doing so, it does not change the essentials of the contract, but rather requires observance of formalities in addition to the contract.”

.

You are missing the entire point of the thread.

The purpose of the thread was to explain that the East and West have different theologies as to who is the minister of marriage.

You are trying to “prove” that they do not because Western theology says that the couple are the ministers.

No one disputes that Western theology views the couple as the ministers.

In the meantime, you’ve completely ignored and even dismissed the Eastern theology.

What you have ultimately proved is that there is much need for education among Western Catholics. The Church has a long way to go in educating Catholics about the legitimate diversity of the Church (legitimate diversity, not political correctness). You’ve proved that there are still a great many obstacles to be overcome because the Church still treats Eastern Catholics as second class citizens. Eastern theology is still not accepted on an equal basis with Western.

In the East, the priest is the minister of marriage (in Western vocabulary).

The canons that we’ve seen prove that the Western Church is still not willing to accept Eastern Theology as equally valid.

And we wonder why the Orthodox have so little interest in reunion?

 

[Marty_E]

You are missing the entire point of the thread. The purpose of the thread was to explain that the East and West have different theologies as to who is the minister of marriage.

The misuse of terminology is causing a variety of mischief which you seem to be misinterpreting.

There is for each Sacrament only one minister, one form, one matter. That is de fide.

If you wish to discuss the proposition that “East and West have different emphases on the theology of Matrimony as their differences in rites and canons illustrate”, we could make progress with no further ado.

You are trying to “prove” that they do not because Western theology says that the couple are the ministers.

To be clear - the Catholic Church, not “Western theology”, teaches the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

In the meantime, you’ve completely ignored and even dismissed the Eastern theology.

You have not explained the “Eastern theology” other than to say the couples are not the ministers, which is only correct in a liturgical sense, not a theological sense.

And we wonder why the Orthodox have so little interest in reunion?

I have never wondered. A quick look at the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church squabbling tells me the Ecumenical Patriarch has bigger and more pressing issues to deal with than the remote possibility of reunion with the Catholic Church.

I do wonder why an Eastern Catholic would consider Orthodox theology as normative and dismiss the Catholic Church’s teaching as “Western theology”.

.

 

[Vico]

Someone asked me in another thread what the difference was between the theology of marriage in the East and West. In the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox), the priest is the minister of the sacrament. In the Western/Roman Church, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament.

I post this just to highlight the beauty and diversity of our Faith.

Catechism of the Catholic Church1623 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,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125

124 Cf. CCEO, 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.

125 Cf. CCEO, 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 a priest assisting and blessing.
   Canon 832
3. 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:
   (1) 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
   Canon 834
6. If, however, a Catholic party enrolled in some Eastern Church celebrates a marriage with one who belongs to an Eastern non-Catholic Church, the form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed only for liceity; for validity, however, the blessing of a priest is required, while observing the other requirements of law.

 

[babochka]

There is for each Sacrament only one minister, one form, one matter. That is de fide.

.

I always thought it was form, matter, and intention.

As to form: In the Western tradition, valid form for the Sacrament of Matrimony is the vows. Since vows are not traditional in the East (although they are sometimes used), the form must necessarily be something else. The blessing of the priest, perhaps? This leaves us with one Sacrament, two (or more) valid forms.

What is valid form for Confession? In the West, it is “I absolve you”, but not every absolution in the East contains those words. Do you argue that transitional Eastern absolution are invalid, because they do not follow Latin form?

Many Latinizations have been adopted by (or foisted upon) the Eastern Churches because of this misunderstanding and feeling of inferiority, but the Church does not require these. Rather, the Church herself sees the value and validity in our own theological and liturgical traditions and has exhorted the Eastern Churches to recover what has been lost. You object that we should look to non-Catholic sources (Orthodox) to find this theology and tradition, but in many cases that is the only place that we can find the tradition that the Catholic Church says we must recover. If the only Catholic sources reflect a clearly western bias, then we must look to the Orthodox to understand our own tradition.

Theology does not equal dogma and not every truth must be understood as Thomas Aquinas understood it.

 

[babochka]

This is from a 1978 Agreed Statement on the Sanctity of Marriage, between Catholic and Orthodox.

byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/ecumenical-documents-mainmenu-99/317-an-agreed-statement-on-the-sanctity-of-marriage

IV. Theological Clarifications on Christian Marriage In the teaching of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners and God’s blessing Imparted through the ministry of the church.

At present there are differences in the concrete ways in which this ministry must be exercised in order to fulfill the theological and canonical norms for marriage in our two churches. There are also differences in the theological interpretation of this diversity. Thus the Orthodox Church accepts as sacramental only those marriages sanctified in the liturgical life of the church by being blessed by an Orthodox priest.

The Catholic Church accepts as sacramental the marriages which are celebrated before a Catholic priest or even a deacon, but it also envisions some exceptional cases in which, by reason of a dispensation or the unavailability of a priest or deacon, Catholics may enter into a sacramental marriage in the absence of an ordained minister of the church.

An examination of the diversities of practice and theology concerning the required ecclesial context for Christian marriage that have existed in both traditions demonstrates that the present differences must be considered to pertain more to the level of secondary theological reflection than to that of dogma. Both churches have always agreed that the ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage. Within this fundamental agreement various possibilities of realization are possible as history has shown and no one form of this realization can be considered to be absolutely normative in all circumstances.

 

[Marty_E]

I always thought it was form, matter, and intention.

Intention is a component of form. For example, in Baptism the form is the invocation of the Trinity with the intention of doing what the Church does.

As to form: In the Western tradition, valid form for the Sacrament of Matrimony is the vows.

Actually the form is the consent itself. In the Western liturgical tradition that form is signified by the vows, but as the Eastern liturgical tradition illustrates it is not the vows themselves that constitute the form.

What is valid form for Confession? In the West, it is “I absolve you”, but not every absolution in the East contains those words. Do you argue that transitional Eastern absolution are invalid, because they do not follow Latin form?

The form for the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the expression by the priest of the forgiveness of the sins confessed, the liturgical expression of that differing at places and times.

You object that we should look to non-Catholic sources (Orthodox) to find this theology and tradition, but in many cases that is the only place that we can find the tradition that the Catholic Church says we must recover. If the only Catholic sources reflect a clearly western bias, then we must look to the Orthodox to understand our own tradition.

One needs to understand that the Orthodox have evolved a theology outside communion with the Catholic Church, at times with a disputational focus to distinguish themselves from Catholics, and therefore do not represent an Eastern Catholic tradition in each and every position and aspect.

To believe so is to make the same mistake Latin Rite prelates made in the 19th and early 20th centuries in North America imposing Western practices on Eastern Catholics.

.

 

[babochka]

One needs to understand that the Orthodox have evolved a theology outside communion with the Catholic Church, at times with a disputational focus to distinguish themselves from Catholics, and therefore do not represent an Eastern Catholic tradition in each and every position and aspect.

.

Orthodox theology of marriage predates the schism. Other than the minister, Orthodox theology also includes the idea that marriage does not end in death, discouraging marriage even for widows/widowers. The divergent views existed, and were not considered reason to break communion, for centuries.

Could you provide me with a reference to an authoritative document that states that form, matter and minister are essential to the sacrament, rather than just form and matter?