Marriage Issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Boy_Lost
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Boy_Lost

Guest
So how does the church reconcile the two opposing view of Marriage within the Church itself?

The Byzantine tradition says a marriage must have a priest or bishop officiate and bless the marriage, whereas the latin tradition views the attendance of clergy at the marriage as witnessing rather than solidification of the sacrament. Or am I missing how one or both sides understands marriage. The ecumenical documents between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church also are very vague in their culmination of study and offer no solution other than continued discussion. How does this operate within in the church?
 
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm
Click to expand...
Sacrament of Marriage 1601-1658
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.
Click to expand...
1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134
Click to expand...
  • Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
Click to expand...
  • Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
Click to expand...
  • Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
Click to expand...
  • The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
Click to expand...
1632 So that the “I do” of the spouses may be a free and responsible act and so that the marriage covenant may have solid and lasting human and Christian foundations, preparation for marriage is of prime importance.
Click to expand...
The example and teaching given by parents and families remain the special form of this preparation.
Click to expand...
The role of pastors and of the Christian community as the “family of God” is indispensable for the transmission of the human and Christian values of marriage and family,135 and much more so in our era when many young people experience broken homes which no longer sufficiently assure this initiation:
Click to expand...
It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise, so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.136
Click to expand...
 
Little_Boy_Lost said:
So how does the church reconcile the two opposing view of Marriage within the Church itself?

The Byzantine tradition says a marriage must have a priest or bishop officiate and bless the marriage, whereas the latin tradition views the attendance of clergy at the marriage as witnessing rather than solidification of the sacrament. Or am I missing how one or both sides understands marriage. The ecumenical documents between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church also are very vague in their culmination of study and offer no solution other than continued discussion. How does this operate within in the church?
Click to expand...
Each Catholic Church has its own laws, but share the same Divine Law. All Catholic Churches require, for validity, proper consent of the individuals, no impediments that cannot be dispensed with, and approval of the Church. A Catholic must marry with the approval of the Church which means that a minister or delegate of the Church must represent the Church (delegated Layperson, Priest, Deacon, or Bishop for the Latin Church, but in the eastern Catholic Churches the one that represents the Church can only be the Priest or Bishop) or under extraordinary circumstances spouses may be married with witnesses only, in Latin Church or Eastern Churches. (CIC 1116, CCEO 832). It is also possible to receive a dispensation from the observance of form, or a retroactive convalidation which usually contains a dispensation a dispensation from canonical form.

CIC Can. 1116
§1 If one who, in accordance with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses only:
1° in danger of death;
2° apart from danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this state of affairs will continue for a month.
§2 In either case, if another priest or deacon is at hand who can be present, he must be called upon and, together with the witnesses, be present at the celebration of the marriage, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage in the presence of only the witnesses.

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:
    (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.
  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.
 
Dear brother Little Lost Boy,

Brother Vico gave a good answer, but I wish he would have focused more on the similarities rather than the exceptions.😉

The two views of marriage are not actually opposing.

It should be noted that according to the Latin Canon 1108, the presence of the priest is required for the very validity of the marriage. The priest does more than just sit around and witness a marriage. He actually pronounces the blessing of the Church in these words:

By the authority of the Church I ratify and bless the bond of marriage you have contracted. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.

Easterns and Orientals would say that it is this blessing that secures the Sacrament. Latins would say it is the mutual consent that secures the Sacrament.

However, in both cases, has not the blessing by the Church been given? And in both cases, is not mutual consent also necessary (to be honest, I know that the mutual consent is necessary in the Oriental Tradition, but I am not sure if it is the same in the Eastern Tradition - can someone answer this)?

So, really, what is it that is “opposing?”

Of course, this is all notwithstanding the exceptional circumstances mentioned by brother Vico.

I can imagine that an EO might object to the exceptional circumstances themselves. But are such exceptional circumstances sufficient to enjoin disunity? Let me give you a comparison:

The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Coptic Churches have a pastoral agreement to permit marriage between members of their Churches. HOWEVER, this agreement is dependant on the maintenance of each Church’s particular canon laws. The fact is, the Eastern Orthodox have more liberal standards for divorce and remarriage than the Oriental Orthodox. So, for instance, the Coptic Orthodox are not required to honor the marriage of an OO Copt with an EO Copt, if the EO Copt was divorced for a reason that is not accepted by OO Coptic Canon law. But this would be a very rare occurrence. So here is an exceptional circumstance that exists between the OO and EO Copts. But did that stop them from entering into a mutual pastoral agreement on Marriage? NO.

So there is no reason to believe that these exceptional circumstances in Catholic Marriage law would be an impediment to unity between the CC and EOC.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
Little_Boy_Lost said:
So how does the church reconcile the two opposing view of Marriage within the Church itself?

The Byzantine tradition says a marriage must have a priest or bishop officiate and bless the marriage, whereas the latin tradition views the attendance of clergy at the marriage as witnessing rather than solidification of the sacrament. Or am I missing how one or both sides understands marriage. The ecumenical documents between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church also are very vague in their culmination of study and offer no solution other than continued discussion. How does this operate within in the church?
Click to expand...
 
The Byzantine consent is given before the crowning, not during the service. It’s the priest’s job to ensure it has been given.
 
Actually, Canon 1108 does not specifically require a priest. It can be a deacon.
 
Aramis said:
The Byzantine consent is given before the crowning, not during the service. It’s the priest’s job to ensure it has been given.
Click to expand...
The giving of consent is another Latinization added to our tradition. :mad:
 
RyanBlack said:
Actually, Canon 1108 does not specifically require a priest. It can be a deacon.
Click to expand...
CIC Can. 1108 corresponds to CCEO Can. 828.

(Latin Church) CIC Can. 1108
Can. 1108 §1 Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112 §1, 1116 and 1127 §§2 - 3.
§2 Only that person who, being present, asks the contracting parties to manifest their consent and in the name of the Church receives it, is understood to assist at a marriage.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3Z.HTM

(Eastern Churches) CCEO Can. 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.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PN0.HTM
 
Thanks ya’ll. I think I am sufficiently educated. Cheers! 😃
 
Dear brother Ciero,
ciero said:
The giving of consent is another Latinization added to our tradition. :mad:
Click to expand...
I am, admittedly surprised. IIRC, the Russian Orthodox Church requires mutual consent, so perhaps it is different between different jurisdictions (I hope brother Michael [Hesychios] chimes in)? I believe you are a Melkite. Maybe your own particular Melkite Tradition does not require it, but would it be correct to claim that ALL Byzantine Traditions do not require it, and accuse, say, the Ruthenians of a being infected with a Latinization?

For the benefit of Oriental Catholics, I can assure you that our Oriental Orthodox Mother Churches regards mutual consent as a requirement for a valid Marriage. So don’t let anyone tell you that it is a “Latinization” in our Oriental Catholic Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
ciero said:
The giving of consent is another Latinization added to our tradition. :mad:
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. It’s a legalism in the US. The OCA request consent, as well, again, before the services.

In Alaska, state law requires public consent. The Churches both require that civil marriage coexist with the church marriage, as a matter of proper form and protection of the sacrament.

In For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (FTLOTW), Rev. Fr. Schmemman notes that traditionally, consent was obtained separately; the pastor and/or the deacon(s) met with the members of the couple in their homes on the wedding morning, and verified their consent, and then the various rituals proceed, including the deacons and/or pastor escorting the couple to the narthex.

True, this is the slavic mode, but it’s still a requirement of consent that isn’t latin.

Theologically, no sacrament can be given without consent of the recipient. Baptism, Chrismation and first Eucharist are only a partial exception, and only to those who are too young to give consent; the consent in such cases flows from the parents. This is both Catholic and Orthodox understanding (see FTLOTW, again)

It can be argued that a childhood baptism & chrismation, consented to by the parents, might be invalid if the child never accepts the faith; I’ve heard of OCA doing rebaptisms of protestants and catholics who never accepted the christian faith until finding Orthodoxy, and of cases where Catholics were accepted into the Orthodox church without rechrismation, merely a profession of the faith. The economic principle is strong in the OCA, at least in Alaska.

But marriage as a sacrament requires consent to the sacrament.

One could argue that standing before the priest with the bretrothed counts as a visible sign of consent; generally, that would be true… but the civil law, which most Catholic and OCA marriages double as, requires public consent at the service.
 
Dear brother Aramis,

Thanks for the info. So it seems consent is a normal part of the Tradition of Slavic Byzantine Churches.

The other reason I expressed surprise is because there are a few ancient canons that censure forced marriages. I would assume such canons are relevant for all apostolic Churches. Though I can see that someone may argue that censuring forced marriages only implies consent, and does not necessitate it.

Blessings,
Marduk
Aramis said:
No, it isn’t. It’s a legalism in the US. The OCA request consent, as well, again, before the services.

In Alaska, state law requires public consent. The Churches both require that civil marriage coexist with the church marriage, as a matter of proper form and protection of the sacrament.

In For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (FTLOTW), Rev. Fr. Schmemman notes that traditionally, consent was obtained separately; the pastor and/or the deacon(s) met with the members of the couple in their homes on the wedding morning, and verified their consent, and then the various rituals proceed, including the deacons and/or pastor escorting the couple to the narthex.

True, this is the slavic mode, but it’s still a requirement of consent that isn’t latin.

Theologically, no sacrament can be given without consent of the recipient. Baptism, Chrismation and first Eucharist are only a partial exception, and only to those who are too young to give consent; the consent in such cases flows from the parents. This is both Catholic and Orthodox understanding (see FTLOTW, again)

It can be argued that a childhood baptism & chrismation, consented to by the parents, might be invalid if the child never accepts the faith; I’ve heard of OCA doing rebaptisms of protestants and catholics who never accepted the christian faith until finding Orthodoxy, and of cases where Catholics were accepted into the Orthodox church without rechrismation, merely a profession of the faith. The economic principle is strong in the OCA, at least in Alaska.

But marriage as a sacrament requires consent to the sacrament.

One could argue that standing before the priest with the bretrothed counts as a visible sign of consent; generally, that would be true… but the civil law, which most Catholic and OCA marriages double as, requires public consent at the service.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top