Marriage - Latin vs Eastern theology

[twf]

We all know that the Latin Church teaches that the minister of the sacrament is the couple themselves - by virtue of their baptismal priesthood, the man and woman confer the sacrament upon each other through their firm intention and vows. In the Eastern Churches, it is understood that the priest, acting as a minister of the Church, confers the sacrament upon the couple. That being said, is the reality that cut and dry? It occurs to me that in the Latin Church the conditions for validity are more nuanced than they are for other sacraments. Take baptism - the Latin Church teaches that baptism is always valid if the basic elements of water, the Trinitarian formula, and proper intent are present - it may be illicit in many cases, but it the sacrament still occurs. With the eucharist, as long as an ordained priest says the words of consecration over bread and wine, with the intent of offering the holy sacrifice, the blessed sacrament is validly confected - even if in a highly illicit manner (half the rubrics of the mass ignored for example). With the sacrament of penance, absolution takes place as long as the priest says the phase “I absolve you” regardless of whether the rest of the formula is used. In the case of marriage, however, while the Latin Church maintains that the couple confer the sacrament, not the priest, the marriage is considered nvalid, that is, the sacrament did not take place, if a Catholic couple attempst a marriage without a priest. If the couple confer the sacrament upon each other and the priest simly witnesses and blesses the marriage on behalf of the Church, why is a marriage attempted outside of the Church invalid and not simply illicit? It seems to me that in both the East and West, despite different theological formulations, the Church, and not only the couple, is necessary for this sacrament to be confered. Take the Latin rite of convalidation - a previously invalid marriage (for example, one attempted with a civil ceremony) is suddenly transformed into a sacramental marriage by an act of the priest who confers validity upon the marriage. Is the understanding of East and West really that different when it comes down to it?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We all know that the Latin Church teaches that the minister of the sacrament is the couple themselves - by virtue of their baptismal priesthood, the man and woman confer the sacrament upon each other through their firm intention and vows. In the Eastern Churches, it is understood that the priest, acting as a minister of the Church, confers the sacrament upon the couple. That being said, is the reality that cut and dry? It occurs to me that in the Latin Church the conditions for validity are more nuanced than they are for other sacraments. Take baptism - the Latin Church teaches that baptism is always valid if the basic elements of water, the Trinitarian formula, and proper intent are present - it may be illicit in many cases, but it the sacrament still occurs. With the eucharist, as long as an ordained priest says the words of consecration over bread and wine, with the intent of offering the holy sacrifice, the blessed sacrament is validly confected - even if in a highly illicit manner (half the rubrics of the mass ignored for example). With the sacrament of penance, absolution takes place as long as the priest says the phase “I absolve you” regardless of whether the rest of the formula is used. In the case of marriage, however, while the Latin Church maintains that the couple confer the sacrament, not the priest, the marriage is considered nvalid, that is, the sacrament did not take place, if a Catholic couple attempst a marriage without a priest. If the couple confer the sacrament upon each other and the priest simly witnesses and blesses the marriage on behalf of the Church, why is a marriage attempted outside of the Church invalid and not simply illicit? It seems to me that in both the East and West, despite different theological formulations, the Church, and not only the couple, is necessary for this sacrament to be confered. Take the Latin rite of convalidation - a previously invalid marriage (for example, one attempted with a civil ceremony) is suddenly transformed into a sacramental marriage by an act of the priest who confers validity upon the marriage. Is the understanding of East and West really that different when it comes down to it?

I would say yes.

You are correct when you say “the Church, and not only the couple, is necessary for this sacrament to be confered” which is correct but there is a difference between the East and the West.

In the West any representative of the Church is valid. That is a bishop, priest, deacon, or some other person as designated by the bishop, may represent the Church and no blessing is necessary.

In the East only a bishop or priest may represent the Church and the blessing is required for validity. If for some reason no bishop or priest is present then the couple must seek out one as soon as they can and receive the blessing for the marriage to be valid.

 

[Vico]

… If the couple confer the sacrament upon each other and the priest simly witnesses and blesses the marriage on behalf of the Church, why is a marriage attempted outside of the Church invalid and not simply illicit? It seems to me that in both the East and West, despite different theological formulations, the Church, and not only the couple, is necessary for this sacrament to be confered. …

There is divine law and church law. To meet divine law the covenant must be correctly formed with no indispensible impediments present, then the couple forms the covenant with God and each other. The Church must approve this when a Catholic is involved. The Church *explicitly *gives approval for the couple to marry without canonical form (a.k.a extraordinary form) in some circumstances, in addition to granting dispensation from canonical form (which is also implicitly granted in a radical sanation). This is true in both the Latin (CIC) and eastern (CCEO) canon laws. See below:

CIC Canon 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.

CIC Can. 1119 Apart from a case of necessity, in the celebration of marriage those rites are to be observed which are prescribed in the liturgical books approved by the Church, or which are acknowledged by lawful customs.

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.

CCEO Canon 836
Outside the case of necessity, in the celebration of marriage the prescriptions of the liturgical books and the legitimate customs are to be observed in the celebration of marriage.