Marriage - Latin vs Eastern

[twf]

It is often said that the Latin and Eastern Churches have a very different understanding of the sacrament of marriage. In the Latin Church the couple is understood to confer the sacrament upon each other; in the Eastern Churches the priest is understood to confer the sacrament upon the couple. Yesterday I posted the following question on the Liturgy and the Sacraments board:

I understand why a “marriage” attempted outside of the Church by a Catholic couple would be illicit, but I don’t understand why it would be invalid. In Latin theology (in contrast with Eastern theology), it is not the priest who confers the sacrament of marriage upon the couple, but the couple who confers the sacrament upon each other. Why then, if two baptized Catholics give their mutual consent, would a marriage outside of the Church be invalid and not just illicit? I study medieval history at university and according to my professors the medieval Church did consider such marriages valid but llicit. What’s changed?

I received the following answers:

1. Matter - a male and a female - check
2. Intent of a valid minister - yes, the couple intends to marry - check

3, Form - they must do it in a manner approved by the Church

#3 is the element that is missing. Just as one cannot validly baptize by pouring water in the name of Larry, Moe and Curly, (error of Form), Marriage must be contracted according to the norms set out by the Church.

The rule was changed at the Council of Trent, in 1563. See here and look for Chapter I on the Decree on the Reformation of Marriage. Prior to this, secret marriage was considered illicit but still valid. The reason for the change is that the prior “illicit but valid” rule had proved to be ineffective at stopping the practice

.

Obviously even in the Latin understanding the mutual consent of the couple is not sufficient. The Latin Church does not explicitly require a priest to be present in ever single case, but at the least the implicit blessing of the Church is necessary for the sacrament to occur. Taking that into consideration, are the two understandings, Latin and Greek, really that different?

 

[malphono]

It is often said that the Latin and Eastern Churches have a very different understanding of the sacrament of marriage. In the Latin Church the couple is understood to confer the sacrament upon each other; in the Eastern Churches the priest is understood to confer the sacrament upon the couple. Yesterday I posted the following question on the Liturgy and the Sacraments board:

I received the following answers:

.

Obviously even in the Latin understanding the mutual consent of the couple is not sufficient. The Latin Church does not explicitly require a priest to be present in ever single case, but at the least the implicit blessing of the Church is necessary for the sacrament to occur. Taking that into consideration, are the two understandings, Latin and Greek, really that different?

Normally I would not interject in a discussion of matrimony, but in this case I will offer a comment. (And I’m sure to be criticized for it, but be that as it may.)

As far as I was taught, the Latin understanding is that the couple binds itself in marriage with the Church as witness. It’s not exactly that the couple simply “consents” (yes, of course they have to) but that they intend that the Sacrament be conferred. Essentially, the couple confers the sacrament on themselves with the blessing of the Church.

I cannot say anything about Byzantine understanding, but in the Syriac churches, at least, the couple must also consent and intend to be wed. However, it is the Church who binds. In other words, She (the Church) confers the Sacrament on the couple. That, of course, helps to explain the crowing and “binding” that are part of the ritual. (Indeed, in the Syriac tradition, matrimony is called the “Order (or Rite) of Crowning.”)

Sorry if this isn’t what you were looking for, but it’s my humble contribution nonetheless.

 

[Aramis]

I cannot say anything about Byzantine understanding, but in the Syriac churches, at least, the couple must also consent and intend to be wed. However, it is the Church who binds. In other words, She (the Church) confers the Sacrament on the couple. That, of course, helps to explain the crowing and “binding” that are part of the ritual. (Indeed, in the Syriac tradition, matrimony is called the “Order (or Rite) of Crowning.”)

Same for byzantines as syriacs.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother malphono

However, it is the Church who binds. In other words, She (the Church) confers the Sacrament on the couple.

From what I understand, that is also the case in the Latin Church -as the couple (or at least one of them) is a member of the Church and are considered ministers of the Church in this instance, and the Sacrament is inherently a public ceremony of the Church. The mediate source of the Grace of any Sacrament is in fact the bishop.

Perhaps you meant that it is the priest who confers the Grace of the Sacrament in the Eastern and Oriental Churches as distinct from the couple who confers the Grace of the Sacrament in the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

From post #1:

Just as one cannot validly baptize by pouring water in the name of Larry, Moe and Curly, (error of Form), Marriage must be contracted according to the norms set out by the Church.

I have always held the belief that whatever “the norms set out by the Church” for marriage are these same “the norms set out by the Church” should likewise be for baptism. In other words, if a Church excepts marriage outside of the Church as valid, it should likewise except baptism outside of the Church as valid. If a Church does not except marriage outside of the Church as valid, it should likewise not except baptism outside of the Church as valid either. :hug1:

 

[Aramis]

From post #1:

I have always held the belief that whatever “the norms set out by the Church” for marriage are these same “the norms set out by the Church” should likewise be for baptism. In other words, if a Church excepts marriage outside of the Church as valid, it should likewise except baptism outside of the Church as valid. If a Church does not except marriage outside of the Church as valid, it should likewise not except baptism outside of the Church as valid either. :hug1:

Baptism was established in one of the early ecumenical councils. It became part of the deposit of faith.

Marriage was not so constrained.

 

[DL82]

What are the words in the Eastern Rite that complete the sacrament? For that matter, what are the words in the Latin Rite? I know the English translations of some of the liturgical texts sometimes lose the subtleties.

Does the priest say “I pronounce you man and wife”, or some other formula. Does he say “I pronounce you… in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” as happens in Confession where he is speaking in persona Christi, or is he effectively saying “I witness that you are already man and wife”?

I’m interested in the earlier post about secret marriage being valid before the Council of Trent. Was sex itself considered to join two people in a lifelong bond? Or could two people just say the vows to eachother in their own home and that would count?

 

[malphono]

What are the words in the Eastern Rite that complete the sacrament? For that matter, what are the words in the Latin Rite? I know the English translations of some of the liturgical texts sometimes lose the subtleties.

Does the priest say “I pronounce you man and wife”, or some other formula. Does he say “I pronounce you… in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” as happens in Confession where he is speaking in persona Christi, or is he effectively saying “I witness that you are already man and wife”? …

In the Syriac Churches, the text of what I’m going to call the “prayer over the joined hands” is rather long and varies somewhat among the different traditions (Syriac, Maronite, etc) and so I’m not going to offer any translations here (I don’t have the English versions handy, nor do I have a Rituale Romanum handy). For the present purpose, suffice it to say that the original text does not contain anything quite like “I pronounce you …” OTOH, in the US those words seem to be inserted in the middle of the prayer (probably to fulfill legal requirements). And as I said earlier, in the Syriac Churches, the Church is not a witness to a marriage nor does She simply bless the union: the priest, in the name of the Church, binds. In other words, the Church confers the actual Sacrament through Her ordinary minister (i.e, the priest or bishop, as the case may be).

BTW, the formula of absolution in the Syriac Churches is always in the passive voice.

 

[DL82]

BTW, the formula of absolution in the Syriac Churches is always in the passive voice.

As in “your sins are absolved” rather than “I absolve you”?

 

[malphono]

As in “your sins are absolved” rather than “I absolve you”?

Essentially yes, but I realize now that I had a word missing in the original post. (Not always easy to proof-read one’s own composition )

Anyway, it should have read:

“BTW, the formula of absolution in the Syriac Churches is traditionally always in the passive voice.”

In any case, the only real difference in the two is simply the effect of Latinization, which is often still seen.

 

[prodromos]

BTW, the formula of absolution in the Syriac Churches is always in the passive voice.

It is the same for baptism is it not?

John

 

[malphono]

It is the same for baptism is it not?

John

Yes.

 

[Rush_Catholic]

It is often said that the Latin and Eastern Churches have a very different understanding of the sacrament of marriage. In the Latin Church the couple is understood to confer the sacrament upon each other; in the Eastern Churches the priest is understood to confer the sacrament upon the couple. Yesterday I posted the following question on the Liturgy and the Sacraments board:

I received the following answers:

.

Obviously even in the Latin understanding the mutual consent of the couple is not sufficient. The Latin Church does not explicitly require a priest to be present in ever single case, but at the least the implicit blessing of the Church is necessary for the sacrament to occur. Taking that into consideration, are the two understandings, Latin and Greek, really that different?

The Eastern Catholic priests puts a crown on the couple confirming the mystery while the Latin Church has the couple say the usual “I do”!

 

[Just_Lurking]

Was sex itself considered to join two people in a lifelong bond?

No.

Or could two people just say the vows to each other in their own home and that would count?

Yes. That such vows would suffice is the default state of affairs. The only reason this is not true today is because of an explicit rule to the contrary enacted by church law.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Note that Eastern Catholic canon law contains a provision for the “extraordinary form” for marriage in which a priest is not necessary (see here):

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.

 

[malphono]

Note that Eastern Catholic canon law contains a provision for the “extraordinary form” for marriage in which a priest is not necessary (see here):

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.

Marriage in danger of immanent death? Oh, please. Such a “marriage” would likely never be legally consummated anyway.

No priest (even an Orthodox priest) available for a month? Maybe in Antarctica.

Let’s be real: the conditions expressed in (1) and (2) of that canon are so remote as to be nearly non-existent.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Marriage in danger of immanent death? Oh, please. Such a “marriage” would likely never be legally consummated anyway.

Consummation is not required for the validity of a marriage under both Latin and Eastern codes.

 

[malphono]

Consummation is not required for the validity of a marriage under both Latin and Eastern codes.

Yes, but I suppose if one were to seek an “annulment” the opinion would be different. But that’s not the point. It was reductio ad absurdum.

In any case, I repeat: the conditions expressed in (1) and (2) of that canon are so remote as to be nearly non-existent.

 

[Aramis]

No priest (even an Orthodox priest) available for a month? Maybe in Antarctica.

Let’s be real: the conditions expressed in (1) and (2) of that canon are so remote as to be nearly non-existent.

They happen routinely in Alaskan villages when weather causes the circuit priest to miss twice in a row.

heck, many villages get a priest only once a month.

 

[TheWhim]

In answer to the question of the Original Poster I’d reply that it’s true enough that the West and the East aren’t that greatly apart regarding this point. This is best shown by the quotes from Eastern Church law concerning the absence of a priest that does not exclude that a licit marriage-ceremony can take place(proper exeptional circumstances given). However, modern Orthodoxy is in general quite keen on taking a theological stance of its own and will rather cling to the idea that the priest in the marriage-ceremony is all-essential.

As to the Latin point, I think I’m not mistaken that Rome teaches that if two Catholics intend to marry, contracting a Christian marriage, that is, a supernatural marriage, a sacrament - that they then will search for a priest to witness their marriage. It’s quite true that it would be valid without the priest’s witnessing(or blessing) but if the couple does not at least implicitly think of searching for a priest as witness, and strives to commit this illicit act, how can the Church any longer presume that this couple shares the teaching of the Church they disdain, and also the teaching regarding marriage? Their intent becomes quite doubtful in the eyes of the Church. And for this reason it cannot be longer presumed that their intent is proper.

“There is no marriage if the parties do not at least implicitly ask a priest to witness their marriage.” - because if, even when it cannot be helped that the priest be absent, they do not even wish that he might be present to witness that the couple is able to perform the Christian marriage(no impediments like close blood relationship or confusion about the teaching of the Church on the Chirstian marriage - lifelong fidelity and so on…) - that must forcibly appear very suspect to the Church, the sacrament becomes doubtful and can no longer held to be valid. Nay, it must even be invalid because a child of the Church with proper intention would never so grossly reject the legislation of his very Mother.

I think this is the Catholic view. (Anybody better informed may correct me).

You see, then, that the East and West are rather close if we leave behind different ways of approaching the problem. One is often accused of “lack of differentiation” when one shows no inclination to enter into this bickery about mere words. But that’s just the way it seems to me, anyway.