F
- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
Priest or deacon for the latin church; priest, (or deacon, in extremis) in the eastern churches.
T
twf
Guest
Aramis:
The Eastern and Oriental CATHOLIC codes allow for a deacon or even a lay person to witness a marriage in extreme cases. What of the Oriental and Eastern ORTHODOX churches? If so, doesn’t that imply that they too do not see the priest as an absolutely essential minister of the sacrament?
The Eastern and Oriental CATHOLIC codes allow for a deacon or even a lay person to witness a marriage in extreme cases. What of the Oriental and Eastern ORTHODOX churches? If so, doesn’t that imply that they too do not see the priest as an absolutely essential minister of the sacrament?
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Malphono, may I ask to which Syriac tradition you are referring to and to which Church you belong? I’d like to share my two cents from a Syro-Malabar Catholic perspective after knowing from where your interpretation is derived.
A
Aramis
Guest
Better check the CCEO…
Canon 828
- 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.
- That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.
- From the day of taking canonical possession of office and as long as they legitimately hold office, everywhere within the boundaries of their territory, local hierarchs and pastors validly bless the marriage of parties whether they are subjects or non-subjects, provided that at least one of the parties is enrolled in his Church sui iuris.
- The hierarch and the personal pastor, by virtue of their office, only validly bless marriages within the boundaries of their jurisdiction when at least one of the parties is a subject.
- By the law itself, the patriarch is endowed with the faculty to personally bless marriages anywhere in the world, as long as at least one of the parties is enrolled in the Church over which he presides, observing the other requirements of law.
- As long as they legitimately hold office, the local hierarch and the pastor can give the faculty to bless a determined marriage within their own territorial boundaries to priests of any Church sui iuris, even the Latin Church.
- However, only the local hierarch can give a general faculty for blessing marriages with due regard for can. 302, 2. 3. In order that the conferral of the faculty for blessing a marriage be valid, it must be expressly given to specified priests; further, if the faculty is general, it must be given in writing.
- The local hierarch or pastor licitly blesses a marriage: (1) after he has established the domicile, quasi-domicile, or month-long residence, or, if it is a case of a transient, actual residence of either party in the place of the marriage; (2) if, when these conditions are lacking, he has the permission of the hierarch or pastor of the domicile or quasi-domicile of either of the parties, unless a just cause excuses; (3) also, a place exclusively of another Church sui iuris, unless the hierarch who exercises power in that place expressly refuses.
- The marriage is to be celebrated before the pastor of the groom, unless either particular law determines otherwise or a just cause excuses.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The Orthodox hold much the same view, from what I’ve read; only a priest confers the sacramental part of marriage, but intent to receive that sacrament and permission to marry prior to that blessing’s reception can be (in extremis only) granted.
Only the Roman Church allows deacons to confer sacraments other than baptism and Holy Communion; Roman Deacons may do a some things routinely that other deacons may not… marriages, rites of christian burial, blessings…
and due to roman separation of baptism and chrismation, to be ordinary ministers of baptism.
In extremis, a marriage may be celebrated in anticipation of the blessing of sacramental marriage to come as soon as a priest is available, without committing the sin of fornication.
Roman Canon Law is different. As is Roman understanding.
T
TheWhim
Guest
Thanks for your lenghty quotation of the Eastern Canon Law, Aramis.
It is, however, not true that Roman deacons confer sacraments other than baptism and Holy Communion.
First of all, Holy Communion is not conferred; only the priest is capable to consecrate the host, because only he, because of the orders he has received, acts in the person of Christ, in persona Christi - no deacon will ever be permitted to utter these words: This is my body… this is my blood. -
What is quite true is that deacons administer the consecrated hosts to the congregation - and so do also altar servers(lay persons) of a higher rank. There is nothing unusual about this once we consider the genral practice in modern Catholicism for each believer to take the consecrated host into his own hands(though much may be said against this practice and I’m certainly not going to defend it).
Baptism, indeed, can principally be administered by anyone according to Roman law(proper intent premised) but is usually administered by the priest. Only if a priest is lacking may a deacon be expected to perform the rite. This is never an ordinary, but rather always an extraordinary case.
Finally, the Christian burial and the blessings are not considered sacraments but sacramentals, and though this distinction if not so clear in Eastern theology, it is neatly drawn by some eminent Eastern theologians.
And, as again has to be said, a Christian burial belongs first of all to the domain of a priest and any other minister other than a priest may not be considered the regular, the ordinary minister of the burial.
In returning to the marriage-topic, it strikes me as wonderful that the East cannot stand that far apart from the Roman conception of the marriage couple being the ministers of the sacrament because, according to Eastern Canon Law, if a couple marries in case of danger though no priest has been present, and if this couple dies shortly afterwards without having been able to reveive the subsequent blessing of a priest, the Eastern Church nevertheless proclaims that this couple nevertheless has been validly married before God and man during the last time of their earthly abode.
If once we keep this clearly in mind, the difference between the Eastern and the Roman conception becomes blurred and indeed seems to vanish into non-existence; what remains are just different ways of approaching the same held truth.
It is, however, not true that Roman deacons confer sacraments other than baptism and Holy Communion.
First of all, Holy Communion is not conferred; only the priest is capable to consecrate the host, because only he, because of the orders he has received, acts in the person of Christ, in persona Christi - no deacon will ever be permitted to utter these words: This is my body… this is my blood. -
What is quite true is that deacons administer the consecrated hosts to the congregation - and so do also altar servers(lay persons) of a higher rank. There is nothing unusual about this once we consider the genral practice in modern Catholicism for each believer to take the consecrated host into his own hands(though much may be said against this practice and I’m certainly not going to defend it).
Baptism, indeed, can principally be administered by anyone according to Roman law(proper intent premised) but is usually administered by the priest. Only if a priest is lacking may a deacon be expected to perform the rite. This is never an ordinary, but rather always an extraordinary case.
Finally, the Christian burial and the blessings are not considered sacraments but sacramentals, and though this distinction if not so clear in Eastern theology, it is neatly drawn by some eminent Eastern theologians.
And, as again has to be said, a Christian burial belongs first of all to the domain of a priest and any other minister other than a priest may not be considered the regular, the ordinary minister of the burial.
In returning to the marriage-topic, it strikes me as wonderful that the East cannot stand that far apart from the Roman conception of the marriage couple being the ministers of the sacrament because, according to Eastern Canon Law, if a couple marries in case of danger though no priest has been present, and if this couple dies shortly afterwards without having been able to reveive the subsequent blessing of a priest, the Eastern Church nevertheless proclaims that this couple nevertheless has been validly married before God and man during the last time of their earthly abode.
If once we keep this clearly in mind, the difference between the Eastern and the Roman conception becomes blurred and indeed seems to vanish into non-existence; what remains are just different ways of approaching the same held truth.
M
malphono
Guest
I had dinner this evening with a very dear old friend who just happens to be a very well respected canon lawyer (JOCD). His take on the CCOE is that it is “a work in progress.” Trust me when I say he should know. (I cannot and will not go further with his credentials, so don’t even ask.)
So many folks do not realize that the first CCOE was supposed to have been promulgated in 1939 (and presumably if it had been, it would have been (and remained) the one and only CCOE). Most unfortunately, (at least for us Orientals and Easterners), PP Pius XI (of blessed memory), expired just before the project was was completed, and his successor could have cared less about it, so it was shelved and not dealt with again in seriously until the 1980s.
From what I personally know, while the current code is based in large part on the original from 1939, but the original draft was superior, and more sensitive to authentic Oriental and Eastern theology. In any case, the current CCOE is, based on that very professional opinion, ambiguous and in some cases less than complete.
In particular to this thread is the over-cited canon 832: the intent of this is clearly only to apply i"in entremis", in other words, in case if dire necessity only), and even that is contra-theological in Oriental terms, which are very clear that a priest ***must *** confer the sacrament of marriage. At the end of the day, what we have in CCOE canon 832 is a pure, unadulterated (pardon the pun) Latinization.
So many folks do not realize that the first CCOE was supposed to have been promulgated in 1939 (and presumably if it had been, it would have been (and remained) the one and only CCOE). Most unfortunately, (at least for us Orientals and Easterners), PP Pius XI (of blessed memory), expired just before the project was was completed, and his successor could have cared less about it, so it was shelved and not dealt with again in seriously until the 1980s.
From what I personally know, while the current code is based in large part on the original from 1939, but the original draft was superior, and more sensitive to authentic Oriental and Eastern theology. In any case, the current CCOE is, based on that very professional opinion, ambiguous and in some cases less than complete.
In particular to this thread is the over-cited canon 832: the intent of this is clearly only to apply i"in entremis", in other words, in case if dire necessity only), and even that is contra-theological in Oriental terms, which are very clear that a priest ***must *** confer the sacrament of marriage. At the end of the day, what we have in CCOE canon 832 is a pure, unadulterated (pardon the pun) Latinization.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
May I repeat my question again? Malphono, to which Syriac tradition do you belong? From which Syriac perspective do you speak?
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Malphono, if this post was supposed to be your answer to my question, it does not answer it. To which Syriac tradition do you belong and about which tradition do you speak? Surely it need not be a top secret!
M
malphono
Guest
No, it was not. It was a general post in regard to this thread. Frankly I had not had the moment to answer your specific inquiry, the answer to which is, no, it’s not exactly “top secret” as you put it. I hail from the WEST Syriac tradition, which should be abundantly clear in the bulk of my posts in this particular forum (not necessarily in this thread). So now we should be on an even keel, so-to-speak.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Malphono, as you know there are several Churches that belong to the WEST Syriac tradition. Could you be a little more specific, since I have not been following all your posts? Are you from the Middle East or Kerala? All of this as you know plays an important role in determining your perspective. Hence my need to clarify. I hope your ethnicity is not a top secret as the name of your church. Are you a priest? Have you had seminary training?No, it was not. It was a general post in regard to this thread. Frankly I had not had the moment to answer your specific inquiry, the answer to which is, no, it’s not exactly “top secret” as you put it. I hail from the WEST Syriac tradition, which should be abundantly clear in the bulk of my posts in this particular forum (not necessarily in this thread). So now we should be on an even keel, so-to-speak.
I like to know who my enemies are!
M
malphono
Guest
No, I’m not Syro-Malankara, but rather Middle Eastern. If I have to be more specific (although I do not understand what other options there could possibly be), it’s Syriac and Maronite which are, theologically at least the same (and liturgically nearly so). In any case, I really don’t see that any of it plays a particularly major role in the matter at hand.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Malphono, surely you can see that it does make a difference to know your ethnicity and church. If you recall, you made a blanket statement about Syriac beliefs.
Each Church is separate for a reason. The Middle Eastern culture and the Kerala culture are not the same. The non-Catholic Jacobite Church in Kerala is proud to be a part of the West Syriac tradition of the Middle East and under the Antiochian Patriarch. Jacobites I understand have a unique aspect to their history which is shared by the Syro-Malankara West Syriac rite.
So if you do not belong to the Syro-Malankara church, then you could even belong to any number of non-Catholic churches. So which one is it?
I can explain why it plays a particular role in the matter at hand. It can be informative to know where the differences stem from. Your posts seem to suggest you are Catholic, hence I’m confused and dreadfully curious. Curiosity is hopefully not a mortal sin according to the Canon Law of your church.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Malphono, sorry! I posted without having read that you are a Middle Eastern Maronite.
My two cents from a Syro-Malabar perspective in my next post.
My two cents from a Syro-Malabar perspective in my next post.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
I will speak only from a Syro-Malabar Catholic perspective as practiced in Thrissur District. It is not for me to speak on behalf of other traditions in Kerala I know nothing about.
In Kerala, the Syro-Malabar Catholics have tended to follow the social customs of the Hindu community from which they converted. The “Tali” tying ceremony is the most important part of the marriage. The “tali” tying part is taken directly from Hinduism. It is done in a Church and is officiated by the priest. Not belonging to the Hindu custom is the reading of banns. Three banns are read after Qurbana, at intervals, to announce the intention of the couple to wed so that anyone with objections to the marriage may be able to stop it.
The understanding of the marriage, as in Hinduism, is that the couple wed in the presence of God, and it is officiated by the priest and witnessed by the community. The Hindu priest invokes their gods during the pooja, especially the god of fire, to protect the marriage. Similarly the SMC priest officiates the bond the couple makes not only to each other but also with God. So God is supposed to be a part of that bond, binding the couple in Holy Matrimony (a Sacrament).
The wedding ceremony usually takes place in the parish church of the bride, as the bride is “handed over” to her groom in her church.
The bridegroom tries a white string on which the "thali"hangs (Hindus use a much thicker string and coat the string with turmeric, hence it appears yellow) in a reef knot around the bride’s neck. That is to signify a bond that cannot be broken until death does them apart. A gold chain is hung on that white string and “thali” is later hung on it. The “thali” is in the shape of a gold leaf (which is the same as Hindus use) and it has a cross embossed on it (the cross marks it as Christian). The white thread is used because it is not possible to tie a gold chain into a reef knot. The white thread is usually removed and kept away safely, after the wedding festivities are over. The “thali chain” with the “thali” is worn for the rest of the woman’s life and it marks her as a married woman. (The men don’t wear any external symbol of marriage at all! Naughty! Naughty! Anyway in the days of arranged marriage witnessed by the whole community it was hardly possible for a man to pretend he was not married even if he didn’t wear any external symbol signifying it.)
Signing of the marriage register, immediately after Qurbana, along with the signature of two witnesses, is a comparatively new introduction. However the church did keep official records of marriages. (Hindus don’t sign any marriage register even now. They have no official records in their temples at all, and the priest is required only to officiate weddings, which are conducted in homes or public halls, whereever the marriage celebration takes place. Priests are absent to mark births and deaths.) Exchanging wedding rings likewise did not exist in the Christian community until my mother’s generation. My parents did not exchange rings in church. It was blessed by the priest, but not as part of the wedding ceremony and given to them after the wedding ceremony. However in my generation, exchanging wedding rings (which we consider a Western custom) has become the norm, in addition to the tying of the thali.
I don’t see where the Latinization of which Malphono speaks about forms a part of this wedding ceremony among Syro-Malabar Catholics.
In Kerala, the Syro-Malabar Catholics have tended to follow the social customs of the Hindu community from which they converted. The “Tali” tying ceremony is the most important part of the marriage. The “tali” tying part is taken directly from Hinduism. It is done in a Church and is officiated by the priest. Not belonging to the Hindu custom is the reading of banns. Three banns are read after Qurbana, at intervals, to announce the intention of the couple to wed so that anyone with objections to the marriage may be able to stop it.
The understanding of the marriage, as in Hinduism, is that the couple wed in the presence of God, and it is officiated by the priest and witnessed by the community. The Hindu priest invokes their gods during the pooja, especially the god of fire, to protect the marriage. Similarly the SMC priest officiates the bond the couple makes not only to each other but also with God. So God is supposed to be a part of that bond, binding the couple in Holy Matrimony (a Sacrament).
The wedding ceremony usually takes place in the parish church of the bride, as the bride is “handed over” to her groom in her church.
The bridegroom tries a white string on which the "thali"hangs (Hindus use a much thicker string and coat the string with turmeric, hence it appears yellow) in a reef knot around the bride’s neck. That is to signify a bond that cannot be broken until death does them apart. A gold chain is hung on that white string and “thali” is later hung on it. The “thali” is in the shape of a gold leaf (which is the same as Hindus use) and it has a cross embossed on it (the cross marks it as Christian). The white thread is used because it is not possible to tie a gold chain into a reef knot. The white thread is usually removed and kept away safely, after the wedding festivities are over. The “thali chain” with the “thali” is worn for the rest of the woman’s life and it marks her as a married woman. (The men don’t wear any external symbol of marriage at all! Naughty! Naughty! Anyway in the days of arranged marriage witnessed by the whole community it was hardly possible for a man to pretend he was not married even if he didn’t wear any external symbol signifying it.)
Signing of the marriage register, immediately after Qurbana, along with the signature of two witnesses, is a comparatively new introduction. However the church did keep official records of marriages. (Hindus don’t sign any marriage register even now. They have no official records in their temples at all, and the priest is required only to officiate weddings, which are conducted in homes or public halls, whereever the marriage celebration takes place. Priests are absent to mark births and deaths.) Exchanging wedding rings likewise did not exist in the Christian community until my mother’s generation. My parents did not exchange rings in church. It was blessed by the priest, but not as part of the wedding ceremony and given to them after the wedding ceremony. However in my generation, exchanging wedding rings (which we consider a Western custom) has become the norm, in addition to the tying of the thali.
I don’t see where the Latinization of which Malphono speaks about forms a part of this wedding ceremony among Syro-Malabar Catholics.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Malphono, I recall you mentioning living in Delhi and about a friend of yours who learned Malayalam in order to attend religious services with Keralites. However you did not mention which church it was. I wonder now what a Syriac Maronite from the Middle East like you might be learning in Delhi.
P
Phemie
Guest
The Latin Rite CCL contains the same canon:
Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.
In my diocese there are many parishes where that ‘situation’ is routine. In fact, in some of the parishes the Bishop has already availed himself of lay people to perform marriages per
Can. 1112 §1. Where there is a lack of priests and deacons, the diocesan bishop can delegate lay persons to assist at marriages, with the previous favorable vote of the conference of bishops and after he has obtained the permission of the Holy See.
§2. A suitable lay person is to be selected, who is capable of giving instruction to those preparing to be married and able to perform the matrimonial liturgy properly.
Unfortunately, some parishes have nobody qualified to be appointed per canon 1116 and no priest is available for weeks and sometimes months at a time. Some see a priest at Christmas and Easter only.
M
malphono
Guest
No, you misunderstood about Delhi. I’ve never been there. Several years ago, there was a young woman from Delhi (Hindustani of Latin Rite) who worked at our office in the US. It was she who was in convent school with several girls originally from Kerala and would occasionally go to the Syro-Malabar church in Delhi with them.
M
malphono
Guest
It seems that you misunderstood the point of what I said.
There was no reference to the proper liturgical rites of any of the Oriental Churches, nor to any socio-ethnic customs that have developed and are part of the local observance.
I’m sorry if you were confused, but I don’t know how much clearer that entire post could have been.
My post was limited to the CCOE. The entire point was that a particular canon from the CCOE which had been cited earlier is a Latinization.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, I know, and I well understand that extreme situations can and do exist. But those situations are really the exception rather than rule.
In any case, I don’t have a huge quarrel with those provisions in the CIC, since in the Latin tradition the couple actually does confer the sacrament.
My problem (and that of my canon lawyer friend who is actually quite an expert in the matter) is the way those provisions appear in the CCOE.
- Status