Marriage - Latin vs Eastern

[cajunrick]

I might add that the presence of a priest is not a requirement in the Latin Rite. The marriage must take place in the presence of a designated witness and that is usually a priest or deacon but it can be anyone designated by the bishop.

For example, if a convert to the Church wishes to be married in his/her childhood Protestant church of which a parent is the pastor, the bishop may permit it and allow a family member or friend to serve as the official witness. After the ceremony, the witness signs an affidavit stating that he/she saw the vows exchanged, and the marriage is recorded in the sacramental records of the parish church designated by the bishop. It may also be allowed for a minister of another faith or even a judge to preside over the exchange of vows during a Catholic ceremony under extreme circumstances (like if the father of the bride is a judge) with the bishop’s prior approval.

There is also a provision called “Radical Sanation” by which a presumably invalid marriage can be recognized by the Church from the initial exchange of vows. This most often happens when two never-married people (one Catholic) are married outside the Church, and the Catholic later wishes to return to the faith but the non-Catholic refuses to have the marriage convalidated.

Neither of these cases are normal and both are much more complicated than the simple explanations I have given, but both are possibilities for extreme circumstances.

 

[selylidne]

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:

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

It seems very strange that the Form for the two sacraments should be treated so differently. The Church most certainly cannot change the form of Baptism. Why can it change the Form of Marriage?

 

[Aramis]

It seems very strange that the Form for the two sacraments should be treated so differently. The Church most certainly cannot change the form of Baptism. Why can it change the Form of Marriage?

Because the form of marriage was created by man; the form of Baptism was ordered by Jesus himself.

 

[cajunrick]

It seems very strange that the Form for the two sacraments should be treated so differently. The Church most certainly cannot change the form of Baptism. Why can it change the Form of Marriage?

The Church has the God-given ability to set the form for the sacraments, and to change them as she sees fit. She can change the form if she desires. That’s why, with prior approval, the local ordinary has the power to approve deviations from form under certain circumstances.

 

[selylidne]

The Church has the God-given ability to set the form for the sacraments, and to change them as she sees fit. She can change the form if she desires. That’s why, with prior approval, the local ordinary has the power to approve deviations from form under certain circumstances.

So, you’re saying the Church could change the form of Baptism? If so, it would be a very charitable thing for the Church to declare that saying anything at all while touching water counts as a valid Baptism, and thus that everyone in the world gets validly Baptized.

If anyone knows an authority for this topic, I’d appreciate it.

 

[cajunrick]

So, you’re saying the Church could change the form of Baptism?

The Church cannot change the form of Baptism because it is a direct instruction from Jesus as related to us in Scripture and the constant tradition of the Church. The form of the Sacrament of Matrimony is not so specified, and so the Church is the determiner of the proper form. Since the form of Matrimony is not scriptural, those who are not Catholic are not bound by the form specified by the Church, and so Protestant and even civil marriages are presumed sacramental for non-Catholic Christians.

For this reason, baptism is considered invalid if it is done in the name of Jesus alone, or if the minister’s understanding of the Trinity is not the same as the Church (as in a Mormon baptism) even if the words are the same.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Church changed the minister of Orders in the middle ages (to allow priests to ordain other priests and deacons), or at least three Popes tried to. That would seem to be a bigger difference between East and West than marriage.

 

[Formosus]

citation please?

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

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.

Malphono, I agree I misunderstood about you being in Delhi yourself. I thought you met her in Delhi. Hindustan = India, so Hindustani simply means Indian. Hindi, the national language, is the language spoken in Delhi. If her mother tongue was Hindi, then learning Malayalam would have been very difficult for her because the two languages are so different. Malayalees trying to learn Hindi have it much easier because all have to learn Hindi at least as a second language all over India.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

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.

Malphono, your post was clear. I was confused. I don’t know how I got the impression you make it a point to emphasize how Latinized the Syro-Malabar East Syriac Liturgy is.

I don’t understand legalese of any kind. So CCOE or EOCC means nothing to me.

 

[Just_Lurking]

citation please?

See here for my original thread on the Sacrament of Orders.

Here is a quote from “Relation of Priesthood to Episcopate,” by Fr. John de Reeper, The Jurist 16 (1956), 345-358:

Theologians now bow before these facts and their opinion is well expressed by Lennerz:

“Thus three Popes have authorized a simple priest to confer either the diaconate, or the diaconate and the priesthood. Hence it would seem that we must conclude that a priest, given a delegation from the Sovereign Pontiff, can be the minister of these Orders. It could not be maintained that these three Popes have erred in a matter as serious as that of the minister of the sacrament of Order. … To sum up: Sovereign Pontiffs have conceded this privilege to simple priests. Hence they can concede it. And thus a simple priest can, given a delgation from the Sovereign Pontiff, be the minister of the Orders of the diaconate and the priesthood”.

 

[Formosus]

Which three popes?

edit nevermind I see now. Well the Pope was clearly abusing his powers and over stepping his bounds attempting to impose a theological opinion (an incorrect one at that) on the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Well the Pope was clearly abusing his powers and over stepping his bounds attempting to impose a theological opinion (an incorrect one at that) on the Church.

I think we need more information. If the Popes conceded these for extenuating circumstances, then ancient custom would support the Popes.

In the early Church, East and West, there was a non-episcopal office called “chorepiscopus” which had the power of ordination, but not jurisdiction. They could, with the leave of the bishop, perform sacerdotal and diaconal ordinations. These were necessary for the extenuating circumstance of outlying areas to which the local ordinary would normally have difficulty visiting regularly. Such a circumstance could certainly have existed in Europe during the Protestant Reformation.

Blessings,
Marduk