M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Thanks Aramis, that helps a lot!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
My two cents.
Byzantines and Eastern are synonymous for the Churches that follow the Rite of Constantinople.
Orientals or if you want to break it down (Syriac, Coptic and so forth for specifics)
And Chaldeans… for Chaldeans.
You basically have three higher sets of churches coming from three different communions, with individual churches having further specific traditions. Especially amongst the Orientals.
I would suggest reading the ecumenical documents (at least for a byzantine perspective) with the Eastern Orthodox regarding marriage. My friend ( a Roman Catholic) and I got into a pickle of an argument over whose form was right. Eventually we were both placated when we read the Agreed Statement on the Sacrament of Marriage.
byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/ecumenical-documents-mainmenu-99/317-an-agreed-statement-on-the-sanctity-of-marriage
I feel the meat is in this statement:
Byzantines and Eastern are synonymous for the Churches that follow the Rite of Constantinople.
Orientals or if you want to break it down (Syriac, Coptic and so forth for specifics)
And Chaldeans… for Chaldeans.
You basically have three higher sets of churches coming from three different communions, with individual churches having further specific traditions. Especially amongst the Orientals.
I would suggest reading the ecumenical documents (at least for a byzantine perspective) with the Eastern Orthodox regarding marriage. My friend ( a Roman Catholic) and I got into a pickle of an argument over whose form was right. Eventually we were both placated when we read the Agreed Statement on the Sacrament of Marriage.
byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/ecumenical-documents-mainmenu-99/317-an-agreed-statement-on-the-sanctity-of-marriage
I feel the meat is in this statement:
In the teaching of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners and God’s blessing Imparted through the ministry of the church.
In both cases the couple consents to be married and God’s blessing is through the church, IE the witnessing of a minister in the Roman tradition or the Byzantine Priest in the Byzantine tradition. I think in both cases the wedding needs to be done in the presence of other Catholics and in a church.Both churches have always agreed that the ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage. Within this fundamental agreement various possibilities of realization are possible as history has shown and no one form of this realization can be considered to be absolutely normative in all circumstances.
T
TradCath123
Guest
That the priestly blessing is not an absolute requirement of true marriage between Christians is proved by the Council of Trent’s toleration of past clandestine marriages.
Some translate rata as “valid” and irrita as “invalid,” which is acceptable but not the only possible meanings. The more precise terms are validus and invalidus. For example, validus is used in Session 24, Canon 9 condemning those who hold that clerics or those with solemn vows of chastity may contract a valid marriage.
It is taught by Pope Leo XIII (Arcanum, 23-24) and other Popes that the Sacrament of Matrimony is not some second thing added to Christian marriage. Rather, the marriage-contract itself is the sacrament, for Christ sanctified marriage itself.
The blessing of the priest may be made a necessary condition for canonical validity, but this does not imply that the blessing is the essence or even the efficient cause of the sacrament. Earth and sky may be necessary conditions for a horse’s existence, but they are not what makes a horse a horse, nor do they cause the horse to be. Likewise, the execution of a contract may require certain conditions, such as the presence of witnesses or a notary, but the essence of the contract remains the consent of the parties who thereby bring it into effect.
The modern Orthodox may find it scandalous to speak of the Sacrament of Matrimony in such worldly, juridical terms. Yet to refrain from this is to ignore in this case that Christ has the power to sanctify the earthly, not by adding something alien to it, but by operating within its essence.
Code:
Tametsi dubitandum non est clandestina matrimonia libero contrahentium consensu facta rata et vera esse matrimonia quamdiu ecclesia ea irrita non fecit
Although is not to be doubted that clandestine marriages contracted by free consent are made authoritatively and truly to be marriages as long as the Church has not made them void...
..eos sancta synodus anathemate damnat qui ea vera ac rata esse negant...
....the holy Council condemns with anathema those who deny they are true and authoritative...It is taught by Pope Leo XIII (Arcanum, 23-24) and other Popes that the Sacrament of Matrimony is not some second thing added to Christian marriage. Rather, the marriage-contract itself is the sacrament, for Christ sanctified marriage itself.
- Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon - the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded.
- Marriage, moreover, is a sacrament, because it is a holy sign which gives grace, showing forth an image of the mystical nuptials of Christ with the Church. But the form and image of these nuptials is shown precisely by the very bond of that most close union in which man and woman are bound together in one; which bond is nothing else but the marriage itself. Hence it is clear that among Christians every true marriage is, in itself and by itself, a sacrament; and that nothing can be further from the truth than to say that the sacrament is a certain added ornament, or outward endowment, which can be separated and torn away from the contract at the caprice of man. Neither, therefore, by reasoning can it be shown, nor by any testimony of history be proved, that power over the marriages of Christians has ever lawfully been handed over to the rulers of the State. If, in this matter, the right of anyone else has ever been violated, no one can truly say that it has been violated by the Church. Would that the teaching of the naturalists, besides being full of falsehood and injustice, were not also the fertile source of much detriment and calamity! But it is easy to see at a glance the greatness of the evil which unhallowed marriages have brought, and ever will bring, on the whole of human society.
The blessing of the priest may be made a necessary condition for canonical validity, but this does not imply that the blessing is the essence or even the efficient cause of the sacrament. Earth and sky may be necessary conditions for a horse’s existence, but they are not what makes a horse a horse, nor do they cause the horse to be. Likewise, the execution of a contract may require certain conditions, such as the presence of witnesses or a notary, but the essence of the contract remains the consent of the parties who thereby bring it into effect.
The modern Orthodox may find it scandalous to speak of the Sacrament of Matrimony in such worldly, juridical terms. Yet to refrain from this is to ignore in this case that Christ has the power to sanctify the earthly, not by adding something alien to it, but by operating within its essence.
T
TradCath123
Guest
It is erroneous to consider the priest the minister of the sacrament;
Syllabus of Errors, St. Pius IX
On the contrary, Given the cause the effect follows. Now the sufficient cause of matrimony is consent expressed in words of the present. Therefore whether this be done in public or in private the result is a marriage.
Further, wherever there is the due matter and the due form of a sacrament there is the sacrament. Now in a secret marriage there is the due matter, since there are persons who are able lawfully to contract–and the due form, since there are the words of the present expressive of consent. Therefore there is a true marriage.
I answer that, Just as in the other sacraments certain things are essential to the sacrament, and if they are omitted there is no sacrament, while certain things belong to the solemnization of the sacrament, and if these be omitted the sacrament is nevertheless validly performed, although it is a sin to omit them; so, too, consent expressed in words of the present between persons lawfully qualified to contract makes a marriage, because these two conditions are essential to the sacrament; while all else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament, as being done in order that the marriage may be more fittingly performed. Hence if these be omitted it is a true marriage, although the contracting parties sin, unless they have a lawful motive for being excused. [Clandestine marriages have since been declared invalid by the Council of Trent (sess. xxiv). It must be borne in mind that throughout the treatise on marriage St. Thomas gives the Canon Law of his time.]
Reply to Objection 1. The maid is in her father’s power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another’s power without her father’s consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent’s consent.
Reply to Objection 2. In penance our act, although essential to the sacrament, does not suffice for producing the proximate effect of the sacrament, namely forgiveness of sins, and consequently it is necessary that the act of the priest intervene in order that the sacrament be perfected. But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond, because whoever has the right to dispose of himself can bind himself to another. Consequently the priest’s blessing is not required for matrimony as being essential to the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3. It is also forbidden to receive baptism otherwise than from a priest, except in a case of necessity. But matrimony is not a necessary sacrament: and consequently the comparison fails. However, clandestine marriages are forbidden on account of the evil results to which they are liable, since it often happens that one of the parties is guilty of fraud in such marriages; frequently, too, they have recourse to other nuptials when they repent of having married in haste; and many other evils result therefrom, besides which there is something disgraceful about them.
Reply to Objection 4. Clandestine marriages are not forbidden as though they were contrary to the essentials of marriage, in the same way as the marriages of unlawful persons, who are undue matter for this sacrament; and hence there is no comparison.
Syllabus of Errors, St. Pius IX
- The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone.
On the contrary, Given the cause the effect follows. Now the sufficient cause of matrimony is consent expressed in words of the present. Therefore whether this be done in public or in private the result is a marriage.
Further, wherever there is the due matter and the due form of a sacrament there is the sacrament. Now in a secret marriage there is the due matter, since there are persons who are able lawfully to contract–and the due form, since there are the words of the present expressive of consent. Therefore there is a true marriage.
I answer that, Just as in the other sacraments certain things are essential to the sacrament, and if they are omitted there is no sacrament, while certain things belong to the solemnization of the sacrament, and if these be omitted the sacrament is nevertheless validly performed, although it is a sin to omit them; so, too, consent expressed in words of the present between persons lawfully qualified to contract makes a marriage, because these two conditions are essential to the sacrament; while all else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament, as being done in order that the marriage may be more fittingly performed. Hence if these be omitted it is a true marriage, although the contracting parties sin, unless they have a lawful motive for being excused. [Clandestine marriages have since been declared invalid by the Council of Trent (sess. xxiv). It must be borne in mind that throughout the treatise on marriage St. Thomas gives the Canon Law of his time.]
Reply to Objection 1. The maid is in her father’s power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another’s power without her father’s consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent’s consent.
Reply to Objection 2. In penance our act, although essential to the sacrament, does not suffice for producing the proximate effect of the sacrament, namely forgiveness of sins, and consequently it is necessary that the act of the priest intervene in order that the sacrament be perfected. But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond, because whoever has the right to dispose of himself can bind himself to another. Consequently the priest’s blessing is not required for matrimony as being essential to the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3. It is also forbidden to receive baptism otherwise than from a priest, except in a case of necessity. But matrimony is not a necessary sacrament: and consequently the comparison fails. However, clandestine marriages are forbidden on account of the evil results to which they are liable, since it often happens that one of the parties is guilty of fraud in such marriages; frequently, too, they have recourse to other nuptials when they repent of having married in haste; and many other evils result therefrom, besides which there is something disgraceful about them.
Reply to Objection 4. Clandestine marriages are not forbidden as though they were contrary to the essentials of marriage, in the same way as the marriages of unlawful persons, who are undue matter for this sacrament; and hence there is no comparison.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Easterners in general wouldn’t need to be so legalistic about it. When a priest is avaible, he is absolutely neecessary. When he isn’t we aren’t certain but as soon as he is available he becomes necessary again. So in an emergency situation, yeah, you might be treated as married even though you only consented to each other, as soon as a priest shows up, use him to perfect it. Many acts are acceptable without a priest - but as soon as a priest can be there, he’s considered necessary to perfect the action. If this is deliberately ignored, the presumption tends to go the other way
T
TradCath123
Guest
The issue at hand is who confers the Sacrament of Marriage. Your comment doesn’t deal with the issue at hand. But as I have argued, and as the Latin Church has defined, it is the spouses who confer the sacrament to each other.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
The CCC (1623) refers to the priest as the minister of the sacrament of marriage in the context of the Eastern Churches.
T
TradCath123
Guest
How does your comment add to the discussion at hand? The CCC is simply re-iterating the Eastern church’s position.
V
Vico
Guest
We also have a twenty-third ECC since 19 January 2015: the Eritrean (Metropolitan) Catholic Church.So there are twenty-two eastern Churches in communion with the See of Rome. They follow five liturgical rites: 1. Alexandrian, 2. Antiochian, 3. Armenian, 4. Byzantine, and 5. Chaldean.
Now, in order to avoid insult or error, and without using technically correct canonical, theological, etc. terms the following would be a reasonable layman’s summary:
The sui iuris Eastern Churches that use the Alexandrian, Antiochian, or Armenian rites are Oriental Catholic Churches similar in praxis to the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the sui iuris Eastern Churches that use the Byzantine Rite are Eastern Catholic Churches similar in praxis to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and that the two sui iuris Churches that follow the Chaldean Rite are similar in praxis to the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.
So, we call the Alexandrian, Antiochian, and Armenian rite churches are referred to Oriental Catholic Churches; the Byzantine Rite churches are referred to Eastern Catholic Churches; how should one refer to our Chaldean brethren?
A
Augustine
Guest
This seems inadequate. The Maronite Catholic Church uses the Antiochian rite, but has no counterpart in Orthodoxy, since it’s never been outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, it is an Eastern Church.The sui iuris Eastern Churches that use the Alexandrian, Antiochian, or Armenian rites are Oriental Catholic Churches similar in praxis to the Oriental Orthodox Churches…
Moreover, the Oriental Orthodox Churches are so called not because of their liturgical rite, but because they separated from the Catholic Church after disagreeing with the assertions by the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century. On the other hand, the Orthodox Churches which got separated with the Catholic Church after the Great Schism chose to refer to themselves as Eastern to avoid confusion with the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Pax Christi
P
prodromos
Guest
Did no one else notice this thread is 5 years old?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Yes. Some other poster, who has since been banned and had his posts deleted, revived it a few days ago. Responses to his posts were not deleted.Did no one else notice this thread is 5 years old?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.