Spouses as Ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage?

[Margaret_Ann]

Thank you. I’m going to bookmark your reply.

 

[dochawk]

I will have to ask you to explain. I do not understand the point you are making.

British Common Law did recognize such marriages, and is where the term comes from. I want to say the term required was seven years, but it’s been a couple of decades.

It was still covered in law school when I went in the 80s, but with the strong caveat that only a handful of US states still recognized it . It was abolished in Britain itself but not other parts of the empire shortly before we threw you guys out, so we inherited it.

I know a UGCC man and a Latin Catholic woman who were married by a deacon in the Latin Church. Technically, the marriage is supposed to be done in the particular Church of the groom. Would that be valid?

Defective in form not for which church, but for the deacon.

The church does not treat them as not married, but a tribunal would make short shrift of it as a cut and dried case.

Diaconal training now puts some time into this, as there were swarms of such marriages that got annulled a while back . . . (the diaconal candidate that told me about it referred to the tribunals as “swamped” from it, although I’m skeptical, given the small number of EC in the US, the smaller number of EC/RC marriages, the small supply of deacons until fairly recently, and the automatic nature).

 

[TomH1]

British Common Law did recognize such marriages, and is where the term comes from. I want to say the term required was seven years, but it’s been a couple of decades.

I would be obliged if you would cite a reference for this. I have several reasons to doubt that common law marriage was ever recognised here. The first is you say British Common Law. There is no such thing. There is not one body of law in the UK. There are three bodies of law in the UK: English, Scottish, and Northern Irish.

Secondly, I have been looking into common law marriage since it was raised in this topic and I have learnt that in England a formal act of marriage has been required since the Marriage Act 1753.

I can find nothing that says English Law ever recognised a couple as married after a period of co-habitation. Indeed, looking at all other jurisdictions where co-habitation without civil or religious formality such as a ceremony, certificate, licence or registration that co-habitation alone is insufficient to establish a common law marriage.

 

[dochawk]

I would be obliged if you would cite a reference for this.

26 Geo. II. c. 33

Also referred to as “Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act” or just “Lord Hardwicke’s Act.”

The wikipedia description is incomplete, but not bad.

I have several reasons to doubt that common law marriage was ever recognised here. The first is you say British Common Law. There is no such thing.

To be more clear, I should have written “the Common Law of England” rather than Britain.

AFAIK, it remains the basis of law in every English speaking country. Starts at about Henry II sending king’s judges about the realm.

(the taxes for this is what the outlaw Robin of Loxley was stealing . . .)

Secondly, I have been looking into common law marriage since it was raised in this topic and I have learnt that in England a formal act of marriage has been required since the Marriage Act 1753.

Err, yes, that is indeed the abrogation by parliament of Common Law marriage . .

I can find nothing that says English Law ever recognised a couple as married after a period of co-habitation.

again, that wasn’t the sole requirement: they also had to hold themselves out as husband and wife.

The Common Law developed case by case resolving conflicts, not as pronouncements of law. A quick tip-off that an author doesn’t understand the subject (which I think includes google’s first hit!) is the reference to judges “creating” it. s the judges understood it, they were finding it, and that “the law” ws something pre-existing.

I really couldn’t tell you how much the terms of the CL were imposed on the rest of Britain; I’ve never had the interest to investigate (it is kind of an esoteric topic!).

I assume that it would be covered in Blackstone’s Commentary, as the act was fairly recent at the time he wrote.

But I can tell you that, at least in the 80s, the nature of Common Law marriage was covered in US law schools–but we also didn’t spend much time on it; it came up as background.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Can someone explain this to me:
I have heard several times that a baptized non-catholic couple who gets married, are in a sacramental marriage (not merely a valid one). How can this be when catholics need the crowning/blessing of the Priest in order for their marriage to be sacramental (from the eastern catholic perspective)?

 

[RyanBlack]

Can someone explain this to me:
I have heard several times that a baptized non-catholic couple who gets married, are in a sacramental marriage (not merely a valid one). How can this be when catholics need the crowning/blessing of the Priest in order for their marriage to be sacramental (from the eastern catholic perspective)?

That is the case because the Church only binds Eastern Catholics to that requirement. It doesn’t apply to Latin Catholics, or to Protestants.

 

[tuffsmurf]

So two lutherans can confer the sacrament of matrimony onto each other, but two chaldean catholics can’t? Or are they able to, they are just not allowed?

 

[Vico]

So two lutherans can confer the sacrament of matrimony onto each other, but two chaldean catholics can’t? Or are they able to, they are just not allowed?

In the normal case, if an eastern Catholic is involved, there must be a blessing by a priest. In the special case the blessing is received later.

Eastern Canon Law (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.

 

[tuffsmurf]

I know this, it is because the blessing of the Priest is essential to the sacrament in eastern theology, just as water is essential for the sacrament of baptism.
So why are non-catholics held to the roman catholic view that the couple are the ministers, rather than the eastern view that the Priest is the minister?

 

[RyanBlack]

So two lutherans can confer the sacrament of matrimony onto each other, but two chaldean catholics can’t? Or are they able to, they are just not allowed?

In my judgment, which certainly isn’t authoritative, I would say it is a matter of not being permitted by law, as opposed to an ontological impossibility.

 

[RyanBlack]

So why are non-catholics held to the roman catholic view that the couple are the ministers, rather than the eastern view that the Priest is the minister?

Protestants are seen as being separated from the Latin Church, so the CIC, instead of CCEO, applies.

 

[Vico]

I know this, it is because the blessing of the Priest is essential to the sacrament in eastern theology, just as water is essential for the sacrament of baptism.
So why are non-catholics held to the roman catholic view that the couple are the ministers, rather than the eastern view that the Priest is the minister?

The eastern Catholic marriage is merely using a different sacramental discipline. It is not essential since Catholic form can be dispensed.

 

[tuffsmurf]

It sure would make more sense if that was the case, but from what I have red about eastern theology of marriage it seems like it is indeed something ontological when it comes to who is the minister.

 

[tuffsmurf]

This view of protestants being separated from the Latin Church is very reasonable when it comes to “historical protestant” groups such as lutherans and anglicans. It doesn’t really seem plausible to make such a claim about, for example, pentecoastals who have a very different history.

There are also a small but very much existent “eastern reformed” movement that comes from the eastern churches. Where do they fall in this West/east binary?

 

[RyanBlack]

It sure would make more sense if that was the case, but from what I have red about eastern theology of marriage it seems like it is indeed something ontological when it comes to who is the minister.

I suspect the Orthodox would see it as being required by the nature of the sacrament.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Can the Catholic form be dispensed for Eastern Catholics so that they don’t recieve the crowning/blessing, ever? I don’t think so, I have ever heard that the blessing sometimes is recieved later on, but never being ommitted alltogether.

 

[tuffsmurf]

The orthodox would for sure. When it comes to Eastern catholics it seems a lot less clear to me…

 

[RyanBlack]

It doesn’t really seem plausible to make such a claim about, for example, pentecoastals who have a very different history.

They certainly didn’t develop out of Orthodox Christianity. While a later development than Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, and even Methodists, Pentecostals developed out of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[RyanBlack]

There are also a small but very much existent “eastern reformed” movement that comes from the eastern churches. Where do they fall in this West/east binary?

Honestly, I don’t know.

 

[Vico]

Can the Catholic form be dispensed for Eastern Catholics so that they don’t recieve the crowning/blessing, ever? I don’t think so, I have ever heard that the blessing sometimes is recieved later on, but never being ommitted alltogether.

CCEO (eastern canon law)

Canon 848 - §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, granted by competent authority and including a dispensation from an impediment, if there was one, and from the form for the celebration of marriage required by law, it if was not observed, and the retroactivity into the past of canonical effects.
§2. The convalidation occurs at the moment the favor is granted; it is understood to be retroactive, however, to the moment the marriage was celebrated unless something else is expressly stated.