Spouses as Ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage?

[sealabeag]

I’ve heard many times that the actual “ministers” I think is the term, of marriage, is the spouses themselves and not the priest. But what does this actually mean? Does it mean that a liturgical marriage, with a priest is unnecessary? Can two people simply say “I agree to marry you”, and that is a valid marriage? Maybe someone could help me understand this concept.
Thanks!

 

[fredystairs]

This is correct, the Church teaches that the ministers of marriage are the husband and wife. The priest or deacon witnesses the exchange of vows. This witness is a prudent action on the part of the Church. Before it was required that the Church witness the marriage, there would be abuses. A couple exchanged vows maybe at midnight under a full moon in the woods (all very romantic) with no one else around and then one of the partners would later change his/her mind and say that it never happened. To prevent this from happening, the Church decreed that a representative had to witness the exchange of vows.

Pax

 

[sealabeag]

Interesting. So, hypothetically, if a man and woman, in the presence of some witnesses, simply say “we take each other in marriage”, or somesuch, that’s a valid marriage? In the church? I find that a bit of a head scratcher as it kind of upends my notions of marriage!

 

[Irishmom2]

To prevent this from happening, the Church decreed that a representative had to witness the exchange of vows.

Yes, this is the important part.

The couple are the ministers to each other, but it needs to be official in Church.

 

[sealabeag]

Ahhh ok. I didn’t read that bit clearly in fredystairs reply. Gotcha. So a man and woman plus witnesses which aren’t a priest/deacon = invalid marriage?

 

[phil19034]

Ahhh ok. I didn’t read that bit clearly in fredystairs reply. Gotcha. So a man and woman plus witnesses which aren’t a priest/deacon = invalid marriage?

If at least one of two getting married is Catholic, then the marriage must normally be witnessed by a priest or deacon so the Church knows it is valid.

HOWEVER, a couple (esp. when one is Catholic and the other is not) can be dispensed from the requirement by the bishop (this is pretty common and easy). However, the Catholic pastor must make sure that couple truly understands Christian marriage before hand. In other words, they still have to do pre-Cana.

It’s also possible in rare circumstances for a Catholic couple to be married by another lay person when they are no clergy. For example: stuck on a deserted island.

 

[hope]

It must be noted that this is for the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rite is not the same.

1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ’s grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called “Crowning”) is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant.

 

[Diaconia]

The priest or deacon is the Church’s representative; there are two other witnesses, as well (typically the Best Man and Maid of Honor).

The Church’s representative attests that the consent follows the correct formula (we don’t allow “write your own vows stuff”).

With the bishop’s permission beforehand you can also marry in front of a different type of minister (perhaps a Lutheran Pastor if you are marrying a Lutheran, for example).

Deacon Christopher

 

[dochawk]

This is correct, the Church teaches that the ministers of marriage are the husband and wife

Make that, “RC law requires that the spouses be the ministers of the Sacrament.”
This is purely western; for EC and EO, the priest (not deacon) is the minister of the sacrament.

To prevent this from happening, the Church decreed that a representative had to witness the exchange of vows.

this was about 700 years ago, and for that reason.

It quickly, though, led to a new abuse: young couples whose family opposed the union would break into the sacristy in the wee hours, wake the priest, and exchange vows before the groggy while he came to his senses.

Thies new loophole was “quickly” resolved by requiring that the cleric request the vows–in the 19833 revisions!

For EC and EO, the priest, not the spouses, are the ministers of the Sacrament, and crowning is conferred .

take each other in marriage”, or somesuch, that’s a valid marriage? In the church?

Interesting. So, hypothetically, if a man and woman, in the presence of some witnesses, simply say “we take each other in marriage”, or somesuch, that’s a valid marriage? In the church?

No, not today: it violates the prescribed form.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

In the Byzantine Tradition, the blessing of the priest is necessary for the validity of the marriage.

 

[twf]

Yes, I, as a Catholic, validly married my wife in a ceremony presided over by a protestant minister…had a dispensation. Presumed valid and sacramental.

 

[otjm]

Except in certain Eastern Rites in union with the Church. Their sacramental theology has the priest marrying the couple.

And Rome has no problem with it.

 

[otjm]

No, not today: it violates the prescribed form.

I believe there is an exception for that, where no priest is available’ however, he later acknowledges it (and I refrain from saying they have to repeat the vows - someone else familiar with issues such as arise in 3rd world countries where a priest might possibly be available one a year can deal with this).

 

[dochawk]

I’m going to defer to clergy and canon lawyers on the exceptions. In the general case, it would not be valid.

 

[EloyCraft]

Ok this thread is just what I need. My son and his girlfriend recently told me that they had exchanged vows privately and so they are married. Taken aback somewhat I said without a member of the community authorised to witness the vows they are not married. I hope I wasn’t wrong about that.

 

[kapp19]

This is a much more complex topic than people realize. In fact, there are plenty of open questions in sacramental theology. The first papal document that explicitly claims this is Amoris Laetitia. By no means is the issue settled.

If you want to do a deep dive into this issue then you can read about the positions of St. Robert Bellarmine and Melchior Cano, who are the two major representatives of the two positions.

I would certainly encourage anyone who did not get the nuptial blessing when marrying to get it!

 

[InThePew]

It’s also possible in rare circumstances for a Catholic couple to be married by another lay person when they are no clergy. For example: stuck on a deserted island.

True but not necessarily that extreme. There are in fact more than a few places in the world where a priest may only visit to say mass once every couple of months (at most) and his time there may be limited (e.g. by tides / light). In these cases, bishops can (and have) given lay-people the faculty to witness marriages.

 

[tafan2]

If your son is Catholic, you are not wrong. Just because the couple are the ministers, does not mean the Church does not have the right to regulate the form. It is invalid.

Also, in the US, they are not civilly married either.

 

[Phemie]

phil19034:

It’s also possible in rare circumstances for a Catholic couple to be married by another lay person when they are no clergy. For example: stuck on a deserted island.

True but not necessarily that extreme. There are in fact more than a few places in the world where a priest may only visit to say mass once every couple of months (at most) and his time there may be limited (e.g. by tides / light). In these cases, bishops can (and have) given lay-people the faculty to witness marriages.

That has happened in my diocese. One particular parish sees a priest at Christmas and Easter, and for the odd funeral, weather permitting. For a time there was a religious sister assigned there as administrator and she was delegated to prepare a couple and witness their vows.

Does canon 1116 not give a couple the right to validly marry simply by stating their vows in front of two witnesses if the lack of a priest or deacon or properly delegated lay person will persist for more than 30 days, as long as no impediments exist?

 

[TomH1]

Does it mean that a liturgical marriage, with a priest is unnecessary?

Indeed, that used to be the case. However, there were clandestine marriages were the was no evidence the marriage had taken place. Later if the man had his eye on another woman he could claim that the marriage had never taken place. You can imagine what people would have thought of the woman and if there were any children they would be illegitimate. There is no doubt the man would have been believed over the woman.

In the sixteenth century the Council of Trent issued the decree Tametsi which introduced canonical form. However, to come into force it had to be read out in a parish and only came into force in parishes where it had been read out. This was also the time of the Reformation and there was great upheaval so in some places it had been read out and canonical form was in force and in others it was not.

In 1907 Pope St Pius X issued the decree Ne Temere which introduced canonical form throughout the entire Church. So, the bridegroom and the bride administer the sacrament to each other. However, to overcome the problem created by clandestine marriages the marriage must be witnessed by an official delegate from the church (usually a priest) and two other witnesses. Canonical form is also required for validity not simply liceity.

There are some canon lawyers who argue we no longer require canonical form. It is only imposed on Catholics. If two non-Catholic Christians were to marry we, i.e. the Catholic Church, would recognise their marriage as a valid, sacramental marriage even though they had not observed canonical form. Marriages are public nowadays, not least to satisfy civil law requirements, so the problem of clandestine marriages no longer exists. Those canon lawyers who say canonical form is no longer required say it is a medicine given for a disease that no longer exists.