The Sacrament of Matrimony

[Vico]

For the occidental Church, marriage may be contracted before a deacon, a properly delegated lay person according to canon 1112 or according to the provision of canon 1116.

In the case of the East, only the priest (or bishop) can impart the blessing by which he is the minister of the sacrament, as was articulated by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches above. He must supply the blessing to the marriage even after the fact – because, again, his role is different relative to the Mystery of Crowning than what is operative or the Sacrament of Marriage in the west. In the west, the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament and the priest, deacon or delegated lay person is the official witness who receives the consent in the name of the Church…a role all together different from what prevails in the East.

Yes, noted in the prior post about sacramental discipline being different between Latin and eastern, but the canons cited pertain to the extraordinary circumstances which demonstrate what is the minimum required for validity for the Catholic sui iuris churches.

 

[dochawk]

Well, see, that’s not an absolute. The Church allows a lay person appointed by the bishop to witness a marriage and it’s valid and sacramental (as long as both the bride and groom are baptized).

And if necessary, even not appointed . . .

Back in college, I was able to attend a talk by Fr. Fallon at Santa Clara, one of the top couple of authorities churchwide on the subject. (note: this is all western, not eastern)

Early on, a priest was an invited and honored guest, and asked to give a blessing. Marriage was by exchange of vows. Witnesses weren’t an issue.

A problem came about with couples disappearing for a while, coming back, with one claiming to have exchanged vows, and the other disputing this.

This was resolved by changing the rules to normally require a priest as witness.

This led to a new abuse in which couples whose families wouldn’t approve bursting into the rectory in the middle of the night, rousting the priest from deep sleep, and exchanging vows before he fully came to his senses . . .

In a typical Vatican timely response (read: seven centuries), the law was changed to require that the priest (or deacon) request the vows . . . (early 20th century, iirc)

hawk

 

[pianistclare]

This thread should be moved to the Eastern Forum.

 

[dans0622]

…
This was resolved by changing the rules to normally require a priest as witness.

This led to a new abuse in which couples whose families wouldn’t approve bursting into the rectory in the middle of the night, rousting the priest from deep sleep, and exchanging vows before he fully came to his senses . . .

In a typical Vatican timely response (read: seven centuries), the law was changed to require that the priest (or deacon) request the vows . . . (early 20th century, iirc)

hawk

Hello,

It would make more sense for the couple to just go to Mass at their parish and exchange their consent at that time: you’ve got the priest as well as sufficient witnesses. While this would be against “the spirit” of what the Church required in this matter, it would have been in accord with “the letter”, which was instituted, as you noted, to eliminate “secret” marriages.

The priest, by the way, could witness marriages even when there was unjust opposition/prohibition by the family. So said the Council of Trent’s (Session 24, November, 1563) legislation on the matter, which also mandated the presence of the parish priest and two or three witnesses.

The “ask for and receive the Parties’ consent” part of the priest’s duty was made an explicit part of the legislation in 1907.

Dan

 

[dochawk]

It would make more sense for the couple to just go to Mass at their parish and exchange their consent at that time: you’ve got the priest as well as sufficient witnesses.

True–but it might be harder for them to get together on Sunday morning to achieve this if families are opposed and trying to keep them apart. It would also mean a fully awake priest who might turn away . . .

More practically, once someone gets the idea to engage in such an act, “more sense” is probably no longer in the picture . . .

hawk

 

[dans0622]

True–but it might be harder for them to get together on Sunday morning to achieve this if families are opposed and trying to keep them apart. It would also mean a fully awake priest who might turn away . . .

More practically, once someone gets the idea to engage in such an act, “more sense” is probably no longer in the picture . . .

hawk

All that was needed was for the priest to be aware of what was happening (or what had just happened, since it doesn’t take long to say “I marry you.”). I don’t think turning away would make any difference.

I mention this scenario since it is one that happened and received some publicity (it involved royalty of some sort).

Dan

 

[dochawk]

Awareness isn’t required; merely witness–thus the groggy priest problem.

And this was a real issue. I think that Fr. Fallon was only the #2 theologian on matrimony (worldwide) at the time he explained this in his talk, but . . .

(and a few years ago in the alumni magazine, it was reported that he had left the Jesuit order after 50 years in order to, naturally, marry . . .)

hawk

 

[Latinitas]

I agree that this moving off topic. The Decree of 1996 does make it clear that in the Eastern Churches, the priest is regarded as the minister of the sacrament, but this seems to be not from Divine law, but ecclesiastical tradition which could be dispensed with. Thus, it is still correct to say that naturally, the ministers of marriage would be the spouses, but, as Oriental discipline shows, it can be transferred to another.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[dochawk]

I agree that this moving off topic. The Decree of 1996 does make it clear that in the Eastern Churches, the priest is regarded as the minister of the sacrament, but this seems to be not from Divine law, but ecclesiastical tradition which could be dispensed with. Thus, it is still correct to say that naturally, the ministers of marriage would be the spouses, but, as Oriental discipline shows, it can be transferred to another.

???

You are assuming the western understanding as the base, and looking to explain the other from there.

Trying to explain eastern theology in western terms is pointless and doomed to failure. (And trying to explain western in terms of eastern isn’t even possible, as the eastern is satisfied with mystery; the very attempt would generally be quite uneastern)

 

[Latinitas]

???

You are assuming the western understanding as the base, and looking to explain the other from there.

Trying to explain eastern theology in western terms is pointless and doomed to failure. (And trying to explain western in terms of eastern isn’t even possible, as the eastern is satisfied with mystery; the very attempt would generally be quite uneastern)

There is only one Church with one set of seven sacraments, so whatever differences there may be in emphasis or expression, there still has to be one underlying explanation for the whole sacramental practice, wherever it may be practiced in whatever rite it may be.

As to the point of on marriage, since it’s marriage itself that’s the sacrament, the nature of marriage remains. Now marriage (considered in itself) can be validly celebrated even without witnesses, as was the case, for example with Adam and Eve. Thus, at the very least, the spouses must be able to minister marriage to each other. Now the Eastern practice of regarding the priest as minister is wholly justifiable in light of Christ raising it to a sacramental dignity, since the priest, more than any layman symbolizes Christ.

Also, this is not imposing Latin theology on the Eastern Churches. Every theologian, whether Eastern or Latin, studies the same underlying truth, even if they have different systematic methods. Thus Latin theology must provide a justification for the validity and legitimacy of Eastern sacramental practice, since the sacraments administered in the East are undoubtedly valid and licit. Similarly Eastern theologians must provide some justification for the legitimacy of Latin practice, even if it is a mystery (and I grant that leaving it as such is okay). But nothing can be true in Latin theology and false in Eastern theology, or vise versa. To admit this would be to destroy the unity of faith in the Catholic Church.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[dochawk]

There is only one Church with one set of seven sacraments, so whatever differences there may be in emphasis or expression, there still has to be one underlying explanation for the whole sacramental practice, wherever it may be practiced in whatever rite it may be.

That simply isn’t correct, and is an inherently western approach.

Leaving aside that the west says “seven” and the east, both Orthodox and Catholic, says “at least seven”, the expectation that they can be explained is fundamentally western, and inconsistent with eastern theology.

The Faith is the same, but the theology and explanations are not necessarily even consistent.

Also, this is not imposing Latin theology on the Eastern Churches. Every theologian, whether Eastern or Latin, studies the same underlying truth, even if they have different systematic methods.

That is exactly what trying to explain one approach in the other’s terms is . . .

Thus Latin theology must provide a justification for the validity and legitimacy of Eastern sacramental practice, since the sacraments administered in the East are undoubtedly valid and licit.

Maybe it needs to from the western perspective, but certainly not from the eastern perspective. We don’t insist that our own theology meet this test, let alone require it of yours. And if you do come up with an explanation, we’ll neither agree nor disagree, but we might say “that’s nice”

Similarly Eastern theologians must provide some justification for the legitimacy of Latin practice, even if it is a mystery (and I grant that leaving it as such is okay).

Nope. We don’t have to do that

Being the Sacrament instituted by Christ is sufficient.

But nothing can be true in Latin theology and false in Eastern theology, or vise versa. To admit this would be to destroy the unity of faith in the Catholic Church.

Now that is correct. But the notion that it needs to be subject to explanation is a latin notion, not universal. (e.g., when asked with a list of possibilities when the bread & wine becomes the Body & Blood during the consecration, a western theologian will tell you, while an eastern will say “yes” . . . seriously, we don’t name a point, and don’t see a reason to debate it)

and for real fun {but not win this thread!}, do some research here and on eastern sites on the Immaculate Conception . . . to the eastern mind, making this dogma makes as much sense as making “2+2=4” dogma–it’s clearly correct with nothing to debate given the eastern (non-Augustinian) not in of Original Sin)

AMDG

hawk

 

[otjm]

There is only one Church with one set of seven sacraments, so whatever differences there may be in emphasis or expression, there still has to be one underlying explanation for the whole sacramental practice, wherever it may be practiced in whatever rite it may be.

As to the point of on marriage, since it’s marriage itself that’s the sacrament, the nature of marriage remains. Now marriage (considered in itself) can be validly celebrated even without witnesses, as was the case, for example with Adam and Eve. Thus, at the very least, the spouses must be able to minister marriage to each other. Now the Eastern practice of regarding the priest as minister is wholly justifiable in light of Christ raising it to a sacramental dignity, since the priest, more than any layman symbolizes Christ.

Also, this is not imposing Latin theology on the Eastern Churches. Every theologian, whether Eastern or Latin, studies the same underlying truth, even if they have different systematic methods. Thus Latin theology must provide a justification for the validity and legitimacy of Eastern sacramental practice, since the sacraments administered in the East are undoubtedly valid and licit. Similarly Eastern theologians must provide some justification for the legitimacy of Latin practice, even if it is a mystery (and I grant that leaving it as such is okay). But nothing can be true in Latin theology and false in Eastern theology, or vise versa. To admit this would be to destroy the unity of faith in the Catholic Church.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Actually, it is not helpful at all, and is a very western viewpoint.

Unity does not mean uniformity, which is really under all of what you are trying to get at - and missing.

An admittedly poor analogy is the relationship of, say, scholastic and neo-scholastic philosophy. Much, although not all western theology has an underpinning of the two; but, as John Paul Ii showed, theology could be brilliantly cast in terms of a humanism and phenomenological approach. But people who do theology in the scholastic tradition do not transition well to it.

There not only can be, but there is unity without uniformity in the eastern and western approaches to theology. They both speak of what has been revealed, but in very different ways,

 

[Latinitas]

That simply isn’t correct, and is an inherently western approach.

Leaving aside that the west says “seven” and the east, both Orthodox and Catholic, says “at least seven”, the expectation that they can be explained is fundamentally western, and inconsistent with eastern theology.

It is a dogma of the faith, that there are only seven sacraments. The Council of Trent defined:

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.
-Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 1 on the Sacraments in general, emphasis added (to draw attention in the long definition)

The Faith is the same, but the theology and explanations are not necessarily even consistent.

Which is true, but if they aren’t consistent, that means there’s room for debate. Ultimately, we’re searching for truth here. I don’t really care if it comes from Latin or Eastern theologians.

Maybe it needs to from the western perspective, but certainly not from the eastern perspective. We don’t insist that our own theology meet this test, let alone require it of yours. And if you do come up with an explanation, we’ll neither agree nor disagree, but we might say “that’s nice”

Explanatory power is a virtue in any discipline, theology included. Simply shrugging it off, or accepting it as a mystery is fine, but it won’t satisfy someone studying theology. Theologians are meant to explain the faith and provide reasons in it’s defense. This is not just a “Western concept”, this is a Catholic concept. Fideism is condemned by the Church.

Nope. We don’t have to do that

Being the Sacrament instituted by Christ is sufficient.

Refusing to use reason is not a virtue. There’s nothing to be gained from just waiving our hands and calling it a mystery, when a sound explanation that covers the practice of the whole Church is expained. Latin theologians adore the mysteries of faith as well - but we don’t sacrifice our reason in doing so. I’d hope Eastern theologians agree.

Now that is correct. But the notion that it needs to be subject to explanation is a latin notion, not universal. (e.g., when asked with a list of possibilities when the bread & wine becomes the Body & Blood during the consecration, a western theologian will tell you, while an eastern will say “yes” . . . seriously, we don’t name a point, and don’t see a reason to debate it)

It should be noted that again, it is of faith that the word transubstantiation accurately describes the mystery you describe. The notion that it needs explanation is a theological, not Latin point. Theology uses reason, and systematically lays out the articles of faith. Refusing to use reason is no virtue.

[and for real fun {but not win this thread!}, do some research here and on eastern sites on the Immaculate Conception . . . to the eastern mind, making this dogma makes as much sense as making “2+2=4” dogma–it’s clearly correct with nothing to debate given the eastern (non-Augustinian) not in of Original Sin)

The Augustinian notion of original sin is largely of faith, and was defined by the fifth session of the Council of Trent. Not all of his thought was dogmatized, and there is legitimate room for disagreement on those points which are not defined. But what is of faith is that:

• Original sin is a true sin exisiting in each one as his own.
• Original sin is passed on to all, not by imitation, but by propagation.
• Death is the result of original sin.
• Original sin is remitted by baptism.

I will say that this thread is so off topic right not, that lest it be closed, this will be my last post here. If you want to continue this discussion, you make a thread over in the Eastern Catholicism section. Thank you for your thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
[/quote]

 

[Latinitas]

Oh yeah, I realized after looking at it, that the bolding and underlining may make it seem like I’m shouting, but I don’t mean to sound that way. I just wanted to highlight that portion in a rather long canon. Sorry if you took it that way on first reading.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas