Validity of sacrament of marriage in latin right

  • Thread starter Thread starter nightrider009
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nightrider009

Guest
I know that eastern catholics have a very formal procedure for marriage sacrament. It is done by the priest via crowning. But in the latin rite, it seems that crowning is never used. Sometimes there is no priest, just a deacon. And sometimes no deacon, just witnesses. Even when the priest is there, I dont think he does anything very “sacramental.” So shouldnt there be some doubt on the validity of the sacrament since in eastern catholoc and Orthodox there is always a very strict crowning procedure? How were ancient latin marriages performed?
 
It is my understanding that the Man & Wife Marry each other, and that the Priest witnesses the union for The Church.
 
That is until you go to a marriage tribunal and get an annulment.
 
Hi guys. I’ve been looking it up online and I saw some evidence that you may be right, but nothing concrete. Can any of you give me a reference to how the rite of marriage was performed in the early church? Also, in a Latin wedding today, does the priest at any time bless (cross) the couple during the wedding?

I used to think that marriage (like the other sacraments) was something that absolutely required a priest. But if the priest doesn’t have anything "sacramental’ to do…

The reason I’m posting this in the Eastern Catholics section is because I know that some Eastern Catholics and Orthodox think that the crowning process is “sacramental;” its the necessary part of any Apostolic marriage. I myself used to think so.
 
nightrider009 said:
I know that eastern catholics have a very formal procedure for marriage sacrament. It is done by the priest via crowning. But in the latin rite, it seems that crowning is never used. Sometimes there is no priest, just a deacon. And sometimes no deacon, just witnesses. Even when the priest is there, I dont think he does anything very “sacramental.” So shouldnt there be some doubt on the validity of the sacrament since in eastern catholoc and Orthodox there is always a very strict crowning procedure? How were ancient latin marriages performed?
Click to expand...
The covenant is created (for a Catholic) through the proper consent of the couple, but only with approval of the Catholic Church, and with the required witnesses, and when there are no dispensed impediments, and using the form as specified by the Catholic Church. Some impediments cannot be dispensed. The Church has given it’s approval in some extreme situations, in the law itself.
 
nightrider009 said:
I know that eastern catholics have a very formal procedure for marriage sacrament. It is done by the priest via crowning. But in the latin rite, it seems that crowning is never used. Sometimes there is no priest, just a deacon. And sometimes no deacon, just witnesses. Even when the priest is there, I dont think he does anything very “sacramental.” So shouldnt there be some doubt on the validity of the sacrament since in eastern catholoc and Orthodox there is always a very strict crowning procedure? How were ancient latin marriages performed?
Click to expand...
I rarely involve myself in thing concerning matrimony but I will interject one comment here, albeit one that is simplified:

In the Latin Church, the couple itself confers the sacrament and the Church is considered to be merely a “witness” to it, which explains why a deacon is permitted to officiate (and yes, I know full well that it involves the “approval” of the Church too - hence the minimum 6-month waiting period and the “conferences” etc etc etc (which, interestingly enough, doesn’t seem to have much of a positive effect on the number of failed unions, but I digress) - so please don’t cite canon law to me, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Church herself does not confer the sacrament).

In the East and Orient, however, the Church does confer the sacrament (obviously with the consent of the couple involved) and so only a bishop or priest may officiate (and again, folks, please don’t cite canon law to me – I am (unfortunately) all too well aware of what I’ll call the “oddities” therein) . Yeah, OK, sure, the net effect is pretty much the same, but there are (theoretically, at least, even in the Churches in union with Rome) undeniable theological differences in the concept.

Alright … so much for my my unsolicited :twocents: which is probably worth less than half that. 🤷

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving. 🙂
 
What? That is actually what is in Canon Law, that a marriage is to be PRESUMED valid until proven otherwise. If you want to complain, complain to the Vatican for mentioning that.
 
WAAAAAYYYY back when. Marriage was a civil affair, the couple used to go to the civil official and get married, then go to the bishop to receive Communion together and get his blessing (I’m talkin’ early, early church). That evolved into crowns and the common cup. I was told the West used to have crowns too, but they never played as big a part in the ceremony and it eventually became just the wreath of flowers the bride wore, but they generally kept communion as part of the service.

I’ve heard of Western Orthodox weddings with crowns, and my wife has seen at least one without, but marriage was such an amorphous thing back then it solidified separately in East and West; they don’t share much common liturgy in this. It’s not like there was a common ancestor marriage ceremony they grew from separately, it was more of an idea of Christian marriage that grew separately in East and West.
 
That is true. In both the Latin and eastern Catholic churches, the covenant is created by the couple with their proper consent, along with the approval of the Church and the witnesses. This is proven by the extraordinary case CCEO 832.2:
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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
 
Dear brother Malphono,

I believe it would be a mischaracterization of the Latin teaching to present “the couple” as a contradistinction to “the Church.” The couple, according to the Latins, are able to be ministers of marriage because of their priesthood (albeit limited) in Christ. So it would be incorrect to say that “in the East and Orient, the Church confers the Sacrament, but in the West, the couple (i.e., not the Church), confers the Sacrament,” as if the Latin Church does not conceive of the couple as actual ministers of the Church in this particular Sacrament.

Blessings,
Marduk
malphono said:
I rarely involve myself in thing concerning matrimony but I will interject one comment here, albeit one that is simplified:

In the Latin Church, the couple itself confers the sacrament and the Church is considered to be merely a “witness” to it, which explains why a deacon is permitted to officiate (and yes, I know full well that it involves the “approval” of the Church too - hence the minimum 6-month waiting period and the “conferences” etc etc etc (which, interestingly enough, doesn’t seem to have much of a positive effect on the number of failed unions, but I digress) - so please don’t cite canon law to me, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Church herself does not confer the sacrament).

In the East and Orient, however, the Church does confer the sacrament (obviously with the consent of the couple involved) and so only a bishop or priest may officiate (and again, folks, please don’t cite canon law to me – I am (unfortunately) all too well aware of what I’ll call the “oddities” therein) . Yeah, OK, sure, the net effect is pretty much the same, but there are (theoretically, at least, even in the Churches in union with Rome) undeniable theological differences in the concept.

Alright … so much for my my unsolicited :twocents: which is probably worth less than half that. 🤷

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
nightrider009 said:
I used to think that marriage (like the other sacraments) was something that absolutely required a priest. But if the priest doesn’t have anything "sacramental’ to do…
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There has never been a dogma on this particular matter in the CC (see the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Sacrament of Marriage). Both views (i.e., of the necessity and non-necessity of the priest in marriage) are found in the Tradition of the Latin Church.

The current Canon law of the Latins states that the blessing of the priest is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, insofar as it is part of the form of the marriage.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
ConstantineTG said:
What? That is actually what is in Canon Law, that a marriage is to be PRESUMED valid until proven otherwise. If you want to complain, complain to the Vatican for mentioning that.
Click to expand...
The topic of the OP is talking about validity with respect to the ministers of marriage. Your statement was not useful. Of course, a marriage tribunual is the one that determines validity (same with the Orthodox Churches), but that fact doesn’t contribute to the thread at all.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
The topic of the OP is talking about validity with respect to the ministers of marriage. Your statement was not useful. Of course, a marriage tribunual is the one that determines validity (same with the Orthodox Churches), but that fact doesn’t contribute to the thread at all.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Well I didn’t respond to the OP. Don’t you think it’s silly for me to quote somebody else and then respond to the OP? If I wanted to respond to the OP, I would have addressed him or quoted his post. 🤷
 
ConstantineTG said:
Well I didn’t respond to the OP. Don’t you think it’s silly for me to quote somebody else and then respond to the OP? If I wanted to respond to the OP, I would have addressed him or quoted his post. 🤷
Click to expand...
So brother Jharek was correct in his criticism of your post, which does not really belong in this thread.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
edit: Forget it, I’m tired of being baited into this uncharitable discussions.
 
gus said:
You have to get a divorce first
annullment may be abused in the US
But its nowhere near as abused as unbibical divorce and remarriage.
Click to expand...
Where in the Bible did God authorize annulments? Where in the Bible is it outlined what constitutes a nullifyable marriage?

But divorce and remarriage was allowed by Moses. And Jesus even said that divorce is allowed when there is porneia. So it is biblical. 😉
 
adrift said:
You post a provocative comment that is off topic and you are the one being baited:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Is there anything more provocative and off topic than this:
mardukm said:
So brother Jharek was correct in his criticism of your post, which does not really belong in this thread.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
My comment, while provocative, is spot on to the post I replied to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top