Validity of the sacraments

[Elf01]

In the Roman rite the couple confer the sacrament on each other. In Eastern rites the priest is the minister. I’m wondering how much diversity is permissible?

I know the Eastern rites (at least some) use leavened bread for the Eucharist, but I assume that it would be illicit rather than invalid for a Roman rite priest. I’m assuming that they could not change the matter to gluten free bread or grape juice. Feel free to correct.

 

[Spyridon]

Everything you’ve said is spot on.

 

[Elf01]

Good to know, but I’m wondering what diversity would be permissible?

 

[OmnesBonum]

There must be a very large amount, since there are very different practices and even different matter and form that are used in different sacraments in eastern churches, such as everyone receiving anointing of the sick every year, water being added to chalice after consecration, difference in understanding of first communion/confirmation, Eucharist with no specific words of consecration (in “orthodox” church), different canons of scripture, etc. Even within the western rite itself the form of the sacraments was changed after Vatican II. I don’t know what if any limit there technically would be.

 

[FrDavid96]

Good to know, but I’m wondering what diversity would be permissible?

It’s not something that can be defined in strict terms

Usually, the answer is that East and West are the same in what is essential, but differ in what is non-essential.

That sounds nice, but it’s difficult to define that–which is exactly what your post expresses.

I think that, practically speaking, the Church sees that what is established Tradition in both East and West is legitimate.

So, if we observe a difference, and the practice is well-established in both, that means it’s non-essential. When we completely agree (and also say that is it essential), that’s an essential.

It is only in the last few decades that the West is truly beginning to accept the legitimacy of the East.

Your example of the minister of marriage is a good one. Even the 1990 Eastern Code did a poor job of articulating this difference. It would be more than a quarter-century later that Pope Francis would finally put into the codes that an Eastern Catholic must be married by a priest.

 

[twf]

Regarding the Eucharistic Prayer / Anaphora without an explicit institution narrative, you’re thinking of the Assyrian Church of the East… all Orthodox liturgies have an explicit institution narrative.

 

[tweedlealice]

Blessings
The Maranite church under the Pope, gives Baptism, Communion and Confirmation at Baptism to infant…
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[Elf01]

Usually, the answer is that East and West are the same in what is essential, but differ in what is non-essential.

That sounds nice, but it’s difficult to define that–which is exactly what your post expresses.

With good reason, it’s exactly what I’m trying to figure out .

If we stick with the marriage issue for now, the minister seems essential to me. If I did not explicitly know they were different I would not assume they could be. Does anyone have the reasoning behind it?

On saying that I also don’t get why in the Roman rite marrying outside the Church without a dispensation is a validity issue and not a licity issue.