Canonically, isn't the couple supposed to be married in the Church of the husband, using the rite of that Church, regardless of where the rite is performed?

Dispensation of Rite is easily obtained for any good cause, Stuart. See CCEO canon 831, which merely requires the local priest to get the bishop's or pastor's permission for the bishop or pastor of the domicile or quasi-domicile of one of the parties.

The groom's pastor is to be there unless there's good cause. But it doesn't say it must be done by the groom's pastor, nor in the groom's rite, but in the presence of.

Note that EC's require a priest for licity, whilst Romans may have a deacon.

It is more than a requirement for liceity. It is a requirement for validity. An Eastern Catholic not married by a priest is simply not married.

Well an Eastern Catholic married to a Roman Catholic in a Roman ceremony would be married, I would think.

I wonder why the Lord "requires" a priest for one, but not the other. Wouldn't it be more logical to believe that, either a priest is not required at all, in fact, or else all Catholics who are not married by priests are not actually married?

What I'm saying is, the fact that the Church officially condones and allows Catholics to marry, regardless of the presence of a priest, to me seems to prove that the Byzantine view of marriage, i.e. that a priest is necessary, is simply incorrect.

Alexis

If the wedding is performed by a priest, yes. Otherwise (if it were a deacon) the marriage is invalid.

The Catholic Church recognizes "natural marriages", as does the Orthodox Church. Thus, though we were married in a civil ceremony, when we converted we were not required to get remarried. Originally, the Church as a whole recognized civil marriage as legally binding but not sacramental. After a couple were married, the Church would bless their marriage, sacramentalizing through the sharing of the Eucharist.

In the East, this ceremony of blessing became very elaborate, evolving into the Rite of Crowning in Marriage. Lex orandi, lex credendi, a theology evolved around the rite in its turn--that marriage was (a) a true sacrament; (b) therefore an ecclesial action; in which (c) a man and a woman were united with God as kings, priests and martyrs, co-creators with God; which action (d) could only be performed by a priest; and which (d) had to be sealed with the Eucharist.

In the Latin West, due to the collapse of the civil administration, civil marriages rapidly disappeared for most of the people (the aristocracy, who had property issues, were different). Most normally, a man and a woman would "plight their troth" before the assembled village. If a priest was present, he would bless their marriage, which would be sealed by the reception of communion together. However, in many cases a priest would not be present, or not present for some time, so the plighting of the troth was effectively binding--and the couple would get their marriage blessed somewhere down the road (or maybe not, depending on circumstances). From this, the Latin Church developed the understanding that marriage was a free union of man and woman who essentially were the ordinary ministers of the sacrament. This became more of the case when sealing the marriage with the Eucharist became less common.

Both Traditions are equally valid expressions of the mystery of matrimony. Neither is "simply wrong", but both need to respect each other, along with the rest of the theology and discipline of marriage proper to each particular Church.

Since neither the Eastern Church nor the Western Church had the same conception of marriage even from the beginning, yet did not see this as an impediment to communion, so it should not become one now.

The canons of the Catholic Church say that a woman is married in the Church of her husband. If he is Latin, it is a Latin wedding; if he is Byzantine, it is a Byzantine wedding. If the wedding is to take place in the Latin rite, the canons insist that the ceremony be performed by a priest, rather than a deacon, in deference to the theology of the Eastern Churches.

Of all the Churches only the Latin Church, with its unique theology of marriage (a theology that developed very gradually and in haphazard fashion) holds that the couple marry each other. By the same token, only the Latin Church, with its unique theology of marriage, believes that marriage bonds are terminated upon the death of a spouse. Only the Latin Church allows unrestricted sacramental remarriage so long as there is no living spouse.

In short, the Latin theology and discipline of marriage is the one that is anomalous, so the question ought, perhaps, to be turned around? Or would it not be better simply to respect the Traditions that have developed in each Church and accommodate them as needed in mixed marriages?

Alexis:

I don't mean to sound insulting or arrogant, but in this case it is you who are "simply incorrect." The canon law of the Eastern Churches requires that a priest preside at marriages of their members--even when such marriages take place in a Roman Church. This canon law is acknowledged and respected by Rome. Furthermore, joint guidelines exist requiring that the canon law of the Eastern Churches vis-a-vis marriage be followed when Eastern Catholics are married in a Roman Church. I don't believe that Rome would uphold the Eastern canons, nor do I believe that Roman bishops would participate in the issuance of such guidelines for marriages involving Eastern Catholics but taking place in Roman parishes if it were the intention of Rome to teach that the Byzantine view of marriage is "simply incorrect."

Ryan

Ryan,

I don't think that "Rome" intends to teach that the Byzantine view of marriage is incorrect. What I'm trying to square is this: we all know that a priest is not required for a marriage. This is clear, as it is officially condoned and accepted by the Church. The question then becomes, why do you need a priest to be married, but I don't? Just because I'm Roman and you're Byzantine? Is that all the necessity (or lack thereof) should turn on?

Alexis

It is officially condoned and accepted by ONE Church, and only ONE Church. All other Churches believe differently. Praestantia ritus latini? I thought we were over that.

Well, there is one Church.

Some things can be invalid by the power of law itself. For example, ordination of a married man to episcopate is invalid for that reason.

There is Church and there is Church. There is one Church which is composed of many particular Churches, each of which is equal in grace and dignity. The Church of Rome is not greater than the smallest particular Church in the Catholic communion (or, indeed, any true Church, in or out of communion), and the Tradition of that Church is fully equal to the Tradition of the Church of Rome.

Inter alia, even that rule can be subject to oikonomia. There are Apostolic Churches in which the married episcopate continued well past the Council in Trullo. Before then, there were many married bishops (numbered among the saints, no less), and even a married Pope or two. That the majority of true Churches do not ordain married men to the episcopate does not invalidate the Tradition of those Churches that do.

The one Church that recognizes that a priest is not necessary for marriage is the Catholic Communion of Churches, Stuart, to which you and I both belong. It would seem to me that by virtue of being in communion with the Latin Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches recognize this.

It would be news to me to learn that Eastern Catholics believe Latin Rite Catholics married by a deacon are in fact fornicators.

The "law" argument works better.

Alexis

Marriage requires at least one witness, two valid baptized persons to receive the Sacrament, and at least one person to confer the Sacrament.

In the East, the person conferring is ALWAYS the ordained priest or bishop. The witnesses are individuals from the congregation (usually chosen in advance by the couple), and the one's receiving are the validly baptized couple.

In the West, the persons conferring are the validly baptized couple (in the priesthood of the laity). The witness is the Latin cleric. The persons receiving are the validly baptized couple.



As to the above sentence: "It would be news to me to learn that Eastern Catholics believe Latin Rite Catholics married by a deacon are in fact fornicators" - no Latin Rite Catholics are "married by a deacon". The couple marry each other and the deacon is a witness representing the Church.

The Eastern priest or bishop marries the couple.

I have split these posts from the original thread because, once again, folks, we have forgotten that the original poster asked a question - just that - a question.

When we use the original thread - particular of a newcomer who is not yet familiar with the byzantine ways and thinking that prevail here among both Easterners and Westerners - as a springboard from which to delve into what to others can only be perceived as theological and ecclesiastical esoterica, we set folks' heads aspin - and, surprise, we lose people!

Feel free to continue the debate - but keep it here and off Ali's thread, unless there is something relevant to her situation - and, so far, that's not been the case here.

Many years,

Neil

Canonically, the preference is that the Mystery be performed before the groom's pastor, if the groom is an Eastern or Oriental Catholic, unless the norm of the particular Church sui iuris holds otherwise.



There is no parallel provision in the Latin Canons. In fact, the latter says ...



Many years,

Neil

Alexis,

Quite frankly, your suggestion that our Churches, Byzantine or otherwise, are incorrect in our praxis and are required to adhere to Rome's praxis in this regard was outright rude. As one who intends to practice before the bar, I rather expect that you are aware that statute law is binding, unless and until declared not to be binding by competent authority. I direct your attention to the relevant statutes ...

From the CCEO - where it appears in the midst of a veritable litany of canons that prescribe and describe the circumstances and conditions under which an attempt to enter into a marriage is invalid:



The exceptions - danger of death or the unavailability of any priest for a protracted period (sometimes colloquially termed 'the war and captivity clause', virtually unavailable for invocation in modern times outside of such circumstances). But, note, the blessing of a priest is to be subsequently procured.



The exception here (in 834,2) is to form, for licity - not for validity, which still requires a priest's blessing of the Mystery



Keep in mind, Alexis, that the CCEO was, in significant measure, authored by Rome - not by us, so you needn't be concerned that we slipped something by the dicastry. It just happens that, in this particular instance, they adhered to what has been our praxis nearly since time immemorial - thus, incorporating precedent into the statutes - precedent on which our Churches relied long before these canons were enacted - a practice that is in the best traditions of law, again since time immemorial.



Unlike some of our Latin brethren when they discover our praxis, spirituality, and theology (and despite appearances to the contrary deriving from the occasional fixation here on such things Western as the SSPX or the Anglican initiative), the overwhelming majority of us give no thought to it - it's how you do it and how your Church perceives that it should be done, in the colloquial 'not our business, man'.

And, yes, I did say 'your Church', which is the Latin Church sui iuris. The Latin Church is not the Church which is the Communion of Churches; rather, it is 1/23 of the Church which is that body albeit, reduced to a pie chart divided proportionately, its slice is exponentially larger than the aggregate of all the others. You can, if you like, perceive the Church that is the Communion to be as a shamrock (with no disrespect intended to Saint Patrick's use of it for a Trinitarian analogy) with leaves representing the Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Churches and the shamrock being the Communion.

Many years,

Neil

It would be news to me to learn that Eastern Catholics believe Latin Rite Catholics married by a deacon are in fact fornicators.

What is for Latins works for Latins; what works for Greeks is for Greeks. The nomocanons are clear that, in the Byzantine rite, those NOT married by a priest do not have a valid sacramental marriage, just as those married in a civil ceremony do nt have a sacramental marriage. They do, however, have a "natural" marriage, therefore are not fornicators. I myself was not married by a priest, but my marriage was made sacramental through our Chrismation. However, my children will be married by a priest, because that is the Tradition of the Greek Catholic Churches.

As I said, do not create reasons for separation in areas where the Churches, though following different Traditions, did not see reason for separation in the past.

Not so; the CCEO makes provision for marriage in the absence of a priest. It requires two witnesses. They are married, but not fully so.

How can an Eastern sacramental marriage take place without the participation of a priest to confer the sacrament?

Is this a latinisation of sorts?

Neil,

The simple requirement for merely the "presence" of a bishop or priest seems a not so subtle degradation of Eastern theology which requires not only the "presence" of a priest but teaches that he is the necessary minister of the Sacrament.

Bless, Father,

The reference is to the exercise of oekonomia in danger of death or instances of being without recourse to pastoral care for a protracted time (the Canon says a month, but I doubt one could find a place in the world today where it would be impossible to find a presbyter for a month - with the possible exception of Antarctica).

I rather doubt that anyone has been able to legitimately invoke a need to seek use of this oekonomia since WWII prison camps were liberated.

Many years,

Neil

Bless, Father,



Write it off to a less than elegant translation, but I consider the intention to be understood as following the ancient praxis.

I think the demand that the subsequent priestly blessing be sought if the 'war and captivity' oekonomia is invoked reinforces the point that is intended.

Many years,

Neil

I feel as if we are speaking past each other, which is probably due in large part to my lack of precision and clarity in what I was saying.

I don't mean to put forward the idea that, for Byzantines, a priest is not needed for a marriage (barring extraordinary circumstances, like those listed by Neil above).

What I'm saying is only that Byzantine Catholics, logically, must believe that a priest is not needed for all marriages to enjoy sacramental validity, even in normal circumstances, since in the Latin Rite a priest is not required for this.

So, a priest is required for you, but not for me.

Alexis

The question of married episcopate turned up recently in the case of TAC. I think the question of validity of episcopal orders of the married TAC bishops was not mentioned in the communique of the Holy See.

However I think that Rome believes that it has power over the "sacrament itself", so to say, that is "when we say that from now on ordination of a married man to episcopate is invalid everywhere in the world it means it really is, in all Churches".

I may be wrong, but anyway it would be interesting to know if there were any married (at the moment of ordination) bishops who were allowed to exercise bishop's ministry after reconciling with Rome (without re-ordination) in the las few hundred years. I can't think of any.

BTW, are there any pre-Reformation Churches that have married bishops?

This issue has perplexed me for years. I just don't see how the two views are compatible. This is the only semi-official statement I've found dealing with the issue, and it basically acknowledges that the two points of view cannot be reconciled.

link



Do Eastern Catholic churches permit a dispensation for Eastern Catholics to be married to a baptized non-Catholic in a Protestant service?

Elizabeth

While the two views are not reconcilable on their face, keep in mind that two EC parishioners married by a Roman Deacon in a Roman Parish with faculties from the Roman Bishop due to the absence of a relevant EC priest are validly but illicitly married, as an economia, in the same way in the absence of a deacon, two witnesses might be used.

It's a mater of Economia for the EC couple... if the option is a marriage by witnesses alone, or a Roman Deacon, propriety and avoidance of scandal demands that the Roman Deacon be the witness, best done under what form of marriage is licit for him to be witness to as celebrant. They still need a priestly blessing, but whether married in the parish before witnesses alone or by a deacon, they are not living in sin, even tho as EC's, they have not received the fullness of the blessing a priest may give, and are still obligated to complete the sacrament, but by economia married, and thus able to consumate without sin. But it requires extraordinary circumstances.

Peter:
yes, the Ancient Church of the East, a pre-reformation schism of the Assyrian Church of the East. They also have episcopal offices passed by familial inheritance.

Further, St. Peter himself was married, as were several others of the 12. Several bishops in the various churches in the early years of the church were married.

The lack of married bishops can be seen as disciplinary; the TAC bishops, however, are invalid anyway.

Further, Roman Ecclesiology recognizes that the governing power of an ordinary need not be inherently vested in bishops, but can also be vested in priestly Deans and Pastors, and in Abbots, and in other Vicars Forane. A bishop is required for ordinations.

Isn't the succession in the Church of the East not from father to son but from uncle to nephew?

Why would that be? It seems an assault on the Eastern tradition for a Roman Catholic bishop to appoint a Roman deacon to officate at an Eastern marriage which requires a priest to celebrate the sacrament. After all, it is not as if the bishop cannot easily find a Roman Catholicm priest to officiate and thus make the marriage valid.

At least according to Wikipedia this schism comes from 1964. My understanding of the hereditary succession earlier is similar to Fr Ambrose's.


Yes, but I think we're not sure whether they were not obliged to continence.

Rev. Father,

The Roman Deacon has faculties to bless; so do some non-byzantine EC deacons. It's an automatic faculty in the Roman church; it's a specific additional faculty in some EC churches.

In the case you extracted, the deacon isn't appointed on a case-by-case, but has general and standing faculties to perform weddings.

If no priest (Catholic or Orthodox) is available, however, it's licit, since any two witnesses can stand in, but still not blessed. Next priest they see, it gets blessed, that gets annotated, and the sacrament is fulfilled in completeness and fully licit.

I personally know of a case of where 2 Bezpopovtsy were received back into the Church, their marriage by their Starosta was regularized by the priest with a simple prayer and blessing at the front of the Church after Liturgy.

Alexandr

The CCEO which speaks of a bishop or priest being "present" and "blessing" a marriage is using weasel words since it quite obscures the fact that the priest is the minister of the marriage. Perhaps the intention is the eventual eradication of the Eastern theology which requires a priest not as a witness nor as a "blessor" but as the necessary minister? Thus Eastern matrimonial theology would be displaced by Western.

A deacon can no more officiate at a marriage than he can change bread and wine at a Eucharist or give absolution in Confession.

Goodness, the Eschaton is upon us! Father Ambrose and I agree.

The CCEO is a general canonical text written by the Roman Church generalizing for ALL Eastern Churches - Byzantine, Oriental, Assyrian, etc.

The particular autonomous Catholic Churches are supposed to come up with their own Canons which pertain to their specifics, which update, correct, or omit the generalizations within the CCEO.

That is very gracious of you, Stuart, but let's not make it a precedent!!

When an Eastern Catholic and a Roman Catholic are "married" by a deacon, an annulment will issue, as there is not a valid marriage.

However, those in an invalid marriage are not generally seen as fornicators.



Given that the marriage by a Roman Catholic deacon wouldn't be valid, I don't see how this possibly could be . . .




China

hawk