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