www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Byzantine Catholic wedding vow ceremony

dear Tim:

Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head!

There are Indeed different theologies of the Holy Rite of Crowning between the Latin Church and the Byzantine Churches.

In the Latin Church:
Vows are Essential, because the Couple (as it were) Make the Marriage - by their "Contracting" together. THEY (& not the Cleric) are the Ministers of the Sacrament. Thus for example the Latin Bishop (where necessary) could appoint a layperson to "officiate" because the "officiator" is only a witness.

Canonically for example the bishop could (and I think often does) give permission for a Protestant minister to officiate at a Catholic wedding - again, because he/she is only a witness.

In the Byzantine Churches (like the UGCC and the Ruthenian in the US):
the Priest is the Minister and was said by previous posters the essential part of the Rite is the Crowning. In the Byzantine Churches, the one that "Makes" the marriage (as it were) is the Priest. And canonically there MUST be a BLESSING - no blessing no marriage. Thus it must be priest or a bishop (not a deacon, because in the Byzantine Churches, it is not the function of deacons to give blessings).

--Thus canonically, a Protestant minister cannot be given permission to "do" a marriage of Byzantine Christians, because the Protestant Minister is not a Priest & thus not authorized to give the blessing of Crowning. For example, if a Catholic of one of the Byzantine Churches were to wed a Protestant in the Protestant's own church, permission could be obtained for this, BUT a priest must be present to give the Blessing.

This explains why Vows in the Byzantine ritual (while extant for a number of years) are really extraneous to the theology of the rite (and, as been posted before, the liturgical interpolation can be historically traced and documented).

Also the very rite tells us something of the meaning (at least in the Byzantine Order of Crowning). The couple's "covenanting" together (their consent) happens at the betrothal. This happens in the Narthex. But when the Priest leads them (following the cross, and hands crossed & holding on to the Epitrakhil) into the Sanctuary it becomes much more than a contract between 2 persons, but enters into the Spiritual realm and includes God in their lives.

hopes this helps.

As to why the Vows or any of the other Latinizations still extant in the Eastern Catholic churches are still being tolerated by the Hierarchs, those are not so much, I think, theological or liturgical questions, but questions of pastoral sensitivity.


And yes there is confusion, but this is certainly not the only issues in the life of the Eastern Catholic Churches, where our gradual transitioning from being quite latinized to becoming fully "Eastern" (or Orthodox, if you will) creates "confusion". Church life can be quite complicated and confusing...(what can I say?)

Herb

All of which may raise still more questions:
1) Why is the Betrothal Rite celebrated as part of the Rite of Crowning? (After all, any actual 'betrothal' probably took place some time before the wedding day. When my wife and I were engaged, over 40 years ago, our pastor celebrated the Betrothal Rite for us after an evening prayer service. I'm afraid some of the people present mistook it for some sort of clandestine wedding.)
2) What is Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic practice/teaching on the possibility of Christian marriage when no priest is available? Or is that one of those situations where 'oekonomeia' (sp?) is invoked?
3) Are the differences that seem to exist among Latin Catholic, some Byzantine Catholic, and Orthodox views on the Minister of the Sacrament/Mystery serious theological issues or merely matters of "emphasis"?
4) What are the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic positions on Western Christian marriages? On marriages between Western Christians and Byzantine Catholics/Orthodox: (a) when celebrated in a Catholic Church (Latin or Byzantine)? (b) when celebrated in an Orthodox Church?
5) Do all Catholic Churches of the Byzantine tradition (UGC, BCC, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Belarussian, Greek, Albanian, etc.) have the same view on the theology and discipline of the Mystery/Sacrament?
6) Do all other Eastern Churches (Catholic and non-Catholic) share the same view on the theology and discipline of the Mystery?

Re the Betrothal
I suspect you are right about the Order of Betrothal. And I have seen it done (as in your case) before the Crowning. I have even seen some cases where the couples family was in different parts of the country and they did the Betrothal in one part & the Crowning in the other.

As to the reason, I don't know, but as with many things byzantine, I suspect there are historical and practical reasons for the migration from the original practice and we are the inheritors of the gradual evolution of our churches' liturgical past. (eg Why do we have multiple dismissals in the Divine Liturgy or do the Prayers of the Faithful at the very beginning or have a "psalm that does not "respond" to a prior Bible reading?)

2) Again, I would have to agree with you. I'm not sure that it is the Byzantine/Eastern approach to speculate about what can canonically and validly happen "in case of near death" for Holy Mysteries/Salvation to take place. It seems that our Churches proclaim what is the best practise (eg Fasting) and not the absolute bottowm line necessary unto salvation (maybe more of a Latin tendency).

3) It is a significant canonical and theological difference, not just style or cosmetics (if you will). Canonically, if a Latin were to marry a Protestant in the Protestant Church, they could get permission for the minister to officiate. If a Byzantine were to marry a Protestant in a Protestant Church, some priest who have to be there for the Blessing/Crowning.

It is interesting that despite the real differences in theology and canonicity, we (the Latins and the Byzantines) can both agree to disagree and respect each others practice. Eg: if a Latin marries a Byzantine, they can be Crowned/Vowed in by either rite validly and canonically!

If a canonical Byzantine (but baptized & raised in the Latin Church) wanted to marry a Protestant in the Prot. Church, the Byzantine's de facto Pastor (a Latin priest) would ask for permission and delegation of the Byzantine hierarch to have the crowning there and delegation to blessing them with Crowning in the Protestant church.

4) Byzantine Churches recognize marriages in both the Orthodox and the Latin Churches.

I suspect that the Orthodox "recognize" the marriages of Byzantines and Latins - but I'm not sure they would recognize that they are true Mysteries and Grace-bearing (maybe some would while others wouldn't). (Maybe some of our Orthodox members could respond)

Re the Orthodox re their own faithful, I think only recognize marriages by Orthodox clergy.

5) All Byzantine Churches have the same theological and liturgical tradition (with minor local variations liturgically both within and between churches) - because it is all 13 Churches use the same "rite".

6) This one I do not know, but it would not at all surprise me that each rite's theology and canon law is quite different in the Christian east. As you can see from their liturgies, the various eastern Rites can differ as much from each other as they can from the Latins (naturally) - which is why it is not correct to talk about the "Eastern Rite" as their ain't no such animal. Cf. the Ethiopian liturgy vis a vis the Chaldean vis a vis the Byzantine! A world of difference!

There are certainly differences in the canons and different disciplines. But for Catholics, while the theological aspects can be diverse, the fundamental theology must be one.

I, coincidentally, spoke with a priest just this past Sunday about the point noted in 3): "If a Byzantine were to marry a Protestant in a Protestant Church, some priest who have to be there for the Blessing/Crowning." For a Catholic, such a wedding, with proper dispensations, can be allowed; the Byzantine Catholic priest is not required or encouraged to attend.

See also the current related thread Marriage without a priest .

dear ajk:

we may have to agree to disagree about this item, sorry.

I too talked to my priest, who was instructed by his bishop (a canonist) that a Catholic priest be present and give a blessing. I agree that it does not have to be a Byzantine Catholic priest, a Latin priest will do; but I was told that the Chancery insisted that a priest be present and a blessing be done. Maybe they should double check with their respective judicial vicars. Maybe there's been an misunderstanding.

It's certainly true for Latins that once the Permission (a dispensation is not necessary if it is a case of 2 baptized persons) is given, a non-Catholic minister may officiate (because he is only a kind of witness and not the "minister" of the Mystery). But I was informed that that is not the case with Byzantines...

Herb

No need to be sorry. Tell me more; when did you talk to the priest; what jurisdiction/church?

As I said, my inquiry was just this past Sunday. I know the couple. When I said I thought the norm was for the priest to attend he (the priest I was talking with) said that had been so before but now he was told by the Chancery not to attend (that's what I understood; he for sure was NOT there). This is in the Eparchy of Passaic.

dear ajk:

My understanding is from the UGCC (also quite recent), but I would think that the canonical practice would be the same in all Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Your Pastor's application sounds to me somewhat like the normal Latin canonical practice. And he is quite right, after the permission is given for the Protestant minister, the Latin priest is not encourage to go and "be a part" of the ceremony (because that would negate the Permission delegated to the Protestant minister to Witness the Vows and the principle is that there should only be one officiant and not some kind of dual tag-team inter-faith partnership thing)

Слава Ісусу Христу!

The common cup being a substitute for “…conveying the mystery of the union of man and woman, is the most primitive practice… the reception of Holy Communion” stated ajk.

Was the ancient Christian marriage ceremony part of the Liturgy, if so why have we separated them?

The term “catholic” is quite flexible; so is the term “orthodox”. Does anyone know what these terms mean anymore? How about the term “Eastern Christian”?


I am not the one requiring vows. My post was in response to a proposed wedding ceremony whereby Byzantine Catholic bishops wish to preserve or require them. This post was not in response to a ceremony “I” propose or have published in the past. I don’t publish wedding ceremonies for the Byzantine Catholic churches. Their bishops or chief shepherds do.


My post does not address any bishops in Ireland. The proposed wedding ceremony came from the United States under the authority of those bishops who DO publish inclusive language. We have discussed these topics in the past. There is a forum dedicated to this debate on this website. You have published much on the subject. We know what hierarchs we are talking about. Their names are on that RDL book and will soon be on the preserved Latinized wedding vows THEY, not me, you or your bishops, will keep.


The ones who also published the RDL which has incorporated inclusive language. I am not talking about a text being proposed for Ethiopians or Italians. I gave the link to the text being discussed.


It is not about errors, but about the desire of the Byzantine Catholic church in the United States wanting to preserve the vow ceremony. What exactly is the theology behind it? Have these bishops published a teaching on how the vows reflect Byzantine theology? If you only show me, I will can begin to understand. However, we only have a vow ceremony that a number, including you, have stated should not be there. Well, if they should not be there, then maybe an explanation is needed so dummies like me can stop being confused and finally figure out which way they are going on this issue.


So, what IS the legitimate authority on the inclusion of the wedding vows? You have made the argument that other authorities and traditions do NOT include those “wretched vows” (your words). I am left still confused. On one hand, you consider them “wretched”, you don’t use them yourself, other authorities other than the RDL bishops never include them, they are not in the Roman documents, BUT to simply ask why they are still going to be included in the proposed wedding ceremony, I am considered an accuser. Well, if the RDL bishops are doing there own thing apart from Byzantine traditions and ancient authorities, then the burden is on them. What does this Vatican II have to do with including vows in the ceremony?


You continue to place the burden of what the RDL bishops do on me. If the inclusion of the vow ceremony is so “critical”, then those who are establishing the pretext are those who keep insisting on keeping the vows in addition to the secondary crowning rituals. If it is a matter of proving that Byzantine Catholics are real Catholics, then I can understand.

Fr. Serge, I know you are a good man and a dedicated priest in your church community. If no one has saide it lately, let me say it. Christianity and the church is better off with you and your ministry. My comments above are only because I am one sorry fellow who is so confused by the RDL bishops.

Ed

This topic has moved from an inquiry to an argumentative exchange. I don't know what the reason for the argumentative attitude taken by the original poster is, but I am locking this topic because of it.

There are variations in ritual books brought about by factors related to the history of the people of the BCC whose ancestors came from areas where the civil authorities interferred with their liturigcal patrimony. Father Serge and others here have offered explanations. Their expertise in this area needs to be respected.

Bishops don't micromanage the pastoral practice in every parish. That's why we have priests--they are the bishop's representative in the parish and they are sent because the bishop trusts them to stand in his place.

In the future, legitimate inquiry ought not to have such a confrontational attitude as follow-up to explanations offered.

Bob
Moderator