www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Roman and Byzantine marriage

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 [usccb.org]


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.