www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ministers of Matrimony

I'll quote the relevant part:

If this is the parties' intention, both being in Christ, they receive what they intended, raised (perhaps without their realizing it) to the sacramental and supernatural level, enriched and transformed by grace. What is needed is not a sacramental intention -- not even implicitly -- but a matrimonial intention. Regarding marriage itself, then, the parties must have full personal intention to marry; regarding sacramentality, no further intention is required of them.

That's not much of an answer. IF so, then this approach from Canon Law as you interpret it makes theology absurd, which is what I was saying about doing a top down theology where the Law neglects the Church (Ecclesiology). In that it, in some form, demonstrates the equality of all the baptized it is admirable but it then acts unaware of the reality of the Church as the "sacrament of salvation" (note my earlier comment, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). My opinion.

You didn't directly answer my question so again, with context:

Two Catholics marry (non-Catholic ceremony, no dispensation); you say the marriage is invalid.

Two Catholics marry (non-Catholic ceremony, no dispensation); you say the marriage is a sacrament.

It depends on whether they are faithful or have formally defected from the Church. If they have not formally defected, or if the Church has not accepted their letter of defection, then they are still bound by canon law; and thus said marriage would be invalid (i.e. not a sacrament).

The moderators have limited my posting, with the intent of eventually blocking me. They are hostile to anything "western," and thus I will make sure to inform everyone that this forum is unsuited for reasonable discussion.

Actually, as it turns out in 2009, Pope Benedict issued a motu proprio titled, "Omnium in Mentem," which stated:

The Code of Canon Law nonetheless prescribes that the faithful who have left the Church "by a formal act" are not bound by the ecclesiastical laws regarding the canonical form of marriage (cf. can. 1117), dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult (cf. can. 1086) and the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages (cf. can. 1124). The underlying aim of this exception from the general norm of can. 11 was to ensure that marriages contracted by those members of the faithful would not be invalid due to defect of form or the impediment of disparity of cult.

Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint. In addition, many difficulties have surfaced both in pastoral activity and the practice of tribunals. Indeed, the new law appeared, at least indirectly, to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy in places where the Catholic faithful are not numerous or where unjust marriage laws discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion. The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage. Finally, among other things, many of these marriages in effect became, as far as the Church is concerned, "clandestine" marriages.

RomCatholic,

Well, here you are going too far.

If I've read you correctly on the matter of marriage in East and West, your argument goes something like this:

The Western Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony is that the Sacrament is effected by the man and woman entering into it;

The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox understanding is that the Sacrament/Mystery of Crowning is given to the consenting man and woman through the priest or bishop;

Then you posit, and please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument, that since the Western form is as valid as that of the East in the eyes of the Christian East, THEN this somehow makes the Western understanding the true one.

If I'm correct in assessing your interpretation here, then your argument is philosophically (not to mention theologically) unsound.

Alex

Yes, you definitely misunderstood me. In fact, I am confused as how you came to such a conclusion.

This seems like a state of confusion. the fruit of a top-down development.

It should be noted that having a priest preside over a wedding is not an ecclesiastical impediment, but rather a requirement. The impediments established by ecclesiastical law are clandestinity, difference of religion, affinity, etc.

According to Canon 1059: The marriage of catholics, even if only one party is baptised, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage.

Also to go back to the fact that the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament, canon 1055.1-2 states:

Canon 1055.1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Canon 1055.2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptised persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.

Note that it is simply referring to Christian marriages in general.

Whether you are eventually blocked is up to you and your posting behavior. But I seem to remember you stating you didn't care in the least if you were banned. You seem to care now. We are not hostile to anything "western". We do not appreciate anyone Western or Eastern coming here and pontificating to the rest.

"Also to go back to the fact that the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament, canon 1055.1-2 states:"

A close reading of that canon doesn't even address "ministers of the sacrament."

What is clearly stated is that between baptized spouses the sacrament of marriage obtains if and only if the marriage is valid. Makes sense.

Also to be considered from the Occidental code, CIC:

These are re-posted here from Why is marriage perceived as eternal in Orthodox theology? since further discussion of the particulars pertains to this thread.


St. Thomas, as always, is informative in his metaphysical overlay on theology. But it is a metaphysics and it is an overlay: instructive, not definitive.

The west differentiates, the east integrates; the Church embraces both.

"What is clearly stated is that between baptized spouses the sacrament of marriage obtains if and only if the marriage is valid. Makes sense."

You are clearly misinterpreting what it states.

Canon 1055.2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptised persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.

What it is stating is that marriage between Christians, and the sacrament of matrimony are one and the same thing. As Pope St. Leo XIII stated:

A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well.


You should stop pressing the issue. You are clearly in error.

Sure they are; they're receiving the sacraments, baptism and matrimony at the least. Not card carrying members as the law might view it. But they receive the sacraments, there is only one baptism, one Church: extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.