www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Byzantine/Latin Marriage

I was involved in a discussion on the nature of marriage in the Catholic Church. If you're interested in reading the original exchange, see here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36883 (I am Eremite/Era Might, and the main person I was discussing it with is Apotheoun).

Anyway, I maintain that, first, the doctrinal teaching of the Church of Rome is universal. We cannot divide doctrine between East and West. We can formulate it differently, but the faith remains the same.

I argued that it cannot be said that a priest is ABSOLUTELY necessary for a valid marriage, because the West does not require it. If such a proposition were believed in the East, it would, in effect, invalidate Latin marriages.

Thus, my answer is that a harmonization must be given which preserves both forms. So, a priest is necessary in the East, not intrinsically, but because such is the nature of Eastern Liturgical form. An analogy can be seen in the Eucharistic bread used. East and West differ in using leavened/unleavened bread. Because the Church accepts both, then it can't be said that either is intrinsically necessary, only that they are necessary insofar as the Liturgical form requires them.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

There are many doctrines that differ between East and West; for example, the doctrinal distinction between the divine essence and the uncreated divine energy, and in connection with this theological distinction is the understanding of grace as uncreated, because in Byzantine theology grace is divine energy itself, i.e., grace is God as He exists outside of His incommunicable essence. Now clearly there are real doctrinal differences between the East and the West, the ones spoken of here being just two examples, but for Catholics, both Eastern and Western, the unifying role of the Papacy allows for these doctrinal differences. In fact the Popes have, over the past 40 years in particular, encouraged Eastern Catholics to retrieve their Eastern heritage, and that is precisely what the process of de-latinization is all about. As I have said to you before, you may not like that this is the case, but it is nonetheless, and this process has been promoted by the Popes themselves.

Apotheoun,

I should have known you were a member here.

I have addressed the issue you raised vis a vis the divine essence. There is no Magisterial teaching of the Church on this matter. Disagreement among Catholics is a venerable tradition. When the Church formally rules on a particular issue, however, disagreement is no longer permitted.

Because the Church formally accepts the validity of Latin marriages, it is a logical contradiction to propose a priest is intrinsically necessary for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. If he were, the Church could not accept the validity of Latin marriages. But she, in fact, does, and we know with infallible certainty that Latin marriages are valid. Hence, it must logically follow that a priest is necessary in the East because of Byzantine Liturgical form, not because of any intrinsic necessity of the Sacrament.

And, to be absolutely clear, I'm all for the de-Latinization of the East.

What I cannot support is the de-Catholicization of the East.

Eastern and Western traditions must be subordinated to the Magisterium. We must conform our particular theories to the judgement of the universal Church. This is true for the West as much as it is of the East, and there have been plenty of times in the West when theological propositions have been rejected.

Are you serious?

I suppose you have not read Benedict XII's decree "Benedictus Deus" where he speaks of the vision of God as a vision of the divine essence, using of course Scholastic categories. But in the Eastern Church the divine essence cannot be seen, because it is utterly transcendent and incommunicable. Thus, the vision of God entails a vision of the uncreated energy, and not the divine essence. But of course Pope Benedict XII was using the doctrinal categories of the Scholastics and so he did not make a distinction between God's essence and His uncreated energy.

As an Eastern Catholic I hold that the vision of God involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energy, and not a vision of the divine essence.

A papal communication of Latin theology does not imply a doctrinal judgement.

It has been noted in the past, in at least one Encyclical, that St. Joseph never married before his marriage to Our Lady. This certainly does not impose a judgement on the theory that St. Joseph may have been a widower. It is simply an instance of the Holy Father letting his Latin tradition shine through. This is all the more understandable when his audience is virtually entirely Latin.

If you insist that the Church has formally ruled on this issue, please provide something more than a Papal reference. Provide a formal judgement on the issue.

Of course I'm a member here, I am Byzantine Catholic after all.

My dear friend Eremite,

It is a doctrinal statement of the Pope, and that is precisely why it is contained in the Enchiridion Symbolorum.

Moreover, it is a formal declaration of Pope Benedict XII's in which he condemned the teaching of his predecessor Pope John XXII.

As far as the particular issue of who the minister of the sacrament of marriage is, I will stand by the statement of Eparch Pataki of Passaic, who wrote that: "Marriage in the Eastern Church is a sacrament conferred by the priest by means of the crowning and nuptual blessing, not by the couple as in the Latin Church. Thus, a deacon may not officiate at the marriage of an Eastern Catholic. By law, marriages are performed by the pastor of the groom unless special permission has been received; and Eastern Catholic Churches do not typically give the dispensation which allows a marriage to a non-Catholic to be performed by a non-Catholic minister, which is sometimes given in the Latin Church."

Hi Guys,

Instead of getting into particulars, we should probably sort out a few background questions. Most importantly:

(1) Are the dogmatic decisions of the Western Church (the Church of Rome) universally binding for the Eastern Catholic churches? That is, must the Eastern Catholic churches accept them as true, whether they use the same expressions in their Eastern tradition or not?

I believe, with you, Eremite, that they must. I suspect, however, that Apotheoun doesn't (and I mean this as no disrespect; that is my humble -- and possibly wrong -- exegesis of his posts). Incidentally, I find Apotheoun's position, as I understand it, untenable. To take the example of the divine essence: if it is the case that the Western church unequivocally believes that the divine essence can be apprehended, and it is also the case that the Eastern church unequivocally believes that the divine essence is beyond apprehension, then the result would be that the two churches believe in two different realities. That is, they would believe in two different divine essences. The consequence of this is that they ultimately believe (I am afraid to say) in two different gods. As Apotheoun himself admits on the phatmass forum, on his view the East and the West have different metaphysical presuppositions. But different metaphysical presuppositions lead to different metaphysics. Different metaphysics imply different realities and different world-views.

In short, I have a very hard time seeing how, if Apotheoun's position is correct, it is not a consequence that the East and the West worship different Trinities.

I know that is a very strong way of stating the case, and I am very apprehensive to say it as such... But perhaps making it crystal clear will get at the heart of the issue? I can only hope.

Humbly Yours,
Jason

I hold that some of the particular decisions taken by the Western Church cannot be used in the Eastern Church because the metaphysics underlying the two traditions are different. This holds in particular for questions surrounding the Triadological formulations of the early councils, which are based primarily upon the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity, while the later Western Councils are based upon the Neoplatonic metaphysics of Augustine. The two systems, the essentialist system of Augustine, and the hypostatic system of the Cappadocians, cannot be combined without bringing in doctrinal error. I suggest that those interested read the "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" written by St. Photios, for he expresses clearly why the Eastern Church cannot accept the Western formulation of the filioque.

There is a good article in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review which touches upon this issue, it was written by Philip Zymaris and it is entitled "Neoplatonism, the Filioque, and Photios' Mystagogy" (GOTR, 46:3-4, 2001).

Apotheoun,

Given that -- which indeed does get us somewhere -- I have additional questions that I think are fundamental:

(1) Whether or not the particular decisions of the Western Church can be used in the Eastern Church -- perhaps it just wouldn't make sense in their traditions -- are those decisions true, or not?

(2) If a doctrine declared infallibly by the Western Church presupposes a particular metaphysical standpoint, does it or does it not follow that the metaphysical presuppositions are therefore also ipso facto infallible doctrine?

(3) Which metaphysics, if either, correctly or truthfully identifies the Trinity?

I mean no offense by these potentially seemingly hard-headed questions.

Humbly Yours,
Jason

By the way, I should perhaps point out (so that no one ends up typing what they don't need to type) that I am at least reasonably familiar with the Vatican's clarification on the filioque, Photios' Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, additional literature such as that from the Eastern Council of Blachernae and its Tomus of 1285, etc. I understand why the understanding of Augustine will not work in an Eastern context, nor do I necessarily intend to question that.

Jason

Jason,

You are aware that the East makes a distinction between essence, energy, and hypostasis in the Trinity, while the Scholastic theologians of the West identify all of these in God as one and the same. In the Summa Prima Pars Q. 39 St. Thomas holds that nature or essence is really identical with person in God, and that they are distinct only in our way of thinking about them. But this ultimately reduces God to a single monistic essence, in which there are no real hypostatic distinction, but merely an epistemic distinction, and this borders on the doctrine of Sabellius.

In the Eastern doctrine hypostasis and nature or essence are really distinct and this safeguards the reality of the divine hypostases while also protecting the unity of God's essence. Moreover, the failure to make a real distinction between essence and hypostasis leads to Christological difficulties, because Christ is one divine hypostasis in two natures, but if nature and essence are identical, then it follows that the essence/hypostasis (one and the same thing) has become incarnate, and the Father and Spirit, who possess the divine essence have also become incarnate.

The different metaphysics of East and West cannot be combined without causing problems.

Apotheoun,

Yes, indeed, I am aware of all of what you have said. I am curious, however, when you say:

Perhaps that is true. Even so, your analysis of the Western position also suggests that it is wrong on its own terms (that is, regardless of whether or not it is combined with the Eastern view). On your view, the Western view reduces the divine essence to an absolutely simple monad, eliminating real distinctions between hypostases. My question is just this: is that a false view of the Trinity, or not? Is the Trinity of the West a different Trinity from the Trinity of the East, or not?

Forgive me for pressing you, but this is an issue that deeply concerns me as well, as you know.

Humbly Yours,
Jason