east and west and marriage

[Apotheoun]

I am only going to say this one more time. I am Byzantine Catholic and so I accept the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, I do not believe that the man and woman are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage; instead, I hold that the priest (or bishop) is, and for me, as a Byzantine Catholic, that doctrine is definitive.

The doctrine and practice of the Latin Church in this matter is its own concern.

[Era Might]

Well, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a "Byzantine Catholic Church" apart from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all particular Churches, and her authentic Magisterium supercedes any theological proposition; whether it is Latin, Byzantine, or otherwise.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 04:40 PM']The issue in dispute here is not one of theology, but doctrine. Theology is the proper domain of theologians. Theology is based on doctrine, that is, the official teaching of the Church, to which all Catholics, Eastern or Western, owe their assent; although formulations of that doctrine may vary (eg, the positive formulation of the Assumption as opposed to the negative formulation of the Dormition, or the positive formulation of "full of grace" as opposed to the negative formulation of "free from sin").
Of course, because the filioque is not essential to the creed. It is simply a method of Latin formulation. Its absence or presence, properly understood, does nothing to change the doctrine held by the Church, to which all Catholics are bound. The Catechism of the Catholic Church underscores this:
It is of vital importance to grasp that the Filioque "does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the [b]same mystery confessed[/b]." In other words, we believe the same doctrinal mystery, we simply formulate it in different ways. Any Eastern harmonization of the filioque that transgresses the doctrinal understanding of the Magisterium is, de facto, an invalid proposition.
This is, in fact, not an Eastern theological formulation, but Catholic doctrine. This is precisely what the Filioque professes. The Father is the source of the divine nature, but this divine nature proceeds from the Father to the Son, and hence, from the Son to the Spirit.
In the East, this is true. It is not true, however, as an absolute doctrinal principle. It is simply true insofar as the Liturgical form of the East requires it. In like manner, the Liturgical form of the East requires leavened bread, while the Western form requires unleavened. Neither the East nor the west holds that either type of bread is absolutely necessary. Their necessity flows from Liturgical form, not intrinsic necessity.
Catholic doctrine supercedes East and West, or any other kind of theology. Catholic doctrine upholds the validity of Eastern and Western marriages. The difference in these two forms are Liturgical, not doctrinal. A priest is necessary in the East, not because the Sacrament intrinsically requires it (if it did, Latin marriages would be invalid), but because this is how the Eastern Liturgical form communicates the Sacrament.
Like I said above, all theology is subordinated to the Magisterium of the Church. The Eastern and Western theological patrimony are valid only insofar as they do not transgress the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

It is as absurd to claim that the blessing of the priest is ABSOLUTELY necessary in the East as it would be to claim to the use of leavened bread is also ABSOLUTELY necessary. It could, in theory, change, because the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church formally acknowledges that a marriage can be validly effected without the blessing of a priest, should the Liturgical form permit it.

This is further evident in the fact that an Eastern Catholic marrying a Latin Catholic can be married according to the Latin Liturgical tradition, and there is no problem presented. If a Latin Catholic spouse transfers Churches, neither does the marriage need to be performed again.
[right][snapback]714769[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If you hold that the Son gives hypostatic existence to the Holy Spirit, then you and I do not agree about the nature of the [i]filioque[/i], but if you hold as I do that the Father alone gives existential being to the hypostasis of the Spirit, then we do agree.

The Vatican seems far more open to the Eastern position than you do, and if the Holy See is willing to come to terms with the Triadological differences between East and West, then perhaps you should try to as well.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 06:48 PM']Well, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a "Byzantine Catholic Church" apart from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all particular Churches, and her authentic Magisterium supercedes any theological proposition; whether it is Latin, Byzantine, or otherwise.
[right][snapback]714876[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well clearly you and I have different doctrinal understandings as it concerns the minister of the sacrament of marriage. But I have no problem with Latins holding to their own doctrine on the issue, but I will not surrender the Eastern position simply because a scholastic formulation dated to the 12th century is different than the historic teaching of the Eastern Fathers.

Moreover, the Vatican doesn't seem to have a problem with this.

[Era Might]

[quote]Moreover, the Vatican doesn't seem to have a problem with this. [/quote]

Well, I beg to differ, and I have presented an actual argument to that effect. You have fallen back on the shallow cry of "I'm an Eastern Catholic", which doesn't apply here. As if the Church's doctrinal faith were divisible between East and West.

But, whatever. I presented my objections. I'll let them speak for themselves.

Peace.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 06:56 PM']Well, I beg to differ, and I have presented an actual argument to that effect. You have fallen back on the shallow cry of "I'm an Eastern Catholic", which doesn't apply here.

But, whatever. I presented my objections. I'll let them speak for themselves.

Peace.
[right][snapback]714885[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And what document of the Holy See has condemned the Eastern teaching?

I have great respect for you as a person, but you are not the Holy See.

[Era Might]

I didn't say the Church condemned the Eastern teaching.

What I said was that your contention does not reflect Eastern teaching, and if it did, would present a contradiction to the faith of the Church.

Plurality in unity does not extend to doctrine. One group of Catholics can't believe the Eucharist is really God and one group believe it isn't. One group of Catholics can't believe Tradition is authoritative and one group believe it isn't. And neither can one group believe a priest is absolutely necessary (as opposed to Liturgically necessary) for a valid marriage and one group believe it isn't. Because the Church officially accepts the latter position, it makes the former an untenable contradiction.

The only sense in which a priest can be said to be "necessary" is in a conditional sense, that is, according to the Liturgical form, not according to any intrinsic necessity of the Sacrament.

[quote]I have great respect for you as a person, but you are not the Holy See. [/quote]

And I don't claim to be. My arguments have always been based on the teaching of the Church.

The Eastern Fathers were no more infallible than the Latin Fathers. Both groups of Fathers have been wrong on things. The Church has superceded them not a few times. St. Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist, for Pete's sake. Respect and embrace the Eastern Fathers, but don't use them as a trump card against the living Magisterium, because they aren't. They themselves would always submit to the Church.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:03 PM']I didn't say the Church condemned the Eastern teaching.

What I said was that your contention does not reflect Eastern teaching, and if it did, would present a contradiction to the faith of the Church.

Plurality in unity does not extend to doctrine. One group of Catholics can't believe the Eucharist is really God and one group believe it isn't. One group of Catholics can't believe Tradition is authoritative and one group believe it isn't. And neither can one group believe a priest is absolutely necessary (as opposed to Liturgically necessary) for a valid marriage and one group believe it isn't. Because the Church officially accepts the latter position, it makes the former an untenable contradiction.

The only sense in which a priest can be said to be "necessary" is in a conditional sense, that is, according to the Liturgical form, not according to any intrinsic necessity of the Sacrament.
And I don't claim to be. My arguments have always been based on the teaching of the Church.
[right][snapback]714896[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, the Eastern Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox position on this issue is identical, in fact Eastern Catholics are to be following the positions of their historic mother Churches on these issues, just as they do on other matters. Eastern Catholics should be as Orthodox as possible, because that will show the Eastern Orthodox that communion with Rome does not involve the destruction of the patrimony of the Orthodox East.

But I'm sure this will be uncomfortable for many Latin scholastics, but if there is ever to be communion with the Orthodox it is necessary.

[Era Might]

[quote]Eastern Catholics should be as Orthodox as possible[/quote]

The Church of Rome defines orthodoxy. Ubi Petri, ibi Ecclesia. Eastern (or Western) traditions are not idols to be worshipped, they are guides to our life of faith. As I said above, the Church has rejected propositions from East and West. Such is the nature of a living Magisterium. It is idolotrous to hold on to a Father because he's from the East. The Fathers do not speak for God. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:12 PM']The Church of Rome defines orthodoxy. Ubi Petri, ibi Ecclesia. Eastern traditions are not idols to be worshipped, they are guides to our life of faith. As I said above, the Church has rejected propositions from East and West. Such is the nature of a living Magisterium. It is idolotrous to hold on to a Father because he's from the East. The Fathers do not speak for God. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does.
[right][snapback]714913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, that's a very scholastic statement. But I'm not a scholastic, and orthodoxy is not reducible to 'definitions.' Orthodoxy is the living of the deposit of faith.

[Era Might]

Well, as is usually the case, our discussion has deeper roots, to the very foundation of ecclesiology.

I sometimes wonder, given the nature of our disagreements, whether one of us is even Catholic. Which one, I don't know. I guess it depends on who is right.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Again.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

Nor do we have to agree on every issue. The East and the West were in communion with each other for a millennium and many of the differences that we have talked about were held during that time too.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Now perhaps my understanding of the situation and my analogy is much too juvenile for this discussion, in which case I humbly beg forgiveness from both Apotheoun and from Eramite, but I don't see why the two theological understandings of the Sacrament of Marriage must be mutually exclusive.

For my analogy, lets use the driving age. In Maryland, the driving age is about 16. Now lets say in California the driving age is 18. The person from California will say "a person from California cannot drive unless he is 18" while the person from Maryland will say "a 16 year old can drive if he is in Maryland."

Thus, if being "in Maryland" is equivalent to being "in the Latin Rite" then it isn't necessary to be 18 to drive. But if, on the contrary, one is from California (read: an Eastern Rite), then a person can't drive until he turns 18.

This isn't subjectivism or relativism, because the Church is the whole of the US. It has room for both California and Maryland.

In the same way, the Church has room for Eastern and Western traditional understandings of the Sacrament of Marriage. Each one follows logically from different underlying suppositions, and the Church doesn't say one way or another which set of premises is correct, so long as both are in accord with Apostolic Tradition.

[kateri05]

not to complicate things further, but using that analogy, you would be allowed to drive in MD if you had a CA license, but if you were under 18, you couldn't drive in CA even if you could in MD. so... wouldn't that then imply that eastern marriage is valid in the west but the eastern rite wouldn't accept a western marriage... which, if the eastern rite is in full communion with Rome, that can't be possible.... so.... yea.

sorry, i just have found this conversation fascinating

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Sep 8 2005, 12:00 AM']not to complicate things further, but using that analogy, you would be allowed to drive in MD if you had a CA license, but if you were under 18, you couldn't drive in CA even if you could in MD.  so...  wouldn't that then imply that eastern marriage is valid in the west but the eastern rite wouldn't accept a western marriage... which, if the eastern rite is in full communion with Rome, that can't be possible.... so....  yea.

  sorry, i just have found this conversation fascinating
[right][snapback]715131[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The intent of the analogy was for one state to correspond to one tradition. Thus, if a person LEFT California (the eastern Tradition) and CAME INTO Maryland (the western Tradition) then that person's views on what the driving age is would change.

But, as is always the case, analogies break down if you try to push them too far, lol.