east and west and marriage

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:21 PM']As far as your question is concerned, I accept anything that my Eparch accepts.
[right][snapback]716114[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I find it disturbing that you can't simply say "Yes, I accept the validity of the marriages conducted according to the Latin rite".

It's not a hard question.

If you cannot answer in the affirmative, then the implications are grave.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:22 PM']How do you go about doing that anyway simply petition the  respective bishops?
[right][snapback]716115[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You must make a formal canonical petition to change rites with the pastor of the Byzantine parish that you've attended for more than 1 to 2 years. If he approves it, the petition will then be forwarded to the Eparchy for approval, and the local Eparch will communicate the request to the Latin Ordinary in order to get his agreement, and if he agrees the Eparch will then issue a decree of change of [i]sui juris[/i] Church effective on a particular date. Should the Latin Ordinary refuse the petition the Eparch will appeal to Rome for Papal approval.

My change of [i]sui juris[/i] Church was effective on Lazarus Saturday (March 19th) of this past year.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:28 PM']You must make a formal canonical petition to change rites with the pastor of the Byzantine parish that you've attended for more than 1 to 2 years.  If he approves it, the petition will then be forwarded to the Eparchy for approval, and the local Eparch will communicate the request to the Latin Ordinary in order to get his agreement, and if he agrees the Eparch will then issue a decree of change of [i]sui juris[/i] Church effective on a particular date.  Should the Latin Ordinary refuse the petition the Eparch will appeal to Rome for Papal approval.

My change of [i]sui juris[/i] Church was effective on Lazarus Saturday (March 19th) of this past year.
[right][snapback]716126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What about in the case of a Roman Catholic Marrying a Byzantine Catholic? Would the spouse have to attend a parish for 1-2 years before petitioning?

[Aloysius]

Apo, when you say "doctrine" we hear "teaching [i]of the Church[/i]"

obviously then to us you cannot hold to different "doctrine"

stripped bare, the term "doctrine" only means "teaching", but there is a connotation of doctrine as the official teaching of the Magisterium.

if "doctrine" solely means "teaching" then you do indeed hold to a different theological doctrine. it would be better to keep the terminology, for the sake of clarity, as simply you hold to a different theological position, because that position is still subserviant to the official teaching (what we shorthandedly refer to simply as "doctrine") of the Church.

I think what Era is trying to get at is: if you accept the validity of marriages in the west, then how do you think marriages IN THE WEST happen? are they administered by the roman couple or the roman priest? you hold that a byzantine couple is crowned in marriage by the byzantine priest, but what happens to a Roman couple?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:26 PM']I find it disturbing that you can't simply say "Yes, I accept the validity of the marriages conducted according to the Latin rite".

It's not a hard question.

If you cannot answer in the affirmative, then the implications are grave.
[right][snapback]716121[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't understand why you have a problem with this, clearly you want me to say that I don't believe that the priest is the minister of the sacrament of marriage, but as a Byzantine Catholic I do believe that he is the minister of the sacrament and that he acts in the person of Christ the head in crowning the couple celebrating the sacrament.

I am Byzantine, and I believe all that is a traditional part of the liturgical, spiritual, theological, and doctrinal patrimony of the Byzantine Church. I am sorry if that offends you.

[Era Might]

Apotheoun,

You keep multiplying words. The question is not complicated.

Do you accept that Catholics who are married according to the Latin rite are truly married?

A simple yes or no is all I need.

[Aloysius]

I have no problem with you believing that, and in fact you'll notice I started this thread becaus I myself was coming to the conclusion that you are right about it. I am more interested in what a roman's position on the easterns' marriages and what an eastern's position on romans' marriages is.... see my question:

[quote]I think what Era is trying to get at is: if you accept the validity of marriages in the west, then how do you think marriages IN THE WEST happen? are they administered by the roman couple or the roman priest? you hold that a byzantine couple is crowned in marriage by the byzantine priest, but what happens to a Roman couple?[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:31 PM']Apo, when you say "doctrine" we hear "teaching [i]of the Church[/i]"

obviously then to us you cannot hold to different "doctrine"

stripped bare, the term "doctrine" only means "teaching", but there is a connotation of doctrine as the official teaching of the Magisterium.

if "doctrine" solely means "teaching" then you do indeed hold to a different theological doctrine.  it would be better to keep the terminology, for the sake of clarity, as simply you hold to a different theological position, because that position is still subserviant to the official teaching (what we shorthandedly refer to simply as "doctrine") of the Church.

I think what Era is trying to get at is: if you accept the validity of marriages in the west, then how do you think marriages IN THE WEST happen?  are they administered by the roman couple or the roman priest?  you hold that a byzantine couple is crowned in marriage by the byzantine priest, but what happens to a Roman couple?
[right][snapback]716131[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Look, it is a doctrine, i.e., a teaching of the Byzantine Church, which is in communion with Rome, that the priest is the minister of the sacrament of marriage.

As far as the validity of marriages in the Latin Church are concerned, I accept what my Eparch accepts in that regard.

[Laudate_Dominum]

What kills me is that Truth is not fragmented and contradictory. And the Bible says that Christ's Church is to strive for oneness of mind and faith. I find it difficult to be indifferent to doctrinal pluralism of this kind. I don't mind different schools of spirituality, and theologies that have different emphases, but contradicting doctrines bother me.

[Apotheoun]

Let me clarify something:

By doctrine I mean doctrine, and by teaching I mean teaching.

The distinction between essence and energy in God is a doctrine in the Byzantine Church. The priest as the minister of the sacrament of marriage is a doctrine in the Byzantine Church. The fact that grace is understood to be uncreated, and not created, is a doctrine in the Byzantine Church.

There are doctrinal diffrences between East and West, and the Popes have encouraged the Eastern Catholic Churches to be as much like the Eastern Orthodox as is possible. Consequently, the Popes, following the decree on the Eastern Churches of the Second Vatican Council, have told the Eastern Churches to reaffirm and restore their heritage. That is why the process of de-latinization continues in the various Eastern Churches at the present time.

[Aloysius]

in every other topic you've been involved in at phatmass, I've seen you use your own individual logic... why can't you do that here? at least show me what it is that your Eparch accepts.
[color=red][edit: wrote before Apo's last post]:[/color]
anyway, it is a different theological teaching, but we use the term "doctrine" generally only to refer to the official magisterial teaching of the Church. everything else is a theological opinion that can work within the official doctrine of the Church. I'm just trying to cut through the confusion in that regard. Church Doctrine is universal, and theological doctrine of individual su juris churches works within its framework. For example: the Scholastics and the Patristics have theological teachings (doctrines), but Constantinople and Nicaea and Florence and Trent and Vatican II have Church Doctrine (what we think of when we merely say or see "doctrine")

[Era Might]

[quote]As far as the validity of marriages in the Latin Church are concerned, I accept what my Eparch accepts in that regard. [/quote]

I find it disturbing that a "Church scholar" on a Catholic forum can't answer a simple question about whether or not he accepts without question the validity of Latin Catholic marriages.

This discussion can't go anywhere until that question is answered.

Oh well.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:43 PM']I find it disturbing that a "Church scholar" on a Catholic forum can't answer a simple question about whether or not he accepts without question the validity of Latin Catholic marriages.

This discussion can't go anywhere until that question is answered.

Oh well. 
[right][snapback]716158[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have answered the question, but you just don't like my answer.

If my presence at the phorum is offensive, I will resign and leave.

[Aloysius]

no you haven't. we want to know the eastern position on western marriage, as in do they think western marriages are administered by the western priest? you merely reply you agree with your Eparch...but you didn't even so much as show your Eparch's position.

what is it that your Eparch accepts??? do you not have individual logic to apply to this issue? if a roman couple gets married, is the roman priest administering the sacrament whether he knows it or not? or is it administered differently in the west than in the east?

[Era Might]

[quote]If my presence at the phorum is offensive, I will resign and leave. [/quote]

No, your presence is not offensive. I appreciate what you have to say 99% of the time.

Your inability to answer this question, however, is what disturbs me, because the implications can be extremely serious, depending on what in fact your answer is.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might