east and west and marriage

[Oik]

Todd, please don't leave. Take kindness on us Westerners. It's hard for some of us to understand the Theology of the Eastern Church. For some, it is hard to believe that we could ever accept this.

As for the validity of Western Catholic marriages, I think it is best to read what Todd has written. He is Eastern Catholic. If you are not, please respect that he is.

One Church, Two lungs, One Body United.

[Oik]

In the Western Church, the couple are the administer of the Sacrament.

In the Eastern Church, the priest is the minister of the Sacrament.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:54 PM']In the Western Church, the couple are the administer of the Sacrament.

In the Eastern Church, the priest is the minister of the Sacrament.
[right][snapback]716183[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, we've established that.

The problem is not who are the ministers in each respective rite, but the proposition that a priest is intrinsically necessary to the Sacrament, which, if true, would invalidate Latin marriages.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:54 PM']In the Western Church, the couple are the administer of the Sacrament.

In the Eastern Church, the priest is the minister of the Sacrament.
[right][snapback]716183[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so I'm wondering if the Eastern Church believes that first statement. I understand and admit the second statement, I even find it a preferable theological viewpoint, but I want to know what the Eastern Church thinks of the first statement.

[Laudate_Dominum]

There is an Eastern Church that believes that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood at the epiklesis, whereas the Roman Catholic Church has formally taught that this occurs at the words "this is my body... this is my blood..". Rather than argue that one is right and the other is wrong, the fact is the consecration happens at different times in these two different Liturgies. It's not that there are magic words that make it happen. God wills it to happen when He wills and if the Church teaches that it happens at a certain time in a certain Liturgy I don't see a problem with that.
Could a similar principle apply in the case of Marriage? I recognize that its a more complicated issue.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The East has to recognize that the consent of the couple is an essential part of the validity of the marriage. So there is an immediate minister and a proximate minister.

[Laudate_Dominum]

To say that one ministers the Sacrament exclusively seems false.

Ultimately Christ administers the Sacrament. The couple and Priest all participate and mediate this ministry in their respective roles. I reject the absolutizing of either position because it devalues the role of the other party.

[Era Might]

Laudate,

The two cases are not analogous, because the Latin rite still has an epiclesis, even though the words of Institution are highlighted. Furthermore, I am not aware of any official teaching of the Church which identifies the words of Institution as the actual time of transubstantiation. This is, as far as I know, a matter of theological speculation, although it goes all the way back to the Fathers (including St. John Chrysostom).

Even if the epicleses was the time of actual change, this would not invalidate Latin Masses, because the Epiclesis is still present.

In the case of marriage, however, if a priest is intrinsically necessary, then Latin marriages would not be true marriages.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:02 PM']Laudate,

The two cases are not analogous, because the Latin rite still has an epiclesis, even though the words of Institution are highlighted. Furthermore, I am not aware of any official teaching of the Church which identifies the words of Institution as the actual time of transubstantiation. This is, as far as I know, a matter of theological speculation, although it goes all the way back to the Fathers (including St. John Chrysostom).

Even if the epicleses was the time of actual change, this would not invalidate Latin Masses, because the Epiclesis is still present.

In the case of marriage, however, if a priest is intrinsically necessary, then Latin marriages would not be true marriages.
[right][snapback]716200[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I obviously realize the issues at hand. And just so you know the Liturgy I'm thinking of lacks the "this is my body.. this is my blood.." entirely and yet Rome recognizes it as a valid Liturgy.

And the Church has said that those words are essential for having a valid Eucharist.

The point is that Sacraments can be ministered according to different rules and a different Theological context in different ecclesial traditions.

[Era Might]

[quote]And just so you know the Liturgy I'm thinking of lacks the "this is my body.. this is my blood.." entirely and yet Rome recognizes it as a valid Liturgy.[/quote]

Right. This is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari (I mentioned it back in my first post, I think).

There is no problem presented because the Church has never taught, as a matter of doctrine, that the Words of Institution are absolutely necessary for a true Confection, or that they are the exact point at which it takes place.

You are free to correct me, but I have yet to come across such a doctrinal teaching.

[Oik]

LD, agreed!

[Aloysius]

agreed with what? we haven't solved anything

perhaps the east would view the reception of the couple's consent by the roman priest as a way in which he is administering it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Documents to think about...

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
[quote]1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125
124 Cf. CCEO, can. 817.
125 Cf. CCEO, can. 828. 126 Cf. Eph 5:32.[/quote]

Code of Canons of Oriental Churchs:
[quote]Canon 817
1. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage. 2. No human power can replace this matrimonial consent.

Canon 828
1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor, or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according, however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.[/quote]

ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, Vatican II:
[quote]18. To obviate invalid marriages when Eastern Catholics marry baptized Eastern non-Catholics and in order to promote fidelity in and the sanctity of marriage, as well as peace within the family, the Sacred Council determines that the canonical "form" for the celebration of these marriages is of obligation only for liceity; for their validity the presence of a sacred minister is sufficient, provided that other prescriptions of law are observed.(23)
(23) Cfr. Pius XII, Motu proprio Crebrae allatae, 22 febr. 1949, can. 32, 2, n. 5 (facultas patriarcharum dispensandi a forma); Pius XII, Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati, 2 iun. 1957, can. 267 (facultas patriarcharum sanandi in radice); S.C.S. Offici et S.C. pro Eccl. Orient., an. 1957 concedunt facultatem dispensandi a forma et sanandi ob defectum formae (ad quinquennium): extra patriarchatus, Metropolitis, ceterisque Ordinariis locorum... qui nullum habent Superiorem infra Sanctam Sedem.[/quote]

Also check out "Eastern Catholics in the United States of America" (I believe from the USCCB?):
[url="http://www.cin.org/east/eastcathamer.html"]http://www.cin.org/east/eastcathamer.html[/url]
There is a section on marraige.

[Oik]

[quote]Sacraments can be ministered according to different rules and a different Theological context in different ecclesial traditions. [/quote]

I agree with this statement Aloysius.

[Era Might]

If anyone's interested, I've brought the discussion into Eastern territory:

[url="http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=003393"]http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.c...ic&f=2&t=003393[/url]

I probably won't discuss too much over there. I just want to see what other Easterners have to say.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might