east and west and marriage

[Aloysius]

I hope I haven't shown any disrespect towards the east.

as far as I can tell, though it kind of seemed cloudy and reluctant, Apotheoun said that he views latin marriages as being administered by the couple. that's all I wanted to know, and I believe his statements about agreeing with the eparch and then citing where the eparch said "not [b]by the couple[/b] as [b]in the Latin Church[/b]." confirms this. This was where my confusion was, I wanted to know how he thought the sacrament occurred in the west.

so as far as I can tell, Apo and the east believe the sacrament happens in the East by the priest and in the West by the couple.

this still doesn't help me as in most every other theological position I am latin but I cannot help but believe that since Christ raised marriage to the level of sacrament, His priests should administer it and they have the power to do so.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 9 2005, 09:17 AM']It is a matter of fact that, in the East, the priest is the minister of the Sacrament. I am not disputing this, or even questioning it.

What I'm questioning are your conclusions based on that fact. So long as you recognize that the Sacramental form of the East is Liturgically necessary, not absolutely necessary, and that marriages performed according to the Latin rite are without any doubt true marriages, then we have no disagreement

If you conclude, however, that the Sacramental form of the East implies an intrinsic necessity of a priest for a true Sacramental marriage, then this presents a contradiction to the Church's faith in her own Sacraments. And I do not believe the Catholic East proposes such.
[right][snapback]716915[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I hold that it is absolutely necessary for an [b]Eastern[/b] Catholic to be married by a priest, who is acting in the person of Christ during the celebration of the sacrament.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I think I'm understanding how these two viewpoints fit together.
I have another, realted question though:
If a couple married in the Latin Church switches Rites, must they be remarried?

Edited September 9, 2005 by thedude

[Aloysius]

certainly not I would hope

actually, I'm pretty certain, since from this conversation we ascertained that the east views western marriages as validly administered by the couple and the west views eastern marriages as validly administered by the priest

[qfnol31]

Al, you may have to leave everything you know about the Church behind in order to begin to approach the East...I know that's hard to do, and odd...

Edited September 9, 2005 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

Era, I don't think Apotheoun will give you answer because it's not an issue for him and so he doesn't think about it or have an opinion.

As far as your question, the reason I said it's from a Scholastic approach is that the East doesn't have set definitions as we do. The question itself comes from a Scholastic view of Marriages, whereas the East, I would say, is more mystical and probably wouldn't have a definitive answer to begin with.

I am a Latin Catholic, through and through. I do not care, to be perfectly honest, what the rules are for a valid Consecration or Reconciliation, and I think that's the same for Todd. I doubt he really cares (I mean he probably cares, but it's not something he thinks about) just because the Latin Church is not his Church.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 9 2005, 05:15 PM']Al, you may have to leave everything you know about the Church behind in order to begin to approach the East...I know that's hard to do, and odd...
[right][snapback]717364[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I already understand the fundamental philosophical difference, I understand they don't obsess over meticulous detailed definitions as we tend to. I am not imagining them having such a scholastic mind. that doesn't mean we couldn't say whether they accept our marriages or not, and in fact Apo's Eparch's quote proves that the Eastern Churches do accept that latin couples administer the sacrament.

anyway, I can't figure out why you directed that at me... what ignorance to the east have I shown in this thread?

[Era Might]

[quote]I do not care, to be perfectly honest, what the rules are for a valid Consecration or Reconciliation, and I think that's the same for Todd. [/quote]

Well, the Church DOES care. This is why she doesn't allow priests to substitute beer and pretzels for bread and wine.

The fallback on "the East is mystical" is hollow, because Apotheoun could rival any scholastic when he argues about Divine energies. The East is certainly not antithetical to definitions and concrete formulations when truth requires them.

This is one such case where truth requires a definite answer. There are not two truths, one for the East and one for the West.

The implication of an intrinsic necessity is no small matter. For example, we know that a Priest is ABSOLUTELY necessary for a true Eucharistic sacrifice. Why do we know this? Because the Church has always taught it, and no exceptions are made.

On the other hand, the Church does acknowledge the validity of marriages without the blessing of a priest. It is thus a logical contradiction to say that a priest is ABSOLUTELY necessary. The only way this could be true were if, A) The Church were wrong, and most of her marriages were not real, or B) The Sacraments are subjective, so long as you frame the right "pardigm". If your paradigm allows Beer and Pretzels, you can use them. In effect, the Sacraments have no objective foundation.

What Apotheoun has done is taken the valid practice of the East, whereby the Priest is truly the minister of the Sacrament, and drawn a false conclusion, whereby this form is dogmatized and regarded as of absolute necessity (it is a form of integrism).

A parallel can be seen in the Sacrament of Confirmation. Although the blessing of the oil must always be given by the Bishop, the actual Sacrament can be conferred by a Priest. In the same way, although a Catholic marriage must always be acknowledged by the Church, the Sacrament itself does not have to be conferred by a Priest. It can be, but there is no intrinisic necessity for it to be so.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 9 2005, 04:23 PM']I already understand the fundamental philosophical difference, I understand they don't obsess over meticulous detailed definitions as we tend to.  I am not imagining them having such a scholastic mind.  that doesn't mean we couldn't say whether they accept our marriages or not, and in fact Apo's Eparch's quote proves that the Eastern Churches do accept that latin couples administer the sacrament.

anyway, I can't figure out why you directed that at me... what ignorance to the east have I shown in this thread?
[right][snapback]717377[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean what you thought it said.

My best friend is Russian Orthodox, so I have fun discussions like this all the time, I was just responding to your post where you seemed to be having trouble. I was just trying to give advice.

[quote]This was where my confusion was, I wanted to know how he thought the sacrament occurred in the west.....this still doesn't help me as in most every other theological position I am latin but I cannot help but believe that since Christ raised marriage to the level of sacrament, His priests should administer it and they have the power to do so. [/quote]

I was just trying to see if I could help with the confusion, but it seems I didn't do so well this time.

Oh well, Eastern beliefs are interesting.

[qfnol31]

Era, do Eastern Churches use leavened or unleavened bread?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 9 2005, 04:29 PM']Era, do Eastern Churches use leavened or unleavened bread?
[right][snapback]717391[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
is that a rhetorical question?

[qfnol31]

It's honest.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 9 2005, 05:29 PM']Era, do Eastern Churches use leavened or unleavened bread?
[right][snapback]717391[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So far as I know, they use leavened bread.

Since neither leavened nor unleavened bread is necessary for a true Eucharist, no problem is posed.

[qfnol31]

[quote][48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.[123] It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.[124] It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.[125][/quote]

[Era Might]

Apotheoun Eparch Pataki:

[quote]"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."[/quote]

Note there is nothing here which says that the Eastern form is absolutely necessary. It simply explains that, in the East, the Sacrament is communicated directly by the Priest, without exceptions. In no way does it imply that this Byzantine form is absolutely necessary, not even for the East. Theoretically speaking, the East could adopt another form. It won't, because this is their venerable tradition, and it isn't going anywhere. So long as the form is not elevated to intrinsic necessity, no problems arise; East and West live happily ever after.