www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West This is a doozy of a question, but I can't think of any better people to ask!

After a year-long hiatus, I'm back! Through the grace of God, my life's back on track, and my girlfriend and I are (God be praised) seriously and prayerfully considering spending the rest of our lives together. Most of you probably remember me as the weirdo who's sort of floating between particular churches at the moment, and unfortunately this hasn't quite changed. I am really drawn to the Eastern understanding of the administration of the Holy Mysteries, particularly the Mystery of Crowning. My girlfriend, being Latin, is naturally quite attached to Latin sacramental theology. We both realize that since no Ecumenical Council has ever ruled definitively on the matter, both views are acceptable (and the hierarchs must agree on this since the unias have lasted for half a millenium!!!)... But tonight we encountered a big problem.

Because our marriage will most likely happen within the next year and I currently live NOWHERE near an Eastern Catholic parish, we've decided to be married according to the Latin form in a Nuptial Mass. Just for kicks, I was looking through my 1962 missal tonight and noticed that the priest says "I join thee in matrimony, in the name of the Father, etc" and repeats this when the rings have been exchanged. I was a little bit shocked, as this formula does not appear in the Pauline Rite (As far as I can tell, not having access to the Latin *disgruntled smiley*). Firstly, do those of you in the know know if something has changed regarding the theology of marriage in the West since the second Vatican council? Latins most certainly believe that Christ performs the Holy Mysteries...so if the priest is an alter Christus, how can a deacon possibly solemnize a marriage?! Did the old formula "I join thee" simply serve as a reminder that the priest IS an alter Christus?

I keep thinking of a quote of St. John Chrysostom's: "Do you want Christ to come and sanctify your marriage? Then invite the priest. Through His servant, Christ will come and sanctify your marriage, just as He did it at Cana." That to me seems to sum it up quite well. How do the Eastern Catholic churches view this apparent East/West dichotomy? My girlfriend and I are now both horribly confused, and in light of my desire to embrace Eastern Catholic theology, I'm really not sure that I want to be married according to the Western form any longer... Is it possible for two Latins to be married according to the Byzantine form? I don't really care how impractical it may be... thanks so much for your help!

I finally found the Rite of Matrimony according to the Pauline Mass in Latin, and I notice a form of "blessing" that was not included in the English sacramentary. "Hunc vestrum. cons�nsum, quem coram Eccl�sia manifest�stis, Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, Deus Iacob, Deus qui protopl�stos coni�nxit in parad�so, in Christo, conf�rmet ac bened�cat, ut quod ipse coni�ngit, homo non s�paret."

The priest isn't speaking in the first-person, but does he need to? Thanks again for the input.

I don't know the reasoning behind the Rite of Marriage in the pre-1962 Latin Church, but I do know that at least as far back as the 1200s the vow between the man and woman was understood as the efficient cause of the Sacrament, with or without the blessing of the Priest. This can be seen in the Summa Theologica here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/504501.htm

and here (under reply to objection 1): http://www.newadvent.org/summa/504201.htm

This represents the Latin theological understanding of the Sacrament, remember, but since you are specifically asking about the Latin form of the Sacrament I think it suffices to show 800 year old (pre-1962 by a long shot) documentation of the modern understanding

Peace and God bless!

If you really have a problem with it, you could join an Anglican Use Parish depending on where you live...

I always thought that in the Latin Rite the bishop, priest or deacon are the chief witness and the couple administered the sacrament to each other. Where as in the Byzantine Rite the Priest administers the sacrament.

Just found this on wikipedia.

"The husband and wife must validly execute the marriage contract. If either is Catholic, this requires a sacramental Catholic marriage ceremony for validity. The bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other; the priest or deacon who witnesses the marriage is not the minister of the sacrament.

This is different for the Eastern Catholic Churches, which follow the Eastern Orthodox beliefs regarding marriage. Therefore, the priest (never a deacon) is the minister of the sacrament through the act of "crowning" the couple with a pair of crowns while proclaiming them received into the Kingdom of Heaven. The vows are exchanged well beforehand in the Byzantine ritual and are not binding. They are a remnant of the Liturgy of Betrothal which had used to be done in a separate Liturgy. Many Western Catholics are surprised when clicking on their cameras after hearing the exchange of vows to be told by the priest that they are still not married, having not yet been crowned. Thus it is known in the East as the Mystery (read: Sacrament) of Crowning as often as it is called matrimony."

I hope this helps.

Thank you all for your prompt replies! It might just be the fact that I've not yet had my morning cup of coffee, but it hit me this morning that there really isn't any dichotomy at all. I would presume that Christ could have DIFFERENT normative forms for administering the Holy Mysteries and that different Churches have latched onto these various forms. Is this an acceptable view to hold as a Catholic of any ritual church? Forgive my ignorance, but I'd never really thought about it this way before...

I would go so far as to say that this is THE view of the Catholic Church; not only is it acceptable, I think that to deny it would be nigh unto heresy :p

There are certain absolute boundaries of the Sacraments (the Eucharist is not made from pizza and Coca-Cola), but within the general boundaries there is very little that is defined for the entire Catholic Church. I personally favor the Latin understanding of Matrimony for both theological and historical reasons, but I can not deny the validity of the Byzantine approach and understanding since it is also ancient, and also accepted within the Catholic Church. Likewise, Eastern Catholics can't deny the validity of Latin marriages for the same reason.

The fact is that Christ did not "spell out" the Sacraments for us down to the last detail, and history shows us that neither did the Apostles. If in the earliest times of unity there were differences in approach, and there most definately were, then we must accept that such diversity is possible today in a united Church.

This is, IMO, one of the most tangible benefits of the Catholic ecclesiology, as we actually CAN have diversity of ritual without risking the Faith and unity of the Church.

Peace and God bless!

I don't think anyone can argue for any dichotomy between the Eastern/Oriental and Western Sacrament, despite the difference in the minister of marriage.

I read it explained that the Western Church requires the presence of a priest not to make the marriage holy, but because the marriage IS holy - that is, not to confer holiness, but to safeguard holiness. In ALL cases (Western, Eastern, Oriental), holiness/grace is conferred BY GOD in the Sacrament.

Blessings,
Marduk

If you get a sympathetic priest, you might be able to be crowned even in the West.

-Wondering
(Who prefers the eastern understanding)

A Byzantine Catholic Priest can crown two latins if he has permission from the latins' Bishop. This is the beauty of the eastern Catholic churches in that these sacraments are transferrable from one rite to the next. Whereas my local Orthodox church re-chrismates converts and re-blesses marriages.