www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Contradiction in Marital Theology?

We all know that the tradition Roman/Western view on marriage is that it is conferred upon each partner by the other partner, i.e. it is a Sacrament the couple gives to one another, priest or no priest. In the Byzantine (and other Eastern?) tradition, it is conferred upon the couple by the priest.

ISTM that both views cannot be simultaneously recognized as being true by the Church. If one is right, the other is necessarily wrong.

However, a Latin Rite seminarian-friend told me that this isn't really a contradiction since the Church can validate marriages sanatio in radice, which I take to mean "after the fact/in retrospect." So even if the Eastern view is right, if the Church ever comes officially to that decision, past Western marriages are not necessarily invalid. In fact, they'd be viewed to be valid, I guess. He summarized an apparently analogous situation in which Pope Pius XII in 1947 definitively ruled that ordination is conferred by the laying on of hands and not by the belief that ____________ (something else happens, I can't remember what he said precisely). Anyway, the point is, Pius did recognize that those ordinations that were conferred under the idea that "_____________" was the case were still valid.

Does anyone else see a contradiction, or do you see a "way out" like my friend provided?

Alexis

Alexis,

I believe that "something else" is the conferral of the chalice.

Regarding Matrimony, I do not think it is an either or scenario whatsoever. The East has its own way of celebrating the Mystery, and the West has its own way...yet the Mystery is the same whatever the rite. Again, this appears to be one of those nonsensical "moments of (fill in the blank - consecration/marriage/ordination)" debates. The whole rite is the "sign" which conforms the couple to the image of the espousal between Christ and the Church. These signs of celebration have a fundamental unity and harmony, and their ultimate significance cannot be reduced or isolated into specific moments.

In IXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

I get what you're saying, but I just don't know if that's really the case. After all, until Trent, couples in the West could marry clandestinely, with no one else present (except for possibly a witness, who could be just any old body and didn't have to be a priest, deacon, or anything of the like).

Unfortunately, for me your question doesn't answer the clear difference of opinion in the matter. I don't see how both can be right. And I am by no means trying to make a "nonsensical debate" out of this. On the contrary, I'm trying to make sense out of what I see to be a nonsensical situation.

Alexis

Alexis is not alone in his observation (actually, I've made the same observation in this forum, but nobody gave me a straight answer). No less than the late, great theologian Louis Bouyer had this to say:



The passage is from the article "Marriage" from the "Dictionary of Theology" (English trans of Dictionnaire Theologique), c. 1963 by Desclese & Co., Tournai)

Nothing is to be gained by denying the reality of the question. The contradiction is plain for all to see. The very nature of matrimony as a sacrament means that it cannot have a different form and matter in East and West.

I imagine many Eastern Catholics would be upset if, in the future (not likely!), the Church ruled definitively that the spouses exchange the Sacrament between themselves, and no priest is needed for a marriage.

Likewise, if in the future (not likely!) the Church decides the East is right and that you do need to have a priest, since it is he who confers the Sacrament on the couple, I suppose my friend's sanatio in radice argument makes sense, technically. However, I still have big problem with that since it would state that the West has completely and totally misunderstood the nature of a Sacrament for well over a millennium. I don't know if I could put much stock in a Church which would have, theoretically, such a twisted misunderstanding of something as important as a Sacrament. Hmmm.

Alexis

Are we to apply worldly logic to everything that one finds in the Church?

We've got the same thing going on in so many areas: leavened and unleavened bread; mandatory celibacy and the diversity of vocations within the priesthood; the recent issue of how the idea of "one bread and one cup" is to be expressed concretely; priests not permitted to drive an automobile (in Russia) and priests driving automobiles for transportation--just to list a quick few things.

The wonderful diversity of how the Apostolic Deposit is expressed in concrete cultures is what makes so many things different--not wrong, but different.


This assumption that ". . . even if the Eastern view is right . . ." seems to me to be offensive to our Eastern brethren here. It isn't a matter of their practice being right or wrong from a Western view. It is their practice from time immemorial and that is that. Additonally, ". . . if the Church ever comes officially to that decision . . ." seems to imply that the Church is the Latin Church and that she alone gives credence to what other sui juris Churches within the Catholic Communion. Surely you don't mean that, given the documents of Vatican II and the post-conciliar teaching about the Eastern portion of the Church founded by Christ, some of which, unfortunately, does not have communion with us at present.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

But with leavened vs. unleavened, priestly celibacy, etc., one doesn't necessarily negate the possibility of the other.

And apparently, at the Lateran Council (the First?), Catholicism declared vows to be the form of the Sacrament. Orthodox marriages (and some EC ones) do not have vows. Again, hmmm. I just wonder at this.

As per your last paragraph, I could easily submit to the possibility that the Western view is "wrong." I just don't see how both can be right.

Alexis

ALEXIS:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

Again, your legalistic approach clouds what the Mystery is all about. (As an aside, anyone who is married will tell you it's still a mystery to them anyway. )

The Mystery of what Christ does with married people and the mystery of what and how He works within the Church can have multiple expressions. None is "right" making another "wrong."

What you have are two multiple century traditions that have developed apart. And we have the added situation where the Latin Church has had Augustine's theology leaven her, followed centuries later by Scholatic theology leavening her so that much of the Patristic approach characteristic of the Eastern Churches is not readily apparent, but which is our own common heritage with them.

I would not count on ever seeing one Church suddenly declare itself "wrong" and take another approach. That would cause so much confusion and scandal that it would destroy all credibility for the Gospel. Most people are barely catechised when it comes down to cases and that causes enough confusion without adding an earthquake to something like marriage. It might almost cause the sort of problems we're having in Pennsylvania where a civil court has declared marriages performed by clergy who do not have a congregation in the Commonwealth to be void. That's winding its way through the courts in SE PA right now. My wife and I were married by a priest who was a seminary professor out-of-state at the time. We're now wondering what that means for us. Stay tuned.

In Christ,

BOB

Alexis,


Perhaps put in opposition to one another, one must be wrong and the other right, but if viewed as complementary, perhaps each has something to say.

Scott Hahn, in the book Swear to God, relates that one or more Protestant Biblical scholars define the word "sacrament" as "covenant oath". Having thought that over I think it is a solid definition, because all the "Mysteries" instituted by Christ relate to Him, the "Covenant of the nations" (Isaiah). Much of the time we are "ratifying" our prior covenant oath, originally made in Baptism whereby we become part of God's family -- and how many times do we all say "Amen"?

Even in the Latin Rite, I don't think that this aspect of the Mysteries exhausts the content of each, but it does help me reflect better on the seriousness of purpose we must have in approaching them.

Best regards,
Michael

Notice the use of the term "theory" in your quote:


I read this as Bouyer saying that one thing is the practice, and another the theory. In his opinion, the "theory" here is inadequate. The practice is the man and the woman standing up publicly in Church before witnesses, etc.

I don't have a general theory of my own, but I remember the basic rule-of-thumb that "marriage between Christians is a sacrament", which was, I think, the guiding light for determining, for example, if the children of two Christians living in the wilderness without benefit of clergy were to be considered legitimate or not. While such special cases needn't necessarily be brought into a "theology of marriage", I think the approach in Rome was to discover the minimally necessary conditions for valid marriage, for administrative purposes, rather than to develop a "theology of marriage".

In fact, I think it was to address the deficiencies in this notion of "theology" that Vatican II called for a "renewal of moral theology" in the Latin Rite -- there had to be more to it all than case histories!

Best regards,
Michael

And what about Baptism?

In the Latin Church, the Deacon baptizes ordinarily. In the Byzantine Churches, the Deacon baptizes only in extraordinary circumstances.

And what about Confirmation/Chrismation?

In the Latin Church, this is done by the Bishop and only extraordinarily by the Priest. In the Byzantine Churches, this is doone by the Priest.

And what about Holy Communion?

In the Latin Church we have a LOT of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In the Byzantine Churches they have much fewer and they use them much less frequently.


It seems to the that the Catholic Church doesn't consider the question about who is the minister for the sacraments to be an "essential", on which we are to have uniformity.

Shalom,
Memo

In either the Latin or the Byzantine Church, any baptized Christian can baptize, so your example falls flat. The rules as to who can ordinarily baptize have to do with discipline, and not the validity of the sacrament.

In either the Latin or the Byzantine Church, priests can be deputized to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation (I was anointed by a priest, not a bishop), so your example falls flat once more. The rules as to who can ordinarily confirm have to do with discipline, and not the validity of the sacrament.

As for Holy Communion, even when EMHC's handle the Body of our Lord, they are by no means seen as having confected the Sacrament. So, your example falls flat once more. The rules as to who can ordinarily give communion to the faithul have to do with discipline, and not the validity of the sacrament.

In contrast, the differences in the approach to the Sacrament of Matrimony as seen in either the Latin or the Byzantine Church, touch upon the very question of what makes the sacrament valid or invalid.

I don't think Alexis is being "legalistic" at all. He is simply asking for clarity.

I would like to point out that the Latin theory that a priest is not essential to the validity of a marriage because he is not the minister of the Sacrament, has been repeatedly "canonized" by the Magisterium, especially by the pre-Vatican II popes. I believe that it was Pope Pius IX who declared this to be the doctrine of the universal Church, when he wrote to the King of Sardinia that "Sacramentum de ipsa Matrimonii essentia esse, ita ut unio cojugalis inter Christianos non sit legitima, nisi in Matrimonii Sacramento, extra quod merus concubinatus tantum invenitur" (I am quoting from p. 527 of "Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual", written by Fr. James O'Kane and published in 1872 in New York)

Furthermore, countless Catechisms teach that the "Latin" theory of Matrimony is not just a "Latin tradition", but is the teaching of the universal Church. The CCC does not say this, but that does not remove the difficulty.

Given that the theology of the Magisterium presupposes that it cannot contradict itself, the question now is, "how do we take into account the Byzantine theory of Matrimony without contradicting the Magisterium of previous popes?"

Please take note that I am NOT saying that the Byzantine theory is wrong. What I am saying is that, given the way in which the theology of the Magisterium has developed in the Catholic Church, it is exceedingly difficult (but perhaps not impossible)to develop a hermeneutic that will take the Byzantine theory into account while still finding a way to uphold previous declarations of the Magisterium regarding the form and matter of the Sacrament of Matrimony

asianpilgrim:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

I'm not attempting to contradict the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I was simply pointing out to Alexis that we already have in place the two traditions within the Catholic Communion of sui juris Churches. That being said, what is the point and purpose of speculation that one theory must automatically be "wrong" in order for the other to be "right"? To posit that question on this board is to unnecessarily ruffle the sensitivities of our Eastern brethren. Alexis poses his question in terms of one being right and the other being wrong. So maybe we ought to ask that our Eastern Catholic brethren speak to this question of his. They must, after all, have to answer this same question from their Orthodox counterparts because I am sure that it is not something that has not come up before.


These are two very legalistic statements. Legalistic means that one tries to parcel and define in minute detail so that there can be no room for other theories or interpretations.

My original point was that we already have the two theories living side by side within our Communion fof sui juris Churches and there seems to be no problem with that from Rome.

In Christ,

BOB

asianpilgrim:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

Without professing to be a professional or amateur theologian, I would have to answer that the Holy Spirit is still leading the Church into all Truth, as the Lord himself tells us in the Gospel. And what that means is that we are still in the learning curve of how the Holy Spirit is working within different cultures and different approaches to the Tradition that is our common heritage. Further, we will be in that learning curve until the Lord Himself comes back to take us all to the Kingdom.

While I would, again, state that I have no desire to contradict the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I still wonder if the statements made were made within the framework of a time and mentality that saw the Latin Church as the whole of the Universal Church and had little respect for or use for the expressions of the Universal Church that were non-Latin. The Melkites seemed to wake us up to the dignity of the Oriental Churches and their honorable traditional approaches to theology, liturgy, and life in Christ at Vatican II. And I believe that we are still on the learning curve in integrating their perspectives and insights into how we view who we are as the Universal Church and how we approach these questions.

In Christ,

BOB