www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Marriage without a priest

In one of the recent threads on marriage, I posted a secondary question, and I think my question was a bit vague in context, so I thought I'd start a new thread with that specific question isolated:

My understanding of the Roman principle of "spouses marry each other" is that it facilitates certain "extreme" circumstances: a couple who do not live close enough to a priest; a couple where one partner is in danger of death and, for reasons of inheritance or just "getting it in before you die," want to get married ASAP; or a couple who for some reason need a "secret marriage." In those cases, with varying policies thorughout the history of the west, a couple could "marry each other," using another layperson for a witness, and then are expected to have the marriage validated by the Church as soon as possible.

Now, do a couple in the East who are in similar circumstances have a similar option? Or are they just expected to wait to get married until a priest arrives?

I'm not positive about this but I think that it is probably the case that the couple could not marry. They would have to wait for the priest. But, I think that it could also be the case that the eastern fathers of the Church would not have recognized the reasons you've provided as good reasons to marry. If one is in danger of death or if one's death is immanent, it does not make sense (according to the traditional mindset) to get married. Marrying for reasons of inheritance is not a good reason to marry and getting married ASAP is rarely a good idea. I suspect that in any situation where the long term prospects of marriage and family are in serious doubt, most would counsel individuals to put off marriage until better circumstances allow for it (though I don't think it would be strictly forbidden). I'm just giving my opinion though (which may not be worth much).

Joe

I'm pretty sure this is not the case. However the priest serves as a witness and blesses the rings but the sacrament itself is the couples vowas before God. so to speak.

I am speaking of marriage in Orthodoxy, not Catholicism. In Orthodoxy, the priest is the minister of the sacrament.

Joe

An even more interesting question to me is, given the Eastern view that priests perform marriages, not the couple, what is the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox opinions on Western Catholics who are married by, say, a deacon, or who are not married by any member of the clergy at all? From a Western view, they'd be married, but from an Eastern view, __________ ?

Alexis

Eastern Catholic canons (CCEO [intratext.com]; CCEO [intratext.com]) (reflecting its theological discipline/praxis) pertain only to those to whom they apply, Eastern Catholics, and the same (mutatis mutandis) for the Catholic West (CIC [vatican.va]).

That is a common opinion among Western theologians beginning around the 12th to 13th century.

So Canon Law can restrict Sacramental realities? I've had this problem with the marriage thing before, as outlined in my thread "Contradiction on Marital Theology?" in the East/West subforum. I'm just not sure how they square.

Alexis

Well a marriage without a priest, even in western theology, is not a sacrament. Just like protestant weddings. The question asires though, as mentioned above, are those good reasons for marriage without a priest. I do not know if marriage without a priest is ever possible for an Eastern catholic though.

Rather, I look upon Canon Law / the canons as applied theology in that they codify the theological expression of the Church(es), noting that they, the Churches, have various rites and rituals. And so, in that respect, the answer is no; but I certainly am no authority.

Be at peace, I think there are other instances that may have been overlooked, for instance: Who is the ordinary, extraordinary, common minister of Chrismation/Confirmation, and that being conferred by the laying on of hands or anointing, and if the latter, with what kind of "matter", and that blessed by whom if necessary?

The canons should reflect the theological life of the Church.

Do not deacons of the Roman Church witness/officiate at marriages without the presence of a priest?

Alexis,

This touches on the points I was making in the posts about non-Orthodox saints, etc. My wife and I, crowned in the Melkite Church, were told that we received the sacramental grace of Marriage at our chrismation into the Orthodox Church. I have read books by Greek Orthodox writers and I believe that the practice in the Greek Church is to crown converts, even if they received a Christian marriage before. Now, I do see an inconsistancy here because as far as I know, most Orthodox jurisdictions hold that one's non-Orthodox marriage (if one is a convert) counts against the three marriage rule. But, I also think that there are inconsistencies in the Western view of marriage. Basically, I think that there are loose ends and inconsistencies in all of the various theological understandings of marriage that I've seen.

Joe

In the Western Church, it's kind of a matter of "preference":
A priest is always preferred (in theory, a bishop is always preferred to a priest).
In theory, the priest of officiates the sacrament of matrimony--if it takes place within mass--is supposed to be the main celebrant of the Mass. However, the duty of officiating the vows is sometimes delegated, as when it's delegated to a deacon because he's a relative or personal friend (as in the case of my wedding; mine was one of the few weddings that deacon had officiated at the time, and the others were his own kids).

A deacon can be delegated *by the pastor* at any time to officiate a weeding, whether because a priest is unavailable or just because the pastor has too full a schedule. This would be a wedding outside mass.

In rare circumstances, where it is impossible to have a priest or a deacon, the ordinary or pastor may designate a layperson to officially witness marriages-just as a layperson may be officialyl delegated to perform baptisms.

But the circumstance I'm talking about is more parallel to an emergency baptism of an infant by a layperson.

GMMcNabb came closest to answering my question (and a good answer it was!)

Am I right in assuming that the blessing of the rings is omitted when a layperson is delegated in the ordinary Roman Rite?

This difference between theologies may answer the difference in the Western and Eastern marriages - in the East, marriage does not end at death, it cannot since Jesus - the eternal High Priest Himself - crowns (marries) the couple in the person of the priest [as Christ is married to His Bride - eternally]. -- while in the West, the marriage does end when one of the vow-givers dies as the couple are no longer bound to each other - the Church is giving Her blessing to the Union, but not conferring the Union. (unless we are going with the theology that death is merely a transition to a more everlasting Life)...