www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ministers of Matrimony

Grace,

I can only agree with the observations made above by my brethren - and I think it's telling that those who have done so include both Catholics and Orthodox.

To be frank, converts to any Church who strive to be "more ... than ..." (fill in the blanks - Catholic, the Pope or Patriarch; Orthodox, the Ecumenical Patriarch or Patriarch of Moscow) both concern and scare me. To them, religion is not faith, but obsession/fanaticism. In my experience, the most common description of Eastern Catholics by true "hard-core" Orthodox would be that we are really Latins playing at being Orthodox. That we are Protestants is a real stretch and would cause me to look askance at the person espousing the thought (and I don't look askance at much after all these years).

There is no wisdom that I can offer which has not been posted, but I do want to remark on your final statement, regarding not attending the marriage if it would not be accepted as valid in your Church. Were it my daughter, I'd attend. Given the circumstances, this is not a time to break ties, particularly as she may well need your spiritual and/or emotional support in the future.

Prayers for all of you.

Many years,

Neil

I think you are very right about that.

Neil gives good advice.

Your daughter will need you, for prayer and for hand-holding.

Grace7,

To answer your question: If a Catholic is married in an Orthodox Church without permission of the Catholic Bishop, then the Catholic Church will still consider it to be a "valid marriage in the Catholic Church". It would not be an invalid marriage such as the case of a Catholic marriage in a Protestant Church or a secular marriage. Although considered valid, it would still be illicit (without permission), so why not get the permission?

I had really not intended to post on this thread .

BUT

I think that some of us are forgetting something posted in the original post by Grace7

If their daughter is converting to Orthodoxy then she is leaving the Catholic Church [ here meaning Byzantine ] and so no permission from any Eparch/Exarch is required for the marriage to be in an Orthodox Church.

If she has become Orthodox before her wedding then she is Orthodox and married validly in the Church to which she now belongs.

Anhelynha makes a very valid point. My advice about attending still stands.

Many years,

Neil

I want to thank everyone for their insights and input on the situation with my daughter. I was finally able to track down the priest that married my husband and me. He is extraordinarily knowledgeable and has a solid grasp of Eastern Canon Law. What he told me (and he will be confirming this within the next couple of days) is that (as Theophilus stated) the marriage will be valid but illicit. Yes, it would be nice if they got permission, but I don't think that is going to happen. However, if the marriage is actually valid, then I think we can in good conscience attend. I agree that this is not a good time to be tearing down bridges that might be important to our relationship in the future.

Another fact that this priest shared with me, that I think the readers of the this forum might be interested in hearing, is that in the case of a marriage between someone who is Orthodox and someone who is Catholic, the Catholic Church actually recommends (out of respect for the person who is Orthodox) that the couple is married in the Orthodox Church (with the proper permission and with a Catholic priest present) so that the marriage will be considered valid in both churches.

Thank you again for your help and please keep us in your prayers.

Grace

Deacon Anthony,

Maybe not so "Unthinkable!" or "Unheard-of!"

I finally found a 12th century quote by the Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon -- highly regarded by both Catholic and Orthodox scholars.

After quoting Mark 10, 6-8, The Patriarch says, "we believe and confess that the spouses are on account of the marriage, reckoned to be one humanity having more or less the same soul, which is perceived in two hypostases."

Thanks for the digging.

"reckoned to be one humanity" = one flesh? ok [What's the word used for "humanity", (Greek) sarx?]

"having more or less the same soul" = ? I can't figure this one; sounds like he's not sure himself.

"perceived in two hypostases" -- "perceived"? Would want to know the actual word. But the "two hypostases" confirms my point: hypostasis=person, therefore there are two persons:




Dn. Anthony

Deacon Anthony,

The quotation is from the Syntagma, edited by G.A. Rhalles and M. Potles from 1852 to 1859 in six volumes. I do not know enough Greek to know what exactly is behind the English translation. I do take this 12th century quotation as evidence that the idea of "eternal marriage" is not a modern innovation. And it is not viewed as contradicting the idea of "not given into marriage in Heaven".

In the same section of volume 4, Patriarch Theodore Balsamon seems to believe that marriage is an icon of the Trinity. One eternal essence (soul and/or humanity) created by marriage existing in two persons -- correcting some of what was said previously in the thread. Whatever the oneness is exactly, it does not end at the time of death as understood in the West.

Theophilus,

Thanks again for following up; "marriage existing in two persons" is the point I was advocating.

Concerning the other subtopic of this thread that you mention -- 'the idea of "eternal marriage" is not a modern innovation. And it is not viewed as contradicting the idea of "not given into marriage in Heaven",' -- I don't believe I expressed an opinion.

Dn. Anthony

That the priestly blessing is not an absolute requirement of true marriage between Christians is proved by the Council of Trent's toleration of past clandestine marriages.
Tametsi dubitandum non est clandestina matrimonia libero contrahentium consensu facta rata et vera esse matrimonia quamdiu ecclesia ea irrita non fecit
Although is not to be doubted that clandestine marriages contracted by free consent are made authoritatively and truly to be marriages as long as the Church has not made them void...
..eos sancta synodus anathemate damnat qui ea vera ac rata esse negant...
....the holy Council condemns with anathema those who deny they are true and authoritative...
Some translate rata as "valid" and irrita as "invalid," which is acceptable but not the only possible meanings. The more precise terms are validus and invalidus. For example, validus is used in Session 24, Canon 9 condemning those who hold that clerics or those with solemn vows of chastity may contract a valid marriage.
It is taught by Pope Leo XIII (Arcanum, 23-24) and other Popes that the Sacrament of Matrimony is not some second thing added to Christian marriage. Rather, the marriage-contract itself is the sacrament, for Christ sanctified marriage itself.
23. Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon - the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded.
24. Marriage, moreover, is a sacrament, because it is a holy sign which gives grace, showing forth an image of the mystical nuptials of Christ with the Church. But the form and image of these nuptials is shown precisely by the very bond of that most close union in which man and woman are bound together in one; which bond is nothing else but the marriage itself. Hence it is clear that among Christians every true marriage is, in itself and by itself, a sacrament; and that nothing can be further from the truth than to say that the sacrament is a certain added ornament, or outward endowment, which can be separated and torn away from the contract at the caprice of man. Neither, therefore, by reasoning can it be shown, nor by any testimony of history be proved, that power over the marriages of Christians has ever lawfully been handed over to the rulers of the State. If, in this matter, the right of anyone else has ever been violated, no one can truly say that it has been violated by the Church. Would that the teaching of the naturalists, besides being full of falsehood and injustice, were not also the fertile source of much detriment and calamity! But it is easy to see at a glance the greatness of the evil which unhallowed marriages have brought, and ever will bring, on the whole of human society.

Once this is accepted, the position held by all Catholic theologians practically follows, as sententia certa. Marriage as such is a contract, and the essence of a contract (i.e., that which makes it a contract) is the consent of the parties. Since marriage between Christians and the Sacrament of Matrimony are one and the same thing, the essence of the sacrament must be the same, i.e., the consent of the parties. From this it follows that the betrothed are the ministers of the sacrament.
The blessing of the priest may be made a necessary condition for canonical validity, but this does not imply that the blessing is the essence or even the efficient cause of the sacrament. Earth and sky may be necessary conditions for a horse's existence, but they are not what makes a horse a horse, nor do they cause the horse to be. Likewise, the execution of a contract may require certain conditions, such as the presence of witnesses or a notary, but the essence of the contract remains the consent of the parties who thereby bring it into effect.
The modern Orthodox may find it scandalous to speak of the Sacrament of Matrimony in such worldly, juridical terms. Yet to refrain from this is to ignore in this case that Christ has the power to sanctify the earthly, not by adding something alien to it, but by operating within its essence.

S.T. Supplement, Q. 45, A. 5

On the contrary, Given the cause the effect follows. Now the sufficient cause of matrimony is consent expressed in words of the present. Therefore whether this be done in public or in private the result is a marriage.

Further, wherever there is the due matter and the due form of a sacrament there is the sacrament. Now in a secret marriage there is the due matter, since there are persons who are able lawfully to contract--and the due form, since there are the words of the present expressive of consent. Therefore there is a true marriage.

I answer that, Just as in the other sacraments certain things are essential to the sacrament, and if they are omitted there is no sacrament, while certain things belong to the solemnization of the sacrament, and if these be omitted the sacrament is nevertheless validly performed, although it is a sin to omit them; so, too, consent expressed in words of the present between persons lawfully qualified to contract makes a marriage, because these two conditions are essential to the sacrament; while all else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament, as being done in order that the marriage may be more fittingly performed. Hence if these be omitted it is a true marriage, although the contracting parties sin, unless they have a lawful motive for being excused. [Clandestine marriages have since been declared invalid by the Council of Trent (sess. xxiv). It must be borne in mind that throughout the treatise on marriage St. Thomas gives the Canon Law of his time.]

Reply to Objection 1. The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.

Reply to Objection 2. In penance our act, although essential to the sacrament, does not suffice for producing the proximate effect of the sacrament, namely forgiveness of sins, and consequently it is necessary that the act of the priest intervene in order that the sacrament be perfected. But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond, because whoever has the right to dispose of himself can bind himself to another. Consequently the priest's blessing is not required for matrimony as being essential to the sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. It is also forbidden to receive baptism otherwise than from a priest, except in a case of necessity. But matrimony is not a necessary sacrament: and consequently the comparison fails. However, clandestine marriages are forbidden on account of the evil results to which they are liable, since it often happens that one of the parties is guilty of fraud in such marriages; frequently, too, they have recourse to other nuptials when they repent of having married in haste; and many other evils result therefrom, besides which there is something disgraceful about them.

Reply to Objection 4. Clandestine marriages are not forbidden as though they were contrary to the essentials of marriage, in the same way as the marriages of unlawful persons, who are undue matter for this sacrament; and hence there is no comparison.

It is likewise erroneous to consider the priest the minister of the sacrament;
Syllabus of Errors, St. Pius IX
66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. -- Ibid.

Thanks for all of this documentation, it's a lot to consider. Just five quick responses here:

1. The Summa Theologiae is a wonderful work but it is of course not automatically or as a whole de fide (and the supplement was compiled after the death of St. Thomas).

2. What is meant by clandestine?

3. What is the status of two Catholics who marry before a non-Catholic minister without dispensation and do so: (i) secretly/privately; (ii) openly/publicly?

4. The statement that it is "erroneous to consider the priest the minister of the sacrament" does not follow from a close reading of Syllabus of Errors 66. Certainly Byzantine theology and ritual affirm the sense of both mutual consent and blessing of the Church in an appropriate manner forming one integrated act. Also, the church east and west has always acknowledged the cultural aspect of marriage: giving away the bride, or not, dowries (?), especially formal betrothals e.g. as in the Byzantine ritual, etc. Of all the sacraments, marriage cannot be viewed with one particular cultural mindset and must be interpreted accordingly as to intent.

5. CCC 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
link [scborromeo.org]


1623 Secundum traditionem latinam, sponsi, tamquam ministri gratiae Christi, sibi mutuo Matrimonii conferunt sacramentum, suum consensum coram Ecclesia significantes. In traditionibus Ecclesiarum Orientalium, sacerdotes — Episcopi vel presbyteri — testes sunt consensus mutuo ab sponsis praestiti, 275 sed etiam eorum benedictio ad validitatem sacramenti est necessaria. link [vatican.va]

"1. The Summa Theologiae is a wonderful work but it is of course not automatically or as a whole de fide (and the supplement was compiled after the death of St. Thomas)."

I never made that claim. In fact, it would be absurd for me to do so, since only the magisterium can claim something is de fide. Perhaps you meant infallible?


"2. What is meant by clandestine?"

Done in secret.

"3. What is the status of two Catholics who marry before a non-Catholic minister without dispensation and do so: (i) secretly/privately; (ii) openly/publicly?"

Well, why would two Catholics be getting married outside of the Church in the first place? Anyhow, it would be invalid under both circumstances.

"4. The statement that it is "erroneous to consider the priest the minister of the sacrament" does not follow from a close reading of Syllabus of Errors 66."

The issue at hand is, *who* is the minister of the sacrament. The Catholic Church's position is the couple, and not the priest. According to the East it is the priest's blessing which confers the sacrament. Two completely different views on sacramental theology.