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

What Pope St. Pius IX is saying, is exactly what I stated above,

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.

No, I meant de fide; it's also not infallible.


Who must be present for a clandestine marriage between two Catholics to be valid?

Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case?


Your question is only about the minister and not the whole of the sacramental theology of marriage. Priests in Byzantine Churches are ordinary ministers of Chrismation but are not in the Latin Church.

Also, your conclusion does not match the sentiments of the CCC. It notes two traditions, "Latin" and "Eastern Churches." Did you read it? Comments and analysis?



A problem is that you are mixing concepts. You say here:


But your initial post, quoting Trent, had a different point (nothing about minister) and scope (Christian not just Catholic):

"No, I meant de fide; it's also not infallible."

How can the Summa Theologiae be "de fide"? Only the magisterium can declare what is de fide doctrine or not. The Summa Theologiae doesn't comprise any part of the magisterium.


"Who must be present for a clandestine marriage between two Catholics to be valid?"


MARRIAGE CELEBRATED SECRETLY

Can. 1130 For a grave and urgent cause, the local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated secretly.

Can. 1131 Permission to celebrate a marriage secretly entails the following:

1/ the investigations which must be conducted before the marriage are done secretly;

2/ the local ordinary, the one assisting, the witnesses, and the spouses observe secrecy about the marriage celebrated.

Can. 1132 The obligation of observing the secrecy mentioned in ⇒ can. 1131, n. 2 ceases on the part of the local ordinary if grave scandal or grave harm to the holiness of marriage is imminent due to the observance of the secret; this is to be made known to the parties before the celebration of the marriage.

Can. 1133 A marriage celebrated secretly is to be noted only in a special register to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.


"Catholics do get married outside of the Church. Invalid for both (i) and (ii) you say. What exactly makes it invalid in each case?"

Firstly, there is no reason why two Catholics would be getting married outside the Church in the first place. Nor would a bishop grant a dispensation to two Catholics. It simply doesn't make any sense. The only reason a dispensation would be given, is in the case of a mixed marriage. Since Catholics are bound to the Church's laws, a dispensation must be granted for a marriage to be considered valid.


"Also, your conclusion does not match the sentiments of the CCC. It notes two traditions, "Latin" and "Eastern Churches." Did you read it? Comments and analysis?"

The CCC is simply expressing the respective traditions. It doesn't say that both have equal merits.

Yes, well said. And the magisterium is all the bishops of the Catholic Church, East and West, in communion and teaching as one through the person of the bishop of Rome.

So this is a Catholic ceremony with the minimum need for validity: spouses, witnesses and who else? Must an approved ritual be used? Who conducts the ceremony?


Yes of course.


The issue of a clandestine marriage and here Canon Law does not address who is the minister(s) of marriage, and the Summa is theological opinion or conjecture. In fact, there is no such de fide statement, is there? In Can. 1131n.2 who is "the one assisting"?


So one may conclude then that the Byzantine, Eastern Church tradition has greater merit?

"And the magisterium is all the bishops of the Catholic Church, East and West, in communion and teaching as one through the person of the bishop of Rome."

Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master): The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. xxviii, 19-20). This teaching is infallible: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (ibid.). The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or ecumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching,which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.


"So this is a Catholic ceremony with the minimum need for validity: spouses, witnesses and who else? Must an approved ritual be used? Who conducts the ceremony?"

The Church reserves the right to permit the celebration of “secret marriages” or “clandestine marriages”, that is to say, marriages that are not recognized by the State in certain circumstances. Canons 1130 – 1133 of the Latin Code (and can. 840 of the Eastern Code) provide the parameters.

A secret marriage can only be permitted by the local ordinary (i.e., the diocesan bishop, vicar general, or an episcopal vicar), the parties involved must observe secrecy (only the priest, the couple, and two witnesses should be present at the wedding), and the marriage is recorded only in a special register in the secret archives of the diocesan curia.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/01/ask-father-secret-marriage-to-avoid-government/



"The issue of a clandestine marriage and here Canon Law does not address who is the minister(s) of marriage,"

The ministers of the sacrament itself is the couple. The priest merely serves as a witness to the marriage. That's why it doesn't mention who the ministers are.

"and the Summa is theological opinion or conjecture. In fact, there is no such de fide statement,"

See Ludwig Ott, Fundementals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 9-10

That the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony is sententia certa.


"So one may conclude then that the Byzantine, Eastern Church tradition has greater merit?"

No. The Catholic Church's stance has been that the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament. This is shown from Pope St. Leo XIII (Arcanum, 23-24), Pope St. Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors,
66), and any Catholic dogmatic treatise on matrimony. See for example Pohle-Preuss.

https://archive.org/stream/V11ExtremeUnctionHolyOrdersMatrimony#page/n149/mode/2up


The Catholic Enc., Sacrament of Marriage states:

"Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament."

"it cannot be denied that the contracting parties in Christian marriage must be guided by ecclesiastical regulations, and cannot act otherwise than as ministers subject to the Church or dispensers of the sacrament."

Read, The "Sanatio in Radice" Before the Council of Trent, pgs. 81-83

Right, like I said just more succinctly.


So a priest is to be present also.



Then it presumes some prior authority? Here is the problem with this whole issue: That which claims to be demonstrated is not; it is state as such

with the conclusion that it then is so. This is the "I said it, therefore it is so" proof.

Don't have to consult Ott further, even he says it's sententia certa not de fide .



"The Catholic Church's stance has been..." There is no problem with the agency of the couples, their consent being required, but there is in formulating a theology of what constitutes ministry and then showing it is exclusive to, in this case, the spouses.

Under what circumstances below does a valid marriage take place -- two Catholic spouses --

1) two spouses only present
2) two spouses and one lay witness
3) two spouses and priest or deacon


The spouses are agents also in the Byzantine theology of marriage; their free consent is affirmed in the betrothal ceremony.

The spouses also in the Byzantine theology of marriage are "agents" or "ministers who are subject to the Church or dispensers of the sacrament."

"...Church or dispensers of the sacrament." What does this mean?

Give the pertinent information.

"So a priest is to be present also."

As the current canon law stands, yes.

From The "Sanatio in Radice" Before the Council of Trent, pgs. 81-83

The term clandestine marriage had not always the same significance before the 16th century. Prior to the decree "Tametsi" of the Council of Trent, no form was prescribed for the valid celebration of matrimony. A couple intending marriage had merely to exchange a true matrimonial consent, manifested in some external way, in order to be thereafter man and wife. Neither the natural law nor Roman law required more than this; nor did the Church impose any special formalities as being necessary for validity. However, from the very beginning the Church insisted that the Faithful should not contract this sacrament without her intervention nor embark on the married life without her blessing. While clandestine marriages stood condemned, no uniform method of contracting a legitimate marriage was enforced throughout Christendom... A clandestine marriage before the year 1215 had two meanings; it signified either a marriage contracted by a couple without any witnesses at all, or a marriage not contracted in facie ecclesiae as explained above, although contracted in the presence of a few selected witnesses. After the fourth Lateran Council, the term took on a third meaning. In this Council, Innocent III introduced for the Universal Church what had previously been a local custom of the diocese of Beauvais, namely the proclamation of the banns. From that date on, a marriage celebrated without the banns having been proclaimed was considered a clandestine marriage, even though the couple had exchanged their consent in the presence of a priest.



The Council of Trent, to prevent Clandestine Marriages, required that all Marriages should be solemnised by a priest in the presence of two witnesses, but it considered clandestine marriages to be vlid, until annulled by the Decree of that Council where it should be received.

https://books.google.com/books?id=E...iages%20council%20of%20trent&f=false


" Don't have to consult Ott further, even he says it's sententia certa not de fide."

Which is exactly what I said above. I never claimed it to be official dogma. But it doesn't have to be, since the Church has repeatedly stated that it is the *spouses* who confer the sacrament to each other, and not the priest.


"There is no problem with the agency of the couples, their consent being required, but there is in formulating a theology of what constitutes ministry and then showing it is exclusive to, in this case, the spouses."

Marriage 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.


"Under what circumstances below does a valid marriage take place -- two Catholic spouses --

1) two spouses only present
2) two spouses and one lay witness
3) two spouses and priest or deacon"

For canonical validity, read the code of canon law on clandestine marriages.


"The spouses are agents also in the Byzantine theology of marriage; their free consent is affirmed in the betrothal ceremony."

According to Eastern theology, the priest confers the sacrament through his blessing. This is in direct opposition to Latin theology on matrimony.


"The spouses also in the Byzantine theology of marriage are "agents" or "ministers who are subject to the Church or dispensers of the sacrament."

"...Church or dispensers of the sacrament." What does this mean?"

It means that the spouses are the ministers (or dispenses) of the sacrament.

According to Pohle-Pruess

The Council of Trent recognized the validity of clandestine marriagescontracted in places where the "Tametsi" had not been promulgated. By a clandestine marriage we understand one contracted secretly without the cooperation of the pastor and the required witnesses. The Council says that all such marriages, when freely contracted where the "Tametsi" is not published, are "rata et vera" unless formally nullified by the Church. Note that, according to Tridentine as well as present-day usage, a legitimate marriage among Christians is always a Sacrament, whether blessed by a priest or not.

...

The contracting parties to a marriage administer the Sacrament to each other. The priest is merely the minister of the (accidental) celebration and the representative and chief official witness of the Church. This explains why his presence is prescribed by ecclesiastical law.

a) That the contracting parties administer the Sacrament to each other is evident from the fact that contract and Sacrament coincide and that both the matter and the form of Matrimony are contained in the contract.

Contract and Sacrament being identical, he who makes the contract eo ipso administers the Sacrament. Again, as matter and form of the Sacrament are contained in the contract, whoever furnishes the matter and form, effects the Sacrament. It is the express teaching of the Church that the Sacrament of Matrimony is effected solely 3 by the mutual consent of the contracting parties. Consequently the contracting parties are the sole ministers of the Sacrament. It is on this assumption that the Tridentine Council declared clandestine marriages (i.e. marriages performed without a priest and the required witnesses) to be vera et sacra, provided the Church does not enjoin a special form of celebration as a condition of validity.

Berlage's opinion that the priest is the ordinary, whilst the contracting parties are the extraordinary ministers of the Sacrament, is untenable, (1) because the form of a Sacrament can not be arbitrarily changed, and (2) because Nicholas I and Innocent III have expressly declared that the only thing required for the validity of marriage, and hence of the Sacrament, is the consent of the contracting parties. Very properly, therefore, is Matrimony called "the lay Sacrament."

b) If, as we have seen, the sacramental form of marriage does not consist in the benediction given by the priest, the priest cannot be the minister of the Sacrament.

How, then, are we to regard the part which he takes in the celebration of marriage?

(1) The priest is the official representative of the Church, to whose external forum Christian marriage belongs on account of its juridical effects ;

(2) He is the official chief witness (testis autoriza- bilis), upon whose presence, since the Council of Trent, both the licitness and the validity of marriage ordinarily depend;

(3) He is the (sole) minister of the solemn ceremonies with which the Church surrounds marriage, not only the ecclesiastical recognition (solemnizatio matrimonii), which he expresses in saying, "I join you together in Matrimony but also the nuptial blessing, which is one of the Church's most beautiful and significant sacramentals.


======

This clearly says more than the ministry of the spouses is required.

Reading this, the entire post, there are differences of opinion that are discussed and dismissed but they are still there. If it is the thrust of Latin theology that the spouses are the sole ministers (by some criterion in some sort of differentiating of ministry) of the sacrament of matrimony then that is merely a generally accepted theological conclusion at best. It is clear in just this quote that the intention is that the sacrament is ultimately the ministry of Christ and therefore the ministry of the Church, Ephesians 5:32.

To refocus the discussion then, what is the most authoritative statement of the East and of the West concerning the ministry of the sacrament of marriage that would put them at odds?

What is said here? No pastor but how about some other priest? Or no priest or representative of the Church present at all? No two witnesses but what if only one witness or no witnesses? is it a sacramental marriage then with just the two spouses present and officiating?

In the teaching of our churches, a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners and God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church. At the present time, there are differences in the ways by which this ministry is exercised in order to fulfill the theological and canonical norms for marriage in our churches. The Orthodox Church, as a rule, accepts as sacramental only those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which are sanctified in the Church's liturgy through the blessing of an Orthodox bishop or priest. The Catholic Church accepts as sacramental those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which are witnessed by a Catholic bishop or priest (or, in more recent discipline, a deacon), but it also envisages some exceptional cases in which, whether by law or by dispensation, Catholics may enter into a sacramental marriage in the absence of a bishop, priest or deacon. There are also differences in our theological explanations of this diversity. As older presentations of sacramental theology indicate, Orthodox theologians often have insisted that the priest is the proper "minister of the Sacrament", whereas Roman Catholic theologians more often have spoken of the couple as "ministering the sacrament to each other".

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te.../pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm

"It is the *express teaching* of the Church that the Sacrament of Matrimony is effected *solely* by the mutual consent of the contracting parties. Consequently the contracting parties are the *sole* ministers of the Sacrament. It is on this assumption that the Tridentine Council declared clandestine marriages (i.e. marriages performed without a priest and the required witnesses) to be vera et sacra, *provided the Church does not enjoin a special form of celebration as a condition of validity*.

Good quote don't you think? It would be nice if it went the distance and reconciled Catholic East and West explicitly in the way the CCC does in good part.