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

You quote but give no source. Pohle? What, words and reference, is the express teaching mentioned? So it is an *express teaching* that is nevertheless an "assumption" leading to a "vera et sacra" true and sacred marriage provided... This is a lot of qualifications with an assumption from which to be implying certainty.

Yes, it is Pohle-Preuss.

"What, words and reference, is the express teaching mentioned?"

Pope Leo XIII (Arcanum, 23)

"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."

Furthermore, 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.

One reads the quote and the words resonate with such authority that it seems the case is closed. It is of course just a dogmatic theologian speaking very dogmatically. He makes his case well but there are any number of places in it where questions, objections and caveats can be raised and where he dismisses opposing views (they exist from western theologians) as the thrust of his arguments crescendos to his conclusion.

In reading just the fuller immediate context of the quote one of the problems I find with his approach is that it takes a deductive, circumstantial evidentiary approach dealing with specific issues that removes the topic, what is the sacrament of marriage, from its intrinsic roots: the prayer life of the Church, spirituality, scripture, liturgy. His approach is very academic, and that's ok as far as it goes, but it is incomplete and, consequently, to me somewhat stilted. Theological expression has moved on and rightfully so.

This is a bit sketchy but I intend to post more on this and what I mean. But he has exceed and misrepresented the current state of understanding in saying "It is the *express teaching* of the Church that the Sacrament of Matrimony is effected *solely* by the mutual consent of the contracting parties."

You seem to overlook the evidence that Pohle-Preuss cites in support of this claim. One of which is the explicit statement made by Pope St. Leo XII.

"But he has exceed and misrepresented the current state of understanding"

That would be up to you to prove.

Neil, sorry to be off message. Did u get the message sent you here? Sorry to interrupt this flow of replies.

What is the "explicit statement"? St. ?? Leo XII ???

That sentence didn't come out quite as intended. Since he's dead he's not misrepresenting anything current(ly). So I restate: He has overstated the certitude of the teaching at his time and what he states as definitive does not represent the current teaching and understanding.

If the teaching were so explicit he would not have to be arguing against the view of other Catholic theologians as he does. His certitude is not supported by the USCCB statement:

"vera et sacra." True and sacred. Valid and holy. Does "vera et sacra" = sacramental?

"What is the "explicit statement"? St. ?? Leo XII ???"

That would be Pope St. Leo XIII (Arcanum, 23)

"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."


"He has overstated the certitude of the teaching at his time and what he states as definitive does not represent the current teaching and understanding."

This is what I thought you meant in the first place. All the evidence suggests that Pohle-Preus is not over-exaggerating when they say it is the "express teaching" of the Church.


"His certitude is not supported by the USCCB statement"

Well, let us analyze the parts which you believe support your contention.

"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."

As the current code of canon law requires, yes. Catholics are required to get married in the Church, except in the case of mixed marriages, which requires a dispensation. However, the fact that the blessing of the priest is not an absolute requirement is shown by Church's acceptance of all Christian marriages as being sacramental. Pohle-Preuss states: Every marriage between Christians is a true Sacrament; consequently contract and Sacrament coincide.


"As older presentations of sacramental theology indicate,"

Since this statement applies to both Catholic and Orthodox formulations.

Do you really mean "All"? No evidence or opinion to the contrary?




Yes "let us analyze the parts":

Pohle-Preuss: It is the *express teaching* of the Church that the Sacrament of Matrimony is effected *solely* by the mutual consent of the contracting parties.
USCCB: "God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church" is required. [emphasis added]


Yes, Pohle-Preuss states and not, the Church states. Furthermore, "consequently contract and Sacrament coincide" is a sweeping statement that does not automatically follow given the limited context.



It says it is an older, not a current, approach. As you say "Since this statement applies to both Catholic and Orthodox formulations" it applies to Pohle-Preuss. Since it does apply to both, it applies to 1) "Roman Catholic theologians" and not the Catholic Church; and 2) we are here in this focus examining the words, method and conclusions of Pohle-Preuss and not the Orthodox.

"That is the purpose of this forum: to improve our knowledge of one another."

"Do you really mean "All"? No evidence or opinion to the contrary?"

Asking a rhetorical question, doesn't equate to an actual argument.


"USCCB: "God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church" is required. [emphasis added]"

As I already stated above, this pertains to Catholics. The fact is, the Church accepts as sacramental all marriages contracted by Christians.


"Furthermore, "consequently contract and Sacrament coincide" is a sweeping statement that does not automatically follow given the limited context."

Yes, it does logically follow. 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.


"As you say "Since this statement applies to both Catholic and Orthodox formulations" it applies to Pohle-Preuss."

Your response indicates that you didn't understand my comment. Since the statement refers to the formulations of *both* Catholic and Orthodox theologians, why should we expect that either of our respective traditions have changed? Can you provide any evidence which would suggest that the Latin Catholic Church has altered its position?

It's not a rhetorical question. As does Pohle-Preuss you make sweeping statements that are unsupported and then go on as though the matter is settled. This is an example.


The qualification is yours; it is not in the USCCB teaching.


Here is the problem with your approach, you only just keep repeating the part you like, that supports the old understanding. Note the difference in the USCCB teaching: "a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners" as you keep saying but also "and God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church."

Is not 'God's blessing" essential to a marriage that is a sacrament?


So then this doesn't necessarily follow.


I don't know about the Orthodox position; I'm not Orthodox and don't answer as or for the Orthodox.

You should realize that this dialogue is not about who Orthodox consider to be the "minister" of marriage but about the specific and well-argued claims of Catholic theologians that are not automatically the teaching of the Catholic Church. Part of the issue may be what is meant by "minister" of the sacrament. Another is that the term "contract" may have implied understandings from which conclusions follow automatically for some. I think reformulating the theology and pronouncements on marriage in terms of marriage as a covenant would be beneficial.

Bob,

He is and shall be.

I see this is addressed only to RomCatholic but I have been in detailed and fruitful dialog with him here. Old threads find new life. This thread's subject is a concern of Eastern Catholic, Orthodox and Western Catholics and is treated in part in A Pastoral Statement on Orthodox/Roman Catholic Marriages The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) [usccb.org].

In XP,
Deacon Anthony

"As does Pohle-Preuss you make sweeping statements that are unsupported and then go on as though the matter is settled. This is an example."

Yes, *all* the evidence suggests that the Pohle-Preuss is not over-exaggerating. It would be up to you to provide counter evidence.

"The qualification is yours; it is not in the USCCB teaching."

The Church accepts as sacramental all true marriages contracted by Christians. This is proven from the fact that we don't require non-Catholic Christians who are entering the Church to renew their vows, or to receive a blessing from the priest.

"Is not 'God's blessing" essential to a marriage that is a sacrament?"

The priest's blessing is not an essential part of the sacrament. The priests blessing is merely a sacramental; it does not confer grace.


"about the specific and well-argued claims of Catholic theologians that are not automatically the teaching of the Catholic Church."

Well, let me provide you with at least some to the evidence that come from the Popes

Pope St. Nicholas I in a letter to Boris I of Bulgaria stated that consent of the couple was sufficient enough for the marriage to be considered valid (that is, sacramental).

ac per hoc sufficiat secundum leges solus eorum consensus, de quorum coniunctionibus agitur


Pope Alexander III taught that the consent of the spouses was what made a marriage, and not the ceremony or the blessing of the priest. https://books.google.com/books?id=F...xander%20iii%20on%20marriage&f=false

Pope Innocent III likewise taught the same. https://books.google.com/books?id=d...%20innocent%20iii%20marriage&f=false


Pope St. Leo XIII (Arcanum, 23)

"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."