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

Even Pohle-Preuss gives opposing views of Catholic theologians that are dismissed but they are still opposing views. So saying "All" is incorrect and misleading.

This doesn't answer the question which does not ask about the role of the priest. Does Pohle-Preuss speak about "God's blessing" as does the USCCB's "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"? [emphasis added]


Does this exclude then the necessity also of " God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church."

This says in the context, against those that would separate the civil and religious aspects of marriage into two domains, that there is a unity in the sacrament, that it cannot be separated into these parts. There can only be one, unified celebration of marriage. The "contract" is "true and legitimate" only in that it is a sacrament "For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament" [emphasis added]. Does not "marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded" apply to non-christians?

"One another" means the Eastern Churches--learning about the Eastern Churches, their theology, and their praxis. It does not mean we need a heavy dose of Latin theology and praxis.

Bob
Moderator

"One another" means the Eastern Churches--learning about the Eastern Churches, their theology, and their praxis. It does not mean we need a heavy dose of Latin theology and praxis.

Since the sub-forum is titled "The Christian East & West," I fail to see how I am acting outside the confines of the forum rules.

" Even Pohle-Preuss gives opposing views of Catholic theologians that are dismissed but they are still opposing views. So saying "All" is incorrect and misleading."

Theologians who have opposing views does not constitute as counter evidence. What constitutes as evidence is 1) official documents of the Church, 2) personal letters form Popes, and 3) patristic sources.

All the evidence which I am aware of, demonstrates that the blessing of the priest is non-essential to the Sacrament.


""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"?"

For canonical validity, a priest must preside over a wedding. I have already stated this.


"Does this exclude then the necessity also of " God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church."

What it demonstrates is that the priestly blessing does not confer the Sacrament.


"Does not "marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded" apply to non-christians?"

The Pope is specifically referring to Christian marriages. What he is saying is that in Christian marriages, the contract and the Sacrament cannot be separated into two spheres; since marriage between Christians and the Sacrament of Matrimony are one and the same thing. Thus, 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.

Pohle-Preuss interpret 1-3 and reach their conclusion and dismiss the opposing conclusion of theologian(s) who also interpret the 1-3 with a different conclusion. If the teaching were an "express" = "clearly indicated; distinctly stated; definite; explicit; plain" link [dictionary.reference.com] "teaching" why isn't it just quoted from where it occurs in 1-3?
The issue is the "solely," how it is to be understood.

Also missing from the 1-3 list is an importance source, the liturgical, prayer, actually lived and experienced faith of the Church and the believer. This is a criticism of the older Catholic approaches and compilations of Catholic theology. This is not to invalidate those very academic, propositional, didactic compilations only to say they can give the wrong emphasis and would benefit by some explicit spiritual and liturgical expression. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

More on this to follow.

Yes you have stated that but its not the point here. It says "sacramental marriage...of the believing Christian partners." It says "Christian" not Catholic and explicitly "believing Christian."

1.) Is the common law marriage of two believing non-Catholic Christians a sacrament?

2.) Is the common law marriage of two non-believing non-Catholic Christians a sacrament?

Christian here = validly baptized

"Pohle-Preuss interpret 1-3 and reach their conclusion and dismiss the opposing conclusion of theologian(s) who also interpret the 1-3 with a different conclusion."

Most of the theologians cited lived somewhere in between the 16-18th centuries. You won't find a single Catholic theologian today who claims that the sacrament of matrimony is conferred by the priest's blessing.

You have yet to deal with the evidence they cite in support of their position; namely, the Council of Trent, the Syllabus of Erros 66, and Arcanum 23.


"The issue is the "solely," how it is to be understood."

It means that the priest does not confer the sacrament.


"It says "Christian" not Catholic and explicitly "believing Christian.""

Since the pastoral letter is dealing specifically with Catholic/Orthodox marriages, that should answer your question. But if it doesn't, then I will ask you a question. Since when do protestants receive God's blessing through the ministry of the Church?


"1.) Is the common law marriage of two believing non-Catholic Christians a sacrament?"

As long as they fulfill the four requirements below.


"2.) Is the common law marriage of two non-believing non-Catholic Christians a sacrament?"

The contracting parties are not only the ministers, they are also the recipients of the Sacrament.
The conditions of valid reception are four:
(1) The recipients must be baptized
(2) They must be of different sex;
(3) There must be no diriment impediment in the way of their marriage;
(4) They must have the intention of doing what the Church does, i. e. contracting a Christian marriage.

You have this hang-up about the priest's blessing. I've not mentioned the priest's blessing.

I did with Arcanum explicitly; they are all non explicit statements from which conclusions are inferred.

Not only the priest.


It does. It says Christian, "believing Christian." Read on in the document; it has no problem with being more specific.

Who else dispenses the sacraments? Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.


So yes for both 1.) and 2.) if the four conditions obtain?

"You have this hang-up about the priest's blessing. I've not mentioned the priest's blessing."

What do you suppose the statement, "God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church" means; if not the priest's blessing?


"I did with Arcanum explicitly; they are all non explicit statements from which conclusions are inferred."

It is the only possible conclusion.


"It does. It says Christian, "believing Christian." Read on in the document; it has no problem with being more specific."

It is specifically referring to Catholics and Orthodox. I don't want to have to explain this again.

"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 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."


They specifically put "believing Christian" because it affects whether the marriage is sacramental or not, since those contracting a marriage must have the intention of doing what the Church does, i.e. contracting a *Christian* marriage.


"Who else dispenses the sacraments?"

You clearly misunderstood what I wrote; so let me rephrase it. How do non-Catholics receive the blessing of the Church when they get married; especially if they don't belong to the Church? You don't suppose protestants belong to true churches, do you?


"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."

Are you trying to say that non-Catholics/Orthodox don't have valid sacraments such as baptism and marriage? The Council of Trent had this to say,

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.


"So yes for both 1.) and 2.) if the four conditions obtain?"

I would say no for #2, since they don't intend on contracting a Christian marriage.

It's a matter of focus, close reading (exegesis) and logic.

The focus:



The close reading:

1.) It is NOT an express (="clearly indicated; distinctly stated; definite; explicit; plain") teaching.

2.)"solely" means "not involving anyone or anything else" to the exclusion of ALL others not just the priest or "the priest's blessing."

The logic:

But OK as you say, making your rhetorical question a statement, "God's blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church means... the priest's blessing." So the priest's blessing (in the specific case you cite) is the "official ministry of the Church" and is a necessary aspect of marriage as in the USCCB's You have nullified Pohle-Preuss's "solely", therefore, it can't be an "express teaching."

No.

"true churches"? The Catholic Church is "a Church of many churches" but there is only one true Church (singular).

So "How do non-Catholics receive the blessing of the Church when they get married; especially if they don't belong to the Church?"


Goodness, don't go on. Of course Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus doesn't mean what you've conjured up here.

That's because you can't explain it. I'll give you the Orthodox-Catholic context but as stated it is more general; if it were intended to be otherwise it should have been explicit.

I agree.

The four conditions you stated may satisfy canonists (and the Church) for case #1 but are wanting as informative applied theology.

"is the "official ministry of the Church" and is a necessary aspect of marriage as in the USCCB's"

"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 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."


Canonical norms require that ***Catholic*** weddings be witnessed by a priest. The Council of Trent required this, as well as two witnesses to prevent clandestine marriages.

As I stated before, "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."


"You have nullified Pohle-Preuss's "solely", therefore, it can't be an "express teaching.""

No, I haven't. Nor has the USCCB.


""true churches"? The Catholic Church is "a Church of many churches" but there is only one true Church (singular)."

The Orthodox Church(es) are true churches in the secondary sense, insofar as they possess all 7 sacraments. Of course, there is but *one* true Church.


" Goodness, don't go on. Of course Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus doesn't mean what you've conjured up here."

So why exactly did you respond with: EENS?


"That's because you can't explain it. I'll give you the Orthodox-Catholic context but as stated it is more general; if it were intended to be otherwise it should have been explicit."

It is explicit. See the passages I cited above.

Scholastic, metaphysical categories -- essence, form, matter, the Platonic horse -- are useful but they can be taken too far (as in some forms of neo-scholasticism). The sacraments are after all mysteries. Please, no more about horse, earth and sky. Canonists create canonical validity and it is then a category conveniently invoked to seemingly pigeonhole the role of the Church into a non-essential status. Once a theology owns the vocabulary it can create proofs to matches its conclusions at will.

Who dispenses the sacraments? Who is the ultimate minister of every sacrament?

In terms of what the Church desires for the ideal of the Christian marriage, is the common law marriage of two believing, validly baptized Christians the minimum for being a sacrament? What is the role of the Catholic Church in this sacramental marriage?