east and west and marriage

[Aloysius]

the east view marriage as a sacrament administered by the priest
the west view it as a sacrament administered by the couple to each other

so, does the east think that the priest administers the sacrament in the west? does the west think the couple administers the sacrament in the east? or does the couple really administer it in the west while the priest really administers it in the east?

[Guest Eremite]

Two words:

Ask Apotheoun.

:

[Aloysius]

lol I was hoping he would chime in... but think for yourself darnit! :

like, imagine I had the western view (i'm not sure which view I hold at present actually). now would that mean I think that people married in the East who think that the priest is administering the sacrament are actually administering the sacrament themselves?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

And odd question I've been harboring:
What do Eastern Catholics think about the sacrament of matrimony being celebrated by deacons in the West? Would an Eastern deacon performing a marraige be illicit but valid in the Eastern Church?

[Aloysius]

this seems much more important than it is generally made out to be... this is the nature of a sacrament

Apo's insight would be greatly appreciated.

[qfnol31]

Why not have a Western couple married by an Eastern Priest...you get the best of both worlds, plus probably a nicer Liturgy. :

[Aloysius]

the question is: does the east view western marriages as actually being administered by the priest and does the west view eastern marriages as actually being administered by the couple?

[scardella]

My guess is you'd have to ask a canon lawyer about that...

[Theoketos]

In both, consent makes the marriage.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 29 2005, 11:13 AM']the east view marriage as a sacrament administered by the priest
the west view it as a sacrament administered by the couple to each other

so, does the east think that the priest administers the sacrament in the west?  does the west think the couple administers the sacrament in the east?  or does the couple really administer it in the west while the priest really administers it in the east?
[right][snapback]663962[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In Eastern sacramental theology the priest is the minister of the sacrament of matrimony; and as a consequence, his blessing and the ritual of crowning are necessary for the validity of the sacrament and not merely for the sake of its licit celebration.

As Eparch Pataki of Passaic wrote: "Marriage in the Eastern Church is a sacrament confered by the priest by means of the [i]crowning[/i] and nuptual blessing, [b]not by the couple as in the Latin Church[/b]. Thus, a deacon may not officiate at the marriage of an Eastern Catholic. By law, marriages are performed by the pastor of the groom unless special permission has been received; and Eastern Catholic Churches do not typically give the dispensation which allows a marriage to a non-Catholic to be performed by a non-Catholic minister, which is sometimes given in the Latin Church."

As far as your questions are concerned, one must remember that in some sense the two traditions, Byzantine and Latin, are self-contained wholes, and so to blend them is not possible, because they are based upon different theological and metaphysical presuppositions.

In other words, the Eastern Churches hold that the priest is the minister of the sacrament of marriage and this doctrinal position must be maintained by all Eastern Catholics. Nevertheless, this doctrine applies only within an Eastern Christian paradigm.

In the Western Church, at least since the early part of the Scholastic period, it has been held that the man and woman administer the sacrament of marriage upon each other, and the priest only gives a blessing for the sake of a licit celebration of the sacrament. This doctrinal position holds for all Latin Catholics, but not for Byzantines.

As Theoketos indicated, both theological traditions require the consent of the man and the woman, but the Eastern tradition does not hold that this necessary consent is sufficient for a sacramental marriage. In other words, consent alone, in the Eastern tradition, does not make a valid sacramental marriage.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 31 2005, 09:45 PM']the question is: does the east view western marriages as actually being administered by the priest and does the west view eastern marriages as actually being administered by the couple?
[right][snapback]666909[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
On this issue East and West have different theological traditions, and it would be improper for either side to judge the other sides theological position by applying the presuppositions of their own tradition to the others doctrine.

[Aloysius]

so we're just not supposed to have an opinion about what happens on the other side?

like say I hold the western view... I suppose there's three options for me looking at an eastern marriage

1) since it's in an eastern rite the priest administered the sacrament
2) since I hold to the western position the couple must've administered it
3) no opinion...

now what you've done is eliminated #2. So what about #1? can we hold that the sacrament is confered differently in the east than it is in the west? or must we not hold any opinion on it (which to me is just avoiding the issue)

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]This doctrinal position holds for all Latin Catholics, but not for Byzantines.

As Theoketos indicated, both theological traditions require the consent of the man and the woman, but the Eastern tradition does not hold that this necessary consent is sufficient for a sacramental marriage. In other words, consent alone, in the Eastern tradition, does not make a valid sacramental marriage.[/quote]

There is a problem with this thesis, because if the East holds that a priest's blessing is absolutely necessary for a valid marriage, then Western marriages cannot be valid.

Because we know infallibly that the form of marriage in East and West are valid, then there must be an explanation which harmonizes the two.

The blessing of a priest cannot be said to be ABSOLUTELY essential to the Sacrament of matrimony, because the Church of Rome does not require such, and it is the Church of Rome to which we look for agreement.

Thus, the blessing of a priest is essential in the East, not by necessity, but by the form of the Liturgical ceremony.

This issue is similar to the anaphora of Addai and Mari. The Holy See ruled it valid, EVEN THOUGH it does not contain an explicit utterance of the words "This is my body", "This is my blood". These words are essential to the Roman Liturgical form, but because of this exception, they cannot be said to be ABSOLUTELY necessary.

[Aloysius]

bump first off because I'm still wondering about what each side should think about how the sacrament actually happens on the other side AND because I have another question:

suppose someone was very theologically and ritualistically Roman about most anything, but their theological position on marriage was eastern... what should they do when planning their marriage?

lol, maybe I just want a crown.. :

[Era Might]

Bump for Apotheoun.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 3 2005, 02:28 PM']There is a problem with this thesis, because if the East holds that a priest's blessing is absolutely necessary for a valid marriage, then Western marriages cannot be valid.

Because we know infallibly that the form of marriage in East and West are valid, then there must be an explanation which harmonizes the two.

The blessing of a priest cannot be said to be ABSOLUTELY essential to the Sacrament of matrimony, because the Church of Rome does not require such, and it is the Church of Rome to which we look for agreement.

Thus, the blessing of a priest is essential in the East, not by necessity, but by the form of the Liturgical ceremony.

This issue is similar to the anaphora of Addai and Mari. The Holy See ruled it valid, EVEN THOUGH it does not contain an explicit utterance of the words "This is my body", "This is my blood". These words are essential to the Roman Liturgical form, but because of this exception, they cannot be said to be ABSOLUTELY necessary.
[right][snapback]670258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I don't think your logic is valid here Erimite-- Apotheoun is saying that in the Eastern Church it is absolutly necessary, that the Sacrament cannot be confered in the Eastern Rites without being ministered by a Priest, ergo for all Eastern Rite Catholics the Ministry of the Priest is essential but for those Catholics in the Roman Rite such ministry is not absolutly essential for ministry of the Sacrament even while it is essential for the licit practice of said sacrament. I don't see how your contention above is really a refutation of that, He has not said that it is absolutly necessary he said it was absolutly necessary for those catholics within the Eastern Rites

[Era Might]

[quote]He has not said that it is absolutly necessary he said it was absolutly necessary for those catholics within the Eastern Rites [/quote]

He refers to the matter as a "doctrinal position" for East and West, but doctrine, as understood by the Church, is distinct from theological form. That is, doctrine cannot be "binding" on one lung of the Church and not the other, which makes his position confusing.

He speaks of an "Eastern" and "Western" paradigm, distinctly in which alone the separate forms prove intelligible, but the effect of marriage is an ontological truth. IOW, no matter what the paradigm in East and West, a priestly blessing cannot be said to be "absolutely" necessary if it is possible for the same ontological change to be effected without it. As I said above, it is necessary insofar as it constitutes the Eastern Liturgical form, but not from a doctrinal standpoint.

If by "doctrine" he meant theological form, then a lot of the confusion will be cleared up. He is free to clarify himself or offer a response. Which is why I bumped it.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

The doctrinal positions on the minister of the sacrament of marriage are different, just as the doctrinal positions on the [i]filioque[/i] are different, and the Vatican itself has no problem with the differences.

[Good Friday]

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused, too. How can the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church disagree on the proper minister of the sacrament of matrimony, but still say that the sacrament of matrimony celebrated by the Sister Church is still valid? Doesn't one of them have to be right and the other wrong? I think that's what everyone's trying to get at here -- how can both of them be right?

[Good Friday]

Incidentally, if one of them is right, I propose it is the Eastern Church. :