east and west and marriage

[homeschoolmom]

Two Rites don't make a wrong??

[Era Might]

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

There is no such doctrinal difference. The filioque is simply a different theological formula in the West. There is no divergence in the doctrine believed.

If, in fact, this particular question about the Sacrament of marriage were a "doctrinal difference", then one of us would have to be wrong. If, in fact, the East held DOCTRINALLY that the blessing of a priest is absolutely necessary for marriage, then this would invalidate Latin marriages, because two converse propositions cannot both be true. A priestly blessing cannot be both necessary and not necessary.

The blessing of the priest is not, in fact, a doctrinal necessity, in East or West. It is, as I said before, a necessity of Liturgical form. The West has a different Liturgical form. Nevertheless, the fundamental belief must be the same, that the Sacrament does not require the blessing of a priest, anymore than a valid Consecration requires absolutely either leavened or unleavened bread.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Era Might]

For matters of documentation, in case it becomes an issue, the Holy See addressed the Filioque back in 1995:

[quote]Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusiV.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM[/url][/quote]

Note that it is referred to as "the Catholic doctrine". Doctrine knows no bounds between East and West. Formulation of doctrine can vary, but not doctrine itself.

[Apotheoun]

Of course there are theological differences, and the Vatican itself knows that there are, and has actually told the Eastern Churches in communion with the Pope to delatinize their liturgies and theology. On the [i]filioque[/i] issue I recommend reading the Vatican's own clarification, for the Vatican itself says that the Nicene creed without the [i]filioque[/i] is normative for the whole Church. In fact if you read the CDF Declaration [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html"][u]Dominus Iesus[/u][/url] you will notice that the Nicene creed is expressed without the [i]filioque[/i].

Now in order to clarify matters further let me say that as a Byzantine Catholic I reject any notion of the [i]filioque[/i] that makes the Son a cause ([i]aitia[/i]) of the Spirit's eternal hypostasis, because the Father is the sole cause ([i]aitia[/i]) in the Godhead, both of the Son's hypostasis and of the Spirit's. In other words, the Spirit takes His existential origin from the Father alone through procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]), but the Spirit as divine energy is manifested ([i]to proienai[/i]) through the Son, both temporally and eternally, and this is the way in which the East understands the theologoumenon of the [i]filioque[/i]. Moreover, the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome do not have to recite the creed with the [i]filioque[/i], and in fact it is being expunged from Eparchy after Eparchy in the Eastern Catholic Churches as we speak.

So in summary the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, accept a manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy, but they reject any notion that the Spirit takes His hypostatic origin from the Son, for that would ultimately destroy the monarchy of the Father.

As far as the sacrament of marriage is concerned, as a Byzantine Catholic I hold, in agreement with my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, that the minister of the sacrament is a priest, and so a deacon or any other person appointed as a witness cannot confer the sacrament upon the man and woman celebrating marriage in the Church. Only a priest or bishop may crown the couple and confer the sacrament upon them.

To say otherwise requires that Easterners basically become Latin in their theology, and that is not going to happen. The Vatican itself is encouraging Eastern Catholics to become fully and completely Eastern in their liturgical, spiritual, and theological understanding of the faith.

[Era Might]

[quote]Of course there are theological differences[/quote]

The issue in dispute here is not one of theology, but doctrine. Theology is the proper domain of theologians. Theology is based on doctrine, that is, the official teaching of the Church, to which all Catholics, Eastern or Western, owe their assent; although formulations of that doctrine may vary (eg, the positive formulation of the Assumption as opposed to the negative formulation of the Dormition, or the positive formulation of "full of grace" as opposed to the negative formulation of "free from sin").

[quote]In fact if you read the CDF Declaration Dominus Iesus you will notice that the Nicene creed is expressed without the filioque.[/quote]

Of course, because the filioque is not essential to the creed. It is simply a method of Latin formulation. Its absence or presence, properly understood, does nothing to change the doctrine held by the Church, to which all Catholics are bound. The Catechism of the Catholic Church underscores this:

[quote]This legitimate complementarity [of the Filioque], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

--#248[/quote]

It is of vital importance to grasp that the Filioque "does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the [b]same mystery confessed[/b]." In other words, we believe the same doctrinal mystery, we simply formulate it in different ways. Any Eastern harmonization of the filioque that transgresses the doctrinal understanding of the Magisterium is, de facto, an invalid proposition.

[quote]So in summary the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, accept a manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy[/quote]

This is, in fact, not an Eastern theological formulation, but Catholic doctrine. This is precisely what the Filioque professes. The Father is the source of the divine nature, but this divine nature proceeds from the Father to the Son, and hence, from the Son to the Spirit.

[quote]Only a priest or bishop may crown the couple and confer the sacrament upon them.[/quote]

In the East, this is true. It is not true, however, as an absolute doctrinal principle. It is simply true insofar as the Liturgical form of the East requires it. In like manner, the Liturgical form of the East requires leavened bread, while the Western form requires unleavened. Neither the East nor the west holds that either type of bread is absolutely necessary. Their necessity flows from Liturgical form, not intrinsic necessity.

[quote]To say otherwise requires that Easterners basically become Latin in their theology, and that is not going to happen.[/quote]

Catholic doctrine supercedes East and West, or any other kind of theology. Catholic doctrine upholds the validity of Eastern and Western marriages. The difference in these two forms are Liturgical, not doctrinal. A priest is necessary in the East, not because the Sacrament intrinsically requires it (if it did, Latin marriages would be invalid), but because this is how the Eastern Liturgical form communicates the Sacrament.

[quote]The Vatican itself is encouraging Eastern Catholics to become fully and completely Eastern in their liturgical, spiritual, and theological understanding of the faith.[/quote]

Like I said above, all theology is subordinated to the Magisterium of the Church. The Eastern and Western theological patrimony are valid only insofar as they do not transgress the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

It is as absurd to claim that the blessing of the priest is ABSOLUTELY necessary in the East as it would be to claim to the use of leavened bread is also ABSOLUTELY necessary. It could, in theory, change, because the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church formally acknowledges that a marriage can be validly effected without the blessing of a priest, should the Liturgical form permit it.

This is further evident in the fact that an Eastern Catholic marrying a Latin Catholic can be married according to the Latin Liturgical tradition, and there is no problem presented. If a Latin Catholic spouse transfers Churches, neither does the marriage need to be performed again.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Don John of Austria]

Okay I think this is an arguement going no where, becaue I think the disagreement here is more semantic than substantive. What i really being debated is not marriage in the East and West but the term " absolutely Necessary". I understand here both of you are coming from, and I don't thinkeither of you are wrong within commonly understood definitions. It would be helpful if definitions where agreed on before this goes any Farther.


Eremite--- why do you have 2 accounts?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:21 PM']Eremite--- why do you have 2 accounts?
[right][snapback]714796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because I made a new account. Unless dUSt wants to erase the other one, it's there to stay.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:29 PM']Because I made a new account. Unless dUSt wants to erase the other one, it's there to stay.
[right][snapback]714799[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I realize you made another account, but since you are posting on both of them I was curious as to why you made another account and why you where posting on both of them?

[Era Might]

I'm not posting on both of them. I posted on the other account only once since I made this new account last month, and it was because I accidentally signed in to the old account (which I noted at the end of the post).

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:53 PM']I'm not posting on both of them. I posted on the other account only once since I made this new account last month, and it was because I accidentally signed in to the old account (which I noted at the end of the post).
[right][snapback]714824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I see, they where both on this thread so I was confused, I didn'tt look to see how old the the thread was origionally.


Still I think this is a semantic arguement.

[Apotheoun]

I am only going to say this one more time. I am Byzantine Catholic and so I accept the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, I do not believe that the man and woman are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage; instead, I hold that the priest (or bishop) is, and for me, as a Byzantine Catholic, that doctrine is definitive.

The doctrine and practice of the Latin Church in this matter is its own concern.

[Era Might]

Well, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a "Byzantine Catholic Church" apart from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all particular Churches, and her authentic Magisterium supercedes any theological proposition; whether it is Latin, Byzantine, or otherwise.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 04:40 PM']The issue in dispute here is not one of theology, but doctrine. Theology is the proper domain of theologians. Theology is based on doctrine, that is, the official teaching of the Church, to which all Catholics, Eastern or Western, owe their assent; although formulations of that doctrine may vary (eg, the positive formulation of the Assumption as opposed to the negative formulation of the Dormition, or the positive formulation of "full of grace" as opposed to the negative formulation of "free from sin").
Of course, because the filioque is not essential to the creed. It is simply a method of Latin formulation. Its absence or presence, properly understood, does nothing to change the doctrine held by the Church, to which all Catholics are bound. The Catechism of the Catholic Church underscores this:
It is of vital importance to grasp that the Filioque "does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the [b]same mystery confessed[/b]." In other words, we believe the same doctrinal mystery, we simply formulate it in different ways. Any Eastern harmonization of the filioque that transgresses the doctrinal understanding of the Magisterium is, de facto, an invalid proposition.
This is, in fact, not an Eastern theological formulation, but Catholic doctrine. This is precisely what the Filioque professes. The Father is the source of the divine nature, but this divine nature proceeds from the Father to the Son, and hence, from the Son to the Spirit.
In the East, this is true. It is not true, however, as an absolute doctrinal principle. It is simply true insofar as the Liturgical form of the East requires it. In like manner, the Liturgical form of the East requires leavened bread, while the Western form requires unleavened. Neither the East nor the west holds that either type of bread is absolutely necessary. Their necessity flows from Liturgical form, not intrinsic necessity.
Catholic doctrine supercedes East and West, or any other kind of theology. Catholic doctrine upholds the validity of Eastern and Western marriages. The difference in these two forms are Liturgical, not doctrinal. A priest is necessary in the East, not because the Sacrament intrinsically requires it (if it did, Latin marriages would be invalid), but because this is how the Eastern Liturgical form communicates the Sacrament.
Like I said above, all theology is subordinated to the Magisterium of the Church. The Eastern and Western theological patrimony are valid only insofar as they do not transgress the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

It is as absurd to claim that the blessing of the priest is ABSOLUTELY necessary in the East as it would be to claim to the use of leavened bread is also ABSOLUTELY necessary. It could, in theory, change, because the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church formally acknowledges that a marriage can be validly effected without the blessing of a priest, should the Liturgical form permit it.

This is further evident in the fact that an Eastern Catholic marrying a Latin Catholic can be married according to the Latin Liturgical tradition, and there is no problem presented. If a Latin Catholic spouse transfers Churches, neither does the marriage need to be performed again.
[right][snapback]714769[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If you hold that the Son gives hypostatic existence to the Holy Spirit, then you and I do not agree about the nature of the [i]filioque[/i], but if you hold as I do that the Father alone gives existential being to the hypostasis of the Spirit, then we do agree.

The Vatican seems far more open to the Eastern position than you do, and if the Holy See is willing to come to terms with the Triadological differences between East and West, then perhaps you should try to as well.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 06:48 PM']Well, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a "Byzantine Catholic Church" apart from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all particular Churches, and her authentic Magisterium supercedes any theological proposition; whether it is Latin, Byzantine, or otherwise.
[right][snapback]714876[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well clearly you and I have different doctrinal understandings as it concerns the minister of the sacrament of marriage. But I have no problem with Latins holding to their own doctrine on the issue, but I will not surrender the Eastern position simply because a scholastic formulation dated to the 12th century is different than the historic teaching of the Eastern Fathers.

Moreover, the Vatican doesn't seem to have a problem with this.

[Era Might]

[quote]Moreover, the Vatican doesn't seem to have a problem with this. [/quote]

Well, I beg to differ, and I have presented an actual argument to that effect. You have fallen back on the shallow cry of "I'm an Eastern Catholic", which doesn't apply here. As if the Church's doctrinal faith were divisible between East and West.

But, whatever. I presented my objections. I'll let them speak for themselves.

Peace.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 06:56 PM']Well, I beg to differ, and I have presented an actual argument to that effect. You have fallen back on the shallow cry of "I'm an Eastern Catholic", which doesn't apply here.

But, whatever. I presented my objections. I'll let them speak for themselves.

Peace.
[right][snapback]714885[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And what document of the Holy See has condemned the Eastern teaching?

I have great respect for you as a person, but you are not the Holy See.

[Era Might]

I didn't say the Church condemned the Eastern teaching.

What I said was that your contention does not reflect Eastern teaching, and if it did, would present a contradiction to the faith of the Church.

Plurality in unity does not extend to doctrine. One group of Catholics can't believe the Eucharist is really God and one group believe it isn't. One group of Catholics can't believe Tradition is authoritative and one group believe it isn't. And neither can one group believe a priest is absolutely necessary (as opposed to Liturgically necessary) for a valid marriage and one group believe it isn't. Because the Church officially accepts the latter position, it makes the former an untenable contradiction.

The only sense in which a priest can be said to be "necessary" is in a conditional sense, that is, according to the Liturgical form, not according to any intrinsic necessity of the Sacrament.

[quote]I have great respect for you as a person, but you are not the Holy See. [/quote]

And I don't claim to be. My arguments have always been based on the teaching of the Church.

The Eastern Fathers were no more infallible than the Latin Fathers. Both groups of Fathers have been wrong on things. The Church has superceded them not a few times. St. Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist, for Pete's sake. Respect and embrace the Eastern Fathers, but don't use them as a trump card against the living Magisterium, because they aren't. They themselves would always submit to the Church.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:03 PM']I didn't say the Church condemned the Eastern teaching.

What I said was that your contention does not reflect Eastern teaching, and if it did, would present a contradiction to the faith of the Church.

Plurality in unity does not extend to doctrine. One group of Catholics can't believe the Eucharist is really God and one group believe it isn't. One group of Catholics can't believe Tradition is authoritative and one group believe it isn't. And neither can one group believe a priest is absolutely necessary (as opposed to Liturgically necessary) for a valid marriage and one group believe it isn't. Because the Church officially accepts the latter position, it makes the former an untenable contradiction.

The only sense in which a priest can be said to be "necessary" is in a conditional sense, that is, according to the Liturgical form, not according to any intrinsic necessity of the Sacrament.
And I don't claim to be. My arguments have always been based on the teaching of the Church.
[right][snapback]714896[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, the Eastern Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox position on this issue is identical, in fact Eastern Catholics are to be following the positions of their historic mother Churches on these issues, just as they do on other matters. Eastern Catholics should be as Orthodox as possible, because that will show the Eastern Orthodox that communion with Rome does not involve the destruction of the patrimony of the Orthodox East.

But I'm sure this will be uncomfortable for many Latin scholastics, but if there is ever to be communion with the Orthodox it is necessary.

[Era Might]

[quote]Eastern Catholics should be as Orthodox as possible[/quote]

The Church of Rome defines orthodoxy. Ubi Petri, ibi Ecclesia. Eastern (or Western) traditions are not idols to be worshipped, they are guides to our life of faith. As I said above, the Church has rejected propositions from East and West. Such is the nature of a living Magisterium. It is idolotrous to hold on to a Father because he's from the East. The Fathers do not speak for God. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:12 PM']The Church of Rome defines orthodoxy. Ubi Petri, ibi Ecclesia. Eastern traditions are not idols to be worshipped, they are guides to our life of faith. As I said above, the Church has rejected propositions from East and West. Such is the nature of a living Magisterium. It is idolotrous to hold on to a Father because he's from the East. The Fathers do not speak for God. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does.
[right][snapback]714913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, that's a very scholastic statement. But I'm not a scholastic, and orthodoxy is not reducible to 'definitions.' Orthodoxy is the living of the deposit of faith.