east and west and marriage

[Laudate_Dominum]

The East has to recognize that the consent of the couple is an essential part of the validity of the marriage. So there is an immediate minister and a proximate minister.

[Laudate_Dominum]

To say that one ministers the Sacrament exclusively seems false.

Ultimately Christ administers the Sacrament. The couple and Priest all participate and mediate this ministry in their respective roles. I reject the absolutizing of either position because it devalues the role of the other party.

[Era Might]

Laudate,

The two cases are not analogous, because the Latin rite still has an epiclesis, even though the words of Institution are highlighted. Furthermore, I am not aware of any official teaching of the Church which identifies the words of Institution as the actual time of transubstantiation. This is, as far as I know, a matter of theological speculation, although it goes all the way back to the Fathers (including St. John Chrysostom).

Even if the epicleses was the time of actual change, this would not invalidate Latin Masses, because the Epiclesis is still present.

In the case of marriage, however, if a priest is intrinsically necessary, then Latin marriages would not be true marriages.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:02 PM']Laudate,

The two cases are not analogous, because the Latin rite still has an epiclesis, even though the words of Institution are highlighted. Furthermore, I am not aware of any official teaching of the Church which identifies the words of Institution as the actual time of transubstantiation. This is, as far as I know, a matter of theological speculation, although it goes all the way back to the Fathers (including St. John Chrysostom).

Even if the epicleses was the time of actual change, this would not invalidate Latin Masses, because the Epiclesis is still present.

In the case of marriage, however, if a priest is intrinsically necessary, then Latin marriages would not be true marriages.
[right][snapback]716200[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I obviously realize the issues at hand. And just so you know the Liturgy I'm thinking of lacks the "this is my body.. this is my blood.." entirely and yet Rome recognizes it as a valid Liturgy.

And the Church has said that those words are essential for having a valid Eucharist.

The point is that Sacraments can be ministered according to different rules and a different Theological context in different ecclesial traditions.

[Era Might]

[quote]And just so you know the Liturgy I'm thinking of lacks the "this is my body.. this is my blood.." entirely and yet Rome recognizes it as a valid Liturgy.[/quote]

Right. This is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari (I mentioned it back in my first post, I think).

There is no problem presented because the Church has never taught, as a matter of doctrine, that the Words of Institution are absolutely necessary for a true Confection, or that they are the exact point at which it takes place.

You are free to correct me, but I have yet to come across such a doctrinal teaching.

[Oik]

LD, agreed!

[Aloysius]

agreed with what? we haven't solved anything

perhaps the east would view the reception of the couple's consent by the roman priest as a way in which he is administering it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Documents to think about...

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
[quote]1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125
124 Cf. CCEO, can. 817.
125 Cf. CCEO, can. 828. 126 Cf. Eph 5:32.[/quote]

Code of Canons of Oriental Churchs:
[quote]Canon 817
1. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage. 2. No human power can replace this matrimonial consent.

Canon 828
1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor, or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according, however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.[/quote]

ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, Vatican II:
[quote]18. To obviate invalid marriages when Eastern Catholics marry baptized Eastern non-Catholics and in order to promote fidelity in and the sanctity of marriage, as well as peace within the family, the Sacred Council determines that the canonical "form" for the celebration of these marriages is of obligation only for liceity; for their validity the presence of a sacred minister is sufficient, provided that other prescriptions of law are observed.(23)
(23) Cfr. Pius XII, Motu proprio Crebrae allatae, 22 febr. 1949, can. 32, 2, n. 5 (facultas patriarcharum dispensandi a forma); Pius XII, Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati, 2 iun. 1957, can. 267 (facultas patriarcharum sanandi in radice); S.C.S. Offici et S.C. pro Eccl. Orient., an. 1957 concedunt facultatem dispensandi a forma et sanandi ob defectum formae (ad quinquennium): extra patriarchatus, Metropolitis, ceterisque Ordinariis locorum... qui nullum habent Superiorem infra Sanctam Sedem.[/quote]

Also check out "Eastern Catholics in the United States of America" (I believe from the USCCB?):
[url="http://www.cin.org/east/eastcathamer.html"]http://www.cin.org/east/eastcathamer.html[/url]
There is a section on marraige.

[Oik]

[quote]Sacraments can be ministered according to different rules and a different Theological context in different ecclesial traditions. [/quote]

I agree with this statement Aloysius.

[Era Might]

If anyone's interested, I've brought the discussion into Eastern territory:

[url="http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=003393"]http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.c...ic&f=2&t=003393[/url]

I probably won't discuss too much over there. I just want to see what other Easterners have to say.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Oik]

[quote]I maintain that, first, the doctrinal teaching of the Church of Rome is universal. We cannot divide doctrine between East and West. We can formulate it differently, but the faith remains the same.[/quote]

This is not going to go over too well. You formulated your question like a Western Catholic.

The East's understanding of the Trinity is different than ours. I believe Apotheoun mentioned this either. In the East, one would not say that God's Essence is His Existence.

There is a distinction between God's Essence and Engery. So, quite literaly Rome does in a sense divide between East and West.

[kateri05]

but oik, if thats true... then who is right? both sides can't be right


can they?

[Era Might]

[quote]The East's understanding of the Trinity is different than ours. I believe Apotheoun mentioned this either. In the East, one would not say that God's Essence is His Existence.[/quote]

I already answered this. The Holy See has not ruled on this matter. It is a question of free inquiry. Like I said before, there are also theological disputes in the West; for example, the nature of Predestination.

Should the Holy See decide to make a final judgement on these matters, alone or in Council, all Catholics of East, West, North, and South will be bound by the Church's decision.

[quote]For it is a matter of necessity that all Churches should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of her preeminent authority.

--St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies"[/quote]

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Oik]

Us Westerners don't really have a concept of ecumenism when it comes to things like this, I am afraid.

The Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome are Sui Iuris Churches. One has to wrap ones mind around that before one can accept the idea of two simultenously existing, valid expressions of the Faith.

We especially need to be sensitive to our Eastern Catholic Brothers and Sisters. When we, as westerners speculate on certain questions, we should not be afraid that the Eastern tradition in some way is a threat to the Unity or validity of the Western Church or tradition.

Remember, One Church, two lungs.

So which one is right? They are both right, according to their traditions. We are United.

Really, to understand this all, one needs to understand the Eastern Traditions and Theology.

I will admit that I have many Eastern sympathies and there are certain Eastern theological positions that I hold that I am trying to work out with the Western theological positions.

The good news it, we are all Catholic.

[Era Might]

Oik,

I am very sensitive to the East, and fully devoted to the cause of Ecumenism.

I do not, in fact, believe Apotheoun is accurately representing the Eastern Catholic Churches, and have layed out why.

Perhaps the ByzCaths over at the forum will shed more light on this discussion.

[Oik]

[quote]I already answered this. The Holy See has not ruled on this matter. It is a question of free inquiry. Like I said before, there are also theological disputes in the West; for example, the nature of Predestination.

Should the Holy See decide to make a final judgement on these matters, alone or in Council, all Catholics of East, West, North, and South will be bound by the Church's decision[/quote]

Agreed here. No one is questioning the Authority of the Pope. Of course, if you go back and read your history, you will understand why there aren't pronouncements here to cause further division. In the end, the reality that some Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome speaks volumes for the ability of "free inquiry," especially at a time in the Church when sooo much has been ruled upon.

[Oik]

Era, I know Apotheoun personally.

He is accurately and to the fullests extent possible presenting you with the information you asked for.

I agree with him, you may not have liked his answer, but he answered your question. He left nothing out.

All other information would really require you to go out and devote a significant portion of you time to the subject of the Eastern Catholic Church.

And on a personal note, Apotheoun has done just that with his life. He studied Both West (from Protestant to becoming Catholic and Thomism) to rediscovering Saint Gregory Palamas (note the resident Palamite Theologian ensignia) and switching rites.

I assure you, he is qualified. In fact, he is beyond Church Scholar on this website. I think he should be given honorary title:
"Church scholar of Phatmass"

With emphasis on Authority in regards to Phatmass.

IMHO

[Era Might]

Oik,

I completely respect Apotheoun and the time he has devoted to studying his Eastern heritage.

Nevertheless, I maintain my fundamental disagreement with him.

He has not answered my question. He has deferred it to his Bishop.

I can respect that, but if he is not in a position to answer my question, perhaps he shouldn't address this issue at all, as my question is fundamental to it.

[Aloysius]

I agree that he didn't answer the question. If he is going to say he agrees with the Eparch's position, then he should present the Eparch's position. We're inquiring as to what he thinks happens in western marriages. there are two options:

either western marriages occur by the couple administering the sacrament
OR western marriages occur by the priest administering the sacrament

I would be confused by him agreeing with the first statement, but in some ways it might make the most sense. the second statement would pose the problem of how a priest is administering a sacrament he is not intending to administer.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Catechism']1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125
124 Cf. CCEO, can. 817.
125 Cf. CCEO, can. 828. 126 Cf. Eph 5:32.[/quote]
This answers your question, wouldn't you say? [i]Roma locuta est, causa finita est[/i], anyone? I think this pretty much says what Apotheoun has been saying all along -- the blessing of the priest is [i]required[/i] in the Eastern Church for the [i]validity[/i] of the sacrament. Are you now all going to argue against the Catechism?

Also, I would like to point out to y'all that all Church Scholars have verified theological or at the very least catechetical education. If you're disagreeing with them, the probability is that [i]you are wrong[/i]. I know that's difficult for the majority of the participants here to accept, but sometimes it's just the truth.

I'll say this: The disrespect shown for Eastern Catholics on this thread, and Apotheoun in particular, makes me sick. Your doctrine is more important to you than your brothers, and you will have to answer to Christ for it.