Eastern vs. Latin Catholic sacramental theology disparity regardig marriage

[surritter]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

It is a comparison, not an equivalency.

I don't understand your post. The word "confect" is used when calling down the Holy Spirit during the Eucharistic Prayer. Spouses don't confect the sacrament of matrimony upon each other, as the OP stated directly (and graciously accepted the correction) -- it was not used in a comparison manner.
I think it's best to let it go.

[helplesspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Vico

Matthew 22:29–30

23 On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. They put this question to him,
24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.'
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27 Finally the woman died.
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her."
29 Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.
31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God,
32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Right. The civil insitutution of marriage does not exist anymore, however wouldn't that spiritual reality exist still. Wouldn't those two souls still be joined in a mystical way? Did christs physical death and subsequent resurrection seperate him from his union to his bride, the church? No! It made it all the more full Why would death in our marriages, which are types of his marriage to the church, operate differently? Why would that connection just disappear? It would be like after Christs death the church just apostosized And looked for a new bridegroom. The nature of the marital union may change, it may not even be what we would call a marriage, but that union is spiritual even now, why not after death?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by anp1215

Hi, thanks for your answer.
Why would marriage not be dissolved upon death of the spouse? That sounds similar to Mormonism's view of celestial marriage.

By the way, the second marriage is more on the person who is still on earth. Because marriage makes an ontological change on one's soul, the one who passes away is no longer bound to the marriage. But the one on earth is. As Jesus said, those in the kingdom are not given to marriage like the angels. But the other spouse is still on earth and thus the mark of marriage is in his/her soul.

[babochka]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Do you have an Orthodox source for seeing what the Eastern practice is?

According to Orthodox Wiki, there has been a development of the marriage service, and the service is a formal recognition of the couple's already existing unity. This seems to undermine the understanding that is the priest who creates this unity.

For the Orthodox Christian, the marriage service (wedding) is the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, a created image of God's love which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending. The early Church simply witnessed the couple's expression of mutual love in the Church, and their union was blessed by their mutual partaking of the Holy Eucharist.
When a marriage service developed in the Church, it was patterned after the service for baptism and chrismation. The couple is addressed in a way similar to that of the individual in baptism. They confess their faith and their love of God. They are led into the Church in procession. They are prayed over and blessed. They listen to God's Word.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by helplesspilgrim

Right. The civil institution of marriage does not exist anymore, however wouldn't that spiritual reality exist still. Wouldn't those two souls still be joined in a mystical way? Did Christ's physical death and subsequent resurrection separate him from his union to his bride, the church? No! It made it all the more full Why would death in our marriages, which are types of his marriage to the church, operate differently? Why would that connection just disappear? It would be like after Christs death the church just apostatized And looked for a new bridegroom. The nature of the marital union may change, it may not even be what we would call a marriage, but that union is spiritual even now, why not after death?

There are three categories of marriage: natural non-Christian, natural (one) Christian, and sacramental (both) Christian. We know that the Church allows sometimes for dissolution of natural Christian and non-consummated sacramental Christian marriage which are valid. Even though the non-consummated sacramental marriage is valid and each may receive the Holy Spirit when individually reconciled, they have not become one flesh. In the canon law 1061 we read:

CIC Canon 1061.1
A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

Expressed succintly in CCEO is what the couple intends to do is limited to the whole of life.

CCEO Canon 776
1. The matrimonial covenant, established by the Creator and ordered by His laws, by which a man and woman by an irrevocable personal consent establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the generation and education of the offspring.
2. From the institution of Christ a valid marriage between baptized persons is by that very fact a sacrament, by which the spouses, in the image of an indefectible union of Christ with the Church, are united by God and, as it were, consecrated and strengthened by sacramental grace.
3. The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in a marriage between baptized persons obtain a special firmness in virtue of the sacrament.

Can. 776 – § 1. Matrimoniale foedus a Creatore conditum eiusque legibus instructum, quo vir et mulier irrevocabili consensu personali totius vitae consortium inter se constituunt, indole sua naturali ad bonum coniugum ac ad filiorum generationem ed educationem ordinatur.1
§ 2. Ex Christi institutione matrimonium validum inter baptizatos eo ipso est sacramentum, quo coniuges ad imaginem indefectibilis unionis Christi cum Ecclesia a Deo uniuntur gratiaque sacramentali veluti consecrantur et roborantur.2
§ 3. Essentiales matrimonii proprietates sunt unitas et indissolubilitas, quae in matrimonio inter baptizatos specialem obtinent firmitatem ratione sacramenti.3

Surely Christ and the Church, which is his body, analogously are Groom and Bridegroom, analogous because it is not based upon physical union where the consummation makes one flesh. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit occurs without becoming one flesh. (CCEO 776.2) Spiritually the soul of each spouse is the bride of Christ.

[dochawk]

Originally Posted by helplesspilgrim

The blessing example only highlights the disparity further. Why do western deacons ha e this ability and eastern do not? Either all deacons by their ordination have this ability or they don't.

I'll be blunter than others: this is just plain wrong.

Deacons and Presbytrs have the authority delegated by their bishop. This is clearer today in the eas pt than west, but can be seen in both. Perhaps the clearest example in the west today is that priestly ordination does *not* enable the priest to hear confessions and dispense on absolution; he needs a specific faculty from the bishop.

also, East &West share the same apostolic faith. The theology through which they explain thT faith is different.

hawk

[dochawk]

Originally Posted by Vico

This is an early teaching of the Church about the couple making the marriage. Trent is the time of making it a norm to have witnesses and a priest. The eastern practice to have the priest bless was stronger than in the west. We see this today in the CCEO of the norm of priestly blessing (not a deacon or other designate).

I w able to attend a talk on the history of marriage by Fr. Ted Mackin in college. Unfortunately, is not able to take his class.

in the west, the priest was initially a g UST,and would be asked to give a blessing.

Over time,the church wedding became the notes.

Over time, the wedding in the church became the norm, but there was still an issue with couples disappearing and disputing over heather they'd exchanged vows when they returned.

So about the 13th century, a change was made. The priest became a necessary witness (with exeptions when not available).

this led to a new abuse in which the yung couple,whenthfamilyopposed the marriage. Arriving at the rectory in the wee hours, waking the priest, and exchanging vows in front of him while he was still coming to.

with typical haste, this loophole was closed in the 1970s updat of canon law, which require the priest to request the vows.

(end Fr Mackin--but with a note that one of the top couple of authorities in the western church on marriage left the Jesutit order after about 50 years to marry . . .)

In the East, the sacrament isconferredby the priest, and there are no vows (unless for pastoral reasons about american expectations . . . I walked my daughter from the parking lots to the church patio gate, and turned her over to Father. (it was also the only licit outdoor Cathoic wedding of which I've ever heard [we have a second consecrated Holy Table outside;we used it because the expected crowd would not fit inside. we even hung a fabric iconostasis. It worked so well that we do it each year now for Pascha])

hawk

[Vico]

Originally Posted by dochawk

I w able to attend a talk on the history of marriage by Fr. Ted Mackin in college. Unfortunately, is not able to take his class.

in the west, the priest was initially a g UST,and would be asked to give a blessing.

Over time,the church wedding became the notes.

Over time, the wedding in the church became the norm, but there was still an issue with couples disappearing and disputing over heather they'd exchanged vows when they returned.

So about the 13th century, a change was made. The priest became a necessary witness (with exeptions when not available).

this led to a new abuse in which the yung couple,whenthfamilyopposed the marriage. Arriving at the rectory in the wee hours, waking the priest, and exchanging vows in front of him while he was still coming to.

with typical haste, this loophole was closed in the 1970s updat of canon law, which require the priest to request the vows.

(end Fr Mackin--but with a note that one of the top couple of authorities in the western church on marriage left the Jesutit order after about 50 years to marry . . .)

In the East, the sacrament isconferredby the priest, and there are no vows (unless for pastoral reasons about american expectations . . . I walked my daughter from the parking lots to the church patio gate, and turned her over to Father. (it was also the only licit outdoor Cathoic wedding of which I've ever heard [we have a second consecrated Holy Table outside;we used it because the expected crowd would not fit inside. we even hung a fabric iconostasis. It worked so well that we do it each year now for Pascha])

hawk

Today, however, the priest or deacon for the Latin Church and the priest for the eastern Churches, blesses the marriage. The couple giving consent are the ministers of the sacrament, as shown in the CIC and CCEO.

[surritter]

Originally Posted by dochawk

I'll be blunter than others: this is just plain wrong.

Hold on, here. You need to provide sources for all this. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. (Apparently the pope doesn't think it's wrong!)