Yes, the PNCC view is different. This section of the document has so much in it that it is difficult to create a synopsis here in comments – and – I don’t think I could do it justice.

The concluding paragraph of the section on priest as minister states:

This concept that Matrimony is a two-fold reality (Contract and Sacrament) is most certainly not new. It is found within the teachings of several theologians before the Council of Trent within the Roman Catholic Church, but ultimately it was rejected at Trent.

Within this outlook we may find the solution to the search for a theology defining the PNC position. The Roman Catholic Church put forward the idea that the minister of the Sacrament had to be the couple, because it was possible to get married without a priest present. They believed that since a marriage was contracted, it must therefore already be a sacrament. Therefore the couple had to be the ministers. By keeping separate these realities of the “contract” and the “sacrament”, the PNCC can keep each sphere in its place; the contract is enacted by the couple and the blessing of the clergy invokes the sacrament. If only the contractual aspect of the marriage is obtained this marriage is recognized by civil law, however, in the view of the Church this marriage would not be a sacramental marriage.

Some of the key concepts within the section describe PNCC-Orthodox understanding of the sacrament, Church history, the Fathers, the role of the deacon and his scripturally based sacramental role as seen by the PNCC… A lot there.

I’m curious about the identification of the priest as the minister of marriage.

In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the couple themselves are understood as the ministers of the sacrament of each other; and the bishop, priest or deacon are the “sacred witness” who receives the couple’s consent.

Does the PNCC have a different understanding, and do you care to go into it?