Is it possible for the marriage to die? In such a case, no man is putting the marriage asunder, but it has died due to naturally occurring phenomena. Anyway, that is what I heard from a Roman Catholic nun.Yes, and when a priest dies, he is no longer a priest, obviously.You seemed to have missed my point. I was wondering this from an Orthodox point of view.
From my understanding, Orthodox do not believe that the sacrament of holy orders cannot be undone. If a priest is defrocked, it is not merely some sort of disciplinary formality, but rather an actual stripping of his powers. Take note that this is not to be confused with any inkling of Donatism.
A marriage can be ānaturally undoneā if either husband or wife die, but given the sacramental nature of Matrimony, I was confused how this is possible when both are still alive.
But this is not Scriptural. Hebrews 7 makes a comparison between the priesthood of the New Covenant and the priestly order of Melchizedek.I am glad you found it amusing, but the analogy is correct. One single nun doesnāt decide what is and isnāt true.LOL. A good one.
You are right of course that the issue is a serious one. When you asked the question of how a marriage could be āundoneā, I immediately thought of what this nun had said. She claimed that theologians were discussing the question as to whether or not a marriage could die by some means other than a man deliberately causing it to go asunder.A marriage can be ānaturally undoneā if either husband or wife die, but given the sacramental nature of Matrimony, I was confused how this is possible when both are still alive.
I am glad you found it amusing, but the analogy is correct. One single nun doesnāt decide what is and isnāt true.
Well, in Catholicism, the only āwayā for this to happen is via an annulment, but thatās sort of affirming that a valid Catholic marriage didnāt take place in the first place.
Thatās precisely what it is affirming.Well, in Catholicism, the only āwayā for this to happen is via an annulment, but thatās sort of affirming that a valid Catholic marriage didnāt take place in the first place.
Though it is common, and not out of bounds, to refer to someone seeking an annulment, or asking for their marriage to be annulled, or some such wording, it makes it sound as if something is being done to an existing marriage. What is actually being sought is a decree of nullity, a declaration that no valid marriage had occurred, ab initio.
Orthodox donāt think of it in that way. While you may object to this following article, I am only posting it to help you understand our viewpoint. I do not wish to debate it:
Actually, a priest, at least in the Roman Church, is a priest forever, since ordination seals the soul with the sacrificial priesthood of Jesus Christ, much like baptism seals the soul as a child of God. Neither is ever removed, even by death.
That article states:
L 35,1422.ex opere operato is briefly discussed in the article I linked, nor do I think it necessarily leads to the current Catholic teaching of the indelible priesthood, but I can see how it did. Again, Iām not going to debate the issue in this thread. Not interested.That article states:
The doctrine of the āindelible markā attained at ordination to the priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western Church. This same conception was at times borrowed by Eastern theologians thereafter. The teaching purports the grace of ordination as an indelible irrevocable mark upon the soul of the ordained individual that sets him apart for priestly service analogous to the Levite rank and the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek in the Old Testament.
The Catchism of the Catholic Church has origin from the time of St. Augustine:
1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.76 St. Augustine states this forcefully:
As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christās gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.7776 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1612; DS 1154.
77 St. Augustine, In Jo. ev. 5,15
The article does not really discuss ex opere operato but mentions it as a foundation, however since it does not mention St. Augustine, this should properly be shown to connect with him, if it was discussed. Also the Catholic Church does laicize priests after which they have no faculties, however, the supernatural mark and powers connected with the sacrament remain even after laicization, although they cannot be used licitly.
I suppose the question is if a priest in Heaven would want to, or need to, say Mass. Perhaps his soul is permanently, and irrevocably marked for that purpose, but if he is already in the presence of Christ in Heaven, I wonder if he would need to do it.
That article states:
The doctrine of the āindelible markā attained at ordination to the priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western Church. This same conception was at times borrowed by Eastern theologians thereafter. The teaching purports the grace of ordination as an indelible irrevocable mark upon the soul of the ordained individual that sets him apart for priestly service analogous to the Levite rank and the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek in the Old Testament.
The Catchism of the Catholic Church has origin from the time of St. Augustine:
1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.76 St. Augustine states this forcefully:
As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christās gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.7776 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1612; DS 1154.
77 St. Augustine, In Jo. ev. 5,15
I may make a thread on this more specific issue so I can have a better understanding of the Orthodox position. It seems interesting to me.
I appreciate that Fr Hopko advances a modern developed view. But the traditional view is different and much closer to what you are saying is not the case. Just as with contraception, the teaching has evolved, and greatly so in modern times, the theology is now unsettled. If you want to know the tradition, you really should read Meyendorff.
Apparently Fr John Peck doesnāt think of it that way; he expresses some surprising opinions.
I know full well the tradition, and your accusation of modernism is without merit. Orthodox have long understood the indissolubility of marriage as being of intention, not some sort of metaphysical absolute reality, which is why Christ himself granted some grounds for divorce. St. Jerome and St. Hrabanus Maurus both understood this fact in the Latin West. Perhaps, as you say, I am modernist, or perhaps youāve been drinking the Roman cool-aid a tad too much.
I do not say that you are a modernist, but I would say that contemporary Orthodoxy, not surprisingly, contains voices that re-interpret the fathers and traditions in a way that is more palatable to modern ears. It is not the easiest thing to discern what, among the widely available contemporary resources, accurately represents tradition. A good razor, however, is that fact that second marriages were not conducted in Orthodox churches until close to the end of the first millenium.