Melkite Patriarch and the Synod in Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twf said:
I’m sorry - I wasn’t clear. It is the praxis of the ancient Byzantine Church that Cardinal Kasper’s supporters are invoking. The idea of a second, liturgical wedding arose much, much, much later. The early Church did, at times, allow those in second civil weddings to commune. I personally can’t reconcile this with Church teaching, but it was the practice in at least some regions.
Click to expand...
Could you kindly help me with some of these old practices? I am trying to give the synod the benefit of doubt (or faith?) when they consider allowing some in exceptional situations here:

52. The possibility of the divorced and remarried having access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod fathers insisted in favour of the current discipline, by virtue of the fundamental rapport between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church, and her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, especially in what concerns irreversible cases and related to moral obligations towards children who would endure unjust sufferings. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by an accompanying penance under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop. The question must be further studied, bearing in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin and extenuating circumstances, given that “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified” by diverse “psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)

104 ayes, 74 noes = 58% in favour and 42% against.

Many bishops agree to this it seems. is there precedent in early church for this, remarried Christians communing?
 
One_point said:
Could you kindly help me with some of these old practices? I am trying to give the synod the benefit of doubt (or faith?) when they consider allowing some in exceptional situations here:

52. The possibility of the divorced and remarried having access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod fathers insisted in favour of the current discipline, by virtue of the fundamental rapport between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church, and her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, especially in what concerns irreversible cases and related to moral obligations towards children who would endure unjust sufferings. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by an accompanying penance under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop. The question must be further studied, bearing in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin and extenuating circumstances, given that “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified” by diverse “psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)

104 ayes, 74 noes = 58% in favour and 42% against.

Many bishops agree to this it seems. is there precedent in early church for this, remarried Christians communing?
Click to expand...
Yes there is. Look at my post directly above yours. 👍
 
Seraphim73 said:
No but we don’t have much else to go on that can be shown on the internet. I mean I am Orthodox, I’ve attended second marriages and spoken to multiple priests about the issue. So I know what my Church teaches. Marriage is a sacrament so when the Church performs a marriage it’s a sacrament.
Click to expand...
There is more than one sense of sacrament. One is a sacred rite, the external meaning (crowning, cup, etc.), and the other is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which realities, Fr. Alexander Schmemann and Fr. John Meyendorff addressed.

Surely the Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow those that are not baptized and with at least one Orthodox, in an Orthodox rite or marriage. The practice of allowing for reception of the Holy Eucharist for a second or third marriage varies through Orthodoxy, per my research. Some are excommunicated for a time.

In the Catholic Church matrimony is not always a sacrament but may be natural marriage and we see that sometimes the Church will dispense with laws (not of Divine Law but Church law) for disparity of cult. For a sacrament the* couple *must be capable of reception of the sacramental grace which is enabled through baptism of each.
 
Vico said:
There is more than one sense of sacrament. One is a sacred rite, the external meaning (crowning, cup, etc.), and the other is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which realities, Fr. Alexander Schmemann and Fr. John Meyendorff addressed.

Surely the Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow those that are not baptized and with at least one Orthodox, in an Orthodox rite or marriage. The practice of allowing for reception of the Holy Eucharist for a second or third marriage varies through Orthodoxy, per my research. Some are excommunicated for a time.

In the Catholic Church matrimony is not always a sacrament but may be natural marriage and we see that sometimes the Church will dispense with laws (not of Divine Law but Church law) for disparity of cult. For a sacrament the* couple *must be capable of reception of the sacramental grace which is enabled through baptism of each.
Click to expand...
That’s a point of departure between us. When the priest performs a sacrament it’s a sacrament. In Catholicism the couple is considered the minister of marriage. And you are correct but the excommunication is incurred for the divorce then the Church issues permission to marry again.
 
Seraphim73 said:
That’s a point of departure between us. When the priest performs a sacrament it’s a sacrament. In Catholicism the couple is considered the minister of marriage. And you are correct but the excommunication is incurred for the divorce then the Church issues permission to marry again.
Click to expand...
When a Catholic priest preforms a sacrament it is a sacrament too, but natural marriage is not a sacrament. Even for Orthodox, as stated in the previous sources, the natural marriage occurs first in the narthex, followed by the sacred in the Church. However as noted, there has been a change in this discipline so the symbolism may now be lost in some traditions.

In the eastern Catholic canon law, the couple is required to have the marriage blessed by the priest for validity, except in the extreme case (one month without a priest) where blessing is is allowed as soon as possible after the celebration and does not prevent validity in the interim.CCEO (eastern Catholic canon law)

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.
Canon 832
  1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:
    (1) in danger of death;
    (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
  2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
  3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.
Canon 834
  1. The form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed if at least one of the parties celebrating the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or was received into it.
  2. If, however, a Catholic party enrolled in some Eastern Church celebrates a marriage with one who belongs to an Eastern non-Catholic Church, the form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed only for liceity; for validity, however, the blessing of a priest is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
 
Vico said:
When a Catholic priest preforms a sacrament it is a sacrament too, but natural marriage is not a sacrament. Even for Orthodox, as stated in the previous sources, the natural marriage occurs first in the narthex, followed by the sacred in the Church. However as noted, there has been a change in this discipline so the symbolism may now be lost in some traditions.

In the eastern Catholic canon law, the couple is required to have the marriage blessed by the priest for validity, except in the extreme case (one month without a priest) where blessing is is allowed as soon as possible after the celebration and does not prevent validity in the interim.CCEO (eastern Catholic canon law)

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.
Canon 832
  1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:
    (1) in danger of death;
    (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
  2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
  3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.
Canon 834
  1. The form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed if at least one of the parties celebrating the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or was received into it.
  2. If, however, a Catholic party enrolled in some Eastern Church celebrates a marriage with one who belongs to an Eastern non-Catholic Church, the form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed only for liceity; for validity, however, the blessing of a priest is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
Click to expand...
What happens in the narthex is the betrothal.
 
Seraphim73 said:
What happens in the narthex is the betrothal.
Click to expand...
Yes. Exactly. As described by Russian Orthodox deacon Stephen Hayes:

2.2.1 The marriage service
The Orthodox marriage service is in two parts: the Betrothal and the Crowning.
The Betrothal, in which the main feature is the exchange of rings, normally takes place in the narthex of the temple. It represents the natural marriage, marriage as a human institution, Even in Western Christian marriage rites, in the past the custom was for marriage to take place at the church door or porch.

http://www.pravmir.com/article_1129.html
 
Vico said:
Yes. Exactly. As described by Russian Orthodox deacon Stephen Hayes:

2.2.1 The marriage service
The Orthodox marriage service is in two parts: the Betrothal and the Crowning.
The Betrothal, in which the main feature is the exchange of rings, normally takes place in the narthex of the temple. It represents the natural marriage, marriage as a human institution, Even in Western Christian marriage rites, in the past the custom was for marriage to take place at the church door or porch.

http://www.pravmir.com/article_1129.html
Click to expand...
But a betrothal is not a marriage of any kind. It’s a betrothal. 🤷
 
I would also add that if it is the case that the betrothal represents natural marriage it completely undermines the idea that a second marriage is not sacramental because the ceremony for a second marriage include the betrothal and the wedding just like the first marriage.
 
Seraphim73 said:
That’s not true. I’m afraid you’re misinformed.
Click to expand...
What is the Orthodox rule on the number of divorces. I heard it suggested the other day, by somebody who seemed to know what he was talking about, that it could be up to three, but that there were some qualifications to this. Having said that, he didn’t go fully into it.
 
Seraphim73 said:
I would also add that if it is the case that the betrothal represents natural marriage it completely undermines the idea that a second marriage is not sacramental because the ceremony for a second marriage include the betrothal and the wedding just like the first marriage.
Click to expand...
I suppose you did not read the links about the sacrament and the Eucharist posted earlier. Matrimony has been progressively desacralized over time. It does represent the natural marriage. The crowning is also the external rite per those articles posted. The rules of reception of the Holy Eucharist with regard to second and third marriages is not the same in the various Orthodox Churches so it is difficult to find a common ground.
 
Yeoman said:
What is the Orthodox rule on the number of divorces. I heard it suggested the other day, by somebody who seemed to know what he was talking about, that it could be up to three, but that there were some qualifications to this. Having said that, he didn’t go fully into it.
Click to expand...
A second marriage is granted after repentance, rarely a third and never a fourth. I know a few people in second marriages but I’m not aware of any in a third. It’s difficult to get permission for a third marriage. Also sometimes the guilty party in the divorce is not granted permission to remarry at all.
 
Seraphim73 said:
A second marriage is granted after repentance, rarely a third and never a fourth. I know a few people in second marriages but I’m not aware of any in a third. It’s difficult to get permission for a third marriage. Also sometimes the guilty party in the divorce is not granted permission to remarry at all.
Click to expand...
I also don’t know of any Orthodox who will have crowning when both the man and woman are entering into a second marriage due to both being divorced.
 
Marriage An Orthodox Perspective (Fr. John Meyendorff)
p. 24
V. WEDDING AS A SEPARATE RITE
Until the ninth century the Church did not know any rite of marriage separate from the eucharistic Liturgy: Normally, after entering a civil marriage, the Christian couple partook of the Eucharist, and this communion was-according to Tertullian-the seal of marriage, implying all the Christian responsibilities which we discussed above.

p. 27
The Church had to pay a high price for the new social responsibility which it had received; it had to “secularize” its pastoral attitude towards marriage and practically abandon its penitential discipline. Was it possible, for example, to refuse Church blessing to a remarried widower when this refusal implied deprivation of civil rights for one or two years? As soon as the sacrament of marriage-received in the Church became legally obligatory, compromises of all sorts became unavoidable; and, simultaneously, the idea that marriage was a unique and eternal bond-reflecting the union of Christ and the Church-was obliterated in the pastoral practice of the Church and in the conscience of the faithful. Emperor Leo VI himself, the author of the novella, forced upon the Church his own fourth marriage with Zoe Carbonopsina in 906.

The only compromise which the Church could not accept, however, was to mitigate the holiness of the Eucharist: it could not, for example, give communion to a non-Orthodox, or to a couple entering a second marriage. Thus, it had to develop a rite of marriage separate from the Eucharist. The change was made more acceptable by the fact that the obvious connection between Church marriage and Eucharist was lost anyway as soon as Church marriage became a legal requirement.
However, even the novella of Leo VI failed to suppress entirely the possibility for a particular category of Church members to marry sacramentally, through the Eucharist, without a separate-and often expensive-“crowning.” The slaves, i.e., more than half of the Empire’s population, were not touched by the new law. This discrepancy between marriage law for slaves and for free citizens was suppressed by Emperor Alexis I Comnenos (1081-1118) another novella making “crowning” a legal obligation for slaves as well.

p. 28

By establishing a rite of “crowning” separate from the Eucharist, the Church did not forget, however, the original and normal link between marriage and Eucharist. This is clearly shown in the text by St. Symeon of Thessalonica quoted below (Appendix IV).
 
Seraphim73 said:
A second marriage is granted after repentance, rarely a third and never a fourth. I know a few people in second marriages but I’m not aware of any in a third. It’s difficult to get permission for a third marriage. Also sometimes the guilty party in the divorce is not granted permission to remarry at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 
By way of another ignorant question on my part, do the Orthodox have annulments?
 
Yeoman said:
By way of another ignorant question on my part, do the Orthodox have annulments?
Click to expand...
The handling of marriage and divorce is very different that Catholic Church.

From Holy Trinity (OCA):

holy-trinity.org/morality/synod-marriage.html

The guiding principle for the Orthodox pastor is the call to integrate the whole life of the Church. Relative to matrimonial matters, the main question is not what is “valid” or “invalid” but what has been offered and sanctified in the life of the Church; not what is lawful and convenient in this world but what has been consecrated for perfection in the world to come.
  1. The permission to remarry according to the “Order of Second Marriage” may eventually be granted divorced persons.
    The Church can and does practice mercy and forgiveness, and sympathizes with couples who must consider the grave alternative of divorce in order to salvage their lives from the tragic circumstances of a broken marriage. In such painful situations the Church offers the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness and the possibility for a new beginning, with final judgment resting in the hands of the Lord. In such cases local pastors must try to limit the damage done to the spiritual lives of both the couple and their children
 
Getting back on topic

I read the whole article. The Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch didn’t mention allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, unless I missed something.

Have any other Eastern Catholic hierarchs said anything on this topic at the synod. I’d also be interested in hearing the views of the Melkite Patriarch.
Seraphim73 said:
Patriarch Sviatoslav has spoken on it. He said basically what any Orthodox bishop would say. Certainly nothing a lot of more traditional minded Catholics want to hear. 😃

georgiabulletin.org/news/2014/10/look-east-canonical-spiritual-balance-synod-members-say/
Click to expand...
 
AnthonyJ said:
Getting back on topic

I read the whole article. The Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch didn’t mention allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, unless I missed something.

Have any other Eastern Catholic hierarchs said anything on this topic at the synod. I’d also be interested in hearing the views of the Melkite Patriarch.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why he would highlight eastern thought vs western thought unless he thought that would be some difference. If it leads to exactly the same practice why even say anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top