Orthodox and Catholic views of marriage

[bilop]

***Your position on marriage makes little sense to me. Either marriage is permanent, or it’s not. The 3 marriage maximum (even in cases of death of the spouses) also makes little sense.

---

First, what “is” a marriage. In Orthodoxy, the priest confers the mystery (sacrament) so there’s no doubt that the couple is married. This innovation of spouses “conferring upon one another” is how Rome has danced around the issue of why this sacrament is not actually a sacrament on an individual basis…if a Church lets the couple confer, rather than a priest, there’s room to later argue that the couple “couldn’t” or “didn’t” confer. It makes me dizzy. (As an aside, this is how Rome justifies the annulment process for non-Catholics, claiming that the non-Catholic folks “conferred” something not-quite-sacramental-but-still-indissoluble. As an irony, the Catholic who confers this “non-sacrament” , eg without a dispensation/permission, merely has to fill out some paperwork to get their “get out of marriage free” card even if it’s decades later. To my knowledge, there is no additional penalty/penance beyond one confession. Talk about a double standard.)

Likewise with the annulment factories are churning them out like mad…how is it so many people have “non-conferred” their marriage after all (at least in the USA). Orthodoxy is not afraid to head-on call the spade a spade - it was a marriage. Through weakness (sin), it failed. The Church, the Hospital for sinners, recognizes the failure and allows repentance and mercy. Second/third marriages are not joyful matters, even when the first (former) spouse dies. Whereas Rome pretends that nothing ever happened, no repentance is required, everything is hunky dory.

I’m all for being quite liberal in decrees of nullity, exactly because of our society’s warped views of marriage. The petitioner should get every benefit of the doubt. But, allowing priests and bishops to pick and choose which valid marriages to dissolve, makes little sense. Forgiveness is different than being allowed to continue sinning.

I completely disagree. Marriage is marriage - if they made a bad choice, then allow them to repent the sin and perhaps they may be allowed another chance, for the benefit of their soul, according to their Church. Society’s warped view on marriage ought have little to no bearing on whether a couple is married in the eyes of their Church or not.

Edited to add - I fear this may bring the thread crashing off the rails. Please if you wish to continue a discussion of marriage, a separate thread might be better. I merely wanted to illustrate a little of the depth of the difference in theology concerning marriage in East/West. It’s not so simple as adopting the Roman practice…

Since there seems to be intrest in discussion, I’m posting KnitNut’s reply to me to continue discussion on the varying views of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

I’ll be back after dinner to discuss.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

So, not quite after dinner

One thing I don’t understand is the view that the Priest conferring the Sacrament removes all doubt about a marriage taking place. It clearly doesn’t.

What if one of the spouses had a sex change? No marriage would take place. Or if one of the spouses did not consent freely, e.g. they were being threatened on blackmailed into marriage; it could not be valid.

Secondly, the idea that any failed marriage is sinful doesn’t seem to make sense. Say a woman honestly enters into marriage with a man, but the man has maintained a mistress during their whole courtship, intends on continuing to do so, and is closed to procreation (e.g. has had himself sterilized w/o telling his bride-to-be). If the wife later finds out these things, and separates and seeks a civil divorce, I can’t see how she has sinned?

Why should she need penance? Why should she be considered to have failed at marriage?

God Bless