The Orthodox church and marriage

[Harpazo]

But in Catholic theology, in the sacrament of marriage- the people getting married are the ministers of the sacrament- not the priest, who serves as a witness for the Church. In the case of a kid who is pressured into getting Confirmed or a baby whose parents don’t teach him/her the faith after baptism- the priest is the minster of the sacrament. That’s an important distinction as it pertains to annulments.

You’re thinking in Latin theological terms. The RCC also has various eastern rites under it, which express a matrimonial theology similar to the Orthodox understanding. However, this conflicts with the Latin understanding to many degrees as the priest in eastern rites marries the couple, whereas the couple weds each other in the Latin. If an annulment comes up for an eastern rite adherent, the blame would have to ultimately be on the priest (he confected the sacrament in their eyes). Did the priest not mean to properly marry them? A whole host of issues can arise from these differences that are sadly glossed over.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[NinjaSnark]

You’re thinking in Latin theological terms. The RCC also has various eastern rites under it, which express a matrimonial theology similar to the Orthodox understanding. However, this conflicts with the Latin understanding to many degrees as the priest in eastern rites marries the couple, whereas the couple weds each other in the Latin. If an annulment comes up for an eastern rite adherent, the blame would have to ultimately be on the priest (he confected the sacrament in their eyes). Did the priest not mean to properly marry them? A whole host of issues can arise from these differences that are sadly glossed over.

In Christ,
Andrew

Oh blarg. It would seem I am thinking in Latin terms. My answer made so much sense before. Thanks for ruining it for me, haha.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister NinjaSnark,
"NinjaSnark:

But in Catholic theology, in the sacrament of marriage- the people getting married are the ministers of the sacrament- not the priest, who serves as a witness for the Church. In the case of a kid who is pressured into getting Confirmed or a baby whose parents don’t teach him/her the faith after baptism- the priest is the minster of the sacrament. That’s an important distinction as it pertains to annulments.

Oh blarg. It would seem I am thinking in Latin terms. My
answer made so much sense before. Thanks for ruining it for me, haha.

You don’t have to second-guess yourself. You were perfectly correct. It matters not that there are Catholics who share the same Sacramental outlook as Orthodox regarding the minister of marriage.

From what I saw, your concern was sister Bluegoat’s assumption that the idea of annulments opened up the possibility of annulling other Sacraments. That assumption by her is incorrect and you gave the correct reason - because unlike the Sacrament of Marriage, the minister of the other Sacraments is indeed the priest.

Well done.

NOTE: Most non-Catholic apologists attack the ABUSE of annulments (correctly). Non-Catholic polemicists, on the other hand - and non-Catholic apologists who are probabaly simply unaware - often attack the principle of annulment itself. To such as these, it is sufficient to point out that Orthodoxy itself recognizes the practice of annulments for marriage. There is no justification for attacking the principle of annulment itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Dear sister NinjaSnark,

You don’t have to second-guess yourself. You were perfectly correct. It matters not that there are Catholics who share the same Sacramental outlook as Orthodox regarding the minister of marriage.

From what I saw, your concern was sister Bluegoat’s assumption that the idea of annulments opened up the possibility of annulling other Sacraments. That assumption by her is incorrect and you gave the correct reason - because unlike the Sacrament of Marriage, the minister of the other Sacraments is indeed the priest.

Well done.

NOTE: Most non-Catholic apologists attack the ABUSE of annulments (correctly). Non-Catholic polemicists, on the other hand - and non-Catholic apologists who are probabaly simply unaware - often attack the principle of annulment itself. To such as these, it is sufficient to point out that Orthodoxy itself recognizes the practice of annulments for marriage. There is no justification for attacking the principle of annulment itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

Do please explain how the minister bringing the couple makes the annulment a reasonable idea. I do have some awareness of the Catholic understanding of sacraments, and I have no idea why that would impact the issue. I have heard people say this before, but never with any actual explanation of how they think that would make a difference. The argument in an annulment is that the couple were not “co-operating” with the Sacrament, which in Catholicism is the case for anyone who participates in a Sacrament - that is after all why they delay Confirmation until the age of reason - so the individual can consent and participate in that way. If annulment is disputing the fitness of the minister, than there should be less reason to grant annulment, since the fitness of the minister actually has no impact on the Sacraments validity, unless you want to resort to the Donatist heresy.

As for your note: I don’t think there is anyone who really disputes that there are a few cases where annulment is really appropriate. That is totally different than the modern Catholic practice however, where all kinds of situations are considered appropriate for annulment.

 

[MisterCorduroy]

This should not become a “Catholic vs. Orthodox: who’s better” discussion. In essence the grace and mercy of God is present in both approaches to re-marriage.

Through the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles and passed down to their successors, the Church can examine a marriage and declare that it was null. A wedding happened, a life together happened, but the sacrament was defective. In such a case, a divorced Catholic is given permission to “marry for real” in the church.

Similarly, an Orthodox person can be given permission to remarry by the Bishop (who has this authority for the same reasons listed above). Oeconomia is a bit less formal than the more legalistic Roman approach to things. Built into the Orthodox service for a second marriage is a prayer of absolution for the sin of divorce. The prayer serves a similar role as a “decree of nullity” in my opinion.

In regards to other Sacraments being “annulled”–YES, they can. if the form of baptism is wrong (in the name of Jesus only), or not done with water it is void. If an ordination is not done properly it is void. If the consecration is not done properly, the Mass is void.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION…
Some Orthodox theologians theorize that the one-flesh union brought about in a valid marriage continues into eternity. This is different from the Mormon concept that you will rule your own planet as a god and procreate with all your wives to populate it. That’s as absurd as saying that the Mormon baptism of the dead is the same as our praying for the dead. Again, read Meyendorf if you want more insight into an Orthodox opinion about the subject.

 

[Harpazo]

This should not become a “Catholic vs. Orthodox: who’s better” discussion. In essence the grace and mercy of God is present in both approaches to re-marriage.

Through the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles and passed down to their successors, the Church can examine a marriage and declare that it was null. A wedding happened, a life together happened, but the sacrament was defective. In such a case, a divorced Catholic is given permission to “marry for real” in the church.

Similarly, an Orthodox person can be given permission to remarry by the Bishop (who has this authority for the same reasons listed above). Oeconomia is a bit less formal than the more legalistic Roman approach to things. Built into the Orthodox service for a second marriage is a prayer of absolution for the sin of divorce. The prayer serves a similar role as a “decree of nullity” in my opinion.

In regards to other Sacraments being “annulled”–YES, they can. if the form of baptism is wrong (in the name of Jesus only), or not done with water it is void. If an ordination is not done properly it is void. If the consecration is not done properly, the Mass is void.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION…
Some Orthodox theologians theorize that the one-flesh union brought about in a valid marriage continues into eternity. This is different from the Mormon concept that you will rule your own planet as a god and procreate with all your wives to populate it. That’s as absurd as saying that the Mormon baptism of the dead is the same as our praying for the dead. Again, read Meyendorf if you want more insight into an Orthodox opinion about the subject.

Thank you very much for your well-balanced and charitable approach. I see a lot of common ground in our understanding in this.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Dear sister NinjaSnark,

You don’t have to second-guess yourself. You were perfectly correct. It matters not that there are Catholics who share the same Sacramental outlook as Orthodox regarding the minister of marriage.

From what I saw, your concern was sister Bluegoat’s assumption that the idea of annulments opened up the possibility of annulling other Sacraments. That assumption by her is incorrect and you gave the correct reason - because unlike the Sacrament of Marriage, the minister of the other Sacraments is indeed the priest.

Well done.

NOTE: Most non-Catholic apologists attack the ABUSE of annulments (correctly). Non-Catholic polemicists, on the other hand - and non-Catholic apologists who are probabaly simply unaware - often attack the principle of annulment itself. To such as these, it is sufficient to point out that Orthodoxy itself recognizes the practice of annulments for marriage. There is no justification for attacking the principle of annulment itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

And non-Orthodox polemicists do likewise.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

And non-Orthodox polemicists do likewise.

Yes. That’s why I used the term “non-Catholic.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

Do please explain how the minister bringing the couple makes the annulment a reasonable idea. I do have some awareness of the Catholic understanding of sacraments, and I have no idea why that would impact the issue. I have heard people say this before, but never with any actual explanation of how they think that would make a difference. The argument in an annulment is that the couple were not “co-operating” with the Sacrament,

One of the conditions necessary for the Sacrament of Marriage to be valid is “free consent.” This is an accepted standard by the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Judging by the comments of some Easterns, this is not so in the Eastern Tradition. If something can be shown to have impeded that “free consent,” then the Marriage is invalid. The condition of “free consent” exists, regardless of whether the minister is the priest or the couple themselves. So don’t confuse yourself by mixing up those two elements of the Sacrament.

You can infer from brother MisterCorduroy’s post that the issue of annulment has nothing to do with who is or is not the minister of marriage. Annulment occurs/exists if some element necessary for the validity of the Sacrament is missing, no matter what Sacrament it is.

which in Catholicism is the case for anyone who participates in a Sacrament

That’s incorrect. Please quote for us a Catholic Magisterial teaching that states this is the general case with all the Sacraments.

that is after all why they delay Confirmation until the age of reason - so the individual can consent and participate in that way.

Please don’t presume to speak for the Catholic Church if you have no Catholic Magisterial document to back up your claims. If what you say here is true, why does the Latin Catholic Church accept as valid the confirmations performed by Eastern and Oriental Churches?

If annulment is disputing the fitness of the minister, than there should be less reason to grant annulment, since the fitness of the minister actually has no impact on the Sacraments validity, unless you want to resort to the Donatist heresy.

I suppose it might be true if it is as you claim. But it’s not. Again, please offer some Magisterial documentation that supports your claim.

As for your note: I don’t think there is anyone who really disputes that there are a few cases where annulment is really appropriate. That is totally different than the modern Catholic practice however, where all kinds of situations are considered appropriate for annulment.

May I ask what “situations” you are referring to? The “all kinds of situation” fall under the condition of “free consent.” If there is something that affects this free consent, it is not a valid marriage.

I hope that helps. Your questions are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

One of the conditions necessary for the Sacrament of Marriage to be valid is “free consent.” This is an accepted standard by the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Judging by the comments of some Easterns, this is not so in the Eastern Tradition. If something can be shown to have impeded that “free consent,” then the Marriage is invalid. The condition of “free consent” exists, regardless of whether the minister is the priest or the couple themselves. So don’t confuse yourself by mixing up those two elements of the Sacrament.

which in Catholicism is the case for anyone who participates in a Sacrament

 

[mardukm]

You said that the reason there was a difference between marriage and the other sacraments with regard to annulments is that the couple are the ministers. You haven’t said why and how you think that is the case.

Actually, what happened was that you assumed (wrongly) that annulment has something to do with the couple being the ministers of marriage, and then presumed (wrongly) that this would make other Sacraments prone to being annulled.

Sister NinjaSnark’s response was an appropriate rejoinder to your mistaken assumption. Since you wrongly assumed that the annulment was effected for the reason that the minister(s) of Marriage was the couple, then it is illogical to assume that the rest of the Sacraments would be annulled by the same principle because - as sister NinjaSnark correctly pointed out - the minister of the other Sacraments is the priest himself.

I simply affirmed that her response to you was appropriate in order to correct your mistaken assumption. That’s all.

Whatever else can be said, I hope you understand now that annulment has nothing to do with who or who is not the minister of marriage.

If you have any other questions, please ask away.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Actually, what happened was that you assumed (wrongly) that annulment has something to do with the couple being the ministers of marriage, and then presumed (wrongly) that this would make other Sacraments prone to being annulled.

Sister NinjaSnark’s response was an appropriate rejoinder to your mistaken assumption. Since you wrongly assumed that the annulment was effected for the reason that the minister(s) of Marriage was the couple, then it is illogical to assume that the rest of the Sacraments would be annulled by the same principle because - as sister NinjaSnark correctly pointed out - the minister of the other Sacraments is the priest himself.

I simply affirmed that her response to you was appropriate in order to correct your mistaken assumption. That’s all.

Whatever else can be said, I hope you understand now that annulment has nothing to do with who or who is not the minister of marriage.

If you have any other questions, please ask away.

Blessings,
Marduk

Um, no, I didn’t assume that at all. Another poster claimed that was the reason there was a difference, and you agreed with the post. I don’t think it makes any difference at all.

 

[mardukm]

Um, no, I didn’t assume that at all. Another poster claimed that was the reason there was a difference, and you agreed with the post. I don’t think it makes any difference at all.

Um, yes you did:

Bluegoat:

This is an attack of Sacraments as a whole, if the CC treated other sacraments the same way it does marriage every kid who has a parent pressure him to be confirmed, or baby baptized by a parent who doesn’t really teach the faith, would be a candidate for an annulment of those sacraments.

You are right, it does not make a difference - that is, if you realize your mistake and make sure you don’t repeat it anymore.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Um, yes you did:

You are right, it does not make a difference - that is, if you realize your mistake and make sure you don’t repeat it anymore.

Blessings,
Marduk

Obviously you are not talking about what I was, because what you just quoted is pretty irrelevant.

You’re also being kind of an ***.

 

[mardukm]

Obviously you are not talking about what I was, because what you just quoted is pretty irrelevant.

If you trace the conversation, it goes directly back to that erroneous assumption you made in that quote. Why do you say now it is irrelevant? Why don’t you just admit that what you stated in that quote was wrong?

You’re also being kind of an ***.

Because someone offered you correction?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

If you trace the conversation, it goes directly back to that erroneous assumption you made in that quote. Why do you say now it is irrelevant? Why don’t you just admit that what you stated in that quote was wrong?

A poster suggested the difference was between the couple as ministers as opposed to just recipients of the sacrament. An Orthodox poster said that didn’t make sense in their way of understanding. You said it did - that the issue of being ministers was an issue. I asked why, as I have never seen anyone actually argue that, only state it. You have so far not explained it, or even attempted to, and in fact seem to have reversed your argument, if you are now saying it doesn’t matter that the couple are ministers as well as recipients.

None of which has anything to do with what I said there. Also you have also not offered any actual argument against what I said, so even if it was relevant to my original question, I would not be inclined to take your view all that seriously.

Because someone offered you correction?

Blessings,
Marduk

Disagreeing is fine. Offering correction can even be ok. Being condescending, not giving any reason, and saying “don’t do it again” - especially that last bit - is being an ***.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

A poster suggested the difference was between the couple as ministers as opposed to just recipients of the sacrament. An Orthodox poster said that didn’t make sense in their way of understanding. You said it did - that the issue of being ministers was an issue. I asked why, as I have never seen anyone actually argue that, only state it.

So now you admit that no one actually said anything of the sort, but only “suggested” it. This actually translates to, “I put words in someone else’s mouth and I can’t admit that I’m wrong.” If you can p(name removed by moderator)oint where someone actually tried to make the difference you indicated, then do so. Otherwise, just fess up that you were wrong. And I looked through the thread before you intervened with your error. There was neither anyone who said anything of the sort about ministers of marriage, nor was there an Orthodox poster who questioned the issue of ministers of marriage. It was you all along.

You have so far not explained it, or even attempted to, and in fact seem to have reversed your argument, if you are now saying it doesn’t matter that the couple are ministers as well as recipients.

I am not “now” saying anything different than what I have always held and believed. It is only you that introduced the idea you proposed above. And you can’t admit it.

None of which has anything to do with what I said there. Also you have also not offered any actual argument against what I said, so even if it was relevant to my original question, I would not be inclined to take your view all that seriously.

You can’t even admit your own mistake, so it’s to be expected that you find nothing relevant in the post I gave for your correction.

Disagreeing is fine. Offering correction can even be ok. Being condescending, not giving any reason, and saying “don’t do it again” - especially that last bit - is being an ***.

It seems the problem is just that you’re the type of person who can’t accept correction, or can’t admit to a mistake (see above) so you lash out at those who call you on it. Search your soul, sister, to see where the log is before you start using curse-words at others.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

So now you admit that no one actually said anything of the sort, but only “suggested” it. This actually translates to, “I put words in someone else’s mouth and I can’t admit that I’m wrong.” If you can p(name removed by moderator)oint where someone actually tried to make the difference you indicated, then do so. Otherwise, just fess up that you were wrong. And I looked through the thread before you intervened with your error. There was neither anyone who said anything of the sort about ministers of marriage, nor was there an Orthodox poster who questioned the issue of ministers of marriage. It was you all along.

I am not “now” saying anything different than what I have always held and believed. It is only you that introduced the idea you proposed above. And you can’t admit it.

You can’t even admit your own mistake, so it’s to be expected that you find nothing relevant in the post I gave for your correction.

It seems the problem is just that you’re the type of person who can’t accept correction, or can’t admit to a mistake (see above) so you lash out at those who call you on it. Search your soul, sister, to see where the log is before you start using curse-words at others.

Blessings,
Marduk

Why don’t you try reading post #18, where the poster argues - that is, makes the suggestion that it is the case - that the difference is because of who is the minister of the Sacrament?

And then you can read post #23, where you agree.

 

[mark_a]

A Mormon said to me that they believe in eternal marriage, i.e. that if a couple is married in this life they will continue married in next life.

She also claimed that the Orthodox church believe the same thing.

Does anybody know if this is true?

According to the Mormons, is there sex in heaven? If not, why the need for marriage?

 

[Bluegoat]

According to the Mormons, is there sex in heaven? If not, why the need for marriage?

I believe there is, yes. That is how you populate your new planet or some such idea.