The Orthodox church and marriage

[NinjaSnark]

Oops! Sorry to comment and run- I forgot about this thread.

I was the poster who argued that- as it pertains to annulments- the difference was who was administering the sacrament. Harpazo pointed out that the people getting married being the ministers of the sacraments was representative only of Latin theology (which I didn’t know when I made my initial comment, but am happy to be corrected).

This actually raises a lot of questions for me. Thinking in Latin terms, I totally get why the Church presumes all marriages valid until proven otherwise, and the logic behind annulments.

However, if Eastern Catholics (and EO) view the priest as the minister of the sacrament- then how do annulments work in EC/EO theology? Is the Justice of the Peace the minister of a sacrament? I’m really not getting how these two positions (which strike me as radically different) are both represented in the Catholic Church. Perhaps I’m creating a false dilemma for myself- and if so, I’d love to be proven wrong, but it strikes me that:

1. If Latins are correct, then the annulment process as is makes sense. The couple is the minister of the sacrament, therefore it is possible to have a sacramental marriage outside of the Church, which is presumed valid until proven otherwise in a Tribunal for a variety of reasons that would impede proper consent.
2. Eastern theology is correct, and the priest is the minister of the sacrament. Then only marriages preformed by priests in the Church are sacramental, and that raises a whole host of issues on how to approach the annulment issue (not to mention how to view marriages that don’t take place in the Church… are they valid but not sacramental? Capable of being dissolved because they’re not sacramental?)

I don’t see how it can be both/and- this strikes me as either/or. Again though- I’m just some fool with an internet connection- so I am totally open to being corrected here.

 

[Bluegoat]

Oops! Sorry to comment and run- I forgot about this thread.

I was the poster who argued that- as it pertains to annulments- the difference was who was administering the sacrament. Harpazo pointed out that the people getting married being the ministers of the sacraments was representative only of Latin theology (which I didn’t know when I made my initial comment, but am happy to be corrected).

This actually raises a lot of questions for me. Thinking in Latin terms, I totally get why the Church presumes all marriages valid until proven otherwise, and the logic behind annulments.

However, if Eastern Catholics (and EO) view the priest as the minister of the sacrament- then how do annulments work in EC/EO theology? Is the Justice of the Peace the minister of a sacrament? I’m really not getting how these two positions (which strike me as radically different) are both represented in the Catholic Church. Perhaps I’m creating a false dilemma for myself- and if so, I’d love to be proven wrong, but it strikes me that:

1. If Latins are correct, then the annulment process as is makes sense. The couple is the minister of the sacrament, therefore it is possible to have a sacramental marriage outside of the Church, which is presumed valid until proven otherwise in a Tribunal for a variety of reasons that would impede proper consent.
2. Eastern theology is correct, and the priest is the minister of the sacrament. Then only marriages preformed by priests in the Church are sacramental, and that raises a whole host of issues on how to approach the annulment issue (not to mention how to view marriages that don’t take place in the Church… are they valid but not sacramental? Capable of being dissolved because they’re not sacramental?)

I don’t see how it can be both/and- this strikes me as either/or. Again though- I’m just some fool with an internet connection- so I am totally open to being corrected here.

I am not sure how the Eastern Catholic Churches handle annulments.

But in the Orthodox Church, you are on the right track. An Orthodox Christian cannot marry outside the Orthodox Church, under any circumstances, and cannot marry someone who is unbaptized under any conditions.

Annulments there are more rare and seem to be for the same kinds of things that would be accepted legally: bigamy, or hiding one’s true identity, possibly insanity, and so on.

But generally these things are quite rare - they wouldn’t grant an annulment for the kinds of things allowed by the Catholic Church - they would call that a divorce. That is, they are not asserting there was no sacramental marriage, only that it has somehow failed.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, and how come the Orthodox church allow 3 marriages? why 3? why not 4 or 5?

I never heard of this myself!

 

[rinnie]

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

There is no marriage in heaven. Jesus said so. Now SEX? Jesus didn’t said yes or no on that one.

Probally not, thats how it keeps people from sinning in heaven No sex, no money, no problem!!

 

[rinnie]

All I can really offer right now is the actual service of betrothal and crowning. But from what I understand, the Orthodox view it as more of a spiritual bond. The home is a “little church” or “little kingdom”, where the parents being both martyred rule. In the West, it began to be view in more contractual terms. I won’t debate the merit (or lack) of that as I have no desire to, but that is how it is understood in Orthodoxy.

Widows and widowers, for example, are strongly encouraged to remain in such state so as to be faithful to their spouses who have become dead to the world (in the most literal sense), but alive in Christ.

Hope that helps somewhat.

In Christ,
Andrew

This does not line up with scripture though does it? I mean yes for widows to stay single That can be seen in scripture, but not for the reason of remaining faithful to the husband. They are only to remain faithful to God.

As far as marriage the vows say to death DO US PART! When the other has died the marriage is over. There is no vows to honor.

 

[Rawb]

As far as marriage the vows say to death DO US PART! When the other has died the marriage is over. There is no vows to honor.

Except Orthodox make no such vow. We don’t have wedding vows. God unites us together, we’re not bound by a vow but by God.

 

[xjojox]

There is a fundamental difference between the Eastern and Western sacramental theology of marriage. The Eastern view is that the couple are joined by God, whereas the Western view is that the couple marry each other (this is a gross oversimplification by the way). Both churches must deal with the reality of divorce and remarriage.

In the western tradition, because “informed consent” is a necessary part of the sacrament, a huge magnifying glass can be used to find the fatal flaw in the original bond. It could reasonably be argued that in today’s culture, such a flaw can essentially always be found. So from the Eastern view this is a loophole.

In the Eastern view, because God has joined the couple, there is no loophole for lack of proper intention. But divorce and remarriage are realities, and as an added incentive to find a way to address it, the Eastern church was compelled to officiate second and third marriages because even after Constantine, divorce was legal in the Roman Empire. As such, the Eastern church employs what is technically called in the original Greek the “rite of bigamy”. Second and third marriages use this abbreviated rite, to emphasize the fact that the marriage is a somewhat imperfect union, and that the couple are essentially living in adultery.

Interestingly this is where the Eastern and Western churches agree; the second marriage is essentially adulterous. The Catholic approach is to “nullify” the first marriage in order to allow the couple to receive communion. The East sees this as silly, and allow communion without the nullification, but requires the couple to be mindful of the need to live a life of thoughtful penance due to the imperfect union (on paper at least).

In practice both churches have found a way to accommodate the realities of the real world. The Catholic church by way of a scholastic/legalistic maneuver (which is the western way of doing things) and the Orthodox church by way of economia, which is more the Eastern way.

Ultimately we can all agree that it was the mind of Christ that marriage is for life. In Mathew alone there is an exception for “porneia”, serious sexual immorality, and there can be spirited debate about what is meant by this exception, but clearly both churches allow remarriage in cases where there has been no such offense.

The number three comes from the canons of St. Basil, by the way, Basil being regarded as one of the greatest of the early fathers by both the east and west.

Regarding celestial marriage, Christ Himself negated this when challenged with the scenario of the woman sequentially married to several brothers. We have it in numerous passages that in the resurrection we “neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven”. This is clearly stated in more than one gospel. Any characterization of Orthodoxy subscribing to celestial marriage is simply false.

 

[rinnie]

Except Orthodox make no such vow. We don’t have wedding vows. God unites us together, we’re not bound by a vow but by God.

But if God unites you together how does he do this? Do you both not have to agree to this? How do you agree to be united together if you don’t make a promise or vow?

Also Okay God unites you together, I can agree with that. But then who UN-unites you when someone wants a divorce?

 

[Rawb]

But if God unites you together how does he do this?

Through the prayers of the priest. That’s why, even in Eastern Catholic churches, it is necessary for a priest to administer the Sacrament.

Do you both not have to agree to this?

Your agreement is pretty much assumed by the fact that you showed up, lol. We might ask the same thing by any of the other Sacraments; how does God forgive your sins if you don’t say “I want God to forgive my sins”? It’s assumed you are desirous of God to do so because you showed up to the Sacrament by which they are forgiven.

How do you agree to be united together if you don’t make a promise or vow?

Our Wedding Service (the Service of Crowning) has been linked to in previous posts. God does it, as we approach Him and ask Him to do so, by our presence and the prayers of the priest.

 

[dzheremi]

This whole conversation is fascinating to me because for the Copts the situation is so much more black and white than this. As I understand it, there is NO acceptable reason for divorce outside of cases of adultery or apostasy (which, as one Copt explained to me, is taken to be a sort of “spiritual adultery”). In fact, this has caused a lot of tensions in Egypt recently when the legal system (which is based upon Quran’ic principles since the amending of the constitution in 1981) decided that divorced Copts can get remarried, in direct defiance of the church’s stance regarding its own community.

Egyptian court’s re-marriage ruling angers Coptic Christians. As usual, HH Pope Shenouda III is standing firm.

This might seem very rigid and extreme, and it does no doubt have some very negative consequences in some cases (e.g., the whole Camelia Shehata/Wafa’ Constantine debacle), but some Coptic acquaintances have also told me about situations in their own lives where marriages were saved because both parties knew in advance that they had no other choice but to work out their differences. It seems terribly idealistic, of course, but if it were accepted as the way things are for other Christians too, who’s to say we wouldn’t also develop the same instinct, rather than look for “loopholes” or some other way to get out of the situation?

 

[Bluegoat]

This whole conversation is fascinating to me because for the Copts the situation is so much more black and white than this. As I understand it, there is NO acceptable reason for divorce outside of cases of adultery or apostasy (which, as one Copt explained to me, is taken to be a sort of “spiritual adultery”). In fact, this has caused a lot of tensions in Egypt recently when the legal system (which is based upon Quran’ic principles since the amending of the constitution in 1981) decided that divorced Copts can get remarried, in direct defiance of the church’s stance regarding its own community.

Egyptian court’s re-marriage ruling angers Coptic Christians. As usual, HH Pope Shenouda III is standing firm.

This might seem very rigid and extreme, and it does no doubt have some very negative consequences in some cases (e.g., the whole Camelia Shehata/Wafa’ Constantine debacle), but some Coptic acquaintances have also told me about situations in their own lives where marriages were saved because both parties knew in advance that they had no other choice but to work out their differences. It seems terribly idealistic, of course, but if it were accepted as the way things are for other Christians too, who’s to say we wouldn’t also develop the same instinct, rather than look for “loopholes” or some other way to get out of the situation?

I think it’s hard to say - it would be interesting to see how common it is in the Coptic Church for people to leave over this issue, or how many live separately.

I have noticed that in places where divorce isn’t legal at all, it can have very negative consequences - people seem to just ignore marriage altogether, or just leave and carry on living with someone - I am not sure I support the idea in civil life for that reason. But in a religious context it is a bit different.

 

[rinnie]

Through the prayers of the priest. That’s why, even in Eastern Catholic churches, it is necessary for a priest to administer the Sacrament.

Your agreement is pretty much assumed by the fact that you showed up, lol. We might ask the same thing by any of the other Sacraments; how does God forgive your sins if you don’t say “I want God to forgive my sins”? It’s assumed you are desirous of God to do so because you showed up to the Sacrament by which they are forgiven.

Our Wedding Service (the Service of Crowning) has been linked to in previous posts. God does it, as we approach Him and ask Him to do so, by our presence and the prayers of the priest.

But what does God giving us forgiveness for our sins have to do wth granting us a divorce. God said that you cannot divorce.

He was even called on it, and he said the ones who do not accept this command are hard at heart. So back to the question a hand, If Jesus does not permit divorce how can a Priest help you on that?

 

[Rawb]

But what does God giving us forgiveness for our sins have to do wth granting us a divorce. God said that you cannot divorce.

He was even called on it, and he said the ones who do not accept this command are hard at heart. So back to the question a hand, If Jesus does not permit divorce how can a Priest help you on that?

But God doesn’t say that you can’t get divorced:

If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances;

It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Here we see two cases where a divorce is granted by God - in cases of adultery, and in cases where a non-believer and a believer are married and the non-believer doesn’t desire to remain married anymore. It is also interesting that, because of the present-tense nature of the Greek when Christ is speaking about “anyone who divorces his wife and marries another” it implies more of a situation in which one is divorcing his wife to marry a specific other person. In other words, the person is committing adultery. Thus one who divorces his wife to marry another is sinning, but obviously there isn’t a complete ban on divorce because in other places God allows it.

Your church also actually allows divorce for similar situations, though the loophole is that they are not “sacramental marriages” (Google “Pauline” or “Petrine” Privilege) The Orthodox Church has these same rules, we just investigate the situation and determine if there’s a marriage there in a different way and using different criteria, and don’t call it an “annulment” but face what it is. Subsequent marriages are then allowed based only on ekonomia (a “dispensation”, in the West) which is a relaxing of the law.

And my first example, about Confession, was just to show that it’s not necessary that we state our intent to participate in a Sacrament, that our presence signifies our willingness to cooperate with God’s grace.

 

[dzheremi]

I think it’s hard to say - it would be interesting to see how common it is in the Coptic Church for people to leave over this issue, or how many live separately.

Yes, that does happen sometimes, I think. I can’t remember the source, but I read in the online edition of some psychology magazine, in an article about the questionable legality of a mentally-diminished man’s conversion from Orthodoxy to Islam in Egypt, that a significant number of Copts convert to Islam every year, and that such numbers are submitted by the Church to some civil and religious authorities who are in charge of handling the conversions (while conversions in the other direction are, of course, completely illegal and cause many social problems and conflagrations…grumble, grumble). It has been suggested that at least a certain (unquantified) number of the kidnapping-conversions of Coptic girls that are regularly reported to the police in Egypt (where this is something of an epidemic) are, in fact, the girls’ attempts at avoiding marriages that they know they can’t get out of, as marriages are often arranged in Coptic families by relatives, who then pressure the girls. This seems to ignore the central problem of that premise (that minors, which these girls usually are, cannot legally change their religion in Egypt! And the girls themselves often testify that they are coerced to convert to Islam, and often don’t want to, or shortly want to return to the Church and are being prevented by their kidnappers and the authorities), but no doubt it is probably the case in at least some of these situations. Like I wrote, this church position is not without negative consequences (just as the situation among Catholics and EO can also have some negative consequences, depending on the situation).

 

[rinnie]

But God doesn’t say that you can’t get divorced:

Here we see two cases where a divorce is granted by God - in cases of adultery, and in cases where a non-believer and a believer are married and the non-believer doesn’t desire to remain married anymore. It is also interesting that, because of the present-tense nature of the Greek when Christ is speaking about “anyone who divorces his wife and marries another” it implies more of a situation in which one is divorcing his wife to marry a specific other person. In other words, the person is committing adultery. Thus one who divorces his wife to marry another is sinning, but obviously there isn’t a complete ban on divorce because in other places God allows it.

Your church also actually allows divorce for similar situations, though the loophole is that they are not “sacramental marriages” (Google “Pauline” or “Petrine” Privilege) The Orthodox Church has these same rules, we just investigate the situation and determine if there’s a marriage there in a different way and using different criteria, and don’t call it an “annulment” but face what it is. Subsequent marriages are then allowed based only on ekonomia (a “dispensation”, in the West) which is a relaxing of the law.

And my first example, about Confession, was just to show that it’s not necessary that we state our intent to participate in a Sacrament, that our presence signifies our willingness to cooperate with God’s grace.

God never said you could get a divorce. He said I will repeat those who did were hard at heart.

Divorce is not acceptable. Here is the scripture. 1 Cor 7:10-11 Mark 10:9 Heb 13:4

Now your turn show me where the word of God states you can divorce.

God allows a separation from one another if necessary but until the others dies you cannot remarry or you are commiting mortal sin. Adultery.

Now again I will be glad to see the scripture.

 

[Rawb]

God never said you could get a divorce. He said I will repeat those who did were hard at heart.

Divorce is not acceptable. Here is the scripture. 1 Cor 7:10-11 Mark 10:9 Heb 13:4

Now your turn show me where the word of God states you can divorce.

God allows a separation from one another if necessary but until the others dies you cannot remarry or you are committing mortal sin. Adultery.

Now again I will be glad to see the scripture.

A Catholic should know better than to demand Scriptural satisfaction alone for a doctrine. It is The Church’s interpretation of Scripture that is the true revelation of God’s Will, and I have given you the Traditional teaching.

Besides, I *did *give you Scripture verses where God has made allowances for divorce. Scripture does not say “separation” Scripture says “not bound” or says “you cannot get divorced, except for this reason”. It says it plain as day in what I quoted in my last post.

 

[rinnie]

A Catholic should know better than to demand Scriptural satisfaction alone for a doctrine. It is The Church’s interpretation of Scripture that is the true revelation of God’s Will, and I have given you the Traditional teaching.

Besides, I *did *give you Scripture verses where God has made allowances for divorce. Scripture does not say “separation” Scripture says “not bound” or says “you cannot get divorced, except for this reason”. It says it plain as day in what I quoted in my last post.

No you gave me scripture which you interpret God giving allowances. That is not what Tradition teaches. Here it is from the CCC.

CCC 2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the ORIGINAL INTENTION of the Creator who willed that Marriage be INDISSOLUBLE.

This is what the Apostles taught and this is what Jesus taught. Now do I listen to you or the word of God.

I don’t want you interpretation of scirpture I want Gods will. And the Holy Spirit is who is leading the RCC.

 

[rinnie]

A Catholic should know better than to demand Scriptural satisfaction alone for a doctrine. It is The Church’s interpretation of Scripture that is the true revelation of God’s Will, and I have given you the Traditional teaching.

Besides, I *did *give you Scripture verses where God has made allowances for divorce. Scripture does not say “separation” Scripture says “not bound” or says “you cannot get divorced, except for this reason”. It says it plain as day in what I quoted in my last post.

But a Catholic can ask for the teaching in SS or ST. Your teaching is not SS nor ST. The CCC is in direct conflict with what you are saying.

 

[rinnie]

Also Christ does condemn divorce.

Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When 2 partners of whom at least one is married to another party have sexual relations even transient ones they commit ADULTERY.

Christ is condemns Adultery of mere desire. The N.T forbids Adultery.

Divorce does injury to the covenant of Salvation of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union even if it is recognized by civil law adds to the gravity of the rupture the remarried spouse is then in a sitiation of public and permantent adultery.

 

[Rawb]

No you gave me scripture which you interpret God giving allowances. That is not what Tradition teaches. Here it is from the CCC.

CCC 2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the ORIGINAL INTENTION of the Creator who willed that Marriage be INDISSOLUBLE.

This is what the Apostles taught and this is what Jesus taught. Now do I listen to you or the word of God.

I don’t want you interpretation of scirpture I want Gods will. And the Holy Spirit is who is leading the RCC.

It is not MY Interpretation, but the Orthodox Church’s. The CCC is hardly Tradition. It may be what you choose to believe is Tradition, but from our perspective its use in interpreting true Dogma, Practice, and Belief is almost on par with a Baptist “Declaration of Faith”. You believe what it says is true, but we don’t. You believe it is how Tradition is passed on, but we definitely do not. As long as you’re mandating that everything we believe must align somehow with the Roman’s catechism we’ll never get anywhere.

There has always been divorce in the Christian Church. It wasn’t outlawed in the Byzantine Empire, or the Old Roman Empire, when there was little separation between Church and State. Call it an “annulment” if you like, but the reality of it rebukes you.

I well know what adultery is, thank you. I have explained those verses from the Orthodox perspective, the perspective that grew out of having Native Greek Speakers.