View on marriage

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Hello everyone. I was thinking about making this thread for a while now, because while I do assent that Eastern view of Matrimony must be correct, because One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church accepts it (and therefore, as Latin member of that Church, I am required to give assent), I can’t wrap my head around it. From what I have read and viewed, I must have misunderstood some key points because it seems contradictory to me (again, which it is not as it can not be). While I might question Eastern theology with this thread, it is not because I would view it as invalid but because I wish to ask questions to understand. I hope I will offend no one.

1. Matrimony is Sacrament/Mystery, that lasts even after death.
2. That means that any Marriage after the first one is essentially non-sacramental.
3. Divorce has power to break down this sacrament, Eastern Church simply recognizes it’s effects and outcome, which is broken Marriage.
4. If Non-Sacramental Marriage is allowed anyway, then after Marriage has broken down without death (a sin, but what was done is done), another Non-Sacramental Marriage may be provided for the faithful after penance.
5. Four Marriages are maximum historically, according to Tradition of the East. This does not make difference between Marriage ended by death of spouse or divorce.

My questions :

1. Can Sacraments last in Heaven? Is Priest still Priest in Heaven? Are unbaptized not baptized in Heaven? Does Chrismation? And especially with Matrimony is of my concern, as Matthew 22:24-30 tells us that “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”. It seems to me that Sacraments work to bring us to Heaven, hence if we get there, their job is done. This might be just Latin theology though.
2. This point presumes that Marriage can only be celebrated once. I do not quite understand why, as above passage from the Bible essentially says that there were 7 lawful and valid marriages and yet, not one of them was more valid or more valued. If Marriage really ceased to exist in Heaven, then there is no reason one Spouse is bound by it and other is not, as Marriage between one person can not last.
3. I quite understand this point. It is different from Latin understanding but I do not think that is problematic in itself.
4. Wouldn’t penance require to try and make right what was destroyed by sin (divorce) ? Perhaps I understand if one divorces his wife and she is not fine with it, and then through no fault of her own Mystery of Matrimony breaks down as described in point 3. However, why is this needed with death of a Spouse? As we believe God calls us to himself during death, so doing penance for our spouse being called seems little unnecessary.
5. This is Eastern tradition, so I do not think there is anything that I can misunderstand about it. I would just like to know if anyone knows why 4 does that have historical significance or was that gradual development of Eastern theology?

Thank you in advance, and again, I understand my points are probably invalid as Eastern view is fully valid. I simply wish to understand Eastern view on Marriage.

 

[Lasse]

I do not have time to comment all of your questions right now, but hopefully I will be able to get back to it later.

The easiest way to get your head around the Eastern view is to think of marriage in ecclesiological and eschatological terms, not as a contract between two persons, allowing procreation. The meaning of marriage is to be a Church, a mini-ecclesia if you like, and its purpose is the path of salvation. A person who dies resurrects as the same person, and the bond you have to your spouse remains, but not in a carnal way, but as your companion on your path to salvation. By analogy, St. John the Baptist will remain the cousin of Christ, and Mary the Mother of Christ, even if it means something different in Heaven.

It r would, on a more personal note, seem very odd to me to think that the connection I have to my wife would disappear in the coming Kingdom. If there was no love however, or if we were strangers to each other, the case would be quite different. And yes, we bury Priests and Monks etc. in their habits etc. (but not deacons actually).

The bond must, in summary, be seen in light of the eschaton. If a marriage breaks within our life time, the Church simply acknowledges this tragedy. It means that a marriage no longer exists, that there is nothing to repair, not matter the contract. What matters is what is, not what could have been. If I die today, I die as the guy who loves his wife, and I will resurrect as the guy who loves his wife. If I hurt her in a way that cannot be repaired, and we lose our love for good, that is also what I bring to the Resurrection.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The easiest way to get your head around the Eastern view is to think of marriage in ecclesiological and eschatological terms, not as a contract between two persons, allowing procreation.

I see. That is very helpful I guess, and I must say I like that view on marriage very much.

The meaning of marriage is to be a Church, a mini-ecclesia if you like, and its purpose is the path of salvation.

I get that, and that is very consistent with what I have read about marriage from Church Fathers… but doesn’t our path to salvation end when we die? So basically while Mystery of Matrimony helped one spouse, other one does not partake of it anymore and yet is bound by it.

It r would, on a more personal note, seem very odd to me to think that the connection I have to my wife would disappear in the coming Kingdom.

I wouldn’t say that anyone believes those connections disappear, but when Latins talk about that they usually don’t talk about that in sacramental way. Relations are thing we carry to Heaven. Would that mean East take this to still be a sacrament?

The bond must, in summary, be seen in light of the eschaton. If a marriage breaks within our life time, the Church simply acknowledges this tragedy.

I see. I think this is the part I get now, I wasn’t sure if this indeed is view of Eastern Church but now I know, thank you.

 

[dochawk]

Also, the limit is three, not four.

A fourth attempt is grounds for deposing an emperor, and indeed happened.

One is always permitted, a second often, a third rare, and a fourth never.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Oh, I see. Thank you for correction. Is there any information why 3 or is that “just” ancient East tradition?

 

[George720]

Is there any information why 3 or is that “just” ancient East tradition?

Oh I suppose some bishop somewhere sometime just thought 3 sounded like a good Trinitarian number and said: “O why not!..”

The idea that divorce nullifies a Sacrament and therefore cannot be granted is not a part of Eastern Orthodox thinking… We see it simply as a human failure… Just as sin does not nullify the Sacrament of Baptism, or staying sick does not nullify the Sacrament of Anointing…

Marriage is hard…

Really hard…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Just as sin does not nullify the Sacrament of Baptism, or staying sick does not nullify the Sacrament of Anointing…

I partly understand your analogy, but we do not rebaptize even if someone sins heavily… but sacrament of anointing can be repeated so I guess that’s the analogy I will take from that. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

We see it simply as a human failure…

One more thing, is it a sin to divorce? When our Lord told Pharisees “Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”, in my Latin mindset that basically means that “if one marries another woman after divorce, he is committing adultery because first marriage is still valid”. Obviously that is not the only correct interpretation. How would East interpret this passage? Or perhaps Church has now power to dispense from this rule by economia?

Marriage is hard…

Really hard…

No doubt…which is why our Lord warns us not to take it lightly. But surely Sacrament/Mystery of Matrimony is there to confer grace and help couple grow together in God… not that it makes it easy, but it is some consolation to know One True God is with you in this relationship in very close way … but I do not know much about that except what has been handed down to me and what I witnessed …

 

[Margaret_Ann]

1. Can Sacraments last in Heaven? Is Priest still Priest in Heaven?

Hebrews 5: 6: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.

Whether in heaven, purgatory or hell, a priest is a priest forever. Even if he is laicized, he still retains the sacramental character of Holy Orders. The same principle applies to Baptism and Chrismation, which are the other two Sacraments which impose a character on the soul.

As to remarriage, St. Paul says (1 Cor. 7: 39):

[39] A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord.

So St. Paul says that a widow can remarry provided she marries “in the Lord”.

above passage from the Bible essentially says that there were 7 lawful and valid marriages

In the OT, if a man died without children, the nearest single male relative would have to marry the widow and have children in order to keep the name of his brother alive. That obligation ceased when the OT ended with the death of Our Lord on the Cross.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

• Matrimony is Sacrament/Mystery, that lasts even after death.
• That means that any Marriage after the first one is essentially non-sacramental.
• Divorce has power to break down this sacrament, Eastern Church simply recognizes it’s effects and outcome, which is broken Marriage.
• If Non-Sacramental Marriage is allowed anyway, then after Marriage has broken down without death (a sin, but what was done is done), another Non-Sacramental Marriage may be provided for the faithful after penance.

Mark 10: 2-13:

[2] And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. [3] But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? [4] Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. [5] To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.

[6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. [7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. [8] And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. [9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [10] And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.

[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Our Lord doesn’t give any wiggle room here. "And they two shall be in one flesh."

A man could divorce his wife, go through more “wives” than Henry VIII and he’d still be married to his first, true and only wife.

 

[Lasse]

I get that, and that is very consistent with what I have read about marriage from Church Fathers… but doesn’t our path to salvation end when we die? So basically while Mystery of Matrimony helped one spouse, other one does not partake of it anymore and yet is bound by it.

Eastern spirituality is quite focused on the experience of existence at the crossroads between the eschaton and the economy. In the Liturgy, we “remember” the Second coming, but we also ask God to take care of the orphans, to grant us a good harvest etc. There is, in the same way, many dimensions to married life: one is the support and asceticism (obedience, struggling), the other is the mystery. To be someone’s husband or wife in Christ is to be One – husband, wife and Christ. From what I have been taught, that is what it means to be the smallest unit in a Church, that is the sacrament/mystery as St. Paul refers to it (Eph. 5:32). It could also be noted that traditionally, the crowning of a couple sometimes occurred 20 years after the betrothal, often with the intention of the couple to stop having sex. The crowns signifies martyrdom, a readiness to live like the angels. This is also why we cannot marry someone (at least not sacramentally, if you like) who is not an Orthodox Christian. This ritual should also not be repeated for couples entering a second or third marriage.

Now, that does not mean that the struggles (asceticism) and the support we find on our path is insignificant, it is a part of our journey.

I wouldn’t say that anyone believes those connections disappear, but when Latins talk about that they usually don’t talk about that in sacramental way. Relations are thing we carry to Heaven. Would that mean East take this to still be a sacrament?

To be a friend with someone is not a sacrament, but to be One in Christ is. In the same way, to be one in Christ in a Eucharistic gathering is also a sacrament. In the Eucharist, we become the Body of Christ.

Also a side note

The best book I have read (I have read it at least twice) on the canonical traditions of the East and West is probably Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium by Clarence Gallagher (SJ). He deals quite extensively on marriage, clerical celibacy etc. He does not deal with the liturgical texts much, but still manage to provide a good case, using canons and historical data, as to why there should not be a problem to hold different views on issues like marriage etc. It was really expensive when I bought it, but perhaps your local library could help (only if you are interested, course)?

EDIT: I am speaking from what I have been taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Perhaps Eastern Catholics think of it differently. Please forgive me if that is the case, I do not wish to spread false information.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The same principle applies to Baptism and Chrismation, which are the other two Sacraments which impose a character on the soul.

Oh, right… my bad. They imprint character on the soul hence they last forever, even in the Heaven. Thank you for correction.

A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord.

So St. Paul says that a widow can remarry provided she marries “in the Lord”.

What would “in the Lord” mean? That if Church allows it?

That obligation ceased when the OT ended with the death of Our Lord on the Cross.

I see. thank you for clarification… I forgot about that rule.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

We, Latins do take death as natural end of marriage perhaps because it is not man putting it asunder… but in the end that is not commanded to us either. I think I understand Eastern view much better now. Thank you very much.

“And they two shall be in one flesh.”

I see… and since we also have bodily resurrection in the Heaven, they remain married! Nice… that kind of clarifies that marriage also carries over to Heaven.

This ritual should also not be repeated for couples entering a second or third marriage.

So first wife is wife in the Heaven and others are not? So if someone marries a widow only, he would be single in the Heaven? Only thing I do not understand now is that Lord did not tell Sadducees that the first one will be with her in the Heaven… but in the end that was not Sacramental marriage, but OT marriage.

The best book I have read (I have read it at least twice) on the canonical traditions of the East and West is probably Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium by Clarence Gallagher (SJ).

I will try to get it if I have the chance, thank you !

Thanks to everyone! I think I have much clearer understanding now. It is beautiful how diverse Church theology and practices are. Now I may even have trouble thinking in Latin terms of marriage for a while

 

[Lasse]

So first wife is wife in the Heaven and others are not? So if someone marries a widow only, he would be single in the Heaven? Only thing I do not understand now is that Lord did not tell Sadducees that the first one will be with her in the Heaven… but in the end that was not Sacramental marriage, but OT marriage.

I would not think of it as being single or having multiple wives in Heaven or not, but about what the mystery means in light of its symbolic context. You cannot separate marriage from the Church, and you cannot separate the Church from the eschaton.

As I said before, there are many levels as how to understand the meaning of marriage. One is of course the social dimension, which I referred to earlier. Speaking of the mystery of marriage cannot, however, be focused on understanding it as a moral or social question. It is primarily about whether or not the husband and wife exist for the sake of the other as a mini-ecclesia, i.e. if they are ontologically one flesh and the smallest unit of the mystery of the Church. When it becomes an ecclesial matter, it is no longer about the individual couple, but about what they represent. The mystery (sacrament) of marriage would lose its symbolical power if it happened twice, especially if you think of the crowning ritual in light of the eschaton, i.e. as the martyrdom and death of the individualistic and fallen will for the sake of becoming one with someone else in eternity as the nucleus of the Church. With the crowning, which (unlike the betrothal) happens at the center of the Church, the couple now belong to the coming Kingdom with the saints, which means that they are sealed in eternity. When the couple fails to live out this reality, the Church recognizes the failure, but the crowning cannot be repeated as an eschatological event, without losing its symbolic power.

I hope I am not just repeating my self and I hope I understand you correctly. English is a foreign language to me and I feel like I am not able to express my self as clearly as I would like to.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I would not think of it as being single or having multiple wives in Heaven or not, but about what the mystery means in light of its symbolic context.

That makes sense, since in the Heaven life is a lot different… so taking into account only social aspect of marriage would be wrong.

It is primarily about whether or not the husband and wife exist for the sake of the other as a mini-ecclesia

That was my personal view before this thread actually. I guess Latins focused more on moral and lawful aspect of marriage, while Greeks focused on eschatological one.

With the crowning, which (unlike the betrothal) happens at the center of the Church, the couple now belong to the coming Kingdom with the saints, which means that they are sealed in eternity. When the couple fails to live out this reality, the Church recognizes the failure, but the crowning cannot be repeated as an eschatological event, without losing its symbolic power.

I see. So basically crowning is what symbolizes union in the Heaven? Ever-lasting marriage? I have never been to Byzantine Marriage before so I am not that familiar with it… though I have watched youtube videos of it.

I hope I am not just repeating my self and I hope I understand you correctly. English is a foreign language to me and I feel like I am not able to express my self as clearly as I would like to.

Your english is very good! You have explained a lot to me and when you do repeat something, it is for sake of making a point which is very nice. Thank you for information.

 

[Lasse]

I see. So basically crowning is what symbolizes union in the Heaven? Ever-lasting marriage?

To be even more specific, I believe it symbolizes a union which is “. . . on Earth, as it is in Heaven” in a way not too different from the Eucharist making present the Heavenly feast, the Resurrection, the Second Coming etc. It represents a now (kairos) where chronos and eschaton are mysteriously united.

I have never been to Byzantine Marriage before so I am not that familiar with it… though I have watched youtube videos of it.

I hope you will have the chance one day. Just go to Romania or Greece and crash a wedding ceremony, I bet no one will notice.

Just be mindful that a lot of videos on Youtube are not done according to the rubrics. My own marriage (we have it on DVD, not Youtube) did the betrothal at the center of the Church for pastoral reasons (for the family to see), but at the expense of the symbolism.

Since you do not mind me repeating my self a bit, the liturgical logic marriage could be said to be divided into three parts:

1. It derives from the Eucharistic communion. Both parties should participate in the Eucharist before the union (no more than one week before marriage, in Greek tradition).
2. The mutual commitment, expressed through the exchange of rings. This ritual used to be considered secular up until the 11th century, and therefore still takes place in the back of the Church.
3. The fullness of the mystery. After the exchange of rings, the couple is led in procession to the center of the Church, where the crowning takes place.

Then there is life, unwashed dishes, inlaws, bills to pay etc…

 

[Isaac14]

@OrbisNonSufficit - if it’s helpful, here is the text of the marriage service per the Orthodox Church in America.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

@OrbisNonSufficit - if it’s helpful, here is the text of the marriage service per the Orthodox Church in America.

Thank you very much! It will surely be helpful.

To be even more specific, I believe it symbolizes a union which is “. . . on Earth, as it is in Heaven” in a way not too different from the Eucharist making present the Heavenly feast, the Resurrection, the Second Coming etc. It represents a now (kairos) where chronos and eschaton are mysteriously united.

Thank you, that is beautiful. Basically everything we do on Earth we do for life to come… and this falls into that logic too. At the same time, Church is bringing Kingdom of God to this world and as such it is also represented in our Earthly lives.

I hope you will have the chance one day. Just go to Romania or Greece and crash a wedding ceremony, I bet no one will notice.

Haha, thanks for advice. One of my very close friends is Byzantine Catholic, and his current girlfriend is my childhood friend … and they met through me… so I do kind of hope I will be invited to their wedding… and I do have a feeling they might have Byzantine one

Just be mindful that a lot of videos on Youtube are not done according to the rubrics.

Oh I see. I will use the text Isaac gave me and read up on ceremony. I can’t believe I didn’t do that before I asked this question…

Then there is life, unwashed dishes, inlaws, bills to pay etc…

Essential part of marriage which dreamers like me tend to forget

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Margaret_Ann:

So St. Paul says that a widow can remarry provided she marries “in the Lord”.

What would “in the Lord” mean? That if Church allows it?

“in the Lord” means marrying a fellow Catholic Christian. She would be forbidden to marry a pagan.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

One of my very close friends is Byzantine Catholic, and his current girlfriend is my childhood friend … and they met through me… so I do kind of hope I will be invited to their wedding… and I do have a feeling they might have Byzantine one

Awesome! Ask your BC friend if they have real crowns at his parish. You can tell them they are crowned king and queen. That’s why “a man’s home is his castle”.

True trivia tidbit to impress your friends: The Latin Church used to crown the bride and groom too. It stopped after Constantinople fell in 1453. The verse from Psalm 8 is still in the traditional Latin rite of matrimony but Idk about the modern RC rite of marriage.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Lasse:

Then there is life, unwashed dishes, inlaws, bills to pay etc…

Essential part of marriage which dreamers like me tend to forget

Henry Fonda said it beautifully here:

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“in the Lord” means marrying a fellow Catholic Christian. She would be forbidden to marry a pagan.

Oh I see. Thank you.

True trivia tidbit to impress your friends: The Latin Church used to crown the bride and groom too. It stopped after Constantinople fell in 1453. The verse from Psalm 8 is still in the traditional Latin rite of matrimony but Idk about the modern RC rite of marriage.

Wow, that is very interesting, thank you. I do hope that will return someday to Roman Rite I am not sure about modern RC rite of marriage, as while I have been to some weddings this is not exactly what I remember.

Awesome! Ask your BC friend if they have real crowns at his parish. You can tell them they are crowned king and queen. That’s why “a man’s home is his castle”.

Will do his family is pretty traditional so I do hope they will get real crowns too. But in the end, everything is up to them when they get to that point.