Marriage

Kristos · Aug 5, 2010

With the hullabaloo about gay marriage today, I was thinking about what marriage really means. I think you need to divide secular (civil) marriage and Christian marriage. The problem most people seem to have is that they can't separate the two. Perhaps because they don't see any difference because religious institutions have taken on most the responsibility associated with marriage or maybe because they fail to understand how Christian marriage is different in that it is sacramental. Can pagans get married? Can atheists get married? So why not gays? What does a civil marriage have to do with the Church? Unfortunately, we have reduced our own sacramental view of Orthodox marriage by moving the ceremony to Saturday, and "divorcing" the crowning from the Eucharist. If these were put back together, I think it would be more clear to people not only why a gay marriage could never be a Christian marriage, but also why inter-marriage can never be a Christian marriage. The sacrament of marriage is sealed by the Eucharist. Unlike the RCC we see this seal as eternal. This is most apparent in the canons dealing with widows and widowers - even when death is involved, the Church does not encourage remarriage - it is still a second marriage, which in theory is adultery and thus requires penance. Now does this have to do with gay marriage? Simply that it could never be a Christian marriage in the sacramental sense. It could never be a prefiguration of Christ and the Church, Bride-groom and bride. So do we really care what the civil authorities call marriage?

MKJ · Aug 5, 2010

An interesting question.

Does the OC make a distinction between a sacramental marriage and what Catholics would call a "natural" marriage? What does it say about pre-Christian marriages - were they real, even though they were not sacramental?

Kristos · Aug 5, 2010

I don't want to get tangled up in what is real and not real. Before there was Christian marriage people got married - the Jews married for the purpose of procreation. Pagans married, etc. But that all changed with Christ. Christians didn't invent marriage per se, but rather made it sacramental through Jesus Christ, His Body, through which the two can truly become one flesh.

JESUS<3sYOU · Aug 5, 2010

I don't understand what's so interesting about this question, that it has to be debated all the time. You said yourself that it's a secular matter. So why is it even important for you to have an opinion on it? Sure, you can have any opinion you want, as far as I'm concerned. I just think that there's an overload of debate about this question, and I often wonder why the people who have very strong opinions on it have those opinions, and why they feel so strongly about it. Would you care to explain?

Kristos · Aug 5, 2010

Niko said:
I don't understand what's so interesting about this question, that it has to be debated all the time. You said yourself that it's a secular matter. So why is it even important for you to have an opinion on it? Sure, you can have any opinion you want, as far as I'm concerned. I just think that there's an overload of debate about this question, and I often wonder why the people who have very strong opinions on it have those opinions, and why they feel so strongly about it. Would you care to explain?

You don't think the sacramental nature of marriage in the Orthodox Church is an interesting topic?

JESUS<3sYOU · Aug 5, 2010

Kristos said:
You don't think the sacramental nature of marriage in the Orthodox Church is an interesting topic?

Are you misunderstanding me intentionally? You didn't ask any questions about that, you know.

MKJ · Aug 5, 2010

Kristos said:
I don't want to get tangled up in what is real and not real. Before there was Christian marriage people got married - the Jews married for the purpose of procreation. Pagans married, etc. But that all changed with Christ. Christians didn't invent marriage per se, but rather made it sacramental through Jesus Christ, His Body, through which the two can truly become one flesh.

Well, if you think non-christian marriage has some kind of reality in natural law, that might effect how you think the state should treat marriage.

If you see all non-christian marriage as just a contract, than you might not.

Joshua G. · Aug 5, 2010

Kristos:

I see where you are coming from. I used to feel that the State can do what it wants, but it should get out of the business of marrying people. Just offer civil unionsand let people go to their own religious places to get married. And if people want to get married (at their local mosque, temple, church, tree hut, etc...) but not get a civil union 9missing out on tax benefits and right of attorney, etc...) then that's their business. And if they want to just get a civil union but aren't religious or anything, then that's fine (from a secular point of view).

However, it seems to be a bit more complicated than that. For one, the Church does recognize a marriage as "real" if they have done so secularly. In fact, marriage ceremonies in the Early Church were secular and then simply recognized by the Church. I would love to read more on this, but as far as I have learned (and it's been a long time since I have read up on it so I don't remember sources) the idea of the religious marriage ceremony only came latter, I believe during the rise of Constantinople. That's the interesting thing about marriage and the Church. It seems the Church demands that the people be of the CHurch and undergo some official kind of rite (nowdays and for many centuries, this rite has been in the actual temple and ritualized specifically by the Church, but in many Orthodox countries they also demand that you get your married first by the State before the Church... kind of like how we have to get the liscense here before we get married).

The current situation also allows a Church to more easily make sure there is no polygamy going on. It can still happen since states and especially countires don't share information very well. However if we didn't have the State involved, it would be easy enough for a man to get religiously married to one woman at the baptist Church and later leave her, get married at the Russian Orthodox Church a town away and even (although unlikely) leave her and get married to another woman at an Antiochian Church upstate. The only solution to this would be that all Churches and denominations (of all religions) would have to work to create a marriage database since most of them except for unReformed Latter Day Saints and some sects of Islam are against polygamy.

So, it's a very (perhaps the most) practical way to combat polygamy, although certainly not foolproof.

With that in mind, I am torn on the issue of gay marriage. On the one hand, I dont give a hill of beans what the state thinks about my married status. If tomorrow I found out we did our paper work wrong and we weren't legally married, it wouldn't matter to me except for tax reasons and right of attorney, etc. But I would still consider myself 100% married. On the other hand, we all call it marriage and the state defines in people's heads what marriage is and what it isn't. So, imagine we are 3 generations into a society that legally marries gays... I wonder if we, the ORthodox, will look like biggots to the world for not marrying gays.. Persecution is part and parcel with being a serious Christian... but might it be intensified in the distant future by losing this cultural grip on the State? Might we be seen as we would view nowdays a Church that doesn't approve of interracial marriage? I know there is an intrinsic difference... but I am speaking of perception.

These are the things I worry about.

It doesn't offend me that gay people want to get married. I get that, and I actually sympathize greatly with their struggle even though I don't agree with the decision to live it outrightly from a religious point of view.

Alright.,.. I have spoken too much and am going in circles. Suffice it to say that I am torn on the issue secularly even though I am sure what the Church's stand needs to continue to be.

Josh

St. Columcille · Aug 5, 2010

Kristos said:
What does a civil marriage have to do with the Church?

The sacrament of marriage is sealed by the Eucharist. Unlike the RCC we see this seal as eternal.

CS Lewis married Joy in a civil marriage to prevent her from being deported back to America. Upon her sickness, Lewis fell in deep love with her and got married in the church. Granted, Anglicanism does not view marriage as a sacrament as both the EO and RCC.

Now, in terms of distinction with the RCC... I am not sure where you are getting your reference. It is probably better not to speak on things you know nothing about. RCC is very codified and specific, and I think in terms of practice in applying 1 Cor 7, that a mixed marriage is considered holy, even though it is not sacramental according to St. Paul. The main requirement is that the unbelieving spouse does not prohibit the free exercise of the believing spouse's practice. If the unbelieving spouse cannot live under such conditions, the believer is under "Pauline privilege." This instruction applies to marriages that were prior to conversion. But even if one does marry a non-christian or a baptized Christian of another faith, I do not see the EO reacting any different than the RCC by encouraging the Orthodox member to remain in the life of the congregation. In short, regardless of the circumstances, both the EO and RCC give the same instruction to their member. Now if you actually excommunicate your members, then I would probably differ with you; I would probably not want to become Orthodox--for I cannot justify breaking up a family, regardless of the sinfulness of the past. The breaking up of a family should be the decision of the unbeliever so that God will remain praised through the peaceful example of the believer.

In my situation i should have to ask specifically...
I was baptized at a Protestant congregation when I was nine years old. i fell away for a time prior to my only marriage. I married a Japanese lady whose family is Shin Buddhist. I regained my faith afterwards and eventually left Anglicanism in search of Orthodoxy, but could not due to location and convenience became a Roman Catholic instead. My wife allows me to practice my faith without constraint and we have been married for over eleven years. There has been some improvements in her attitude toward my faith since I became Catholic, but almost damaged our relationship when i was a baptist attempting to push a more forceful evangelization... dragging her to my church, finding ways to manipulate a conversion...
At this present time, I'd like to know what to do. What would the Eastern Orthodox Church have me to do?
I tell you what i am doing so far as a Roman Catholic... since I have started inquiry into the Secular Franciscan Order, I am requesting my Diocean bishop for 'radical sanation.' If my wife was a baptized Christian of another faith, I would request 'convalidation.' What does this mean for me? It means I put into this marriage a sacred commitment, regardless of my wife's condition.

buzuxi02 · Aug 5, 2010

Religious marriage is the only kind of marriage. Secular involvement in marriage is a new invention. In the primitive church in jerusalem seperation of secular and religious did not exist, neither in the pagan world. As a minority in a pagan world the church instituted its own ceremony, since there was a need for it as it no longer was a jewish sect.
To this day in places like Lebanon, Israel and till recently the satellites of the old Ottomon empire civil marriage does not exist. Egypt has just started getting involved and forcing the copts to adhere.

If we trace the evolution of marriage, its simply a matter of survival when children came into play. Can you imagine in prehistoric times a single mother leaving her infants exposed as she tried to hunt and gather food ?

Dorothea · Aug 5, 2010

I'm wondering why marriage is a government issue. But then I realize we all have to get "marriage licenses." And all that goes with being married through the state gov/fed. gov. and such. My only thought on the ruling on Prop 8 in CA is that I am not surprised. Eventually, gay marriage will be allowed in all of this country. That's just the way of this world and where it's headed. I believe there is a concern (at least to my priest) about (since the government's involved in this) churches one day being forced to marry gays/lesbians. The separation of church and state would then be brought forward again. Don't know...

MKJ · Aug 5, 2010

St. Columcille said:
CS Lewis married Joy in a civil marriage to prevent her from being deported back to America. Upon her sickness, Lewis fell in deep love with her and got married in the church. Granted, Anglicanism does not view marriage as a sacrament as both the EO and RCC.

Now, in terms of distinction with the RCC... I am not sure where you are getting your reference. It is probably better not to speak on things you know nothing about. RCC is very codified and specific, and I think in terms of practice in applying 1 Cor 7, that a mixed marriage is considered holy, even though it is not sacramental according to St. Paul. The main requirement is that the unbelieving spouse does not prohibit the free exercise of the believing spouse's practice. If the unbelieving spouse cannot live under such conditions, the believer is under "Pauline privilege." This instruction applies to marriages that were prior to conversion. But even if one does marry a non-christian or a baptized Christian of another faith, I do not see the EO reacting any different than the RCC by encouraging the Orthodox member to remain in the life of the congregation. In short, regardless of the circumstances, both the EO and RCC give the same instruction to their member. Now if you actually excommunicate your members, then I would probably differ with you; I would probably not want to become Orthodox--for I cannot justify breaking up a family, regardless of the sinfulness of the past. The breaking up of a family should be the decision of the unbeliever so that God will remain praised through the peaceful example of the believer.

In my situation i should have to ask specifically...
I was baptized at a Protestant congregation when I was nine years old. i fell away for a time prior to my only marriage. I married a Japanese lady whose family is Shin Buddhist. I regained my faith afterwards and eventually left Anglicanism in search of Orthodoxy, but could not due to location and convenience became a Roman Catholic instead. My wife allows me to practice my faith without constraint and we have been married for over eleven years. There has been some improvements in her attitude toward my faith since I became Catholic, but almost damaged our relationship when i was a baptist attempting to push a more forceful evangelization... dragging her to my church, finding ways to manipulate a conversion...
At this present time, I'd like to know what to do. What would the Eastern Orthodox Church have me to do?
I tell you what i am doing so far as a Roman Catholic... since I have started inquiry into the Secular Franciscan Order, I am requesting my Diocean bishop for 'radical sanation.' If my wife was a baptized Christian of another faith, I would request 'convalidation.' What does this mean for me? It means I put into this marriage a sacred commitment, regardless of my wife's condition.

Speaking of not commenting on things you know nothing about, it is not the case that Anglicans do not believe marriage is a sacrament.

MKJ · Aug 5, 2010

buzuxi02 said:
Religious marriage is the only kind of marriage. Secular involvement in marriage is a new invention. In the primitive church in jerusalem seperation of secular and religious did not exist, neither in the pagan world. As a minority in a pagan world the church instituted its own ceremony, since there was a need for it as it no longer was a jewish sect.
To this day in places like Lebanon, Israel and till recently the satellites of the old Ottomon empire civil marriage does not exist. Egypt has just started getting involved and forcing the copts to adhere.

If we trace the evolution of marriage, its simply a matter of survival when children came into play. Can you imagine in prehistoric times a single mother leaving her infants exposed as she tried to hunt and gather food ?

I'm curious about what you mean. In the early days of Christianity, married couples simply made their vows privatly and were considered married. Now, in the West that is still possible - but as I understand it in the East a priest is considered to be required? So it seems that is a change. And of course after Christ Christian marriage has a sacramental character, whereas before that it didn't. So do you understand non-Christians to have a sort of "pre-Christian" type of marriage?

Dorothea said:
I'm wondering why marriage is a government issue. But then I realize we all have to get "marriage licenses." And all that goes with being married through the state gov/fed. gov. and such. My only thought on the ruling on Prop 8 in CA is that I am not surprised. Eventually, gay marriage will be allowed in all of this country. That's just the way of this world and where it's headed. I believe there is a concern (at least to my priest) about (since the government's involved in this) churches one day being forced to marry gays/lesbians. The separation of church and state would then be brought forward again. Don't know...

Well, the government needs to at least be able to identify married people for the purposes of pensions, wills, property law upon divorce, and so on. Also, in many places a spouse cannot testify against his or her spouse in a court of law.

Joshua G. · Aug 5, 2010

IT seems to me that governments having their hand in marriage is nothing new and predates Christianity by a lot. And, again, if I am not mistaken, the Early Church accepted the secular marriage as a sacramental marriage upon entering the Church (or vice versa... if they were married after joining the CHurch).

St Columcille: what the poster you took issue with was referring to in regard to eternal marriages. IN the East, the idea prevails that once you are married, you are married into eternity (that is, although you are not given into marriage in heaven as the Scriptures say, your marriage from earth... a sacrament... is not ended just because you die.) So, I will still be married to my wife when we are both in heaven assuming neither of us break the sacrament of marriage with infidelity, etc. I am quite sure that the RCC emphatically states that upon one's death he or she is no longer married. They interpret quite differently that biblical passage.

In the end, this is something the OC considers a great mystery. We dont try to delve much into what if this or what if that. what if one marries three times and is a widower each time, etc. IT's not really for us to get into to much. The IDEAL according to the CHurch is that you marry once. THe max is three times, even if you are a widower all three times. Now although the ideal is to be married one time (for the sacrament transcends death) reality comes into play. Widowers had a difficult time surviving and caring for their children unless they remarried so the local CHurch would often encourage marriage.

Josh

rusmeister · Aug 5, 2010

One of the most outstanding works I read by Chesterton last year was "The Superstition of Divorce". http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/divorce.txt
It is hands down absolutely the best work I have ever read on marriage. And that's where he starts - by discussing what marriage has always been; both in the Church and out.

He was battling divorce when it was becoming respectable and popular - whenn people began saying "There's nothing wrong in getting divorced -and remarried - as many times as you like. I see tremendous application of his ideas in today's battle over "gay marriage" as well as divorce - in fact, on any question of the social understanding of marriage.

I noted that someone spoke of marriage as a contract - and that is how it is seen today. But up until very recently no one had ever thought of it that way. It had, certainly in the entire Christian era, been a vow, in a society where vows must be kept no matter what. We have lost the sense of sacredness of the vow, reducing it to a promise that may be made or broken fairly lightly and enforceable only as a business contract.

Anyway, as to Kristos' question and Josh's response, it matters very much how society defines marriage, and we cannot pretend that secular decisions now will not affect us. They certainly will, and already have.
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR
Especially scroll down to the article by Barbara Hagerty. The discrimination against us for non-compliance with the social definition is not a future theory, Josh; it has already begun.

Our society tries to pretend to be pluralistic - to contain all views. But when it comes down to public policy, only one of those views will actually be enforced. I've tried to tell people that about public schools, and I'm saying it now about marriage. When "gay marriage" (which MUST be understood as "blue atheism" or "pregnant man" - as an oxymoronical juxtaposition of terms) becomes the law, then it will be illegal to not treat it as such. In fact, judges are already treating it as such now. And that can't fail to affect us, however hard we may try to stay out of conflict. That means that as earthly citizens, we should do what we can to stem the tide, even though we can't hope to stop the way of the world on our own.

I think the sacramental nature of Orthodox marriage to also be an interesting topic, by the way, but it's one on which there are quite a few good commentaries within our Church. But I don't see nearly as much treatment of our perception of the general social view of marriage.

I guess I'd ask how many of y'all would like to have your children grow up seeing homosexuality as normal? (Show of hands?) As long as we take a laissez-faire attitude towards civil marriage, that is what will happen, just as it has already happened with divorce.

Gwendolyn · Aug 5, 2010

Joshua G. said:
IT seems to me that governments having their hand in marriage is nothing new and predates Christianity by a lot. And, again, if I am not mistaken, the Early Church accepted the secular marriage as a sacramental marriage upon entering the Church (or vice versa... if they were married after joining the CHurch).

St Columcille: what the poster you took issue with was referring to in regard to eternal marriages. IN the East, the idea prevails that once you are married, you are married into eternity (that is, although you are not given into marriage in heaven as the Scriptures say, your marriage from earth... a sacrament... is not ended just because you die.) So, I will still be married to my wife when we are both in heaven assuming neither of us break the sacrament of marriage with infidelity, etc. I am quite sure that the RCC emphatically states that upon one's death he or she is no longer married. They interpret quite differently that biblical passage.

In the end, this is something the OC considers a great mystery. We dont try to delve much into what if this or what if that. what if one marries three times and is a widower each time, etc. IT's not really for us to get into to much. The IDEAL according to the CHurch is that you marry once. THe max is three times, even if you are a widower all three times. Now although the ideal is to be married one time (for the sacrament transcends death) reality comes into play. Widowers had a difficult time surviving and caring for their children unless they remarried so the local CHurch would often encourage marriage.

Josh

I sense a new thread coming, but...

I did not know that the EO consider the marriage bond to continue into eternity. I find this interesting. But if the marriage can dissolve - as divorce and re-marriage are permitted - how come it doesn't dissolve upon death? Why does it dissolve in life? Is that considered a mystery?

I learn so much stuff in this forum.

St. Columcille · Aug 5, 2010

Joshua G. said:
St Columcille: what the poster you took issue with was referring to in regard to eternal marriages. IN the East, the idea prevails that once you are married, you are married into eternity (that is, although you are not given into marriage in heaven as the Scriptures say, your marriage from earth... a sacrament... is not ended just because you die.) So, I will still be married to my wife when we are both in heaven assuming neither of us break the sacrament of marriage with infidelity, etc. I am quite sure that the RCC emphatically states that upon one's death he or she is no longer married. They interpret quite differently that biblical passage.

In the end, this is something the OC considers a great mystery. We dont try to delve much into what if this or what if that. what if one marries three times and is a widower each time, etc. IT's not really for us to get into to much. The IDEAL according to the CHurch is that you marry once. THe max is three times, even if you are a widower all three times. Now although the ideal is to be married one time (for the sacrament transcends death) reality comes into play. Widowers had a difficult time surviving and caring for their children unless they remarried so the local CHurch would often encourage marriage.

Josh

Well, regardless of it is a mystery or not, if one is sacramentally married in the RCC and both convert to the EO... since the RCC's sacraments are valid, it does not change the reality any less. Perhaps your understanding supercedes the RCC in the matter, but it is not proper in my estimation to use it as a beating stick.

I am still stuck in a situation where my current marriage is mixed, and what am I to do with it? Since I am requesting 'radical sanation' from the Diocean bishop, what would an EO do in the same circumstance?

buzuxi02 · Aug 5, 2010

MKJ said:
I'm curious about what you mean. In the early days of Christianity, married couples simply made their vows privatly and were considered married. Now, in the West that is still possible - but as I understand it in the East a priest is considered to be required? So it seems that is a change. And of course after Christ Christian marriage has a sacramental character, whereas before that it didn't. So do you understand non-Christians to have a sort of "pre-Christian" type of marriage?
Well, the government needs to at least be able to identify married people for the purposes of pensions, wills, property law upon divorce, and so on. Also, in many places a spouse cannot testify against his or her spouse in a court of law.[/quot]

Marriage licenses originated with the churches. The secular authorities relied on them for census keeping on married people. Unfortunately the secular government with its greed for power usurped this authority. From their on they manupulated tax codes and llaws to make themselves more relevant than God.

There is no CIVIL marriage in Israel. If you marry in an Orthodox church in Israel there is no liscense to obtain. This was the same system used in Greece till 1982. Then all hell broke loose when government decided they can profit from selling marriages.
In Israel the Orthodox Church will give you the document showing you were married under thair authority, and if you want you can bring the proof of marriage document to the secular authorites to validate and enter them into their records. This system is not new, Israel simply adopted the status quo.

silouanathonite · Aug 5, 2010

Gwendolyn said:
I sense a new thread coming, but...

I did not know that the EO consider the marriage bond to continue into eternity. I find this interesting. But if the marriage can dissolve - as divorce and re-marriage are permitted - how come it doesn't dissolve upon death? Why does it dissolve in life? Is that considered a mystery?

I learn so much stuff in this forum.

The Church does consider a person to be married once the spouse dies. I might not be right in this, but I believe it would be because death does not seperate us from one another because we believe in the resurrection. Christ has made this possible. Now, because of our own sinfulness, we can seperate ourselves from God by doing things that break our communion with him. Marriage is a communion of persons united by Christ. By commiting adultery, you have done brought someone else in the union in a way that breaks that union. The Church allows divorce and remarriage as method for our continued healing and for our salvation. Forgive me if I say anything not in keeping with the teachings of the Church.

St. Columcille · Aug 5, 2010

Gwendolyn said:
I did not know that the EO consider the marriage bond to continue into eternity. I find this interesting. But if the marriage can dissolve - as divorce and re-marriage are permitted - how come it doesn't dissolve upon death? Why does it dissolve in life? Is that considered a mystery?

I am trying to read the footnotes in the OSB and see that 3 marriages are permitted and a fourth is never permitted in the footnote in Matthew 5.31,32. The footnote in Matt 19.9 is interesting in expanding divorce to threats against to a spouse and child's life and desertion.
The passage regarding giving in marriage found in Matthew 22.23-33, the footnote does not mention a continuation of the earthly marriage in heaven. I guess the OSB as a study bible is lacking a little bit in this teaching.
What is needed is a better reference, is there an Eastern Orthodox bible commentary? I am sure there is something in the Early Church Father commentaries. I have a libronix logos library but not sure if such a developed teaching is found as has been mentioned.

Marriage

Servant

Contributor

Servant

Sverige är bäst!

Servant

Sverige är bäst!

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Veteran

One of God's handmaidens

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

back in black

Newbie

Veteran

Regular Member

Newbie

Similar threads