Catholics and Orthodox on marriage, the differences

[MilesVitae]

but then what happens if that is found after the person has been communing? how can one who is communing with the resurrected Lord die with Him after that?

What you're asking is what would happen if it was discovered that an unbaptized person had been receiving communion - as such, the answer would be the same as if an unbaptized, would-be convert asked to join the Church but then revealed he had already been receiving communion (a possibility which is really not all that far-fetched. Catholic parishes tend to give communion to whomever comes up to receive, at least in my experience - there isn't typically the same effort to find out if some unrecognized person is a Catholic before giving him communion). He would have to be baptized, as only those who are joined to Christ's Church through Baptism may receive communion (or the other sacraments).

What would the EOC's answer be in that case? Also, do y'all recognize any elements of the sacraments to be essentials to their validity? Is there an improper form or matter to the celebration of Baptism or the Eucharist in which case the sacrament would not have taken place?

not trying to put you on the spot, but trying to show where it seems the legalism breaks down and trying to gain an understanding

No worries!

 

[MilesVitae]

In Orthodoxy the sacrament still takes place. An apostate can still come back to the faith and will never be rebaptised or re-chrismated, we don't say the chrismation never took place at that time.

I just want to clarify, because from the way you're putting this it sounds like you may misunderstand the Catholic position. We would not rebaptize a returning apostate either. If his baptism was valid, his later apostasy has no bearing on that. The same holds true for marriage. If a man commits adultery or the spouses get a divorce, we don't say that, therefore, the sacrament of marriage never took place - later actions don't unvalidate a marriage. If a couple seeks an annulment, the Church may come to the conclusion that, yes, their marriage is valid.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What would the EOC's answer be in that case?

it would pretty much the same as what you said, but there really is no way that someone would have an invalid baptism unless they had been lying. the point being that one cannot annul any sacrament after the fact for us.

Also, do y'all recognize any elements of the sacraments to be essentials to their validity? Is there an improper form or matter to the celebration of Baptism or the Eucharist in which case the sacrament would not have taken place?

depends on what is available. the Church survived under communism in the gulags because sometimes they did not have access to what they normally would need.

 

[MilesVitae]

it would pretty much the same as what you said, but there really is no way that someone would have an invalid baptism unless they had been lying. the point being that one cannot annul any sacrament after the fact for us.

Even if, say, someone used something other than bread or wine for communion or baptized in the name of the "Creator, Redeemed, and Sanctifier" or something like that? I guess this just surprises me because where I'm coming from I more or less assumed we had more similar standards regarding validity than it seems.

Anyway, I guess that's part of the big difference in our mindsets about annulments, since for us (RCC) the sacrament simply does not take place without certain elements (although there are gray areas - such as someone baptizing with some other liquid than straight water in the case of an emergency, in which case I think the person would later, if possible, be baptized conditionally).

depends on what is available. the Church survived under communism in the gulags because sometimes they did not have access to what they normally would need.

Could you expand on that?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Even if, say, someone used something other than bread or wine for communion or baptized in the name of the "Creator, Redeemed, and Sanctifier" or something like that? I guess this just surprises me because where I'm coming from I more or less assumed we had more similar standards regarding validity than it seems.

well, no, because none of those are theologically correct.

Anyway, I guess that's part of the big difference in our mindsets about annulments, since for us (RCC) the sacrament simply does not take place without certain elements (although there are gray areas - such as someone baptizing with some other liquid than straight water in the case of an emergency, in which case I think the person would later, if possible, be baptized conditionally).

I think we would agree that certain elements must be there for a sacrament to take place (ie one cannot be married while married to someone else, the Eucharist must be Bread and Wine, Baptism requires water, etc). it would like something like coercion being realized 10 years after the fact with 4 kids, the marriage never happened which means the kids were had outside of wedlock.

Could you expand on that?

sure, priests are required to wear their stole when performing any function as a priest. but in the prisons, they would still minister, even perform as much of the services as they could, without their stoles.

 

[MilesVitae]

well, no, because none of those are theologically correct.

Okay

I think we would agree that certain elements must be there for a sacrament to take place (ie one cannot be married while married to someone else, the Eucharist must be Bread and Wine, Baptism requires water, etc). it would like something like coercion being realized 10 years after the fact with 4 kids, the marriage never happened which means the kids were had outside of wedlock.

Okay, I guess I'm getting mixed messages and/or have misinterpreted some of what y'all have said... So, let's say someone was "baptized" in a manner lacking the essential elements of the sacrament ("in the name of the creator, redeemer, and sanctifier, let's say"). If it was discovered (years later) that this was the case, would the person be then ("re-")baptized (properly) at that point?
If, yes, then what about a case where a man (we'll call him Miles...) and woman had a marriage ceremony in the Church, but it was then shortly discovered that she was already married to someone else still living? If I understand you, she would not, under those circumstances, be truly, sacramentally married to Miles (despite having had a wedding ceremony) - is that correct?
Would a passage of any length of time after the marriage, or the conception and birth of any children (before or after discovery or the first husband), make a difference to this fact?
What if at some point her first spouse died - would that make her then truly married to Miles, or would she have to receive the sacrament to be married at that point to Miles?
I'm not trying to ask silly questions here - just trying to make sure I understand you and I'm clearly expressing what I'm asking.

For the RCC, if she is already sacramentally married at the time that she has her wedding with Miles, then she is not sacramentally married to him, regardless of what ever amount of time may pass or children are born or when this fact was discovered, as far as I understand the matter - if this was discovered, the Church would recognize that this marriage was not valid. If the EOC would also recognize this also, then it seems like she's doing what, in theory, the RCC does when it "annuls" a marriage...

(My apologies if I'm rambling a bit or missing something obvious - I'm sleepy and fading here......)

 

[buzuxi02]

The only baptismal form the Church knows is baptism in each name of the Trinity. Eikonomia permits the use of pouring or sprinkling or single immersion, but the standard is triple immersion.

In the Orthodox Church we only know of leavened bread and wine for the Eucharist.

Marriage is a little different. Canonically marriages before entrance into the church have no bearing. A non-Orthodox could have been a polygamist or serial husband/wife before conversion. If someone marries more than one woman it is a grave sin and there are many canons which deal with bigamy and polygamy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If it was discovered (years later) that this was the case, would the person be then ("re-")baptized (properly) at that point?

dunno honestly, if there is any question concerning someone's baptism, they would be baptized when they enter the Church. there is a list of those to be received via baptism. they don't just assume it was done properly

If, yes, then what about a case where a man (we'll call him Miles...) and woman had a marriage ceremony in the Church, but it was then shortly discovered that she was already married to someone else still living? If I understand you, she would not, under those circumstances, be truly, sacramentally married to Miles (despite having had a wedding ceremony) - is that correct?

dunno exactly again, and again that stuff is checked out (see above).

Would a passage of any length of time after the marriage, or the conception and birth of any children (before or after discovery or the first husband), make a difference to this fact?

I don't think so.

What if at some point her first spouse died - would that make her then truly married to Miles, or would she have to receive the sacrament to be married at that point to Miles?

what do you mean? died after the second marriage?

For the RCC, if she is already sacramentally married at the time that she has her wedding with Miles, then she is not sacramentally married to him, regardless of what ever amount of time may pass or children are born or when this fact was discovered, as far as I understand the matter - if this was discovered, the Church would recognize that this marriage was not valid. If the EOC would also recognize this also, then it seems like she's doing what, in theory, the RCC does when it "annuls" a marriage...

I see your point, but I don't think so. since the priest is the one who performs the sacrament. if one were already Orthodox, they would know that one was married. if one was married outside of the Church, the marriage INSIDE the Church would be the marriage, since that is where the fullness of God's sacramental life is.

but again, these things are looked into long beforehand.

 

[MilesVitae]

dunno honestly, if there is any question concerning someone's baptism, they would be baptized when they enter the Church. there is a list of those to be received via baptism. they don't just assume it was done properly...



dunno exactly again, and again that stuff is checked out (see above)....



I don't think so.

Okay, fair enough. To be clear, I wasn't thinking of situations in which someone was converting to Orthodoxy (in such a case the RCC, of course, checks into these things as well), but of cases in which someone had been "baptized" or "married" improperly in the Orthodox Church. Obviously, these would be rare circumstances, but not inconceivable - they certainly have happened in the RCC... Well, the baptism one anyway - and I'd bet that sometime in the last 950 to 2000 years (depending on whose side you're looking from ;-) ) there's been at least one case of a deceptive bigamist in the Church.

what do you mean? died after the second marriage?

Yes - just trying to bring out your full thoughts on this matter. You took issue with the idea of annulling a marriage after years and children over something like consent, but seemed comfortable with saying that not being presently sacramentally married to another person was essential to receiving the sacrament of marriage (though comments from Rus seemed to suggest otherwise, which is partly why I said I feel like I'm getting mixed messages...), so I'm trying to figure out where the line is and why or under what circumstances this could lead to an "annulment," though called by whatever other name might be better... It seems like y'all shy away from saying we can "annul" a sacrament, but do none the less grant that their are essential elements to a sacrament, the seeming implication of which is that there are cases in which a sacrament would be invalid and, thus, there may be circumstances in which it is recognized that a prior "baptism" or "marriage" did not in fact take place sacramentally - which is, of course, the essence of an annulment. So I'm having a somewhat confusing time figuring out what the EOC actually believes here and where we truly differ....

 

[MilesVitae]

The only baptismal form the Church knows is baptism in each name of the Trinity. Eikonomia permits the use of pouring or sprinkling or single immersion, but the standard is triple immersion.

In the Orthodox Church we only know of leavened bread and wine for the Eucharist.

So what would happen if it was discovered that a man had been baptized by a wayward Orthodox priest (let's just say he spent too much time with crazy Catholic, post Vatican II liturgy abusers....) with some improper formula... Would he be "re-"baptized then in the proper form?

Marriage is a little different. Canonically marriages before entrance into the church have no bearing. A non-Orthodox could have been a polygamist or serial husband/wife before conversion. If someone marries more than one woman it is a grave sin and there are many canons which deal with bigamy and polygamy.

But would someone engaged in bigamy within the Church (he moved from some other country where he left his first spouse or something like that) be validly married to all his "spouses" assuming everything else about the attempted sacrament in each case was kosher, if you will....?

 

[buzuxi02]

So what would happen if it was discovered that a man had been baptized by a wayward Orthodox priest (let's just say he spent too much time with crazy Catholic, post Vatican II liturgy abusers....) with some improper formula... Would he be "re-"baptized then in the proper form?

A decision would come down from the bishop. Now is it possible that he would be required a (re)baptism? Yes its possible because sometimes it does happen especially on Mt Athos with former protestant converts after the fact.

But would someone engaged in bigamy within the Church (he moved from some other country where he left his first spouse or something like that) be validly married to all his "spouses" assuming everything else about the attempted sacrament in each case was kosher, if you will....?

No he would not be married to all his spouses. He would be an adulterer. The woman with 5 husbands who met Christ at the well told Christ she is with her 5th husband. Christ said the man she was currently with is Not her husband.

The Crowning service says:
Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, Thou that art the Celebrant of mystical and undefiled marriage, and the lawmaker governing our bodies: Thou that art the guardian of incorruption, and the good administrator of the means of life:...
Do Thou now, O Lord and Master, our God, send down Thy heavenly grace upon these Thy servants (Name) and (Name)and grant unto this Thy handmaiden to be in all things subject unto her husband, and unto this thy servant, to be at the head of his wife, that they may live according to thy will...


This same Orthodox wedding service makes clear in her prayers that the marriage bed is to remain undefiled and pure something that cant be fullfilled by a polygamist:

"Do now also preserve in peace and harmony thy servants: (name) and (name) with whom thou art well pleased should be joined to one another. Declare their marriage honorable, preserve their bed undefiled; grant that their life together be without spot of sin...
:And in another part of the service:
..."Recieve their crowns in thy kingdom, preserving them spotless, undefiled and without reproach, unto ages of ages..."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay, fair enough. To be clear, I wasn't thinking of situations in which someone was converting to Orthodoxy (in such a case the RCC, of course, checks into these things as well), but of cases in which someone had been "baptized" or "married" improperly in the Orthodox Church.

I am sure that there have been fellas who have tried it, but again since the sacrament is performed by a priest, it cannot just be annulled as if it did not actually happen. for that to work, more than just the priest would have to not be paying attention, since both the wedding and the baptism (and even for us, since Chrismation happens right after baptism, it fills in anything lacking, that is really not an issue) are done by the Church, I don't really think there is an issue.

but to your point, I am sure that there is a canon somewhere that explains what to do, but there is no annulment of the sacrament.

It seems like y'all shy away from saying we can "annul" a sacrament, but do none the less grant that their are essential elements to a sacrament, the seeming implication of which is that there are cases in which a sacrament would be invalid and, thus, there may be circumstances in which it is recognized that a prior "baptism" or "marriage" did not in fact take place sacramentally - which is, of course, the essence of an annulment.

yes, but not within the Church. even if I was coerced into my marriage, I am still married to my wife and the Church would not annul that. the sacrament has taken place and this is what God has presented me with. we can only say that if it took place outside of the Church, but not within. now, lying about something like being married might get someone excommunicated, but that does not annul what happened.

 

[MilesVitae]

I am sure that there have been fellas who have tried it, but again since the sacrament is performed by a priest, it cannot just be annulled as if it did not actually happen. for that to work, more than just the priest would have to not be paying attention, since both the wedding and the baptism (and even for us, since Chrismation happens right after baptism, it fills in anything lacking, that is really not an issue) are done by the Church, I don't really think there is an issue.

but to your point, I am sure that there is a canon somewhere that explains what to do, but there is no annulment of the sacrament.



yes, but not within the Church. even if I was coerced into my marriage, I am still married to my wife and the Church would not annul that. the sacrament has taken place and this is what God has presented me with. we can only say that if it took place outside of the Church, but not within. now, lying about something like being married might get someone excommunicated, but that does not annul what happened.

Okay. Well, thanks for the info and the discussion.

Now, another question. If "Peter" means "rock".......ah, nevermind.

 

[MilesVitae]

A decision would come down from the bishop. Now is it possible that he would be required a (re)baptism? Yes its possible because sometimes it does happen especially on Mt Athos with former protestant converts after the fact.



No he would not be married to all his spouses. He would be an adulterer. The woman with 5 husbands who met Christ at the well told Christ she is with her 5th husband. Christ said the man she was currently with is Not her husband.

The Crowning service says:
Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, Thou that art the Celebrant of mystical and undefiled marriage, and the lawmaker governing our bodies: Thou that art the guardian of incorruption, and the good administrator of the means of life:...
Do Thou now, O Lord and Master, our God, send down Thy heavenly grace upon these Thy servants (Name) and (Name)and grant unto this Thy handmaiden to be in all things subject unto her husband, and unto this thy servant, to be at the head of his wife, that they may live according to thy will...


This same Orthodox wedding service makes clear in her prayers that the marriage bed is to remain undefiled and pure something that cant be fullfilled by a polygamist:

"Do now also preserve in peace and harmony thy servants: (name) and (name) with whom thou art well pleased should be joined to one another. Declare their marriage honorable, preserve their bed undefiled; grant that their life together be without spot of sin...
:And in another part of the service:
..."Recieve their crowns in thy kingdom, preserving them spotless, undefiled and without reproach, unto ages of ages..."

Okay, thanks.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay. Well, thanks for the info and the discussion.

no probs, and I am not saying that your examples have any clean answer that would not come with discernment or anything, and on this matter I am certainly no expert.

Now, another question. If "Peter" means "rock".......ah, nevermind.

yep, sure does, and he is the rock. no one disputes that one.