Orthodox Marraige

[tmcothran]

I have a few questions about the Orthodox teachings on marraige. Firstly, does the Orthodox Church teach marraige to be a concession to sin? I was reading St. Gregory of Nyssa on the subject, and he indicated very strongly that it was. In fact, he went so far to say that humans were created male and female solely for the purpose of procreation after the fall. (On the Making of Man, Ch. XVII). In the past I think I ran across another Father saying the same thing -- I'm thinking it was St. Basil -- but when I asked someone knowlegable on the Church fathers, he said that was only one strain of thought, and there were others. I am loathe to criticise or disagree with a saint on such an issue, but the idea the marraige and gender existed as a concession to sinful nature makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems to imply that had man not sinned, we would be androgynous. The account in Genesis gives no indication that this is the case, in fact the reason that women were created was portrayed as a concession to sin, but because it was not good for man to be alone. Peter Kreeft also has an excellent discussion of gender which shows pretty solidly that gender proceeds from God (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm) .

And if gender was only made in anticipation of the fall, why not make humans asexual? Why change the way that humans reproduce? God commanded Adam and Eve to procreate before the fall.

Furthermore, marriage was instituted before the fall, which seems to completely contradict St. Gregory's idea it was a concession to sin.

"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." (Genesis 2:24)

This -- said before the fall -- shows that the concept of marraige as a union exists before the fall. It also shows that sexual production exists before the fall.

So I have a couple questions: Is this what the Orthodox Church teaches today? Reading over the liturgy of the marriage service, it does not seem to be. Quite the opposite in fact. Also, articles that I have read seem to indicate otherwise. So my second question is what other Church fathers, if any, disagree with St. Gregory on these points?

A second question about marriage in general is: Does the Orthodox Church teach that marriage extends into heaven? The liturgics (if that's the correct word) that I have read say that marriage is eternal, as well as some articles I have read. Roman Catholic thought, however, indicates otherwise. So I was wondering what the teaching on that is.

Thanks

 

[Theophorus]

Concerning your obserbations of Genesis.



"this now": that is, the one who has come to me after the animals is not such as they; they came forth from the earth, but she is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh". Adam said this either in a prophetic way or, as noted above, according to his vision in sleep. And just as on this day all the animals received from Adam their names according to their kinds, sa also the bone, made into woman, he called not by her proper name, Eve, but by the name woman, the name belongong to the whole kind.

St. Ephriam


How did it come to his mind to say this? How did he know the future, and the fact that the human race would multiply? How did it become known to him that there would be intercourse between man and wife? After all, this occured after the fall; but before that they lived in Paradise like angels, were not aroused by the flesh, were not inflamed by other pasions either, were not weighed down by bodily needs, but being created entirely incorrupt and immortal, did not even need the covering of clothing.... And so, tell me, from whence did the idea come for him to say this? Is it not clear that, since before the transgression, he was a participant of the grace of prophecy, he saw all this with his spiritual eyes?

St. John Chrysostom

 

[Annoula]

hi friend,

as far as i know the purpose of marriage in the Orthodox Church is for the couple to achieve Theosis through Grace. the second purpose and one could say the result of the bodily and soul bonding is child bearing.

my personal viewpoint on this subject is that each individual, even saints view things from their own perspective, and translate the same thing with different words. sometimes this causes difficulty in understanding and i have been a victim of misunderstanding myself.

it is a Godly gift to be one with your spouse in every possible way. it is Godly to bring children in this world and educate them with God's words.

it is Godly when it is done with an eucharistic feeling for the blessings our Heavenly Father gave us.

regarding the marriage extending in the afterlife, i am not sure about it, but i've never heard something in favor of it.
what i've heard is that a spouse can be "saved" from the efforts of their own spouse. simply put, if we pray and try for the best spiritual outcome for our spouse (and children) then we are giving a chance to them to enter eternal life.

maybe somebody else could give you more specific and more valid answers.

take care.

 

[tmcothran]

Thanks for the responses. I'm still a little unclear on the status of marraige had there been no fall. It seems from what I've read of the fathers that they regard marriage as a concession to sin (St. Gregory explicitly says this). That makes absolutely no sense to me, as marriage was instituted while Adam and Eve were not yet fallen.

In regard to the St. John Chrysostum quote, he does seem to me to be the most sensible Father I have read on the issue, but the idea that procreation was possible after the fall seems to me quite absurd. Why would God command Adam and Eve to fill the earth and multiply while they were unable to, and would have to sin in order to obey His command?

 

[Kapusta]

...the idea that procreation was possible after the fall seems to me quite absurd. Why would God command Adam and Eve to fill the earth and multiply while they were unable to, and would have to sin in order to obey His command?

I am a bit confused by the above question...I am not certain you phrased it correctly.

Here, then, is my unworthy reply. I beg your forgiveness...I am merely a layperson, and a prideful one at that. I beg that you are not misled by this post, and that others feel free to correct me on what follows.

In Eden, Adam and Eve conversed freely with God. They “knew” God, and were in a state of Theosis.

After the fall, they were given struggles, or “ascesis,” through which they could re-achieve Theosis. Through a combination of our asceticism and God’s Grace, we can be one with God.

Marriage is a form of ascesis, through which are given opportunities to become increasingly God-like in our behaviour, by modeling God. We model God by producing a family unit (Father, Mother, and child), which is Trinitarian in structure, thus completing the Image of God. We also complete God’s Image when joined in sexual contact, because it is the ultimate creative activity that humans can do. What is God, if not Creative? In sexual union, we tap into and co-operate with God’s Own Creative Energies. We model God when providing love, discipline, and guidance to our children. More can certainly be said of this topic.

Suffice it to say that God has never lost faith in His children, and has since the beginning of creation offered His children a home. The opportunity to return to Him was never taken away from us. Marriage and procreation, as one form of ascesis, provides us the ability to participate in God’s Creative Energies, and is therefore a tool for us to grow ever closer to Him, and eventually return to our Heavenly home.

 

[Theophorus]

In regard to the St. John Chrysostum quote, he does seem to me to be the most sensible Father I have read on the issue, but the idea that procreation was possible after the fall seems to me quite absurd. Why would God command Adam and Eve to fill the earth and multiply while they were unable to, and would have to sin in order to obey His command?

There are two views I have seen on Gen 1:22. Here is one of them.

There are two kinds of increase: that of the body, and that of the soul. The increase of the the soul is the development of the knowledge with the aim of perfection; the increase of the body is the development from smallness to normal stature.
To the animals deprived of reason He therefore said "increase" according to bodily development, in the sense of completeting nature; but to us He said "increase" according to the interior Man, in the line of progress that leads to God. This is what Paul did, stretching out towards that which is ahead, forgetting that which he leaves behind (Phil 3:13). Such is the increase in spiritual things....
"Multiply": This blessing concerns the Church. Let the devine word not be limited to a single individual, but let the Gospel of salvation be preached throughout the earth. "Multiply": to whom is the order affressed?-- To those who give birth according to the Gospel....
Thus, these words apply equally to the animals deprived of reason, but they aquire a particular meaning when we have to do with the being who is in the image with which we have been honored.

St. Basil

The key to understanding Genesis is how the Church views the "state" of Adam and Eve, before the fall. They were not "perfect" in the sense that western theology portrays them but rather; they were inoccent. They were like children, "naked and not ashamed". The Orthodox belief was that they would mature and grow spiritually, and eventually be able to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

They were as the angels at least in the sense that they were not yet slaves to passions.

Yes, marriage, and the family unit are viewed as a form of the Church. But the conjugal act is viewed as something that resulted from the fall. Just as toilling for our daily bread is, just as pain and sorrow in child birth. These are things that God decreed for our own benefit. Just as with all physicall nececities, they can be "practiced" in a virtuous way, or in a passionate manner. Gluttony vs. fasting and moderation, greed/avarice and hording vs. faith and almsgiving, concupiscence/lasciviousness vs love/procreation/ and self control.

From my readings, Physical marriage is a result of the fall, but it is also a condescension, an act of mercy that teaches us of God and his virtues. The Christian goal is through theosis to recapture the communion Adam enjoyed in the garden with God, or even to surpass the spiritual maturity of Adam.
It is not too uncommon in Orthodoxy for parents, after they have raised their children, to receive each others blessings and seek life in a monastery, or with mutal consent, to live as brother and sister and further pursue a life of theosis.

The other key to understanding the Orthodox view is what is God's ultimate goal for us. We know from the testimony of Christ, that those in heaven are not given into marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. Orthodoxy applies this statement to Adam and Eve in the garden. With this in mind, Orthodoxy takes two views of the Church: First, its formal manifestation on the day of pentacost, but there is also the view that the Church, kingdom of God, is present from the beginning. That Christ planted the "seeds" in the creation. The devil sows the seeds of sin, and Christ sows the seeds of the Kngdom of God.
Thus the early Fathers spiritually interpret the OT with this perspective in mind. So, when Christ says the kingdom of heaven is like Children, the Fathers see this throughout the OT and NT, when Christ describes the Kingdom of heaven and marriage, this is applied to the OT also. When they look at the life of Christ (virginal, unmarrtied), and He being the fulness of God, they look back to the OT with this perspective also.

 

[Shubunkin]

Very interesting subject, which brings to mind a few questions of my own. What about unmarried people? Or what about those unable to conceive? Or through no fault of their own are unable to bear children?

 

[Theophorus]

Very interesting subject, which brings to mind a few questions of my own. What about unmarried people? Or what about those unable to conceive? Or through no fault of their own are unable to bear children?

What about Sarah, what of Elisabeth? The idea is that the couple are open to children. All things are possible with God. The union is blessed by God. The marriage has removed them from sin. The ultimate idea of marrital relations being twofold: accepting the blessing of children if God so chooses, and our bodies are not our own as expressed by Paul. People give themselves to their spouse to keep them from sin, not to take from them (easier said than done, as in all things). Ultimately, both struggle to a point that love is able to transcend the physical, even within the marriage.
The ultimate goal is also taught by Paul, that they agree to abstain for periods of prayer and fasting.
The question that the west needs to ask themselves is, if conjugal living is a lofty and "creative" aspect of being formed in the image of God, why this admonition? Paul asks that married people "rise" above the consequences of the fall: ie fast from food as well intercourse, and place their minds on the Kingdom of heaven, pray....
basically strive for theosis.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I've been thinking about this a lot as well lately.

My first answer to "is marriage a concession to sin" is most clearly no. While it is not a dogma, from anything I have read, the Church is quite positive on marriage and seems to firmly believe that it is an eternal sacrament (we do not say "until death do us part" for a very specific reason). How this works out with widows or widowers who remarry no one can be exaclty sure and this is a mystery left up to God. So, in heaven we believe that we will be married (the west does not hold this view as far as I can tell).

However, it also seems that it is made quite clear by anything I have read that sexual relations will not take place between the married couple in heaven.

Now, it might seem that perhaps sex was created after the fall or... well.. I don't know. Others have offered better responses to this, so I will leave that to them. However, with that said, i would say that AT WORST sex is a perfect answer to an imperfect world. Sex is generally not something looked down on in anyway in the Church (within a sacramental marriage of course) and is often referred to itself as a sacrament when it is preformed in love and mutual respect. Sex is a positive thing. There are certainly many Church fathers that have a darker perspective on sex and I'm not going to say they are wrong... it may be simply that they are recognizing that sex now exists as a result of an fallen world. But now I'm guessing a bit so I will let others take that on.

God bless

John

 

[tmcothran]

Thanks, Theophorus, the St. Basil quote helps. But I'm still very confused. I still find the Orthodox argument incoherent, which I'm sure is mostly my lack of understanding.

You say: "We know from the testimony of Christ, that those in heaven are not given into marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. Orthodoxy applies this statement to Adam and Eve in the garden."

But marriage was instituted before the fall. "This is why a man leaves his parents..." Adam said, which shows he already knew of procreation, of parenthood, and of marriage. And I realize that the increase and multiply command may be addressed to spiritual growth, but it cannot mean this exclusively. "Fill the earth and subdue it." Furthermore, when God spoke of pain in childbirth, it seems like He was modifying an existing thing. This brings me back to my original question, why would God command Adam and Eve to produce offspring when they could not without sin (assuming that sexual reproduction exists as a result of sin)? Why did He give Adam and Eve sexual organs, if they were only to use them as a result of sin? How would Adam and Eve have procreated had there been no fall, and why would God change this after the fall?

Now I can accept that sex was different before the fall, in a more exalted form, perhaps even incomprehensible or incomparable to us today. But I find it quite illogical to say that it existed in no form before the fall. Why not just make humans asexual to begin with? I think obviously there is something about gender differences that is necessary and good in human nature, and I think that people of the opposite gender in a sense complete each other. In fact, one saint I read said that for those who are married, their soul unites into one. This would also seem to support the idea that marriage is eternal. If we are to be like Adam and Eve in the garden, then marriage would exist in heaven, though not in the form we see today (which makes sense of the comment Jesus mad e that said we would be like the angels). Additionally, a liturgy of a marriage service that I read referred to marriage being eternal, as did several articles (one by Alexey Young springs to mind). The rationale given in the article was that Jesus had conquered death and taken away its power, and therefore death did not have the power to end a marriage.

I appreciate the thoughts

Thomas

 

[tmcothran]

John:

Thanks for your reply, that seemed to confirm what I had picked up from random places. The Church, at least in its Liturgy, does seem to indicate -- pretty clearly -- that marriage is eternal. And I very much wish to believe that, I think it makes alot of sense. My readings of the Church Fathers on the issue is very limited however, and I don't go to an Orthodox Church, so it's difficult for me to find modern information on that as well. If you could point me to some or expand on your points a bit, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks for the help

-Thomas

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I think this picture demonstrates the ultimate result of marriage.

Oh how the mighty have fallen...

 

[choirfiend]

Could part of the problem lie in the manner of part of marriage the different Fathers were referencing? That by speaking of marriage, they are talking mainly of action attributed to marriage. That even sex, glorified and holy in marriage, is now not what it should be in this fallen world?

Also, I suppose it helps to realize that not everything every church father says/said is applicable to everyone or is amount to dogma. The Church as the whole regards marriage and sex within it to be very holy. We are body and soul united, and in marriage, both the body and the soul are meant to unite, as what one does affects the other. In this passion-filled world, it is seen as 'easier' to overcome the passions when one's focus is entirely on God and not even on loving a spouse. That makes the view of some Fathers understandable--those who have undertaken the ascesis of marriage participate in one of the ways God has established for men and women to find salvation together, which is good and holy, as God spoke even in the Garden--but it isn't the easiest way, as shown also in the Garden, because one and another can also contribute to our own free will to fall into sin.

 

[Theophorus]

[/FONT]But marriage was instituted before the fall. "This is why a man leaves his parents..." Adam said, which shows he already knew of procreation, of parenthood, and of marriage. And I realize that the increase and multiply command may be addressed to spiritual growth, but it cannot mean this exclusively. "Fill the earth and subdue it." Furthermore, when God spoke of pain in childbirth, it seems like He was modifying an existing thing. This brings me back to my original question, why would God command Adam and Eve to produce offspring when they could not without sin (assuming that sexual reproduction exists as a result of sin)? Why did He give Adam and Eve sexual organs, if they were only to use them as a result of sin? How would Adam and Eve have procreated had there been no fall, and why would God change this after the fall?

The quotes I gave attribute the command of be fruitful etc to the foreknowledge of God.

Now I can accept that sex was different before the fall, in a more exalted form, perhaps even incomprehensible or incomparable to us today. But I find it quite illogical to say that it existed in no form before the fall. Why not just make humans asexual to begin with?

It is written that in Christ there is neither male or female (Gal 3:28). Again the fathers agree that it was a provision of the foreknowledge of God that man was created in two genders.

I think obviously there is something about gender differences that is necessary and good in human nature, and I think that people of the opposite gender in a sense complete each other. In fact, one saint I read said that for those who are married, their soul unites into one. This would also seem to support the idea that marriage is eternal. If we are to be like Adam and Eve in the garden, then marriage would exist in heaven, though not in the form we see today (which makes sense of the comment Jesus mad e that said we would be like the angels).

Marriage is a foretaste of the marriage in heaven. All relationships are compared to being with God, Christ/God is our brother, Father, husband, friend etc. Ultimately we are all one in Christ, and that will be even more apparent in heaven. The family Church, is a microcosm of the Church. It is a good thing that can help us in our struggles. Marriage is a blessing if practiced along the path of virtue, but marriage can also be a living hell, if our passions rule our conduct in this relationship.

Additionally, a liturgy of a marriage service that I read referred to marriage being eternal, as did several articles (one by Alexey Young springs to mind). The rationale given in the article was that Jesus had conquered death and taken away its power, and therefore death did not have the power to end a marriage.

Yes marriage is eternal in the sense I described above. Yes, Christ blesses marriages, the wedding at Cana being proof, also quoted in the Orthodox wedding service, but marriage has many connotations within Christianity. Conjugal activity is not sinful when practiced within the blessed union of marriage, but neither is eating or drinking for that matter.
The patristic sense of sexual relations is found in psalm 50 where David says he was concieved in inquities and in sins did his mother bear him. We do not hold to the doctrine that David inherited the sin of Adam, as in the west, but that He inherited the "sickness" the inclination to be ruled by one's passions. This is David's observation concerning his being and his mother according to patristics.



The widespread confusion on this whole issue seems to come from a failure to understand the real Orthodox teaching on sexuality—it is not “holy,” but neither is it evil. The Lives of Saints alone, without any Patristic treatises, should teach us the Orthodox position: that sexual union, while blessed by the Church and fulfilling a commandment of the Creator, is still a part of man’s animal nature and is, in fallen humanity, inevitably bound up with sin. This should not shock us if we stop to think that such a necessary thing as eating is also almost invariably bound up with sin—who of us is perfectly continent in food and drink, the thorough master of his belly? Sin is not a category of specific acts such that, if we refrain from them, we become “sinless”—but rather a kind of web which ensnares us and from which we can never really get free in this life. The more deeply one lives Orthodoxy, the more sinful he feels himself to be—because he sees more clearly this web with which his life is intertwined; the person, thus, who commits fewer sins feels himself to be more sinful than one who commits more!

The Fathers state specifically, by the way, that Adam and Eve did not have sexual union (nor, of course, eat meat) in Paradise. I believe Thomas Aquinas says that they did—which would accord with the Roman Catholic doctrine of human nature.

Fr. Seraphim Rose

 

[Theophorus]

I think this picture demonstrates the ultimate result of marriage.

Oh how the mighty have fallen...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to forgivensinner001 again.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

The widespread confusion on this whole issue seems to come from a failure to understand the real Orthodox teaching on sexuality—it is not “holy,” but neither is it evil. The Lives of Saints alone, without any Patristic treatises, should teach us the Orthodox position: that sexual union, while blessed by the Church and fulfilling a commandment of the Creator, is still a part of man’s animal nature and is, in fallen humanity, inevitably bound up with sin. This should not shock us if we stop to think that such a necessary thing as eating is also almost invariably bound up with sin—who of us is perfectly continent in food and drink, the thorough master of his belly? Sin is not a category of specific acts such that, if we refrain from them, we become “sinless”—but rather a kind of web which ensnares us and from which we can never really get free in this life. The more deeply one lives Orthodoxy, the more sinful he feels himself to be—because he sees more clearly this web with which his life is intertwined; the person, thus, who commits fewer sins feels himself to be more sinful than one who commits more!

The Fathers state specifically, by the way, that Adam and Eve did not have sexual union (nor, of course, eat meat) in Paradise. I believe Thomas Aquinas says that they did—which would accord with the Roman Catholic doctrine of human nature.

Fr. Seraphim Rose

Wow. This is incredibly eye-opening for me and goes a looooong ways towards clarifying this whole issue. It was really starting to bother me but this puts things in a completely new light. Great thread.

 

[tmcothran]

Theophorus:

"The quotes I gave attribute the command of be fruitful etc to the foreknowledge of God."

This doesn't really answer my question. If procreation is only made possible by sin, then in order to fulfill God's command, Adam and Eve had to sin. Since you affirm the first premise you must accept the second. Furthermore, God instituted marriage while Adam and Eve were sinless. This is not a matter of contention, it is clear in the Biblical account. Since the marriage between Adam and Eve existed before the fall, it follows that sin is not a prerequisite for marriage (though as marriage exists now, it may well be).

"It is written that in Christ there is neither male or female (Gal 3:28)."

I'm pretty sure this is not saying that our gender will be obliterated. Gender is something central not only to our bodies, but to our souls. If it were taken away, our very essence would change, and one can make the argument that it would destroy our individuality. "Marriage is a foretaste of the marriage in heaven. All relationships are compared to being with God, Christ/God is our brother, Father, husband, friend etc." And even further than that, I've heard Orthodox commentators say that marriage is an icon of the trinity. But, it is an icon a representation, a thing ontologically distinct from our "marriage" to Christ and certainly from the Trinity. So to say that our uniting to God is what marriage is becomes would be false. Marriage consists in the uniting of a man and a woman. If that bond no longer exists in heaven, then that marriage no longer exists in heaven, regardless of what it represents. So, to put it in a strict logical form: Either a marriage (defined as the union of a man and a woman under God) exists in heaven, or it does not. Since you say it is eternal, you would have to affirm that it does (which you may or may not, I can't really tell from your post). Furthermore, the liturgy which unites a couple in marriage indicates that union (between the man and the woman) to be eternal, and not destructable by death.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I think the point is that BECAUSE of sin we now procreate in this way. The act itself is not sinful so no one is sinning if they are making love within the sacrament of Marriage. But sex as we know it is a result of our fallen world.

 

[tmcothran]

I think the point is that BECAUSE of sin we now procreate in this way. The act itself is not sinful so no one is sinning if they are making love within the sacrament of Marriage. But sex as we know it is a result of our fallen world.

Oh, I can definitely agree with that. From what I understand about Orthodoxy, this world is a shadow of one to come. Where I'm having problems is the idea that marriage is a consequence of sin.

I looked up the liturgy for marriage on the Greek Orthodox website. I don't have too much time to look it over, but I'll pull a few parts out

From the Service of Betrothal:

"O God eternal, Who has brought together into unity the things which before had been separate, and in so doing impose on them an indissoluble bond of love."

This love is expressed within the confines of marriage, since it is expressed sexually and is clearly inappropriate to someone outside of the marriage (though it is an icon of God's love). Since the bond of love appropriate only within marriage is indissoluble, it would indicate that marriage is as well.

"Who through Your manbefriending love transformed a rib of Adam the forefather into a woman, and blessed them and said, 'Increase and multiply, and have dominion over the earth,' and, by the conjoining, declared them both to be one member, for because of this a man shall forsake his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh‑and whom God has joined together let not man put asunder."

"You Yourself now, O Master, Who in the beginning created man, and appointed him as the king of creation, and said, 'It is not good for man to be alone upon the earth; let us make a helpmate for him‑'"

Note that the Scriptural reason for marriage/gender is because man is not supposed to be alone, not as a preparation for the Fall (though that may be a secondary reason).

"Holy God, Who fashioned man from the dust, and from his rib fashioned woman, and joined her to him as a helpmate for him, for it was seemly unto Your Majesty for man not to be alone upon the earth, do You Yourself, O Sovereign Lord, stretch forth Your hand from Your holy dwelling place, and join* together this Your servant (Name) and Your servant (Name), for by You is a wife joined to her husband. Join them together in oneness of mind; crown them with wedlock into one flesh; grant to them the fruit of the womb, and the gain of well favored children, for Yours is the dominion, and Yours is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages."

The question is now that God has joined two people together in marriage, whether that can be destroyed.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The question is now that God has joined two people together in marriage, whether that can be destroyed.

Ideally no, it cannot. But, God never forces anything on us. So, we can break anything.. but breaking this sacrament (which, by the way, is not only done through divorce but by the mere act of unfaithfulness, after which it must be repaired) is unnatural. The bond between us and God was meant to be indissoluable... but it is dissolved (or at least partly) and because of that all of creation mourned and fell. That's pretty major. God is not meant to experience death... He did however and because of that creation mourned (the earthquake)... and death met its match and was conquered.

So, I am not sure how far we can take that word "indissoluable". Someone else will ahve a better response to that. But it seems to me that this is what was meant to be. As Orthodox, we cannot look at marriage as some contract, some agreement between to people and God. It is an act. A sacrament is a sacrifice (an act) through which we participate in God's mercy in a special way. More specifically it is a continual act. If I cease to love my wife, the marriage is basically non-existent. A special grace is still there but this is much like baptism. If I am baptised, I can later choose not to follow Christ. A special grace is still present calling me and trying to lead me back home, but God will never force Himself on me. If I "get" married, a special grace is bestowed upon me and my partner, but I can choose to stop loving her the next week (since love itself is an act).

So, perhaps it is indissoluable in that that grace that is bestowed through marriage (perhaps what Catholics would call an "indelible mark on the soul?) never fully leaves, but certainly, I can end my marriage, my relationship with my wife (in which case tehre is no marriage).