Some points of Orthodox doctrine, please...

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

I'm still having issues about how a marriage can be considered eternal if stuff happens and there's a divorce.

I don't like either position - Orthodox or Catholic. I just wish people were able to really search themselves and strip themselves bare of all of these other factors that make them choose the wrong person. I am really afraid that I will end up married to someone whom I love dearly, but he won't love me. If a divorce happened to me, I wouldn't remarry. I just can't get past the notion that the marriage sacrament is eternal/life-long.

Click to expand...

But see, here's the thing.. you are treating marriage like a contract that can't be broken. It can be. i can deny my baptism.. I can deny my marriage.

It's not that marriage is just arbitrarily eternal. It's that it is SUPPOSED to be eternal. How God works out divorces, remarriages and all of that is beyond us.

Now, you tell me this: My wife and I love each other a lot. We have a great marraige. I can't imagine my life without her. Our bond is not just sexual, daily it goes deeper than that... beyond that. We die in a car accident. All of a sudden she's not my wife anymore? All of a sudden in heaven I no longer have a special and unique bond with her?

What marriage IS will surely be different in heaven and beyond our understanding, but to suggest that it ends at death... kind of makes the core of marriage and building up a relationship with that person... arbitrary.

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

I'm still having issues about how a marriage can be considered eternal if stuff happens and there's a divorce.

I don't like either position - Orthodox or Catholic. I just wish people were able to really search themselves and strip themselves bare of all of these other factors that make them choose the wrong person. I am really afraid that I will end up married to someone whom I love dearly, but he won't love me. If a divorce happened to me, I wouldn't remarry. I just can't get past the notion that the marriage sacrament is eternal/life-long.

Click to expand...

If both spouses to a marriage firmly believe that they will continue to be married in heaven, don't you believe that they will try to make the marriage work on earth.

In Orthodoxy, we have the song of Isaiah, during which a newly married couple takes their first step together. In that song, we affirm our belief that marriage is martyrdom, that we die to ourselves to live in the eternal kingdom which is NOW.

This is why the marriage bond is eternal -- it takes place in the eternal kingdom.

This really hit me when my son was married in June of 2007, as the Priest began the Crowning Ceremony with the words, "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen."

Xpycoctomos said:

But see, here's the thing.. you are treating marriage like a contract that can't be broken. It can be. i can deny my baptism.. I can deny my marriage.

Click to expand...

But even though you deny your baptism, that doesn't mean you were never baptised. Your baptism is still valid even when you do not believe. If you have a conversion you don't have to be baptised again. If you did, your second baptism would be invalid.

Is it the intention of the couple that breaks the marriage sacrament? They don't want to be married anymore, and the church pronounces them not married, and that's it? no more sacrament?

zhilan said:

Exactly. Or with all the crazy priests they have, why aren't they going to some of them and concluding that sacrament didn't happen??

Certainly if simply planning to use birth control or being too young before marriage is enough to make the sacrament not happen, one would think that molesting little boys would most certainly prevent it from happening...and yet that never seems to happen. It makes you wonder why God works in such a strange and arbitrary way...

Click to expand...

zhilan-

I posted the thread that you wanted created some time ago. Instead of answering it, you make comments like this?

Veritas, it is not the same one says the marriage is "annult it" the other says it existed it was a relationship and it has now ended....because of our weakness not that grace was not given to that marrriage rather the couple failed..

In the first case the marriage was a legality that with its end it is "zapped" and not acknoledged as it ever existed. My biggest problem would be the children.... How would they feel ? Pastorally speaking the bond of their parents never happened... that is their parents union was never "sanctified" by God, since in God's eyes that sacrament never happened... The pastoral dimension of anulment is seriously damaging for the couple and the offsprings... Imagine that your parents ....never married.

this is what our canonist Dr. Lewis Patsavos says about divorce and annulment in the west....


The Orthodox Christian, in traditional view, canonical regulations on divorce and remarriage are based on two presuppositions. 1) Marriage is a sacrament conferred upon the partners in the Body of the Church through the priest’s blessing. As any sacrament, marriage pertains to the eternal life in the Kingdom of God and therefore, is not dissolved by the death of one partner. An eternal bond is created between them—“it is given to them” (Matthew 19:11). 2) As sacrament, marriage is not a magical act, but a gift of grace. The partners, being humans, may have made a mistake in soliciting the grace of marriage when they were not ready for it; or they may prove to be unable to make this grace grow to maturity. In those cases, the Church may admit the fact that the grace was not “received,” tolerate separation and allow remarriage.

But, of course, she never encourages any remarriage—we have seen that even in the case of widowers—because of the eternal character of the marriage bond; but only tolerates it when, in concrete cases, it appears as the best solution for a given individual. The indissolubility of marriage does not imply the total suppression of human freedom. Freedom implies the possibility of sin, as well as its consequences. Ultimately, sin can destroy marriage. The Church, therefore, neither “recognized” divorce, nor “gave” it. Divorce was considered as a grave sin; but the Church never failed in giving to sinners a “new chance,” and was ready to readmit them if they repented. Of course, in each particular case pastoral counseling and investigation should make sure that reconciliation is impossible; and the “permission to remarry” should entail at least some forms of penance (in conformity with each individual case) and give the right to a Church blessing according to the rite of “second marriage.”
(Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1975)
According to Orthodox teaching, one of the essential characteristics of marriage is its indissolubility. Consequently, a legitimate marriage is dissolved only through death, or through an event which revokes the ecclesiastical significance of marriage, refutes its religious and moral foundation, and is in other words religious or moral death.

Divorce caused by religious or moral death occurs by itself when the basis of marriage ceases to function and the purpose of the marital bond is therefore frustrated. In such an instance, it is not the competent authority which dissolves the marriage. Rather, this authority only formally certifies that the legitimate marriage has lost its basis and has dissolved itself.
(Orthodox Canon Law manual by Dr. Lewis Patsavos, p.135)



Also there is no reason to attack Zhilian... she is just being honest....


this is the link for the above BTW

http://www.stgeorgegoc.org/divorcePastoralGuidelines.htm

Veritas,

Is it still true that illegitimate sons can never be ordained to the Catholic priesthood? Or can they be ordained if they obtain a dispensation (or economia)?

Rephrasing Philothei's question: what would happen to those sons and daughters of a Catholic marriage that was ruled to be defective and annulled? Would they become suddenly illegitimate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpycoctomos

But see, here's the thing.. you are treating marriage like a contract that can't be broken. It can be. i can deny my baptism.. I can deny my marriage.

But even though you deny your baptism, that doesn't mean you were never baptised. Your baptism is still valid even when you do not believe. If you have a conversion you don't have to be baptised again. If you did, your second baptism would be invalid.

Is it the intention of the couple that breaks the marriage sacrament? They don't want to be married anymore, and the church pronounces them not married, and that's it? no more sacrament?


Why you leave it to the "intention of the couple"? I thought marriage is a sacrament done in heaven and earth... and no one has the right to break... It is the Church's responsibility to try to reconsile them ... with all means possible...and also


Prior to the second marriage (if it occurs) no the people that are "seperated" or even have an ecclesiastical divorce are considered married in the eyes of God... unless one of them is remarried... The first marriage has taken place in the eyes of God...

If a second marriage has taken place, then the second is the marriage that stands in the eyes of God. The first one "failed" that does not mean it never happened though... A marriage that has 'failed' is a sin. The couple has either repented individually after their marriage ended or not... It is still weighs heavy on their soul... We see a "failed" marriage a failure to live according to God's plan for us. In the Western sense the "failed" marriage is annulted ... that means that there is no sin involved. The person is free to remarry again and it is not seen as a sin ...rather as a mistake that someone can take a "white out" and erase and write on it again...taking no responsibility about the failure that was just commited. And on the top of everything else that "mistake" produced children who they were "mistakes" since the marriage was..??

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

I highly doubt that it would be permitted. That sounds odd... and it makes me sad if it is true. A priest in this diocese just got reprimanded for deciding to have members of the congregation make different altar breads for Mass. He is now using the proper recipe that nuns make for him.

Click to expand...

One Catholic priest I had regularly used flavored bread for the Eucharist. Also at my Catholic high school they tended to use some sort of flavored bread.

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

But even though you deny your baptism, that doesn't mean you were never baptised. Your baptism is still valid even when you do not believe. If you have a conversion you don't have to be baptised again. If you did, your second baptism would be invalid.

Is it the intention of the couple that breaks the marriage sacrament? They don't want to be married anymore, and the church pronounces them not married, and that's it? no more sacrament?

Click to expand...

It seems like you are arguing for the Orthodox point Veritas! You are right a sacrament cannot be undone.

Dominus Fidelis said:

zhilan-

I posted the thread that you wanted created some time ago. Instead of answering it, you make comments like this?

Click to expand...

Where did you post it Dominus? I didn't see any thread. I apologize if I missed it, please link me.

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

I'm still having issues about how a marriage can be considered eternal if stuff happens and there's a divorce.

I don't like either position - Orthodox or Catholic. I just wish people were able to really search themselves and strip themselves bare of all of these other factors that make them choose the wrong person. I am really afraid that I will end up married to someone whom I love dearly, but he won't love me. If a divorce happened to me, I wouldn't remarry. I just can't get past the notion that the marriage sacrament is eternal/life-long.

Click to expand...

Marriage as in all sacraments foreshadow what is to come. In Marriage the two shall become one flesh, while still possessing their own hypostasis.

At the second coming the bride which is the Church will be presented to the the bridegroom, and all who make up the One body of Christwill enter the bridal chamber (MATT 25.10) and partake of the marriage feast (Rev 19.9).

The sacrament of marriage prefigures the unity and oneness the Church has with her head who is Christ and, will be consumated in the life which is to come.

"For no man ever hated his own flesh but nourished and cherished it, even as the Lord the Church. For we are members of His body , of His flesh and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery but i speak concerning Christ and His Church. " (Eph 5.28-33)

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

But even though you deny your baptism, that doesn't mean you were never baptised. Your baptism is still valid even when you do not believe. If you have a conversion you don't have to be baptised again. If you did, your second baptism would be invalid.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. It doesn't mean you were never baptised or married. You certainly were. THe Orthodox CHurch does not deny the fact that marriages existed... and were broken. This is precisely why we are not in the annulment business. It doesn't make any sense within the Orthodox context. I was commenting not on your uncomfortableness with the Catholic perspective but rather with the Orthodox perspective of Eternal marriage and wondering about what this means for divorced people. To assume that, since Orthodox marriage is considered to be eternal, that then no matter what it will definitelyu be eternal, is to impose the Roman Catholic character of legality on marriage. As philothei quoted above, marriages can be destroyed. No doubt that a marriage that ends in divorce is destroyed. Marriage is active, not passive. It is not something "done" to anyone, rather it is gift from God that is either recieved, denied, or recieved and later denied (not only through actions, but perhaps more than not, through INaction). It's not a magical spell that hovers over two people for the rest of their lives and throughout eternity. It's not shackles with no keyhole. Rather it's an eternal embrace. All those who marry in the Church are charged with the responsibility and honor of nurturing that embrace for eternity. However, one can let go and if determined enough, there is little the other can do to keep that embrace alive except prayer. Many times this can be healed... sometimes not. Sometimes this is due to weakness on the part of both people, sometimes it is due to the weakness of one. But, when embrace is dropped and one or neither can imagine rejoining it, the Church needs to help both people realize the sin, repent of it and move on with their lives, working with their human frailty.

Do you get what I'm/we're saying?

XPy

PS: I do realize that on certain small points we have all contradicted each other a bit. THis is probably due to a couple reasons. 1) we might just be giving some wrong teaching on certain points, teaching that is not fully Orthodox. 2) the teaching may not be dogmatic in nature, but rather a tendancy.

But the important thing is that you see the overall picutre. That Marriage is a gift that can be freely accepted or denied (even afterward) and that in the Orthodox Church Marriages are to be eternal, but we have free will and we can deny it... so they don't always end up being as they were eternal.

I will say again that, although I disagree wiht the RC on how it doctrinally views the nature of the marriage bond, I do NOT think that this is a divisive issue. I think it is a disagreement, I think that one side may have much better grasp of the reality, but I don't think that what we disagree with on this subject affects our salvation as our understanding of who Christ is or what the Eurcharist. I think Catholics and ORthdoox both have an extreme reverence for Marriage as something holy that man shall not put asunder. We both believe that marriage is first and foremost meant to lead us closer to Christ and therefore aid us on our path of Theosis. We both believe that marriage isn't just a secular agreement between two people, but rather one that the heavens and the earth are aware of. We both believe that a special grace is given to the couple to be strong in temptation and we both believe that the two spouses are charged with perserving the integrity of marriage. We also both believe that marriage is an icon of Christ and the Church. I think all of this is what is most important. I would hope that if one day we reconcile that THIS would not be a sticking point for either side.

Philothei said:

Divorce caused by religious or moral death occurs by itself when the basis of marriage ceases to function and the purpose of the marital bond is therefore frustrated. In such an instance, it is not the competent authority which dissolves the marriage. Rather, this authority only formally certifies that the legitimate marriage has lost its basis and has dissolved itself.
(Orthodox Canon Law manual by Dr. Lewis Patsavos, p.135)

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, Philothei. Now I understand That makes good sense.

Aria, your question is a difficult one. I have asked it myself of some Catholic priests, but the answers have always been convoluted.

"Illegitimate" is a legal term. The couple was legally married; therefore the children are legitimate.

In terms of sacramentality... I still haven't figured it out. The conversations usually go like this:

A: But if the couple wasn't actually married, did they commit sin? When they had the children, were they fornicating?
B: The marriage was presumed valid at the time.
A: But it turned out that it wasn't valid.
B: Yes.
A:Then doesn't that mean that since they weren't actually sacramentally married, they were committing fornication?
B: They believed the marriage to be valid at the time.

It's kind of circular and I haven't really met someone yet who was able to give me a straight answer. However, I do actually know a priest who is a canon lawyer, who also serves on the marriage tribunal. I might be able to ask him!

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

Thanks for that, Philothei. Now I understand That makes good sense.

Aria, your question is a difficult one. I have asked it myself of some Catholic priests, but the answers have always been convoluted.

"Illegitimate" is a legal term. The couple was legally married; therefore the children are legitimate.

In terms of sacramentality... I still haven't figured it out. The conversations usually go like this:

A: But if the couple wasn't actually married, did they commit sin? When they had the children, were they fornicating?
B: The marriage was presumed valid at the time.
A: But it turned out that it wasn't valid.
B: Yes.
A:Then doesn't that mean that since they weren't actually sacramentally married, they were committing fornication?
B: They believed the marriage to be valid at the time.

It's kind of circular and I haven't really met someone yet who was able to give me a straight answer. However, I do actually know a priest who is a canon lawyer, who also serves on the marriage tribunal. I might be able to ask him!

Click to expand...

Wait wait wait... so in the RC if a child is born out of wedlock (like, let's just say it was a one night stand type deal)... then the kid can't ever become a priest? I gotta go to OBOB with that one.

Do WE have that? That sounds... terrible and unGospel like.

Xpy

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

Thanks for that, Philothei. Now I understand That makes good sense.

Aria, your question is a difficult one. I have asked it myself of some Catholic priests, but the answers have always been convoluted.

"Illegitimate" is a legal term. The couple was legally married; therefore the children are legitimate.

In terms of sacramentality... I still haven't figured it out. The conversations usually go like this:

A: But if the couple wasn't actually married, did they commit sin? When they had the children, were they fornicating?
B: The marriage was presumed valid at the time.
A: But it turned out that it wasn't valid.
B: Yes.
A:Then doesn't that mean that since they weren't actually sacramentally married, they were committing fornication?
B: They believed the marriage to be valid at the time.

It's kind of circular and I haven't really met someone yet who was able to give me a straight answer. However, I do actually know a priest who is a canon lawyer, who also serves on the marriage tribunal. I might be able to ask him!

Click to expand...

Just sorta throwing this out, I'm honestly not sure how this completely and honestly relates to Catholic as opposed to Western in general ideas of sin. I know Orthodox frequently pray for forgiveness of sins committed both knowingly and unknowingly. Thus Orthodox admit that one can sin and not be conciously aware that one is even doing so. However I know at least in Protestant circles (at least those I am familiar with) frequently defined sin as "willful disobedience to the known will of God". As such under that paradigm there can be no such thing as committing a sin unknowingly. I think, especially if the latter view of sin holds true for Catholics (I don't know not familiar with their definitions of sin) this explains why such an answer from a priest is unacceptable to an Orthodox. If the couple was never married, then they commited fornication whether they did it knowingly or not. Thus annulling a marriage has grave consequences for deeming their actions as sin. Under the framework of sin having to be a willful act in full knowledge, maritial relations in a "presumed marriage" could never be sin because they could not know they are transgressing God's will and thus they cannot be sinning.

Again just a comparison that came to me reading your reply. If I am wrong on anything forgive and feel free to tear this apart. That goes for misstating the Orthodox position.

Xpycoctomos said:

Wait wait wait... so in the RC if a child is born out of wedlock (like, let's just say it was a one night stand type deal)... then the kid can't ever become a priest? I gotta go to OBOB with that one.

Do WE have that? That sounds... terrible and unGospel like.

Xpy

Click to expand...

No, sorry. I don't know the answer to that particular question -whether a child born out of wedlock can become a priest.

I was talking about whether or not children are legitimate if they are the product of a marriage that was annulled.

fuerein said:

Just sorta throwing this out, I'm honestly not sure how this completely and honestly relates to Catholic as opposed to Western in general ideas of sin. I know Orthodox frequently pray for forgiveness of sins committed both knowingly and unknowingly. Thus Orthodox admit that one can sin and not be conciously aware that one is even doing so. However I know at least in Protestant circles (at least those I am familiar with) frequently defined sin as "willful disobedience to the known will of God". As such under that paradigm there can be no such thing as committing a sin unknowingly. I think, especially if the latter view of sin holds true for Catholics (I don't know not familiar with their definitions of sin) this explains why such an answer from a priest is unacceptable to an Orthodox. If the couple was never married, then they commited fornication whether they did it knowingly or not. Thus annulling a marriage has grave consequences for deeming their actions as sin. Under the framework of sin having to be a willful act in full knowledge, maritial relations in a "presumed marriage" could never be sin because they could not know they are transgressing God's will and thus they cannot be sinning.

Again just a comparison that came to me reading your reply. If I am wrong on anything forgive and feel free to tear this apart. That goes for misstating the Orthodox position.

Click to expand...

I think Cahtolics believe you can sin unknowlingly. I know for sure Lutherans believe this as I prayed for forgiveness of sins known and unknown and my guess is that, like 90% of their traditional theology, this was inherited from the Catholic tradition.

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

No, sorry. I don't know the answer to that particular question -whether a child born out of wedlock can become a priest.

I was talking about whether or not children are legitimate if they are the product of a marriage that was annulled.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I guess that's what Aria was suggesting and I thought you were concurring that this is, at least, an issue you have tried to find out about. i didn't realize you were JUST talking about what it means to be illegitmate.


Anyway, I posted a thread asking about it over in OBOB.

I am reposting my question below (in quotes); however, I bolded the part that people missed.

I did a google search and could not come up with any answers. Would the CCC have the answers?


"Is it still true that illegitimate sons can never be ordained to the Catholic priesthood? Or can they be ordained if they obtain a dispensation (or economia)?"

If a boy was born to parents who subsequently divorced and then had their marriage annulled, would that boy be barred from the Catholic priesthood or could he obtain a dispensation?

Davidnic has an awesome response to Xpy's post in OBOB. If there is dispensation, then yes, they can be ordained.

Weird little bit of trivia. I don't know the reasoning behind why one's heritage would be an issue.

Apparently the impediment does not exist anymore, so it isn't even an issue since 1983. However, even before them (according to OBOB) it was more like a "red flag" just so they could check out their home education. Well, you guys can go here to read up rather than me paraphrasing and messing up again. http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=45001222#post45001222