To The Engaged and Newlywed Orthodox Christians

[truefiction1]

It is of the utmost importance that you endeavor to study the Scripturally based writings of St. John Chrysostom on Marriage and Family Life. It is more important than you'll likely be able to realize at present. Nonetheless, these must be studied and committed to memory, not just in your minds, but in your hearts, and be lived out to the greatest of your ability. This work is published in book form, and also available on Kindle (for about $1).
Here's a link if you're compelled to take a closer look (and I earnestly insist you do, sooner rather than later). https://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Fam...4894d&pd_rd_wg=E6OKU&pd_rd_i=0913836869&psc=1

 

[ArmyMatt]

definitely a solid resource.

 

[rusmeister]

I picked it up, thanks!
It’s hit and miss whether they’ll sell me a title in Russia, but this one was no problem, $1.19 on Kindle.

 

[Melily]

I’m reading it now even though I’ve been married 21 years. I figure it’s never too late to learn and do better.

 

[rusmeister]

And I’ll still recommend GK Chesterton’s “The Superstition of Divorce”, not as Orthodox spiritual reading but as an explanation in secular terms as to why the teachings of the Church are right and the ideas of the modern world (which so many of us hold) are wrong.

Free, online, and in the public domain: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/divorce.txt

On Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Superstition...+of+divorce+chesterton+,stripbooks,236&sr=1-2


A teaser excerpt from chapter 1:
“...
Such people say they want divorce, without asking themselves whether they want marriage. Even in order to be divorced it has generally been found necessary to go through the preliminary formality of being married; and unless the nature of this initial act be considered, we might as well be discussing haircutting for the bald or spectacles for the blind. To be divorced is to be in the literal sense unmarried; and there is no sense in a thing being undone when we do not know if it is done.

There is perhaps no worse advice, nine times out of ten, than the advice to do the work that's nearest. It is especially bad when it means, as it generally does, removing the obstacle that's nearest.
It means that men are not to behave like men but like mice;
who nibble at the thing that's nearest. The man, like the mouse,
undermines what he cannot understand. Because he himself bumps
into a thing, he calls it the nearest obstacle; though the obstacle
may happen to be the pillar that holds up the whole roof over
his head. He industriously removes the obstacle; and in return,
the obstacle removes him, and much more valuable things than he.
This opportunism is perhaps the most unpractical thing in this highly
unpractical world. People talk vaguely against destructive criticism;
but what is the matter with this criticism is not that it destroys,
but that it does not criticise. It is destruction without design.
It is taking a complex machine to pieces bit by bit, in any order,
without even knowing what the machine is for. And if a man deals
with a deadly dynamic machine on the principle of touching the knob
that's nearest, he will find out the defects of that cheery philosophy.
Now leaving many sincere and serious critics of modern marriage
on one side for the moment, great masses of modern men and women, who write and talk about marriage, are thus nibbling blindly at it like an army of mice.”

 

[ArmyMatt]

And I’ll still recommend GK Chesterton’s “The Superstition of Divorce”, not as Orthodox spiritual reading but as an explanation in secular terms as to why the teachings of the Church are right and the ideas of the modern world (which so many of us hold) are wrong.

Free, online, and in the public domain: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/divorce.txt

On Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Superstition-Divorce-G-K-Chesterton-ebook/dp/B00INGMFXI/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3PR2OIQ8EY9YX&keywords=The+superstition+of+divorce+Chesterton&qid=1645156826&s=books&sprefix=the+superstition+of+divorce+chesterton+,stripbooks,236&sr=1-2


A teaser excerpt from chapter 1:
“...
Such people say they want divorce, without asking themselves whether they want marriage. Even in order to be divorced it has generally been found necessary to go through the preliminary formality of being married; and unless the nature of this initial act be considered, we might as well be discussing haircutting for the bald or spectacles for the blind. To be divorced is to be in the literal sense unmarried; and there is no sense in a thing being undone when we do not know if it is done.

There is perhaps no worse advice, nine times out of ten, than the advice to do the work that's nearest. It is especially bad when it means, as it generally does, removing the obstacle that's nearest.
It means that men are not to behave like men but like mice;
who nibble at the thing that's nearest. The man, like the mouse,
undermines what he cannot understand. Because he himself bumps
into a thing, he calls it the nearest obstacle; though the obstacle
may happen to be the pillar that holds up the whole roof over
his head. He industriously removes the obstacle; and in return,
the obstacle removes him, and much more valuable things than he.
This opportunism is perhaps the most unpractical thing in this highly
unpractical world. People talk vaguely against destructive criticism;
but what is the matter with this criticism is not that it destroys,
but that it does not criticise. It is destruction without design.
It is taking a complex machine to pieces bit by bit, in any order,
without even knowing what the machine is for. And if a man deals
with a deadly dynamic machine on the principle of touching the knob
that's nearest, he will find out the defects of that cheery philosophy.
Now leaving many sincere and serious critics of modern marriage
on one side for the moment, great masses of modern men and women, who write and talk about marriage, are thus nibbling blindly at it like an army of mice.”

as always, thanks rus

 

[Justin-H.S.]

 

[ArmyMatt]

View attachment 313053

amen

 

[rusmeister]

View attachment 313053

Amen.
But we have any number of couples who say that prayer, at least at the wedding service, and yet, 5, 7, or 12 years later are divorcing and saying that the divorce is the right thing to do in spite of this prayer.

 

[truefiction1]

Amen.
But we have any number of couples who say that prayer, at least at the wedding service, and yet, 5, 7, or 12 years later are divorcing and saying that the divorce is the right thing to do in spite of this prayer.

Maybe they didn't really mean what they were praying/saying. If they did, then they evidently had a change of heart.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Amen.
But we have any number of couples who say that prayer, at least at the wedding service, and yet, 5, 7, or 12 years later are divorcing and saying that the divorce is the right thing to do in spite of this prayer.

I think it’s because too many view marriage as a contract between consenting adults, and not a sacrament that leads to salvation (or judgment when we abuse it).

 

[rusmeister]

I think it’s because too many view marriage as a contract between consenting adults, and not a sacrament that leads to salvation (or judgment when we abuse it).

In that book ("Superstition"), Chesterton posits 3 ages, broadly speaking: the age of status (the ancient world): "You were born a slave, and will die a slave"; the age of the vow (the Middle Ages): "My word is my bond"; and the modern era, the age of the contract ("Get it in writing!").

The Catholics go wrong in making the vow the absolute center of the marriage, and de-emphasizing the sacramental aspect (which "annulments" surely do), but they are not entirely wrong. Even in approaching the sacrament we must promise, and in that sense, make a vow, in saying "Yes', in assenting to the sacrament, which assumes the conditions of what we might spell out in a vow (Matt 5:37). And that "yes" is not conditional to time. It was always understood as being a promise one must hold to even when the road darkens, ten or twenty years later, to hold that the "Yes" you said twenty years ago is STILL "yes". So when I read GK talking about the vow, that's how I understand it, the Christian context I see that backs up, rather than contradicts our Lord's words.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In that book ("Superstition"), Chesterton posits 3 ages, broadly speaking: the age of status (the ancient world): "You were born a slave, and will die a slave"; the age of the vow (the Middle Ages): "My word is my bond"; and the modern era, the age of the contract ("Get it in writing!").

The Catholics go wrong in making the vow the absolute center of the marriage, and de-emphasizing the sacramental aspect (which "annulments" surely do), but they are not entirely wrong. Even in approaching the sacrament we must promise, and in that sense, make a vow, in saying "Yes', in assenting to the sacrament, which assumes the conditions of what we might spell out in a vow (Matt 5:37). And that "yes" is not conditional to time. It was always understood as being a promise one must hold to even when the road darkens, ten or twenty years later, to hold that the "Yes" you said twenty years ago is STILL "yes". So when I read GK talking about the vow, that's how I understand it, the Christian context I see that backs up, rather than contradicts our Lord's words.

right, but to be clear you hold the “yes” because of the condemnation that comes from engaging in a sacrament unworthily, not because of the modern understanding of a contract between consenting parties.