Posted on 11/12/2015 8:00:17 AM PST by NRx
A Facebook friend of mine posted a controversial passage from Fr. John Meyendorff’s Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. Here is the quote, along with some prefatory sentences he omitted.
Many confusions and misunderstandings concerning marriage in our contemporary Orthodox practice would be easily eliminated if the original connection between marriage and the Eucharist were restored. Theoretically, Orthodox sacramental theology, even in its scholastic, textbook form, has preserved this connection in affirming, in opposition to Roman Catholicism, that the priest is the ‘minister’ of marriage. Western medieval theology, on the contrary, has created a series of confusions by adopting, as in so many other points Roman legalism as the basis of sacramental theology: marriage, being a ‘contract’, is concluded by the husband and wife themselves, who are therefore the ‘ministers’ of the sacrament, the priest being only a witness. As a legal contract, marriage is dissolved by the death of one of the partners, but it is indissoluble as long as both are alive. Actually, indissolubility i.e., a legal concept taken as an absolute is the main, if not the only, contribution of Christianity to the Roman Catholic concept of marriage. Broken by death, assimilated with a human agreement, marriage, in the prevailing Western view, is only an earthly affair, concerned with the body, unworthy of entering the Kingdom of God. One can even wonder whether marriage, so understood, can still be called a sacrament. But, by affirming that the priest is the minister of the marriage, as he is also the minister of the Eucharist, the Orthodox Church implicitly integrates marriage in the eternal Mystery, where the boundaries between heaven and earth are broken and where human decision and action acquire an eternal dimension.
In the 40 years since Meyendorff penned those lines there have been various attempts within Catholicism to “correct†the idea of marriage-as-contract and adopt an ostensibly more Eastern take on the supernatural end of marriage rather than droning-on exclusively about the begetting and rearing of children. Even so, Latin “contractual theology†regarding marriage remains the prevailing view. It is so prevalent in fact that we have reached a point where a pope can (allegedly) say that more than half of Catholic marriages are invalid on the basis of the partners’ inability to form the proper intention to make a sacramental pact. Had Latin Catholicism adopted the Eastern view, whereby the priest is the minister of the sacrament, it would be far more difficult — if not impossible — to claim that any more than a relative handful of Catholic marriages are in fact invalid. Although Roman Catholics still enjoy lobbing stones at the Orthodox for allowing marriages to be dissolved, arguably the Eastern view of the sacrament better protects its integrity than the dominant Latin one. (And before anyone flies into a huff, I in no way, shape, or form reject fixed Catholic doctrine on marriage.)
Of course, one ought to take some of Meyendorff’s remarks with a grain of salt. As my aforementioned Facebook friend observed — and any Orthodox Christian can confirm — , Orthodox marriage ceremonies take place outside of the context of the Divine Liturgy all of the time. Reception of the Eucharist is not an “essential element†of the rite. Moreover, mixed marriages never include the non-Orthodox spouse receiving Communion. And as Meyendorff himself states elsewhere in the book, Roman Catholic marriages are typically celebrated with the Mass, which seems to splash at least a bit of cold water on Meyendorff’s hyper-contractualist retelling of Latin sacramental theology regarding marriage. Still, one can rightly speculate about the general effect the Latin view has had on the popular Catholic understanding of marriage and whether or not it may have something to do with the anthropocentric — rather than Christocentric — approach many couples take to the wedding ceremony itself. Contemporary Catholic weddings, by and large, have a great deal to do with the couple and very little to do with God.
Yesterday’s brief post on Fr. John Meyendorff’s controversial remarks on Roman Catholic marriage prompted me to poke around a bit more in Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. Here is what Meyendorff has to say on the contraception question.
Recent Roman Catholic teaching also recommends periodic continence, but forbids the “artificial†means, such as the “pill.†But is there a real difference between the means called “artificial†and those considered “natural� Is continence really “natural� Is not any medical control of human functions “artificial� Should it therefore be condemned as sinful? And finally, a serious theological question: is anything “natural†necessarily “good� For even St. Paul saw that continence can lead to “burning.†Is not science able to render childbirth more humane, by controlling it, just as it controls food, habitat and health?
Straight condemnation of birth-control fails to give satisfactory answers to all these questions. It has never been endorsed by the Orthodox Church as a whole, even if, at times, local Church authorities may have issued statements on the matter identical to that of the Pope. In any case, it has never been the Church’s practice to give moral guidance by issuing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience. There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the “pill.â€
Not surprisingly, Meyendorff’s home jurisdiction, the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), adopted the essence of his views in the 1992 Synodal Affirmations on Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life: “Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a fetus already conceived.†This position is further clarified in the OCA Synod’s encyclical on marriage, which includes an appendix of pastoral guidelines.
Orthodox Christians must not allow themselves to be manipulated by the abstract calculations of statisticians regarding such matters as the population explosion and the need for birth control and family planning. The Church is aware of the complexities which can arise in life due to social, medical and economic problems, but she still affirms that statistics do not reflect God’s loving and providential care and inconceivable manner of bringing about the salvation of the world. Preoccupation with statistics can depersonalize us and our co-creativity with God in the begetting of children. The goal of the Christian life is the accomplishment of God’s will, which may involve the begetting of children.
[ . . . ] In all the difficult decisions involving the practice of birth control, Orthodox families must live under the guidance of the pastors of the Church and ask daily for the mercy and forgiveness of God. Orthodox husbands and wives must discuss the prevention of conception in the light of the circumstances of their own personal lives, having in mind always the normal relationship between the divinely sanctified love of marriage and the begetting of children. Conception control of any sort motivated by selfishness or lack of trust in God’s providential care certainly cannot be condoned.
Needless to say, not all Orthodox Christians agree with this position. Following the publication of my article on Orthodoxy and marriage in the July/August issue of The Angelus magazine, a veteran priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) wrote in to contest my assertion that the Orthodox Church had shifted its position on contraception over the course of the 20th Century. Unfortunately, ROCOR — which has traditionally been much more conservative than the OCA on moral issues — has never released an official statement on contraception, though many of its clerics appear to be against it. In a two-part article for the publication Orthodox America, Fr. Alexey Young — a former ROCOR priest — wrote the following:
The practice of artificial birth control—by which is meant “the pill,†condoms, or any other kind of device—is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.
Likewise, the Romanian and Russian Churches, to name just two others among many—have more than once, in former times, spoken out against this practice. It is only in recent times, only in the generation since World War II, that some local Churches (the Greek Archdiocese in this country [United States], for example) have begun to teach that it “might†be all right to practice birth control in certain circumstances, as long as this is discussed with the priest beforehand and has his agreement.
. . . .
I’ve used the term “artificial†birth control because I want to point out that the Church does permit the use of certain natural methods for avoiding conception, but these methods may not be used without the knowledge and blessing of the priest, and only if the physical and moral well-being of the family demands it. These methods are acceptable to the Church under the right circumstances and can be used by a couple without burdening their consciences, because they are “ascetical†methods; that is, they have to do with self-denial, self-control.
The reality in the U.S. (and perhaps worldwide) is that most Orthodox jurisdictions practice an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell†policy when it comes to married couples and contraception. Although there are several high-profile American Orthodox priests who continue to uphold the traditional view of contraception summarized in Young’s article, most stay away from the issue altogether (at least publicly). Moreover, because of the situation of overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions in America, Orthodox couples uninterested in adhering to the traditional teaching can often switch to a parish whose priest takes a more “relaxed†view of the matter. However, contrary to certain polemical claims emanating from conservative Catholic circles, the Orthodox Church, as a whole, has never officially altered her position on contraception. It is still arguable that contraception remains prohibited in Orthodoxy and that the present relaxation of that prohibition constitutes an abuse which, in time, can be corrected.
Eastern Orthodox can marry and divorce. And marry and divorce. And marry again. Those later marriages - according to the EOs here - are penitential.
Meyendorff could have found some strange views about marriage in his own Church if he had the eyes to see.
Meyendorff makes tow mistakes that show he is not authentically trying to present Catholic teachings - something he did quite often.
1) “Theoretically, Orthodox sacramental theology, even in its scholastic, textbook form, has preserved this connection in affirming, in opposition to Roman Catholicism, that the priest is the “minister” of marriage.””
The Catholic view makes more sense since it is the couple who is actually married to each other and not the priest. Matrimony is a lifelong commitment between the spouses and so they must be the minister. Eastern Orthodoxy must likely developed the idea that the priest was the minister because they had already dispensed with the idea of lifelong marriage as the absolute standard.
“Broken by death, assimilated with a human agreement, marriage, in the prevailing Western view, is only an earthly affair, concerned with the body, unworthy of entering the Kingdom of God. One can even wonder whether marriage, so understood, can still be called a sacrament.”
Meyendorff comes off as an idiot here. If marriage were only an earthly affair to Catholics, then it would not be a sacrament. Period. End of discussion. Think of the hypocrisy here for an EO priest who believes a man can marry, divorce, marry, divorce and marry again to say Catholics are the ones who view marriage as only an earthly affair.
The Catholic view is much more consistent and much more supportive of marriage.
As a Catholic, I was taught that, after discipleship, marriage is my main vocation in life, and through marriage, my wife and I help each other toward salvation. As well, that our marriage is a reflection (however dim) of Christ’s relationship to the Church.
+John Chrysostomos, Homily XX on Ephesians:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm
It’s long, but magnificent. Here’s a quote from the end which I use when I am the koumbaros at a wedding:
“And again, never call her simply by her name, but with terms of endearment, with honor, with much love. Honor her, and she will not need honor from others; she will not want the glory that comes from others, if she enjoys that which comes from you. Prefer her before all, on every account, both for her beauty and her discernment, and praise her. You will thus persuade her to give heed to none that are without, but to scorn all the world except yourself.”
Since my wife is perfect, I have no problem with any of that.
“Since my wife is perfect, I have no problem with any of that.”
After nearly 40 years married to She Who Must Be Obeyed, I don’t either but for newbies, especially these days, that quote is good advice. The entire sermon is a prescription for a happy, Catholic (Orthodox or Latin) marriage.
Must be nice, my wife messes up frequently; she goes along with doing things my way.
;-)
My wife is perfect. We are always in agreement.
Lol. We’ve been married 32 and counting, but she was perfect pretty much from the start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.