Don't let the door hit you... (conservative Catholic journalist joins Orthodox Church)

Cafeteria is Closed ^ | October 12, 2006 | Gerald Augustinus

[Kolokotronis]

"...and to get other Orthodox thoughts on this."

Thus far I think you are doing just fine, K. As to the question on the table, because there is no "consent" as such in the Orthodox Mystery of Marriage, I can't see where an annulment would situation would ever arise. Annulment is a juridicial concept and as such is alien to Orthodoxy. Capacity to freely "consent" to the sacrament isn't part of Orthodox understanding. You know, this consent idea crops up in other places. For example, giving communion to someone who does not understand the sacrament, like babies or persons with mental retardation or mental diseases. At any rate, for us I think calling a spade a spade is best. A divorce is just that, a divorce. Its not a good thing at all and while for us it may not involve legalistic considerations of contract/vow breaking, it certainly means breaching the bonds of the sacrament. For that matter, neither is remarriage after the death of a spouse. There is no "'til death do us part" vow in Orthodoxy. The Church however recognizes that human beings screw up big time and in this context it feels that allowing by the episcopal exercise of economia, a remarriage is less sinful than falling prey to fleshly temptations outside of marriage. It is for this reason that second marriages are penitential in nature and thrid ones positively funereal!

[Jaded]

Very well said! Thank you.

[Agrarian]

"--- is it also possible to get an annulment in the Orthodx Church? Meaning, an investigation and a declaration of nullity, ruling that this was never a truly a sacramental marriage?"

Kolokotronis would be more up on the canonical points, I think. But in general I still think that people in the situations you mention would get an ecclesiastical divorce, not an annulment.

Since for us a marriage is something that God does through the Church, without contractual elements, that would be the same as saying that someone who walked up for communion who hadn't been baptized and "slipped through" didn't receive the Body and Blood of Christ, since his reception of communion was grossly defective.

Even in the situations mentioned by you, the people were still married by the Church. One can't pretend that they stood in front of a priest wearing robes, had their clothing saturated with the smell of incense, and processed while "Rejoice, O Isaiah..." was being sung -- and had no idea that they were being married by the Church.

I would think that only cases of gross coercion would fit the bill for anullment for us.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I would like to ask you for more insight about the sin of taking--- as distinguished from giving --- scandal. I may be susceptible to "taking scandal"; how can I avoid this sin, and help others similarly vulnerable (e.g. a friend like Rod Dreher?)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hi, Agrarian, thanks for responding.

I'm still not very clear on this.

"Since for us a marriage is something that God does through the Church, without contractual elements, that would be the same as saying that someone who walked up for communion who hadn't been baptized and "slipped through" didn't receive the Body and Blood of Christ, since his reception of communion was grossly defective."

Right, I understand that the Body and Blood of Christ are still the Body and Blood, even if the person receiving is unbaptized, ignorant, unbelieving, in serious sin, etc. But that's because the Holy Spirit, through the action of the priest (the minister of this sacrament), has caused the bread and wine to actually become the Body and Blood of Christ. Whether the recipient knows it or not, the reality (Christ) is there.

But in Matrimony, the bride and the bridegroom are the ministers of the sacrament. Are they not? Without their true consent, Matrimony doesn't "happen." To create an exaggerated example, you can't slip a girl a GHB, walk her through an Orthodox wedding ceremony, and then claim that she is actually married merely because the ceremony was technically complete.

Both the bridegroom and the bride have to intend what the Church intends.

Thus, similarly, in the examples I gave before, one party is not intending to marry (as the Church understands marriage) because he or she is practicing fraud or deception and is actually unwilling to enter into a lifelong, exclusive union. Thus there was a lack of consent; and consent is essential to a sacramental marriage, isn't it?

Understand, please, that I am not arguing with you here. I just want to learn how the Orthodox Church sees these things. If I seem a little slow, I am not being obstinate --- I'm just being slow!

[RobbyS]

"Consent" may be one of those Roman legal terms that Easterners are uncomfortable with ;-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"50% of all people formally affiliated with a Church in the US are Catholics."

Wow, I never heard that. Can you post a link or let me know where you learned this?

[Mrs. Don-o]

K., I posted #106 before I read yours.

Thanks, this gives me something to think about.

Question: can there be marriage in the Orthodox Church without consent?

[hinckley buzzard]

There is nothing in this account that relates to "Cheap Grace." If you are so inclined, I suppose you can criticize this man for being something of a seeker, but that is not nearly what Bonhoeffer had in mind.

[hinckley buzzard]

Luther left the church because of doctrine as much as scandal.

False. Luther left the church because he was excommunicated. He never wanted to leave the church, but to reform it from within. He was kicked out, he never willingly left.

[Kolokotronis]

"Question: can there be marriage in the Orthodox Church without consent?"

In all honesty I don't think that's an issue, though one has to wonder what would happen in some instance of gross coercion, as Agrarian proposed. As we have said, there are no vows in the sacrament; in fact the bride and groom say nothing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks to you for your attention to these questions, your patience is appreciated. I hope you don't mind if I keep asking; I'm trying to get the big picture!

Hmm. Here's another: Is adultery the only grounds for divorce in the Orthodox Church?

[Kolokotronis]

"Here's another: Is adultery the only grounds for divorce in the Orthodox Church?"

So far as I can see, the grounds are similar to those in civil courts and not limited to adultery, though I think fault does matter.

[Old_Mil]

A Catholic would understand that the members of the Church are sinners striving to be saints, and that the reason for the confessionals in the Church is because man is in need of repentance, not because varnished wood doors with latin inscriptions over them look pretty and enhance the aestheitc experience of worship.

I think the problem is that the priests in question were never striving to be saints, but rather were unapologetic homosexuals who used the church as the tool to further their perverted ends. They may have worn the collars but in fact I hardly think they were Catholics, let alone priests.

[RobbyS]

He never really tried to Get"back in." IAC, Excommunication does not mean that one is kicked out of the church, only that one is under sanction. Usually that can be lifted by the accused tries. But he refused to recant.

[Andrew Byler]

"50% of all people formally affiliated with a Church in the US are Catholics."

Wow, I never heard that. Can you post a link or let me know where you learned this?

Just add up the numbers in any religious census of the US (i.e., look in the World Almanac or the Statistical Abstract published the by the Census, or google "American Religious affiliation" or similar). There are about 68 million Catholics, and about 70 million affiliated Protestants and others of all stripes. The number of Catholics does not include at least 10-20 million more Catholics who have left off the normal practice of the faith and affiliation with a parish, but not taken up another formal affiliation.

Roughly: 8 million Lutherans, 2 million Episcopalians, 12 million Methodists, 35 million Baptists, 1 million Adventists, 4 million Presbyterians, 10 million Pentecostals, a few million assorted others.

[steadfastconservative]

I still think it was just an excuse. No doubt Dreher did become too emotionally involved in the sex abuse scandal and if he was talking only to the alleged victims, he would end up getting a very one-sided picture of this. Some of the allegations of clerical sex abuse are false. Moreover, only a small percentage of priests have been accused of abuse. The rest of them faithfully carry out their ministry. To be so scandalized by the actions of a small number of priests while ignoring the good done by the rest of the clergy is wrong. It's an over-reaction born of self-righeousness. In other words, Dreher is blaming the whole Church for the actions of a small number of men. The Church is no longer "pure" enough for him and so he left. I can't condone his decision.

[TexConfederate1861]

There is a ROCOR Church in Dallas......

[kawaii]

But in Matrimony, the bride and the bridegroom are the ministers of the sacrament. Are they not? Without their true consent, Matrimony doesn't "happen." To create an exaggerated example, you can't slip a girl a GHB, walk her through an Orthodox wedding ceremony, and then claim that she is actually married merely because the ceremony was technically complete.

Both the bridegroom and the bride have to intend what the Church intends.

It seems this may be a difference in the perception of what the sacrament of marriage is/means between the churches, at least slightly.

One thing the priest said to us before our marriage was that the church doesn't create a marriage, they bless an existing union. I'm not sure what the Catholic stance is on that.