www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Marrying a non-Christian

On a related note, ancient canons prescribed a minimum age of 30 for ordination to the presbyterate (granted, there were exceptions to the rule); in the patristic era, this would have been a man in the fullness of his maturity, well established in his community, probably with a wife and children also approaching adulthood (which came in the mid teens). That thirty was the age at which Christ traditionally began his ministry was a good mystagogical rationale, too.

If we were to update this canon to our own time, the minimum age at which one would be ordained to the presbyterate would be somewhere in the mid-forties to early fifties, at which point the majority of candidates would certainly have seen something of the world, have demonstrated their emotional and spiritual maturity and stability, and built up a reputation in the community for piety and dignity. In short, the man we would send to the seminary (though I would dearly love to get rid of all of them) would be a known quantity, just as the men who were called out from their communities in the fifth and sixth centuries were also known quantities, the best that the community had to offer.

No-those are not the observations I made from forty years ago when I was a child until today. There is a greater respect and acceptance of older people in Greece and a much more natural extended family than in the U.S. Period.

Well, in this situation, I think we can easily generalize to say that respect for elders is declining in a lot of Western countries. It is quite prevalent in Australia as well.

I will grant that a more extended family is normal in all Mediterranean cultures (whether it's Spain, Italy, or Greece), but never that common north of the Alps. It has, in part, to do with societal organization and social expectations, as well as with different economic structures. The U.S., being (even today) an offshoot of English Protestant culture, has never really gone in for extended families, except among immigrant communities (e.g., Italians, Greeks and Hispanics) in whose native cultures extended families were the norm. I suspect that the Mediterranean penchant for extended families is a legacy of the Romans, whose society was organized around extended families headed by a paterfamilias, and whose politics were shaped by familial alliances more than anything else.

Your observation doesn't change the fact that Greece, and all of Western Europe, are aging rapidly. It also doesn't change the fact that people are living much longer than they did in the past, and so the "elderly" are not so rare as once they were, and at the same time, don't act in a manner once expected from "elders", which in turn tends to affect the manner in which younger people relate to them.

I am glad, dear Stuart, that you atleast grant me that! YEAH!!!

Have a nice day,
Alice

Of course, if the Greeks don't start breeding, they will soon end up like the Chinese, who have an entire generation of what they call "Six Pocket Children"--one mother, one father, four grandparents, all of whom spoil them rotten. But, thanks to the one child policy implemented under Mao, the Chinese, the most family-centered people on the face of the earth, no longer have large, extended families, because it's hard to extend when you have no brothers or sisters, hence no aunts or uncles, cousins, nieces or nephews.

Europeans are going the same way, but by choice, not under compulsion. In 2008, for instance, Greece had a total fertility rate of just 1.38--one of the lowest in Europe. That is, every Greek woman has, on average, just 1.38 children. The replacement rate (the rate at which population is stable) is 2.1. Greece has a population growth rate of just 0.16%--but this is due almost entirely to immigration (mainly Albanians, Bulgarians and Romanians). The actual Greek population is declining at a scary rate, so that in fifty years, there may be a country called Greece, but its majority population will be something other than Greek.

Yes I know all that.

Let's get back to the interesting topic at hand. This thread has gone way off track.

Alice, Moderator

My cousin married a musilm guy... none of her colse family and us went to the ceremony. But we did a reception for her which they really liked and appreciated.

I think the key here is to show them Christ's love... But still stand firm... it was not easy but God always helps

A Christian woman marrying a Mohammedan is asking for trouble, which usually arrives. God be merciful.

Fr. Serge

Oh yeah... That's so true sadly... I've witnessed a lot of those troubles unfortunatly but sometimes we dont get that fire burn until we are burnt ourselves

Usually in the form of a nasty divorce, an international child custody dispute, and, frequently, the employment of retired U.S. special forces personnel to enforce a U.S. court's custody ruling.

Seems to me the marriage of a Christian woman to a Muslim man is the classic triumph of hope over experience.

What does she do when her husband gives her her first beating--but "lightly" as the Koran says he is permitted to do?

He can beat her as long as he doesn't leave marks, I believe I've read.

BOB

If it's a woman I know, he only gets to do it once.

StuartK:

LOL I know a couple women in that category, too. As my father put it when my brother threatened him once, "Knock me down once and you'll never sleep again because when you do . . ."

BOB

Agreed, and a few women I know would respond like this, and it does not matter what faith they profess:

[Linked Image]