www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Divorce / Annulments - a discussion

My principal issue with you, Father, is your unwillingness to accept any Orthodox sources which diverge from your own preconceptions. Such Orthodox scholars, no matter how renowned, are dismissed as "modernists" of "limited relevance". Their works, no matter how detailed, have no weight with you. Citations of historical sources are tossed out as having no standing. Simple chronology is of no avail (e.g., your refusal to recognize that the Orthodox Church did not even perform second marriages until the 9th century). It is simply not possible to have a rational discussion on such a basis, particularly when your main argument is that you are Orthodox and I am not, so I should simply shut up. Playing the identity card in such a manner does little to enhance your credibility.

To play the game, according to the rules, if you make an outrageous statement contrary to all mainstream sources (e.g., that betrothals were not binding and that the Church countenanced premarital relations between the betrothed), then it is incumbent on you to source your assertion: where was this the case, when was it done, who writes about it, etc.

I don't think that is too much to ask. You will note that I have supported my statements with citations, often at great length. That you don't like my sources matters not--I have put them out there, and if you wish to rebut, you must either do so through logic, or with contradictory sources of your own.

I cannot believe that this practice of allegedly allowed sexual intercourse after Betrothal but before the Crowning was ever done with Church approval. It is immoral on all Scriptural, patristic, and canonical grounds I have ever seen. I was told in Seminary, and have read, that we no longer separate the Betrothal and Crowning because Bethrothal is as binding as the Crowning canonically. I.e. if a man was betrothed in church and then the relationship was broken off before the Crowning, and he entered into another Marriage, that he was ineligible to be ordained because he was "twice married."

Fr David Straut

With regard to sexless marriages and saints, St Elizabeth of Hungary is said to have had such. The neo-martyr of the Russian Catholic Church, Mother Catharine (Abrikosova) is said to have had such with her husband.

regarding pre-schism saints, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Chrysanthus_and_Daria

I am sure I can find others if these examples are not satisfactory. As for St Paul and alleged disapproval of sexless marriages, I would hardly have thought that ! Corinthians 7:9 was a ringing endorsement of sex in marriage or anywhere else.

"If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

I seem to recall something about a husband and wife should not deny each other, save only briefly and in order to pray and fast, but hey, everybody knows we Catholics don't read the Bible.

On Saint Paul in I Cor, you have taken the passage out of its context: Paul is speaking of the immanent Parousia, and is exhorting everybody to stay in the station and status they have so that they might set aside all worldly cares in expectation of the return of the Lord. So, a couple that are already married should stay married, and behave as married couples do. Those who are not married should stay single--but if they find the continence of celibate life too daunting, they should marry lest they fall into sin. In other words, sex is one of the reasons for marriage.

But again, just a dumb Catholic, probably can't even read the Bible without moving my lips.

On Saints Chrysanthus and Daria, a lot of weird stuff went on in Egypt in the third century, but the consensus of the Fathers was strongly against asexual marriage, in large part because it contradicts one of the primary means by which the Sacrament of Marriage is effected.

Stuart...please explain what you mean by this.

It means they are unlawful--the wedding should never have taken place because one of the necessary preconditions for Christian marriage (free choice) would be missing. Because something essential is lacking, there is, from the sacramental perspective, no marriage at all.

Thank you...

I don't think I ever suggested Catholics don't read the Bible so I'm not really sure that those statements were necessary. As I have explained in other threads I also used to be Catholic and have a surprising number of good friends in that Church, so please don't automatically assume that I am personally predjudiced because I have a different theological outlook.

My comments were not directed at you, as I think you know.

Hello,

In the Catholic Church, a "marriage" without the freely-given consent of the spouses is null and void, regardless of anything else. In Catholic scramental theology, this mutual consent is considered the very matter of the sacrament. Without matter, there is no sacrament.

In the Catholic Church, it is trivally simple to declare null a marriage celebrated with the consent of the spouses but without being consumated by sexual union.

Only after the Council of Trent, is the presence of an ordained minister (or someone with faculties from the Local Ordinary) as witness to the spouses' consent, required for validity.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Memo

It would have to be so, given that in the Latin Church the man and woman are the ordinary ministers of the sacrament. If one party is coerced, then there can be no unreserved giving of one to the other.

It is the same way with all the sacraments. We do not recognize coerced baptisms, or confessions; we cannot force a man to take on Holy Orders (though often we came close); and we cannot compel someone to receive the Eucharist or the Sacrament of Healing.

In Eastern Christian theology, with its emphasis on human participation (synergia) with the Holy Spirit to make all the sacraments efficacious, the necessity of free will is even more prominent.

Hi Stuart,

In general, either the lack of valid matter or the lack of legitimate intent is sufficient for a sacrament to be null and void in Catholic theology.

What you say is true, a coerced consent would invalidate the sacrament because of both invalid matter and intent. However, invalid matter is much easier to identify than invalid intent. It is more objective.

I am not sure about the rest of the sacraments. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be baptized or confirmed and I was not altogether onboard for first confession or first communion.

Of course, much has changed since then, but I do not believe that because I did not ask for those sacraments feely and spontaneously, they were not valid.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the West is (re-) learning a lot about what you mention about the role of our synergia with the Holy Spirit in making the sacraments truly efficacious.

Most present-day Latin Catholic theologians would agree 100% with your statement about that.

There's hope for us, after all.

Shalom,
Memo

The parents and godparents of a minor act on his behalf; it is assumed that they have his best interests at heart. But, as the Holy See has held for centuries--usually in regard to Jews--a coerced baptism is no baptism. An adult cannot be validly baptized against his will. A minor cannot be brought forth for baptism by anyone other than his parents and the godparents selected by them--or if orphaned, by the child's legal guardian. When, in the past, adults and/or minors have been baptized under duress, the Church has not considered these baptisms binding (with a few unfortunate and highly controversial exceptions).

Regarding your comments about first communion and confirmation, as I said, a minor is under the authority of his parents or guardians, but the whole situation is anomalous because of the separation of the three Sacraments of Initiation under present Latin practice. In the original Latin usage, as in the Eastern usage, all three were administered at one time, in the order baptism-confirmation-Eucharist, so the situation of a "tween" or teen objecting to receiving the Eucharist and confirmation would never have come up.

StuartK wrote:


Does it mean that the Eastern Catholic Churches before 1917 allowed remarriage just like the Orthodox? If so, can you provide some sources for that information? I have asked the UGCC clergy and they have told me that this is not true.

Father Robert Taft wrote on the subject. He's generally considered both UGCC and an authority in the field of Byzantine liturgy. He has asserted several times that, until the promulgation of the original Codex Canonorum in 1917, Greek Catholic marriage discipline (in Eastern Europe and the Middle East) was determined according to the Orthodox Nomocanons.