|
1 members (Erik Jedvardsson),
1,165
guests, and
84
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
I was surprised to find out that the Orthodox churches perceive marriage as not limited to the natural order (to this world). OrthodoxWiki says: For the Orthodox Christian, the marriage service (wedding) is the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, a created image of God's love which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending. The early Church simply witnessed the couple's expression of mutual love in the Church, and their union was blessed by their mutual partaking of the Holy Eucharist. Emphasis mine. I was unable to find any broader explanation, so this belief seems to me contradictory to Mt 22:23-33: (23) The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, (24) saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.' (25) Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. (26) So too the second and third, down to the seventh. (27) After them all, the woman died. (28) In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her." (29) But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. (30) For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (31) And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: (32) 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (33) And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. So, why is marriage perceived as eternal in Orthodox theology? What's the patrological/scriptural foundation of this belief?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848 |
Perhaps it is a grammatical issue and the adjectives refer to God's love rather than the marriage. The marriage is a symbol of something which is unlimited but not unlimited itself, except aspirationally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208 |
I never ever heard the Orthodox consider marriage to be eternal but I am aware that Mormons consider marriages ("sealings") in the temple to be eternal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
It is a theological opinion of Fr. John Meyendorff. But canonically, marriages can end. Second and third marriages are marriages according to Orthodox canon law.
I find Fr. Meyendorff's thoughts on eternal marriage problematic, personally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 54
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 54 |
Which marriage is "eternal"...the first, second or third? One wife is enough, but to have three for all eternity is unthinkable....I shall stay single, thank you. LOL (this is submitted in jest, but maybe an answer is due.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208 |
Our LDS (Latter-Day Saint) friends (!) would say that if you refuse to marry (in the temple) and neglect other Mormon duties, you can forget about eternal progression after your earthly death, and so you'll never end up being a goddess of your very own planet.
I swear I did not make this up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 94
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 94 |
Two flesh become one:
12th century Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon -- highly regarded by both Catholic and Orthodox scholars says, "we believe and confess that the spouses are on account of the marriage, reckoned to be one humanity having more or less the same soul, which is perceived in two hypostases."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208 |
OOPS - I overlooked your name on yr post so I ought to have said you'd fail to become a god on your own planet.
My bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
The relevant parts of Fr. Meyendorff's book "Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective" (including the explanation of the passage from the Gospel of Matthew as a deprivation of carnal desire in the next life, not the spiritual bond) are available online: Fr. John Meyendorff "Marriage: An Orthodox perspective" [ books.google.pl] It is helpful, logical, coherent, but includes only few quotations from the Church Fathers. From what I've found it looks like this opinion is held in a wider circles, not only by Fr. Meyendorff.
Last edited by PeterPeter; 02/23/10 06:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Theophilus,
What an odd quote.
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
The Balsamon quote is interesting, but not in accord with canonical practice, at least if it is taken to make the second and third marriages not be real marriages.
The traditional reason for the limit in Orthodoxy to only three marriages is not the eternity of marriage itself, but rather that it is thought to be resulting from inordinate sexual desire. One wife, yes. Two? Perhaps. Three? Can't you control yourself?
At least, so I was taught in my canon law class. If it were to be taken as a true teaching, wouldn't Fr. Meyendorff's opinion require revision of remarriage in the Church, even after the death of a spouse?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
If it were to be taken as a true teaching, wouldn't Fr. Meyendorff's opinion require revision of remarriage in the Church, even after the death of a spouse? Let me quote StuartK, who's in concordance with Fr Meyendorff's position: The oldest stratum of Tradition in both the East and the West saw marriage as an eternal bond that transcended death. For that reason, the early Church refused to bless second marriages for any reason. In the West, the view of marriage as a life contract eventually emerged, probably because remarriage was a virtual necessity at a time of low life expectancy. In the East, until the 9th century, the Church did not bless second marriages, but civil marriage was available for those who wanted to remarry after divorce or widowhood, and the Church focused instead on reintegrating those who did into the Body of Christ. In the West, with the collapse of civil authority, civil marriage did not exist, and the Church became the de facto regulator of marriage.
In the 9th century, the Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage and made the Church responsible for all aspects of marriage. The Church now had to deal with the social and legal aspects of marriage, as well as the sacramental aspect. It had to recognize that marriages do break down, and that men and women may feel the need to remarry, either after divorce or widowhood. But it did not want to compromise its understanding of Christian marriage as a sacrament that perdures in the divine kairos. The compromise solution was the "Rite of Second Marriage", open to those who are widowed and the innocent parties in a divorce, which was not sacramental but merely contractual, and highly penitential in nature. There is no crowning, there is no Dance of Isaiah, there is no sealing with the Eucharist. In fact, those who remarry are excluded from communion for a period of 3-5 years, which in itself means that second marriage ceremonies are not sacramental.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Yes, StuartK gives Fr. Meyendorff's position accurately, but Fr. Meyendorff is wrong.
It is not the eucharist that makes a marriage sacramental, but the blessing of the priest. I refer you to Fr. Patrick Viscuso's discussion of this issue in "Orthodox Canon Law," where he addresses Meyendorff's contention that no eucharist=no sacrament.
I'm done with this discussion, having received a rude private message from one of the participants.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Yes, StuartK gives Fr. Meyendorff's position accurately, but Fr. Meyendorff is wrong.
It is not the eucharist that makes a marriage sacramental, but the blessing of the priest. I refer you to Fr. Patrick Viscuso's discussion of this issue in "Orthodox Canon Law," where he addresses Meyendorff's contention that no eucharist=no sacrament.
I'm done with this discussion, having received a rude private message from one of the participants. That is unacceptable, and whoever it was would do good to remember that we are in the season of Holy Lent...and that we should atleast be *trying* to be more charitable to each other; even on forums; even in private messaging; as well as in real life. Alice, Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275 |
Yes, StuartK gives Fr. Meyendorff's position accurately, but Fr. Meyendorff is wrong. I found the "unending marriage" opinion upheld on the official site of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church (without any reference to Fr Meyendorff), that's why I find it hard to believe that this is really only a theological opinion of a certain priest. It is not the eucharist that makes a marriage sacramental, but the blessing of the priest. I refer you to Fr. Patrick Viscuso's discussion of this issue in "Orthodox Canon Law," where he addresses Meyendorff's contention that no eucharist=no sacrament. Sure, but I can imagine a "non-sacramental" blessing, at least in theory. Actually I can imagine much, even subsequent sacramental marriages after a divorce, while still maintaining eternal bound with the first spouse. That's why I'm confused. But it's not really about sacramentality, it's about whether marriage is eternal or not. Fr Meyendorff provides rather scarce support from the Tradition for his opinion, though for me it looks coherent (based from his quotations and interpretation of scriptural passages). I'm done with this discussion, having received a rude private message from one of the participants. Whoever it was, it wasn't me, as I have never sent any PM to Pseudo-Athanasius!
|
|
|
|
|
