www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope references Orthodox practice re: divorce

Speaking from my own experience, our priest insisted on having vows at our crowning so as to not confuse anybody in attendance, and because it was the "tradition" for hundreds of years in the Ruthenian church.

I tried in vein to explain how the theology of our Sacrament wasn't compatible with it (after reading many excellent books about the sacrament we were preparing for) and was totally prepared to call his bluff and not repeat them, but it came up a few days before the ceremony (he'd said earlier he'd consider what I was saying) and for the sake of my wife's sanity I relented, even though she supported my position.

I never really got my head 100% back in the game, so to speak, with the Ruthenian church ever since. There are obviously many very Orthodox Ruthenians, on this forum and elsewhere, but institutionally I think my experience revealed all I needed to know. It still disappoints me.

Throughout the Brutish Commonwealth the law requires "verbal consent before two witnesses." Since priests are also registered by the State as marriage celebrants we use the vows to satisfy this legal requirement.

AS was the law in the Austrian empire as well.

It's interesting to learn what happens when you make the clergy and church an agent of the state with respect to marriage. Thank the Byzantine emperors for that one. For that reason, in order to uphold the very sanctity of Sacramental Marriage - the only one that counts for Catholics and Orthodox Christians regardless of the underlying differences between their sacramental theology - I support those who suggest that our clergy should no longer act as state agents in the solemnization of the civil aspects of the 'marriage' contract.

DMD, I've had the dual role of a state marriage celebrant AND a Church celebrant for 30 years. It's never been a problem.

If a clergyman is not registered with the State then the couple must have a prior marriage in a civil ceremony with a state celebrant/official. Later on they may have a second wedding in Church but the previous civil ceremony is their legal marriage.

Vows aren't expressions of consent, though. That is something separate that was also included at the beginning of the Crowning. "Do you come freely... I do."

Vows come later and are an exchange of agreed commitments between the parties to be in force "so long as you both shall live" and terminated "until death do us part." It is these that are alien to the theology of the Crowning, as I understand it.

Sorry if my point wasn't clear.

The dual role is here in the states as well. I make the point because of homosexual 'marriage' as now permitted by the state. Let the state have its secular requirements to legalize a 'relationship contract' and the church shall have her own to bless a marriage.

For the impact of the concept of "consent" in Western marriage upon the whole gay marriage debacle, see Vigan Guroian's article Let No Man Join Together [touchstonemag.com] in the January 2011 issue of Touchstone Magazine.