www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why is marriage perceived as eternal in Orthodox theology?

Do not ALL the Holy Mysteries receive their ultimate fulfillment in the World to Come?

And I've heard it opined that all of our healthy salvific relationships find their fulfilled meaning in heaven, too.

Therefore, why should marriage not do so?

Some early Christians, most notably Athenagoras of Athens and Tertullian, considered the marital bond to be absolutely indissoluble (even in the case of death). Athenagoras of Athens, for example, states:

For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions, — that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. For whosoever puts away his wife, says He, and marries another, commits adultery [Matthew 19:9]; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race. (Legatio pro Christianis, 33)

[N.B.] If the marital bond is absolutely indissoluble (even in the case of death), then it logically follows that all remarriages are adulterous. However, since St. Paul allowed for remarriage in the event of death, the bond itself cannot persist after death; otherwise St. Paul would be complicit in promoting sin. (cf. Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-12, 39)

In addition, Orthodox canons have always allowed widows to remarry, though with some restrictions. She may not marry her first husband's spiritual brother (i.e., one with the same godfather), since that would be marrying her own brother. They take "the two become one flesh" literally, so that the relatives of the husband now have the same degree of relation to the wife, and this family relation remains even when the husband dies.

In a similar line of thought, Tertullian said:

Therefore a wife, when her husband is dead, will not marry; for if she marry, she will of course be marrying (his) brother: for "all we are brethren." Again, the woman, if intending to marry, has to marry "in the Lord;" that is, not to an heathen, but to a brother, inasmuch as even the ancient law forbids marriage with members of another tribe. Since, moreover, even in Leviticus there is a caution, "Whoever shall have taken (his) brother's wife, (it) is uncleanness— turpitude; without children shall (he) die;" beyond doubt, while the man is prohibited from marrying a second time, the woman is prohibited too, having no one to marry except a brother. (De monogamia, 7)

[N.B.] The quoted work from Tertullian comes from his post-Montanist period. Among the Montanist doctrines was an absolute prohibition of remarriage even for widows. In his Catholic period, Tertullian wrote to his wife: "The same who brings us into the world must of necessity take us out of it too. Therefore when, through the will of God, the husband is deceased, the marriage likewise, by the will of God, deceases. Why should you restore what God has put an end to?" (Ad Uxorem, I, 7)

He clearly acknowledges that marriage ends with death, though he counsels widows not to remarry. (cf Ad Uxorem, I, 1)

The more rigorist view was frequently espoused for several reasons: 1) Christians should, if they can, prefer the celibate state over the married state; 2) the "order" of widows had an esteemed ecclesiastical function, so refusing this state was almost like refusing a vocation; 3) Christian marriage has a non-carnal, companionate aspect, so remarriage seems to entail a want of love or spiritual loyalty to the first spouse; 4) marrying only once most perfectly exemplifies how God first established marriage. These are all good reasons for advising widows not to remarry, but none of them rises to the level of requiring an absolute prohibition, abandoning the Apostle's tolerance of second marriages.

http://catholictheologyandscripture.blogspot.com/

"It is not the eucharist that makes a marriage sacramental, but the blessing of the priest."

In actuality, neither of these make the marriage sacramental. The Eucharist is a sacrament in itself, whereas the blessing is merely a sacramental.

Since marriage between Christians and the Sacrament of Matrimony are one and the same thing, the essence of the sacrament must be the same, i.e., the consent of the parties. From this it follows that the betrothed are the ministers of the sacrament.

Dear RomCatholic,

It does not have to follow that way since the Eastern Churches understand that the Mystery (or as you would say "Sacrament") is given to the couple who have consented to be married by the priest or bishop.

That is how the EC Churches also understand the Mystery of Crowning and we have tended to regard the Roman Catholic emphasis on the ministers of this Mystery to be the betrothed as a kind of secular thing, hearkening to the time when couples got married before a (pagan) Roman judge only to later come to Church for the priest's blessing.

Alex

The only way that the marital bond could persist after death, is if the sacrament of matrimony were imposed externally (as some sort of added ornament to marriage). But if that is the case, then the essence of the sacrament wouldn't be the consent of the spouses, rather it would be the blessing/crowning. This is obviously a ridiculous view.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas:


Three things are to be considered in matrimony, namely its cause, its essence, and its effect; and accordingly we find three definitions given of matrimony. For the definition of Hugh indicates the cause, namely the consent, and this definition is self-evident. The definition given in the text indicates the essence of matrimony, namely the "union," and adds determinate subjects by the words "between lawful persons." It also points to the difference of the contracting parties in reference to the species, by the word "marital," for since matrimony is a joining together for the purpose of some one thing, this joining together is specified by the purpose to which it is directed, and this is what pertains to the husband [maritum]. It also indicates the force of this joining--for it is indissoluble--by the words "involving," etc.

(S.T. Supplement, Q. 44, A. 3)


The sufficient cause of matrimony is consent expressed in words of the present. Therefore whether this be done in public or in private the result is a marriage.

Further, wherever there is the due matter and the due form of a sacrament there is the sacrament. Now in a secret marriage there is the due matter, since there are persons who are able lawfully to contract--and the due form, since there are the words of the present expressive of consent. Therefore there is a true marriage.

I answer that, Just as in the other sacraments certain things are essential to the sacrament, and if they are omitted there is no sacrament, while certain things belong to the solemnization of the sacrament, and if these be omitted the sacrament is nevertheless validly performed, although it is a sin to omit them; so, too, consent expressed in words of the present between persons lawfully qualified to contract makes a marriage, because these two conditions are essential to the sacrament; while all else belongs to the solemnization of the sacrament, as being done in order that the marriage may be more fittingly performed. Hence if these be omitted it is a true marriage, although the contracting parties sin, unless they have a lawful motive for being excused.

Reply to Objection 2. In penance our act, although essential to the sacrament, does not suffice for producing the proximate effect of the sacrament, namely forgiveness of sins, and consequently it is necessary that the act of the priest intervene in order that the sacrament be perfected. ***But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond***, because whoever has the right to dispose of himself can bind himself to another. Consequently the priest's blessing is not required for matrimony as being essential to the sacrament.
(S.T. Supplement, Q. 45, A. 5)

The blessing of the priest may be made a necessary condition for canonical validity, but this does not imply that the blessing is the essence or even the efficient cause of the sacrament. Earth and sky may be necessary conditions for a horse's existence, but they are not what makes a horse a horse, nor do they cause the horse to be. Likewise, the execution of a contract may require certain conditions, such as the presence of witnesses or a notary, but the essence of the contract remains the consent of the parties who thereby bring it into effect.

The modern Orthodox may find it scandalous to speak of the Sacrament of Matrimony in such worldly, juridical terms. Yet to refrain from this is to ignore in this case that Christ has the power to sanctify the earthly, not by adding something alien to it, but by operating within its essence.

A contract no more effects a Sacrament than does coming to Christ by an adult preclude the need for Baptism and Chrismation in order for the life of Grace to begin in a person.

For us of the East, the contractual argument you are making sounds so very "Protestant" and, yes, worldly.

But clearly it is not the intention of the Latin Church to teach that the consent to be married between a man and a womah is something that is Sacramentally valid outside of the ecclesial context of the priestly blessing. Instead, it is both - the consent and the priestly blessing.

You seem to want to make a hard and fast argument - and differentiation between East and West in this matter - that simply does not exist. There are different sacramental emphases, but they are not all that different in sum total.

Alex

No where was it stated that a "contract" effects a sacrament. You are simply setting up straw men. Nor do I hold to a "contractualist" theory of marriage.

Considering a related, current thread, I am bewildered. Rather than just give the link, I re-post here (with additions and minor editing) a comparison of two views that need to be harmonized.

What does the Catholic Church teach and demonstrate (practice) about marriage that is a fundamental and shared East-West theology?

In the post below:

USCCB: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Monsignor Cormac Burke: A Professor of Modern Languages and Doctor in Canon Law, as well as a civil lawyer and member of the Irish Bar, Cormac Burke was ordained a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature in 1955. After thirty years of pastoral and teaching work in Europe, North America and Africa, Pope John Paul II appointed him a Judge of the Roman Rota, the High Court of the Church. During his 13 years in Rome, he also taught Anthropology at the "Studium Rotale", as well as Canon Law at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. He comments: "My book,The Theology of Marriage: Personalism, Doctrine and Canon Law (Catholic University of America Press, 2015), continues to involve me in "to's-and-fro's" of opinion. Something to be welcomed."

==============================================================
Let's return to the USCCB document, A Pastoral Statement on Orthodox/Roman Catholic Marriages, and compare with Burke's assessment. The USCCB document has a narrower focus than Msgr. Burke's much more general assessment which, because it is so general, impacts what is in the Pastoral Statement.

Msgr. Burke's assessment:

[emphasis added]

USCCB

[emphasis added] How is this to be reconciled with Msgr. Burke's assessment?

The USCCB document continues:

[emphasis added] Are they, the Joint US Committee of Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bishops, not aware of Msgr. Burke's assessment?

==========================================================

Thus here, the sacrament is the consent is a contract.

St. Thomas distinguishes three things when speaking about matrimony; namely, its cause, its essence, and its effect.

He defines the cause as the mutual consent expressed in words of the present. The essence as union. And the effect to which matrimony is directed, namely the common life in family matters.

He states: But in matrimony our acts are the sufficient cause for the production of the proximate effect, which is the marriage bond, because whoever has the right to dispose of himself can bind himself to another. Consequently the priest's blessing is not required for matrimony as being essential to the sacrament.

Dear ajk,

Thank you for pointing all this out!

Do you think RomCatholic doesn't like me? I guess I really am condescending.

I promise to work on rooting this vice out of my character by way of a new year's resolution!

Alex

I got a little dizzy following this argument. Why cite theologians and documents, I thought, why not examine the crowning in marriage rite instead.
I skimmed that, but nothing in it stated it was "eternal" as in the Wikipedia definition. The two become one flesh, the mystery is a vehicle of the pair's redemption, references are made to many from the old covenant. I suppose becoming one flesh makes marriage eternal because we believe in the General Resurrection. There is also reference to marriage being an image of martyrdom. I suppose the status of martyr is forever, still I would stay with Matthew 22:30 since it is our Lord's words.
I wonder if any Eastern Christians ever in stead of putting a "Just Married" sign on the back of their wedding vehicle put a "Just Martyred" sign?

That's because the martyrdom begins after the honeymoon . . .

Alex

Alex,

You are welcome. I have no reason to believe other than that RomCatholic "loves us all".

We should weep for our sins and repent. especially since we have the joy of being disciples of the incarnate and risen Lord.

Christos raždajetsja!
Dcn. Anthony