The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Leeno, San Nicolas, Skanderbeg, ClearwaterByz, Nate
5,843 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 108 guests, and 29 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,166
Posts414,952
Members5,843
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by DMD
If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions.
That's new to me! Where can I read further about this? How does one reconcile that statement with what the Lord said when asked about the woman who married the seven brothers.

Even Orthodox Answers doesn't agree. [orthodoxanswers.org]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by DMD
From the point of view of the traditionalist Latin critiques of Orthodox marital sacramental theology, particularly as the Orthodox position has been framed by Cardinal Kasper (who still manages to get incorrect the view of second marriages held by the Orthodox), the attacks on the Eastern understanding of 'ekonomia' have been fierce. Whether rightly or wrongly, Cardinal Burke has been squarely thrust into the 'anti' camp as evidenced by a number of his recent writings and his essay in the upcoming book which precipitated our current discussion.

I do respect the Cardinal's concerns for the what he perceives as the gradual degradation of liturgical tradition in the west and his affection for Orthodox liturgical praxis. Likewise, his writings on the spiritual journey we are all attempting to follow are enlightened.

However, as I suspect Alex will concur, he, like many western scholars (and that the Cardinal is for certain) like to look eastward only to pick and choose that about the east which appeals to their own point of view.

As a friend of mine put it in an exchange late last night with me on this subject:

" Neither (the Catholic 'tradionalists' nor the 'liberals') really understand (Orthodox) teaching, they read what they see in the light of their own beliefs and come to two different conclusions. The liberals would like to co-opt our teaching, bastardised as they may present it, in order to cloak it with our legitimacy. The conservatives, on the other hand, are only too happy to react to that and thump their chests about how they're the true Church. These are the people who say that we caved on birth control because we have no Pope to keep us in line.

If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions. It is at once ultra-conservative and high-as-a-kite liberal for them. But there it is. If they understood our teachings, they would never look to us to help them in this unless they were willing to totally redefine the basics".

I think he points out our folly - mine included - in trying to pigeon hole any one theologian, writer, prelate or thinker - east or west - into our own bias and perceptions.

So, I think enough has been said here on the Cardinal. He is a relatively young man, with a brilliant mind and he has much to offer the Christian world for so long as God grants him the strength and ability to do so.

I wish him the best in whatever the Holy Father sees best for him.

Dear DMD,

Excellent summary as to how the liberal and conservative Catholics use (and abuse) their references to the Christian East!

Both sides seem fascinated by us while they both take elements of our traditions out of context when, as you said, it suits their purposes.

It used to be, long ago, that the Pope was called upon to legitimate the positions of either the Eastern Patriarchs or the Byzantine Emperor in their struggles with one another.

Now, the Catholic conservatives and liberals look to the East to legitimize their positions!

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by griego catolico
Originally Posted by DMD
If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions.
That's new to me! Where can I read further about this? How does one reconcile that statement with what the Lord said when asked about the woman who married the seven brothers.

Even Orthodox Answers doesn't agree. [orthodoxanswers.org]

Well, it seems to me that Latin Catholics get around this by having their cake and eating it too via a very loose system of marriage annulments, even when children are involved.

Sorry, Amigo, I just can't stomach that. And for Latin Catholics to then turn around and say something to the Orthodox on the same matter . . .

Excuse me, I have to get up and walk around . . . wink

Alex

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Well, it seems to me that Latin Catholics get around this by having their cake and eating it too via a very loose system of marriage annulments, even when children are involved.

As my canon law professor would say, "Consent makes the marriage". No consent, no marriage.
It's not the number of children that makes a marriage a sacrament.
I am not saying that the annulment process is perfect. I am just saying what is being taught.



Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 426
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Originally Posted by griego catolico
Originally Posted by DMD
If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions.
That's new to me! Where can I read further about this? How does one reconcile that statement with what the Lord said when asked about the woman who married the seven brothers.

Even Orthodox Answers doesn't agree. [orthodoxanswers.org]

Well, it seems to me that Latin Catholics get around this by having their cake and eating it too via a very loose system of marriage annulments, even when children are involved.

Sorry, Amigo, I just can't stomach that. And for Latin Catholics to then turn around and say something to the Orthodox on the same matter . . .

Excuse me, I have to get up and walk around . . . wink

Alex


Gotta get that exorcise in wink

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 16
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by griego catolico
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Well, it seems to me that Latin Catholics get around this by having their cake and eating it too via a very loose system of marriage annulments, even when children are involved.

As my canon law professor would say, "Consent makes the marriage". No consent, no marriage.
It's not the number of children that makes a marriage a sacrament.
I am not saying that the annulment process is perfect. I am just saying what is being taught.

It is the sophistry used to try and prove inability to consent years and children after the fact that bothers many.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 16
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by DMD
From the point of view of the traditionalist Latin critiques of Orthodox marital sacramental theology, particularly as the Orthodox position has been framed by Cardinal Kasper (who still manages to get incorrect the view of second marriages held by the Orthodox), the attacks on the Eastern understanding of 'ekonomia' have been fierce. Whether rightly or wrongly, Cardinal Burke has been squarely thrust into the 'anti' camp as evidenced by a number of his recent writings and his essay in the upcoming book which precipitated our current discussion.

I do respect the Cardinal's concerns for the what he perceives as the gradual degradation of liturgical tradition in the west and his affection for Orthodox liturgical praxis. Likewise, his writings on the spiritual journey we are all attempting to follow are enlightened.

However, as I suspect Alex will concur, he, like many western scholars (and that the Cardinal is for certain) like to look eastward only to pick and choose that about the east which appeals to their own point of view.

As a friend of mine put it in an exchange late last night with me on this subject:

" Neither (the Catholic 'tradionalists' nor the 'liberals') really understand (Orthodox) teaching, they read what they see in the light of their own beliefs and come to two different conclusions. The liberals would like to co-opt our teaching, bastardised as they may present it, in order to cloak it with our legitimacy. The conservatives, on the other hand, are only too happy to react to that and thump their chests about how they're the true Church. These are the people who say that we caved on birth control because we have no Pope to keep us in line.

If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions. It is at once ultra-conservative and high-as-a-kite liberal for them. But there it is. If they understood our teachings, they would never look to us to help them in this unless they were willing to totally redefine the basics".

I think he points out our folly - mine included - in trying to pigeon hole any one theologian, writer, prelate or thinker - east or west - into our own bias and perceptions.

So, I think enough has been said here on the Cardinal. He is a relatively young man, with a brilliant mind and he has much to offer the Christian world for so long as God grants him the strength and ability to do so.

I wish him the best in whatever the Holy Father sees best for him.
Since the East has always been reluctant to limit the Sacraments to the big Seven, it might help to borrow Latin terminology and to think of the second marriage as a sacramental. I think the historic non-crowning, penitential prayers, and penance attached to a second marriage even for widows/widowers in the East shows this and respects the idea of the primacy of the first Marriage


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
I think that Fr. Deacon has rather nailed things here. I would just add the the 'dispute' about the 'sacramental' or alleged 'non-sacramental' nature of second marriages in Orthodoxy is one within academnia more than on the parish or even the jurisdictional level. And for ease of understanding, most Orthodox will teach that there are the seven sacraments. The others are sacramental in nature, not of lessor importance, but say the Great Blessing of Water and the prayers of St. Sophronius is not on the same 'level' as say Baptism or Chrismation. The problem I believe has more to do with terminology than theology at its heart hence it is not an 'issue' in Orthodox Catholic ecumenical dialouge for most on either 'side.' (I believe that we are all on the same 'side' - that is we are God's servants so I do not like to break down our points of disagreement in sporting metaphors, but for ease of communication it is probably not to be avoided.)

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by griego catolico
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Well, it seems to me that Latin Catholics get around this by having their cake and eating it too via a very loose system of marriage annulments, even when children are involved.

As my canon law professor would say, "Consent makes the marriage". No consent, no marriage.
It's not the number of children that makes a marriage a sacrament.
I am not saying that the annulment process is perfect. I am just saying what is being taught.

It is the sophistry used to try and prove inability to consent years and children after the fact that bothers many.

In Eastern Catholic teachings, is marriage conceived as a 'contractural bond' between the consenting parties or is it - something else?

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
In my Ruthenian parish, we'd readily state that the couple does not confect the sacrament themselves, but that the sacrament is conveyed by the priest (as in Orthodoxy). Yet simultaneously we'll say that there's nothing wrong with the Latin formulation which definitively states the spouses-to-be are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest.

That said, we wouldn't say that marriage is a contractual bond. But we'd also say that the Latin Church might say that it is, not that there's anything wrong with that. Then again, what is taught also varies depending on the background and persuasion of the cleric in question. We'll hear Orthodoxy from some, Latin theology from others.

Hence the difficulty of the Eastern Catholic position... Which one is it?

Last edited by rusynbyz; 09/19/14 05:07 PM.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by rusynbyz
In my Ruthenian parish, we'd readily state that the couple does not confect the sacrament themselves, but that the sacrament is conveyed by the priest (as in Orthodoxy). Yet simultaneously we'll say that there's nothing wrong with the Latin formulation which definitively states the spouses-to-be are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church incorporates both:

Quote
1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125


Quote
That said, we wouldn't say that marriage is a contractual bond. But we'd also say that the Latin Church might say that it is, not that there's anything wrong with that. Then again, what is taught also varies depending on the background and persuasion of the cleric in question. We'll hear Orthodoxy from some, Latin theology from others.


The Latin Church speaks of marriage as a covenant, not a contractual bond.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 695
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 695
Likes: 2
If you said "until death do us part" then your marriage is over upon the death of one of the spouses.

Otherwise, what were you talking about?

Regarding the eternal nature of the crowning sacrament, the Eastern thoughts on the subject have been well-documented on this forum previously.

I knew my particular Ruthenian Church was not going to be the place for me when my priest insisted on using the Latin vows (so as not to confuse the guests).

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Originally Posted by rusynbyz
In my Ruthenian parish, we'd readily state that the couple does not confect the sacrament themselves, but that the sacrament is conveyed by the priest (as in Orthodoxy). Yet simultaneously we'll say that there's nothing wrong with the Latin formulation which definitively states the spouses-to-be are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest.

That said, we wouldn't say that marriage is a contractual bond. But we'd also say that the Latin Church might say that it is, not that there's anything wrong with that. Then again, what is taught also varies depending on the background and persuasion of the cleric in question. We'll hear Orthodoxy from some, Latin theology from others.

Hence the difficulty of the Eastern Catholic position... Which one is it?

Then it follows that "res ipsa loquitur"would seem to lead one to deduce that the theology of the west trumps that of the east in the Eastern Catholic sacramental theology of marriage. The concepts justifying the annulment process would dictate this as I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the quantum of proof and the legal conclusions derived from that proof deemed necessary to annul a marriage are the same among all of the rites of the Catholic church. If the Orthodox theology of marriage applied in the Eastern Rites, would this not be illogical?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by G Xuereb
It is interesting to see what Cardinal Burke himself said about the Orthodox Church:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-orthodox-church-and-summorum.html

Thank you, GX, that's a good link.

At the same time, though, I don't want to make more of it than is actually there: the thrust of his speech could be paraphrased "Let me praise the Orthodox for the ways that they are like me."

Dear Peter,

I think that is so brilliant!

Alex

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 695
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 695
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by DMD
Then it follows that "res ipsa loquitur"would seem to lead one to deduce that the theology of the west trumps that of the east in the Eastern Catholic sacramental theology of marriage.

This was my experience.

Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5