For most Christians baptism in a once in a lifetime event. Even if the baptised person joins another religion they still remain baptised.
Mousethief tells us that a baptised Catholic can join another religion but cannot join another marriage.
I appreciate why he uses the phrase 'join another marriage' but surely that is not a good choice of words. One cannot simply 'join a marriage'
Just as a baptised Catholic can choose to join another religion, a baptised Catholic, provided they fulfil the laws of the land, can enter into the state of marriage according to the laws of the land and indeed according to the internal rules of various Christian bodies.
However, even according to the laws of various civil and religious jurisdictions one cannot simply enter into the married state just because one wants to.
A couple might separate but until a divorce is pronounced they are still man and wife even if they have nothing to do with one another.
After divorce a good number of ex-spouses will refer to their ex-husband or ex-wife acknowledging that special relationship from the past.
The Catholic Church would see an ongoing spiritual relationship until death of two people who were once married.
I have some questions for the Orthodox now.
If two people who were married and then had a civil divorce would the Orthodox authorities immediately recognise that divorce ?
If they don't ( and I don't know if they do) would that couple still be regarded as 'married' in the eyes of the Church
Let us now suppose that one of the couple wished to marry again to a partner of the same sex and it was in a state where same sex marriage is allowed would the Church provide a marriage service or would that person find him or herself in the same position as a Catholic who can't 'join another marriage' ?
After divorce a good number of ex-spouses will refer to their ex-husband or ex-wife acknowledging that special relationship from the past.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to read anything in to this. Lots of people also refer to their ex-boss, their ex-employer, and so on. It doesn't mean anything more that "this person used to be my boss, which is why I know them, and they aren't my boss any more".
I only read into this the recognition that the person used to be my spouse.
The fact that one has been married is often referred to even obliquely on official papers e.g. 'divorced' or 'widowed'
Orthodox weddings do not have vows at all. In fact the wedding couple are pretty much schtum, except to agree that they have not promised themselves to anyone else, and that they consent to marry the person next to them. (Each requires two words, "No, Father," and "Yes, Father." Times 2 people, 8 words.) Everything else is said by the priest or sung by the choir. As I've noted before the priest doesn't say "I pronounce you man and wife" either. It's quite different from any western Christian wedding service I've ever had the pleasure to attend (or suffer). But if the legal definition requires vows, then no Orthodox Christians have ever been legally married in that jurisdiction.
I only read into this the recognition that the person used to be my spouse.
The fact that one has been married is often referred to even obliquely on official papers e.g. 'divorced' or 'widowed'
Or in Marriage Registers as 'Previous Marriage Dissolved'
Can an Orthodox person ,being married in church, promise himself or herself to a neighbour of the same sex ?
Civil law allows this in a number of states and so do a number of religious bodies ?
@Forthview can a religious wedding still take place in Scotland somewhere other than in a church?
South of the border, the rules on where a wedding can take place were very strict indeed. They have been relaxed a bit, but not that much. Neither a civil, nor a religious wedding can be on a beach, in the water, at the top of a mountain, or for that matter, anywhere out of doors at all. If a hotel is authorised to provide a venue for civil weddings, the ceremony must also take place in the same room as the one where the reception is going to be held. A religious wedding must take place in a church or chapel that's authorised either expressly in the case of chapels or because it's a parish church.
No, I don't favour a blanket ban on re-marriage after divorce. But I do wonder who these people are that they make the decision that 3 is enough. I wonder on what basis they decide on 3 as the number. Why not 8 or 43?
It seems like a fairly practical number to me. Start with the assumption that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, and then temper it with an acknowledgement that humans are crap.
So I'll be reasonably easy to persuade that you could make a second attempt and "mean it", and a lot harder to persuade that a third time is likely to work. Four is right out.
I understand the "it seems a fairly practical number to me" view, I do. However, is is "Godly"?
Do you mean "is it Godly" in the sense that we can say "3 is Godly, but 5 is not"? That seems to me a fool's errand. 3 is an arbitrary embodiment of the idea that after some point it just isn't likely to work. I knew a woman, a colleague of my wife, who had three disastrous marriages, and decided that enough was enough. Her logic was that after one or two she could blame the men, but after three the problem must be her; either she wasn't cut out to be married, or just couldn't pick 'em. So she gave up and lived out her days in very happy singlehood. Maybe wistful, I don't know. But it didn't stop her from living a full and happy life. I think therefore it makes some sense for the church to say "yeah, that's probably enough." The actual number can easily be argued, of course. It's either picked because it's 3 and that's God's number, or because of centuries of experience showing that's roughly the number of times it might take before people get it right.
I think we need to keep in mind what's been said above, that marriage as a loving union of two equals entered into because they're in lurve is very very new. Divorces in 1647 weren't issued because Debbie and Ken got tired of each other. Possibly 3 meant something different then than it does now. Possibly there's a problem with that, and the problem wasn't the Devoraþa and Kenneþ of 1647.
Is allowing divorce Godly? That depends, I think, on whether or not you believe God forgives our sins and welcomes us back after we repent.
I don't actually have an issue with the number, it could be zero, it could be 3, or 47. What I actually struggle with is that whatever the number is it is human decided.
I don't actually have an issue with the number, it could be zero, it could be 3, or 47. What I actually struggle with is that whatever the number is it is human decided.
So are a lot of things. Like deciding who to marry, or when. Do you struggle with the validity of those things too?
Of course the standard Christian position is that Jesus was fully human (and fully God), so anything based on his words is also "human decided".
@Forthview can a religious wedding still take place in Scotland somewhere other than in a church?
Most definitely. Beach weddings are very popular here.
I was asked this week if I would do one at Glencoe. I have given a qualified agreement, but pointed out that since James Bind was seen there, even more than previously, the place heaves with tourists and the wedding, small though it would be in these days, would run the risk of being a side-show.
I don't actually have an issue with the number, it could be zero, it could be 3, or 47. What I actually struggle with is that whatever the number is it is human decided.
So are a lot of things. Like deciding who to marry, or when. Do you struggle with the validity of those things too?
Of course the standard Christian position is that Jesus was fully human (and fully God), so anything based on his words is also "human decided".
I wonder what happened there with the quoting thing!
I struggle when humans make authority decisions towards other believers when it is about personal matters like divorce and re-marriage. Yes, I struggle with that, particularly if and when it doesn't seem to be in alignment with the words of Jesus, or it is *just* one interpretation. So, I can't see how or where Jesus said the magic number was 3, so because he didn't I am interested in both the authority of those who say it should be 3 and their working out of it. "It's a reasonable number" is fair enough in some respects, but my issue is more about humans deciding their view is the right one and then imposing it on others. That said, I don't have an answer.
So your issue is, you don’t believe either the orthodoxen or the RCs should determine for their communion whether remarriage should occur and/or how often ?
Do you believe a church can, on a case by case basis - or in general, discern the will / inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the here and now or do you believe nothing is added after the bible ends ?
So your issue is, you don’t believe either the orthodoxen or the RCs should determine for their communion whether remarriage should occur and/or how often ?
Do you believe a church can, on a case by case basis - or in general, discern the will / inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the here and now or do you believe nothing is added after the bible ends ?
I generally favour a case by case approach. It is impossible, for humans to do such, in any real way (as in by giving numbers) but I think that it is more of a heart matter than a numbers thing. As I said I have no solution, maybe for some people no re-marriage is the "right" thing, maybe for others a 7th one is "ok".
I generally favour a case by case approach. It is impossible, for humans to do such, in any real way (as in by giving numbers) but I think that it is more of a heart matter than a numbers thing.
Isn't that almost what the orthodoxen do? Approval for marriage #2 isn't automatic, is it? And approval for marriage #3 is possible to get, but quite a lot harder.
I generally favour a case by case approach. It is impossible, for humans to do such, in any real way (as in by giving numbers) but I think that it is more of a heart matter than a numbers thing.
Isn't that almost what the orthodoxen do? Approval for marriage #2 isn't automatic, is it? And approval for marriage #3 is possible to get, but quite a lot harder.
Do you believe a church can, on a case by case basis - or in general, discern the will / inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the here and now or do you believe nothing is added after the bible ends ?
Interesting question, given that scripturally there doesn't seem to be any bar against plural marriages and quite a lot of examples in favor of the practice being legitimate. How does a bar against remarriage after divorce match up with a culture that permits a second marriage without a divorce?
I generally favour a case by case approach. It is impossible, for humans to do such, in any real way (as in by giving numbers) but I think that it is more of a heart matter than a numbers thing.
Isn't that almost what the orthodoxen do? Approval for marriage #2 isn't automatic, is it? And approval for marriage #3 is possible to get, but quite a lot harder.
If *they* decide what is a heart matter.
I am not Orthodox, I am a Quaker. We have a tradition of discernment that is intended to be participatory rather than applied, as it were. I imagine, or perhaps hope, that Orthodox pastoral practice maybe more collaborative than you are assuming.
@Forthview can a religious wedding still take place in Scotland somewhere other than in a church?
Most definitely. Beach weddings are very popular here.
I was asked this week if I would do one at Glencoe. I have given a qualified agreement, but pointed out that since James Bind was seen there, even more than previously, the place heaves with tourists and the wedding, small though it would be in these days, would run the risk of being a side-show.
@Cathscats does that also mean you're also not tied to your own area?
Are you subject at the moment to the 'not more than 30 and that includes the couple, the celebrant, the verger etc' rule, or doesn't that apply in Scotland?
Personally, I think marriage is merely a social contract. It is not a sacrament. I will even carry it further by saying the church should not be in the act of tying the knot, as it were. I think that is the task of the civil authorities, be it a registrar or justice of the peace, captains (at sea) or otherwise authorized civil authority.
Then, if the couple so wishes to have a blessing of a religious body, they can make an application to the religious body they choose. But the religious body is not in the act of tying the knot.
Forthview, thanks for that additional information. I should not have done so, but sort of assumed that the provisions were uniform throughout the UK, with the pretty detailed restrictions which Enoch lists.
Enoch, yes, I was aware that there were all those fancy details. No idea why they still remain although I can understand the need for some restrictions in centuries past. Much the same line of territory as the assertion of an infant produced from a warming pan.
Cathscats , the park I referred to as being a popular venue for weddings locally is just over the road from a popular café, and so are in full view of a number of strangers. After one ceremony, the wedding party adjourned to the café for coffee, and were greeted by a round of applause.
Mousethief, I find your then no Orthodox Christians have ever been legally married in that jurisdiction difficult. Is there a reason why the necessary vows could not be exchanged either during the service, or immediately afterwards, thus complying with the legal requirements for a marriage and the normal Orthodox service? Is the service to which you refer uniform throughout the Orthodox Church, or just that following the Greek or Bulgarian etc tradition?
The Orthodox make no bones about the faith being a joint venture between God and Humanity. We don't pretend otherwise. And anybody who thinks God is entirely running their show, even when things are going right and there isn't some maniac in the works, is deluded. So, it's okay to have a number as long as it's one God chose and not one that humans came up with over long practice and experience. That kind of rule sends people scrambling to the Scriptures to find very questionable supports (like "time, times, and half a time" meaning "3.5 times").
Anybody of course who doesn't like the way the Orthodox do it is not compelled to join or stay in. These days we're not in tiny villages and forced to go to the local.
Personally, I think marriage is merely a social contract. It is not a sacrament. I will even carry it further by saying the church should not be in the act of tying the knot, as it were. I think that is the task of the civil authorities, be it a registrar or justice of the peace, captains (at sea) or otherwise authorized civil authority.
Then, if the couple so wishes to have a blessing of a religious body, they can make an application to the religious body they choose. But the religious body is not in the act of tying the knot.
That seems to be the position of Christendom for the first millennium CE. Making it a sacrament seems to me to be part of the drive of the religious authorities to lord it over its members.
Personally, I think marriage is merely a social contract. It is not a sacrament. I will even carry it further by saying the church should not be in the act of tying the knot, as it were. I think that is the task of the civil authorities, be it a registrar or justice of the peace, captains (at sea) or otherwise authorized civil authority.
Then, if the couple so wishes to have a blessing of a religious body, they can make an application to the religious body they choose. But the religious body is not in the act of tying the knot.
That seems to be the position of Christendom for the first millennium CE. Making it a sacrament seems to me to be part of the drive of the religious authorities to lord it over its members.
Ironically you are completely wrong as to the millenium. This from Wikipedia, well-footnoted:
Today all Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacred institution, a covenant. Roman Catholics consider it to be a sacrament,.[34] Marriage was officially recognized as a sacrament at the 1184 Council of Verona.[35][36] Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime."[36][37]
Personally, I think marriage is merely a social contract. It is not a sacrament. I will even carry it further by saying the church should not be in the act of tying the knot, as it were. I think that is the task of the civil authorities, be it a registrar or justice of the peace, captains (at sea) or otherwise authorized civil authority.
Then, if the couple so wishes to have a blessing of a religious body, they can make an application to the religious body they choose. But the religious body is not in the act of tying the knot.
That seems to be the position of Christendom for the first millennium CE. Making it a sacrament seems to me to be part of the drive of the religious authorities to lord it over its members.
Ironically you are completely wrong as to the millenium. This from Wikipedia, well-footnoted:
Today all Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacred institution, a covenant. Roman Catholics consider it to be a sacrament,.[34] Marriage was officially recognized as a sacrament at the 1184 Council of Verona.[35][36] Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime."[36][37]
'What God has joined together, man must not separate' These words taken from the Gospel according to Matthew are the reason as to why the Catholic Church teaches that it cannot dissolve by its own authority a marriage where the two spouses have been joined by God.
The may indeed seem harsh and graceless but they are ,after all, the words of Jesus (assuming that the Gospels teach us 'gospel truth').
The problem is that people treat the Bible as a modern legal code. It's not. The part you're talking about is the recorded words of Jesus (and others have already pointed out we don't know how close this is to a literal and complete transcript). But more generally, even the bits of the Bible written as laws are simply not laws of the kind we use today. Because such laws did not exist.
The idea of a law as a complete and exhaustive statement is only a few centuries old. Before that, "laws" were expressions of principles. And the way that principles are worked out is by then going and elaborating. Asking questions like, what happens when Principle A interacts with and clashes with Principle B, which one ought to win? Are there exceptions to a principle, or qualifications, or situations where we come to realise it doesn't work and achieve the result the principle is aiming at.
So yes, citing a principle and saying "no exceptions, ever" IS harsh and graceless. Moreover it completely misses the point and is ahistorical, making a rule operate in a way that a Jewish person would never have imagined. Jewish theology is absolutely full of texts exploring and elaborating on the commandments in the Old Testament, so it makes zero sense to pretend that the words of Jesus are some kind of blanket statement immune to the same method.
Plus, the idea that God joining together 2 people is irrevocable rather flies in the face of any examination of God's behaviour. The proposition that when God does things, they stay done and God never undoes them fails to accord with what God actually does in the Bible.
Today all Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacred institution, a covenant.
Mousethief, you might want to look at how the Lutheran Reformers rejected that idea.
(T)he Lutheran reformers transformed
many traditional concepts and laws of marriage. They rejected the
sacramental concept of marriage and the subordination of marriage to
celibacy and removed numerous marriage laws that were developed
on these assumptions. They introduced a social concept of marriage
and the family, defining a variety of distinctive social tasks and uses
for the family. They shifted jurisdiction over marriage from the
church to the state and substantially revised the role of parents,
priests, and peers in the process of marriage formation and
dissolution,
Today all Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacred institution, a covenant.
Mousethief, you might want to look at how the Lutheran Reformers rejected that idea.
(T)he Lutheran reformers transformed
many traditional concepts and laws of marriage. They rejected the
sacramental concept of marriage and the subordination of marriage to
celibacy and removed numerous marriage laws that were developed
on these assumptions. They introduced a social concept of marriage
and the family, defining a variety of distinctive social tasks and uses
for the family. They shifted jurisdiction over marriage from the
church to the state and substantially revised the role of parents,
priests, and peers in the process of marriage formation and
dissolution,
That kind of rule sends people scrambling to the Scriptures to find very questionable supports (like "time, times, and half a time" meaning "3.5 times").
Well yes. Clearly the limiting number of marriages ought to be 491, per Matthew 18:22.
I may well be wrong on this. I'm not Orthodox and I've never been to an Orthodox wedding. However, I think I've heard somewhere that the Orthodox wedding ceremony had to be altered some years ago so as to enable Orthodox clergy to be authorised as deputy registrars and to be able to conduct weddings in England and Wales. The alterations was so as to include the express requirements that the couple individually, separately and audibly declare the 'legal' bits, i.e. that they 'take' their spouse as wife or husband respectively.
Is there any England or Welsh based shipmate who actually knows whether that's so?
Because of concerns in the past (and unfortunately still) about forced marriages, the legal system is justifiably a bit paranoid about this.
It's CofE theology, by the way, that marriage isn't something the church confers on the couple. It's something they give to each other. The church is involved to witness, bless and endorse that.
On this board, but on another thread Kwesi wrote that 'what is lacking is a theological framework within which to discuss social issues'
Just as there is a social and civil aspect to the solemnization of marriage there is a theological aspect to it.
Most countries in Europe, anyway, have a separation between civil secular marriage ceremonies and religious marriage ceremonies.
The civil aspect gives legally recognised status to the marriage and the religious rite gives a religiously recognised status to the marriage.
Behind all the discussions about the rights and wrongs of Catholic teaching on marriage there lie the questions what is the Church ? with what, if any, authority does the Church speak ? does God keep His covenants with His people ?
These are big questions and I appreciate that not everyone answers these questions in the same way.
An important part of being a Catholic is to accept the teachings of the Church. By that I mean the official teachings, not necessarily the musings of any individual Catholic, be they lay persons, priests or bishops.
As far as I can see the teachings of the Orthodox Church in the theology of marriage are much the same as those of the Catholic Church.
According to the websites of various Orthodox authorities the Orthodox Church recognises a civil divorce as a civil divorce (so does the Catholic Church) but says that not until an ecclesiastical divorce has been pronounced could one even contemplate a second or third marriage in church.
... The civil aspect gives legally recognised status to the marriage and the religious rite gives a religiously recognised status to the marriage. ...
That may be the RC theological understanding, but it probably isn't the CofE one. I say 'probably' because like on most other topics, it's difficult to find something on which the members of the CofE will be unanimous.
The general view, though, is probably that,
- marriage is part of human society.
- marriage is a good thing.
- marriage is fundamentally different from cohabitation.
- it is hugely preferable that people marry explicitly in the sight of God, acknowledge that they do so and seek his blessing, and this is particularly so if the couple are believers.
- After all, marriage is sufficiently difficult that people need his help. But
- a church wedding sacralises something that is part of human life, not something which is exclusive to people of faith.
- a civil wedding effectively marries people just as much as a church one.
- the church doesn't draw a distinction between church marriages that it recognises and civil ones that it doesn't.
- it assumes God doesn't either.
- the commitments to each other follow automatically from being married.
- getting married by a registrar rather than a vicar doesn't let you off the obligation to be faithful to each other etc etc.
Yes, Lutherans in the United States do go to church to get married, but not in Germany or most of Europe. The point is we consider it primarily a social contract, not a sacred institution.
Personally, I think marriage is merely a social contract. It is not a sacrament. I will even carry it further by saying the church should not be in the act of tying the knot, as it were.
And personally, I have the opposite opinion. The state's role in my marriage is limited to registering that it happened. Mrs C and I tell the state "we are married" and the state says "OK, we'll make a note of that."
(And it doesn't matter for this part of my opinion whether I'm having a church wedding or a civil one. The state's job is to sit there and say "thanks for letting us know. We've made a note of it.")
Enoch I would recognise almost everything you have said as the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The couple who are making the commitment are the ones who are making the contract.
Their engagement with one another is the important part of a marriage.
Indeed a church wedding sacralises something which is fairly common to society not just to people of faith. However without some sort of faith a church wedding would not 'sacralise' a marriage in a Christian sense. Certainly a Catholic wedding where neither of the partners were people of faith would not be counted as a Catholic wedding and would be capable of being annulled as a Catholic marriage.
A civil wedding effectively marries people just as much as a church wedding.
The Catholic Church insists however that as soon as possible after a civil wedding a Catholic should marry in a church ceremony which asks for God's blessing on the marriage. Of course a couple, if there is no minister there, can ask themselves for the blessing of God upon their marriage but in ordinary circumstances they are expected to do this in front of a minister of the Church. If ,in ordinary circumstances this is not done ,it is reasonably assumed that this is because the couple do not wish for a Catholic marriage and consequently they are not married in the eyes of the Church..
A civil wedding effectively marries people just as much as a church wedding.
The Catholic Church insists however that as soon as possible after a civil wedding a Catholic should marry in a church ceremony which asks for God's blessing on the marriage. Of course a couple, if there is no minister there, can ask themselves for the blessing of God upon their marriage but in ordinary circumstances they are expected to do this in front of a minister of the Church. If, in ordinary circumstances this is not done, it is reasonably assumed that this is because the couple do not wish for a Catholic marriage and consequently they are not married in the eyes of the Church..
The two bolded statements seem to be at odds with one another. The first claims that getting marries by civil official counts as being married, while the second claims that any couple who has undergone such a ceremony is actually unmarried and guilty of the sin of fornication. Can you clarify?
Personally, I think marriage is merely a social contract. It is not a sacrament. I will even carry it further by saying the church should not be in the act of tying the knot, as it were. I think that is the task of the civil authorities, be it a registrar or justice of the peace, captains (at sea) or otherwise authorized civil authority.
Then, if the couple so wishes to have a blessing of a religious body, they can make an application to the religious body they choose. But the religious body is not in the act of tying the knot.
That seems to be the position of Christendom for the first millennium CE. Making it a sacrament seems to me to be part of the drive of the religious authorities to lord it over its members.
Ironically you are completely wrong as to the millenium. This from Wikipedia, well-footnoted:
Today all Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacred institution, a covenant. Roman Catholics consider it to be a sacrament,.[34] Marriage was officially recognized as a sacrament at the 1184 Council of Verona.[35][36] Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime."[36][37]
I think Wikipedia is conflating two issues:
1. Whether marriage is a sacrament;
2. Whether marriage needs to be celebrated by clergy.
On point (1), marriage was described as a sacrament by St Augustine, so I wouldn't put too much store by the 1184 date. The Assumption of Mary was only 'officially' defined as Catholic doctrine in 1950, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Catholic teaching before then.
On point (2), being a sacrament doesn't mean that it has to be celebrated by the church. AIUI, the church got involved in the Middle Ages because it became increasingly necessary for marriages to be officially recorded, and in the village the priest was the man most likely to be literate. I think it was quite late, possibly as late as the Reformation, that celebration in church became a requirement.
Croesos Catholic teaching is that the couple who wish to marry are the ministers of the sacrament.
In theory any couple claiming to be Catholic could take each other as spouses ( assuming,of course that they are at liberty so to do,i.e. not at the moment married to another person)
In any case of necessity, such as the absence of a minister of the Church this could count as a Catholic marriage.
A civil marriage recognised by the state in which the couple lives constitutes a marriage recognised by the state for legal purposes and the Catholic Church would recognise this as a civil marriage.
However if the couple claim to be Catholics or if one of the partners to the marriage claims to be Catholic then they should be aware that in normal circumstances the marriage should be witnessed and blessed by the appropriate representative of the Church.
If ,knowing this, they choose not to do this , then the Church would say that their marriage is not a Catholic marriage and that in the eyes of the Church, since they have chosen wilfully ,knowingly not to involve God in the marriage, the marriage is not a Catholic marriage.
The Church recognises a civil marriage as a civil marriage.
For baptised Catholics who claim to be Catholics the Church recognises as a Catholic marriage, only a Catholic marriage - unless an episcopal dispensation has been given to 'sacralise' the marriage elsewhere.
Croesus let me give you another example of being married and not being married at the same time.
If you are a citizen of the French Republic your marriage will only be recognised in France if it has been solemnised by an official of the French State
A French citizen might marry legally (and religiously,if desired) in Britain but the marriage would only be recognised by the French State when carried out by an appointed officer of the French Republic
Croesos Catholic teaching is that the couple who wish to marry are the ministers of the sacrament.
In theory any couple claiming to be Catholic could take each other as spouses
My question is more about couples who don't regard themselves as Catholics. Your previous post would seem to assert that there is no circumstance under which the Catholic Church would consider such a couple to be married. For example, is the Jewish woman who does the accounting for a Catholic Hospital entitled to spousal benefits for her husband, or does the Catholic Church consider her ineligible because she's unmarried, in their view?
Croesus let me give you another example of being married and not being married at the same time.
If you are a citizen of the French Republic your marriage will only be recognised in France if it has been solemnised by an official of the French State
A French citizen might marry legally (and religiously, if desired) in Britain but the marriage would only be recognised by the French State when carried out by an appointed officer of the French Republic
So a British married couple vacationing in France are regarded as unmarried? And in the event one of them is hospitalized the other has no legal authority to make decisions on their behalf because they're legal strangers? That doesn't sound correct.
Croesus let me give you another example of being married and not being married at the same time.
If you are a citizen of the French Republic your marriage will only be recognised in France if it has been solemnised by an official of the French State
A French citizen might marry legally (and religiously, if desired) in Britain but the marriage would only be recognised by the French State when carried out by an appointed officer of the French Republic
So a British married couple vacationing in France are regarded as unmarried? And in the event one of them is hospitalized the other has no legal authority to make decisions on their behalf because they're legal strangers? That doesn't sound correct.
The statement you object to was bracketed by an "If you are a citizen of the French Republic" clause, so wouldn't apply to tourists.
I'm still surprised that (by Forthview's language) France wouldn't recognize a marriage between a French citizen and a citizen of some other country if it was carried out in that other country. That seems unlikely to be true to me.
The Catholic Church makes no statement about the validity or otherwise of people who do not claim to be Catholic. It is not the job of the Catholic Church to interfere with the ideas of marriage of any non-Catholic.
Again I repeat that the Catholic Church would accept as a civil marriage what is a civil marriage.
The marriage of two Anglicans, of a Jew and a Buddhist, of two atheists, of a Hindu and a Moslem etc.etc. would be recognised as a legally valid marriage if the State in which they were in recognised the marriage as a legal marriage.
The idea of a specifically Catholic sacramental marriage only concerns those who claim to be Catholics.
In exactly the same way the Catholic Church only concerns itself with the celebration of other Catholic sacraments. It makes no official statement about rites and sacraments celebrated by other bodies apart from saying, for example ,that an Anglican eucharist is not a Catholic eucharist.. Baptism is a special case,which I won't go into.
I didn't say that a marriage involving at least one ,if not two French citizens would not be seen as legal in France ,if celebrated in another country. It would not be considered as legal in France until it was solemnised by a representative of the French Republic.
A marriage in France of a French citizen is an act of the French state and has to be carried out by an authorised representative of the state. It might be in a French consulate of another country.
Citizens of other countries visiting France would not be affected by these laws for French citizens, just as non-Catholics are not affected by internal laws of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church makes no statement about the validity or otherwise of people who do not claim to be Catholic. It is not the job of the Catholic Church to interfere with the ideas of marriage of any non-Catholic.
Go on, pull the other one! This is the same Catholic Church that has fought tooth and nail against legal same-sex marriage wherever it's been implemented, or thought of being implemented? The same Catholic Church that would rather shut down its adoption services than treat a married same-sex couple the same as it would a married opposite-sex couple? Maybe it was some other Catholic Church that did that!
Citizens of other countries visiting France would not be affected by these laws for French citizens, just as non-Catholics are not affected by internal laws of the Catholic Church.
Sorry, still not sure how that would work. If a non-French couple visiting France isn't "affected" by French family law, doesn't that mean that laws covering things like hospital visitations, next-of-kin rights, etc. also don't "affect" (i.e. apply) to such a couple? How big is the void in the French legal code for the legal rights and obligations of those married in another jurisdiction?
Sorry, @Forthview but I'd need confirmation from somebody who is actually a French lawyer to accept your assertion that France doesn't recognise marriages contracted by French citizens on foreign soil according to the law of the place where contracted. That so isn't the normal position under what's referred to as the comity of nations that it doesn't seem very likely. The comity of nations in this context means that countries recognise the legal activities that take place in each others' territories.
The general principle is that for a marriage to be accepted as a valid marriage, it has to comply with the law of the place where it takes place. So, if a marriage takes place in England and Wales, it is valid if conducted according to the law there (known as lex soli) and void if it isn't. That's the case irrespective of where either of the parties come from. If an English or Welsh person goes to France and contracts a marriage in France, whether with a French person or anyone else, what determines whether the marriage is valid or not, everywhere, is whether it is recognised as in accordance with French law. If it does, it's valid. If it doesn't, it isn't, irrespective of whether it would comply with the law of somewhere else.
I'd be very, very, surprised if French law is different on this.
It is possible that French law may require French citizens to notify the French state in some way that they have got married abroad. But if so, I'd also be very, very surprised if it regarded a person who hadn't done so properly was therefore entitled to marry someone else.
What the consequences of a marriage are, e.g. as to whether or not the marriage is governed by French community of property (dos etc) or English law which doesn't have community and usually doesn't know quite what to do with cases where people are bound by it, is a quite different question determined by the juggling of different principles.
Is there a shipmate who knows enough about French law on something that in most countries will be fairly arcane to be able to confirm that indeed @Forthview is correct, since as I say, it would be very surprising under the general principles that states are expected to recognise.
Croesus let me give you another example of being married and not being married at the same time.
If you are a citizen of the French Republic your marriage will only be recognised in France if it has been solemnised by an official of the French State
A French citizen might marry legally (and religiously, if desired) in Britain but the marriage would only be recognised by the French State when carried out by an appointed officer of the French Republic
So a British married couple vacationing in France are regarded as unmarried? And in the event one of them is hospitalized the other has no legal authority to make decisions on their behalf because they're legal strangers? That doesn't sound correct.
The statement you object to was bracketed by an "If you are a citizen of the French Republic" clause, so wouldn't apply to tourists.
I'm still surprised that (by Forthview's language) France wouldn't recognize a marriage between a French citizen and a citizen of some other country if it was carried out in that other country. That seems unlikely to be true to me.
I can't find an English-language source, but the French foreign office does imply that if a French couple married abroad, they would need to have this marriage validated by the French embassy in order for it to be legal in France.
(I was a language assistant at a French lycée and recall that an Indian pupil who had decent exam results in India that weren't recognised by the French education ministry was treated - by the system, if not by the school - as exactly equivalent to a French pupil who had utterly flunked their brevet de collège. So it doesn't surprise me at all to be honest ...)
Comments
Mousethief tells us that a baptised Catholic can join another religion but cannot join another marriage.
I appreciate why he uses the phrase 'join another marriage' but surely that is not a good choice of words. One cannot simply 'join a marriage'
Just as a baptised Catholic can choose to join another religion, a baptised Catholic, provided they fulfil the laws of the land, can enter into the state of marriage according to the laws of the land and indeed according to the internal rules of various Christian bodies.
However, even according to the laws of various civil and religious jurisdictions one cannot simply enter into the married state just because one wants to.
A couple might separate but until a divorce is pronounced they are still man and wife even if they have nothing to do with one another.
After divorce a good number of ex-spouses will refer to their ex-husband or ex-wife acknowledging that special relationship from the past.
The Catholic Church would see an ongoing spiritual relationship until death of two people who were once married.
I have some questions for the Orthodox now.
If two people who were married and then had a civil divorce would the Orthodox authorities immediately recognise that divorce ?
If they don't ( and I don't know if they do) would that couple still be regarded as 'married' in the eyes of the Church
Let us now suppose that one of the couple wished to marry again to a partner of the same sex and it was in a state where same sex marriage is allowed would the Church provide a marriage service or would that person find him or herself in the same position as a Catholic who can't 'join another marriage' ?
I think it's a bit of a stretch to read anything in to this. Lots of people also refer to their ex-boss, their ex-employer, and so on. It doesn't mean anything more that "this person used to be my boss, which is why I know them, and they aren't my boss any more".
The fact that one has been married is often referred to even obliquely on official papers e.g. 'divorced' or 'widowed'
Or in Marriage Registers as 'Previous Marriage Dissolved'
Civil law allows this in a number of states and so do a number of religious bodies ?
South of the border, the rules on where a wedding can take place were very strict indeed. They have been relaxed a bit, but not that much. Neither a civil, nor a religious wedding can be on a beach, in the water, at the top of a mountain, or for that matter, anywhere out of doors at all. If a hotel is authorised to provide a venue for civil weddings, the ceremony must also take place in the same room as the one where the reception is going to be held. A religious wedding must take place in a church or chapel that's authorised either expressly in the case of chapels or because it's a parish church.
Most definitely. Beach weddings are very popular here.
I don't actually have an issue with the number, it could be zero, it could be 3, or 47. What I actually struggle with is that whatever the number is it is human decided.
So are a lot of things. Like deciding who to marry, or when. Do you struggle with the validity of those things too?
Of course the standard Christian position is that Jesus was fully human (and fully God), so anything based on his words is also "human decided".
I wonder what happened there with the quoting thing!
I struggle when humans make authority decisions towards other believers when it is about personal matters like divorce and re-marriage. Yes, I struggle with that, particularly if and when it doesn't seem to be in alignment with the words of Jesus, or it is *just* one interpretation. So, I can't see how or where Jesus said the magic number was 3, so because he didn't I am interested in both the authority of those who say it should be 3 and their working out of it. "It's a reasonable number" is fair enough in some respects, but my issue is more about humans deciding their view is the right one and then imposing it on others. That said, I don't have an answer.
Do you believe a church can, on a case by case basis - or in general, discern the will / inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the here and now or do you believe nothing is added after the bible ends ?
I generally favour a case by case approach. It is impossible, for humans to do such, in any real way (as in by giving numbers) but I think that it is more of a heart matter than a numbers thing. As I said I have no solution, maybe for some people no re-marriage is the "right" thing, maybe for others a 7th one is "ok".
Isn't that almost what the orthodoxen do? Approval for marriage #2 isn't automatic, is it? And approval for marriage #3 is possible to get, but quite a lot harder.
If *they* decide what is a heart matter.
Interesting question, given that scripturally there doesn't seem to be any bar against plural marriages and quite a lot of examples in favor of the practice being legitimate. How does a bar against remarriage after divorce match up with a culture that permits a second marriage without a divorce?
I am not Orthodox, I am a Quaker. We have a tradition of discernment that is intended to be participatory rather than applied, as it were. I imagine, or perhaps hope, that Orthodox pastoral practice maybe more collaborative than you are assuming.
Are you subject at the moment to the 'not more than 30 and that includes the couple, the celebrant, the verger etc' rule, or doesn't that apply in Scotland?
Then, if the couple so wishes to have a blessing of a religious body, they can make an application to the religious body they choose. But the religious body is not in the act of tying the knot.
Enoch, yes, I was aware that there were all those fancy details. No idea why they still remain although I can understand the need for some restrictions in centuries past. Much the same line of territory as the assertion of an infant produced from a warming pan.
Cathscats , the park I referred to as being a popular venue for weddings locally is just over the road from a popular café, and so are in full view of a number of strangers. After one ceremony, the wedding party adjourned to the café for coffee, and were greeted by a round of applause.
Mousethief, I find your then no Orthodox Christians have ever been legally married in that jurisdiction difficult. Is there a reason why the necessary vows could not be exchanged either during the service, or immediately afterwards, thus complying with the legal requirements for a marriage and the normal Orthodox service? Is the service to which you refer uniform throughout the Orthodox Church, or just that following the Greek or Bulgarian etc tradition?
Anybody of course who doesn't like the way the Orthodox do it is not compelled to join or stay in. These days we're not in tiny villages and forced to go to the local.
That seems to be the position of Christendom for the first millennium CE. Making it a sacrament seems to me to be part of the drive of the religious authorities to lord it over its members.
Ironically you are completely wrong as to the millenium. This from Wikipedia, well-footnoted:
So you think 1184 is in the first millenium CE?
The problem is that people treat the Bible as a modern legal code. It's not. The part you're talking about is the recorded words of Jesus (and others have already pointed out we don't know how close this is to a literal and complete transcript). But more generally, even the bits of the Bible written as laws are simply not laws of the kind we use today. Because such laws did not exist.
The idea of a law as a complete and exhaustive statement is only a few centuries old. Before that, "laws" were expressions of principles. And the way that principles are worked out is by then going and elaborating. Asking questions like, what happens when Principle A interacts with and clashes with Principle B, which one ought to win? Are there exceptions to a principle, or qualifications, or situations where we come to realise it doesn't work and achieve the result the principle is aiming at.
So yes, citing a principle and saying "no exceptions, ever" IS harsh and graceless. Moreover it completely misses the point and is ahistorical, making a rule operate in a way that a Jewish person would never have imagined. Jewish theology is absolutely full of texts exploring and elaborating on the commandments in the Old Testament, so it makes zero sense to pretend that the words of Jesus are some kind of blanket statement immune to the same method.
Mousethief, you might want to look at how the Lutheran Reformers rejected that idea.
*The Reformation of Marriage in Luther's Germany," by Jon Witte Jr. Journal of Law and Religion Vol 4. http://www.johnwittejr.com/uploads/5/4/6/6/54662393/a9.pdf
Do Lutherans go to church to get married? I'm thinking they do. Whatever Luther did is in many ways irrelevant.
Well yes. Clearly the limiting number of marriages ought to be 491, per Matthew 18:22.
Is there any England or Welsh based shipmate who actually knows whether that's so?
Because of concerns in the past (and unfortunately still) about forced marriages, the legal system is justifiably a bit paranoid about this.
It's CofE theology, by the way, that marriage isn't something the church confers on the couple. It's something they give to each other. The church is involved to witness, bless and endorse that.
Just as there is a social and civil aspect to the solemnization of marriage there is a theological aspect to it.
Most countries in Europe, anyway, have a separation between civil secular marriage ceremonies and religious marriage ceremonies.
The civil aspect gives legally recognised status to the marriage and the religious rite gives a religiously recognised status to the marriage.
Behind all the discussions about the rights and wrongs of Catholic teaching on marriage there lie the questions what is the Church ? with what, if any, authority does the Church speak ? does God keep His covenants with His people ?
These are big questions and I appreciate that not everyone answers these questions in the same way.
An important part of being a Catholic is to accept the teachings of the Church. By that I mean the official teachings, not necessarily the musings of any individual Catholic, be they lay persons, priests or bishops.
As far as I can see the teachings of the Orthodox Church in the theology of marriage are much the same as those of the Catholic Church.
According to the websites of various Orthodox authorities the Orthodox Church recognises a civil divorce as a civil divorce (so does the Catholic Church) but says that not until an ecclesiastical divorce has been pronounced could one even contemplate a second or third marriage in church.
The general view, though, is probably that,
- marriage is part of human society.
- marriage is a good thing.
- marriage is fundamentally different from cohabitation.
- it is hugely preferable that people marry explicitly in the sight of God, acknowledge that they do so and seek his blessing, and this is particularly so if the couple are believers.
- After all, marriage is sufficiently difficult that people need his help. But
- a church wedding sacralises something that is part of human life, not something which is exclusive to people of faith.
- a civil wedding effectively marries people just as much as a church one.
- the church doesn't draw a distinction between church marriages that it recognises and civil ones that it doesn't.
- it assumes God doesn't either.
- the commitments to each other follow automatically from being married.
- getting married by a registrar rather than a vicar doesn't let you off the obligation to be faithful to each other etc etc.
And personally, I have the opposite opinion. The state's role in my marriage is limited to registering that it happened. Mrs C and I tell the state "we are married" and the state says "OK, we'll make a note of that."
(And it doesn't matter for this part of my opinion whether I'm having a church wedding or a civil one. The state's job is to sit there and say "thanks for letting us know. We've made a note of it.")
The couple who are making the commitment are the ones who are making the contract.
Their engagement with one another is the important part of a marriage.
Indeed a church wedding sacralises something which is fairly common to society not just to people of faith. However without some sort of faith a church wedding would not 'sacralise' a marriage in a Christian sense. Certainly a Catholic wedding where neither of the partners were people of faith would not be counted as a Catholic wedding and would be capable of being annulled as a Catholic marriage.
A civil wedding effectively marries people just as much as a church wedding.
The Catholic Church insists however that as soon as possible after a civil wedding a Catholic should marry in a church ceremony which asks for God's blessing on the marriage. Of course a couple, if there is no minister there, can ask themselves for the blessing of God upon their marriage but in ordinary circumstances they are expected to do this in front of a minister of the Church. If ,in ordinary circumstances this is not done ,it is reasonably assumed that this is because the couple do not wish for a Catholic marriage and consequently they are not married in the eyes of the Church..
The two bolded statements seem to be at odds with one another. The first claims that getting marries by civil official counts as being married, while the second claims that any couple who has undergone such a ceremony is actually unmarried and guilty of the sin of fornication. Can you clarify?
I think Wikipedia is conflating two issues:
1. Whether marriage is a sacrament;
2. Whether marriage needs to be celebrated by clergy.
On point (1), marriage was described as a sacrament by St Augustine, so I wouldn't put too much store by the 1184 date. The Assumption of Mary was only 'officially' defined as Catholic doctrine in 1950, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Catholic teaching before then.
On point (2), being a sacrament doesn't mean that it has to be celebrated by the church. AIUI, the church got involved in the Middle Ages because it became increasingly necessary for marriages to be officially recorded, and in the village the priest was the man most likely to be literate. I think it was quite late, possibly as late as the Reformation, that celebration in church became a requirement.
In theory any couple claiming to be Catholic could take each other as spouses ( assuming,of course that they are at liberty so to do,i.e. not at the moment married to another person)
In any case of necessity, such as the absence of a minister of the Church this could count as a Catholic marriage.
A civil marriage recognised by the state in which the couple lives constitutes a marriage recognised by the state for legal purposes and the Catholic Church would recognise this as a civil marriage.
However if the couple claim to be Catholics or if one of the partners to the marriage claims to be Catholic then they should be aware that in normal circumstances the marriage should be witnessed and blessed by the appropriate representative of the Church.
If ,knowing this, they choose not to do this , then the Church would say that their marriage is not a Catholic marriage and that in the eyes of the Church, since they have chosen wilfully ,knowingly not to involve God in the marriage, the marriage is not a Catholic marriage.
The Church recognises a civil marriage as a civil marriage.
For baptised Catholics who claim to be Catholics the Church recognises as a Catholic marriage, only a Catholic marriage - unless an episcopal dispensation has been given to 'sacralise' the marriage elsewhere.
If you are a citizen of the French Republic your marriage will only be recognised in France if it has been solemnised by an official of the French State
A French citizen might marry legally (and religiously,if desired) in Britain but the marriage would only be recognised by the French State when carried out by an appointed officer of the French Republic
My question is more about couples who don't regard themselves as Catholics. Your previous post would seem to assert that there is no circumstance under which the Catholic Church would consider such a couple to be married. For example, is the Jewish woman who does the accounting for a Catholic Hospital entitled to spousal benefits for her husband, or does the Catholic Church consider her ineligible because she's unmarried, in their view?
So a British married couple vacationing in France are regarded as unmarried? And in the event one of them is hospitalized the other has no legal authority to make decisions on their behalf because they're legal strangers? That doesn't sound correct.
The statement you object to was bracketed by an "If you are a citizen of the French Republic" clause, so wouldn't apply to tourists.
I'm still surprised that (by Forthview's language) France wouldn't recognize a marriage between a French citizen and a citizen of some other country if it was carried out in that other country. That seems unlikely to be true to me.
Again I repeat that the Catholic Church would accept as a civil marriage what is a civil marriage.
The marriage of two Anglicans, of a Jew and a Buddhist, of two atheists, of a Hindu and a Moslem etc.etc. would be recognised as a legally valid marriage if the State in which they were in recognised the marriage as a legal marriage.
The idea of a specifically Catholic sacramental marriage only concerns those who claim to be Catholics.
In exactly the same way the Catholic Church only concerns itself with the celebration of other Catholic sacraments. It makes no official statement about rites and sacraments celebrated by other bodies apart from saying, for example ,that an Anglican eucharist is not a Catholic eucharist.. Baptism is a special case,which I won't go into.
I didn't say that a marriage involving at least one ,if not two French citizens would not be seen as legal in France ,if celebrated in another country. It would not be considered as legal in France until it was solemnised by a representative of the French Republic.
A marriage in France of a French citizen is an act of the French state and has to be carried out by an authorised representative of the state. It might be in a French consulate of another country.
Citizens of other countries visiting France would not be affected by these laws for French citizens, just as non-Catholics are not affected by internal laws of the Catholic Church.
Go on, pull the other one! This is the same Catholic Church that has fought tooth and nail against legal same-sex marriage wherever it's been implemented, or thought of being implemented? The same Catholic Church that would rather shut down its adoption services than treat a married same-sex couple the same as it would a married opposite-sex couple? Maybe it was some other Catholic Church that did that!
Sorry, still not sure how that would work. If a non-French couple visiting France isn't "affected" by French family law, doesn't that mean that laws covering things like hospital visitations, next-of-kin rights, etc. also don't "affect" (i.e. apply) to such a couple? How big is the void in the French legal code for the legal rights and obligations of those married in another jurisdiction?
The general principle is that for a marriage to be accepted as a valid marriage, it has to comply with the law of the place where it takes place. So, if a marriage takes place in England and Wales, it is valid if conducted according to the law there (known as lex soli) and void if it isn't. That's the case irrespective of where either of the parties come from. If an English or Welsh person goes to France and contracts a marriage in France, whether with a French person or anyone else, what determines whether the marriage is valid or not, everywhere, is whether it is recognised as in accordance with French law. If it does, it's valid. If it doesn't, it isn't, irrespective of whether it would comply with the law of somewhere else.
I'd be very, very, surprised if French law is different on this.
It is possible that French law may require French citizens to notify the French state in some way that they have got married abroad. But if so, I'd also be very, very surprised if it regarded a person who hadn't done so properly was therefore entitled to marry someone else.
What the consequences of a marriage are, e.g. as to whether or not the marriage is governed by French community of property (dos etc) or English law which doesn't have community and usually doesn't know quite what to do with cases where people are bound by it, is a quite different question determined by the juggling of different principles.
Is there a shipmate who knows enough about French law on something that in most countries will be fairly arcane to be able to confirm that indeed @Forthview is correct, since as I say, it would be very surprising under the general principles that states are expected to recognise.
I can't find an English-language source, but the French foreign office does imply that if a French couple married abroad, they would need to have this marriage validated by the French embassy in order for it to be legal in France.
(I was a language assistant at a French lycée and recall that an Indian pupil who had decent exam results in India that weren't recognised by the French education ministry was treated - by the system, if not by the school - as exactly equivalent to a French pupil who had utterly flunked their brevet de collège. So it doesn't surprise me at all to be honest ...)