Many thanks to those who have explained to me something about what is considered as a marriage service (religious or secular) in the USA.
I'm not clear if there is anything specific which a non-religious celebrant,be it court official, judge etc. ,has to say. Does the officiant merely have to sign a paper stating that the couple wish to marry according to the laws of the state ?
Again, it will vary by state. Here (North Carolina), there are no specific words that must be used. The two people being married must, in some form, each declare that he or she consents to take the other as husband or wife in the presence of “an ordained minister of any religious denomination [or] a minister authorized by a church” (case law suggests that internet ordination isn’t sufficient), or in the presence of a magistrate, with a declaration by the minister or magistrate that the couple are married. Alternatively, the couple may make that declaration “in accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.” The latter option has been around in some form for centuries, originally put in place with the Quakers in mind.
Some actual facts about marriage in France: when French citizens get married abroad, their marriages are usually recognised by the French state, although you're wise to check. Some friends of mine were having trouble getting a date for the civil ceremony and thought about jetting off to Vegas. It was uncertain whether the state would have recognised a marriage contracted in a Vegas chapel and they didn't do it (most "normal" American marriages are fine, though). French citizens married abroad do have to register the marriage in France so that other legal paperwork can be updated. In particular when you get married in France a marginal note is added to your birth certificate.
Destination weddings in France are not really a thing because you or your parents have to be resident in the commune where the ceremony is held for at least six weeks beforehand.
It would seem also that an Orthodox wedding on its own would not be counted as a legally recognised marriage.
Although with a little bit of paperwork, it's good.
Also that a civil divorce would not entitle an Orthodox Christian to marry again in the Orthodox Church until an Orthodox ecclesial divorce was granted by a bishop in communion with the parish where the civilly legally divorced marriage candidate lives.
We don't have ecclesial divorce. We have bishop-granted permission to remarry. Divorce is sin, and our bishops don't pronounce or celebrate sin (officially anyway).
According to my understanding of what mousethief says an Orthodox who marries in a civil ceremony would be excommunicated.
No, what I said was an Orthodox who marries a non-Christian in a civil ceremony would be excommunicate.
There is a story about the Hitching Post in Couer d' Alene, Idaho. CDA has a nondiscrimination law and it sued the HP owners saying they did not maintain a congregation or celebrate any form of religious sacrament, that they were a for-prophet business. The owners, though, fought back saying they were registered as a religious corporation. The city backed down. HP still refuses to do same-sex marriages.
Thankyou,mousethief, for your explanations.
Yes, I would think that an Orthodox wedding service, just like those of all other religious bodies in the USA would take its validity in the eyes of the law of the land from that 'bit of paperwork which makes it all good'
I am fascinated by the 'bishop granted permission to remarry'. 'remarry' assumes that at least one of the partners was married before. If there is no recognised ecclesial divorce act does this mean that the bishop gives permission to remarry even if one is already married ?
How does this square with the law of the land ?
Would the bishop have to give permission to remarry if one of the spouses had died and the marriage candidate was widowed ?
How does the bishop decide that the person will have permission to marry ?
Is there no check on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities as to whether the person(s) are free to marry according to state law or indeed according to the understandings of the Orthodox church ?
Or does a civil divorce recognised by the law of the land effectively end the religious marriage ?
Thank you for explaining about the excommunication of an Orthodox Christian who marries an non-Christian in a civil ceremony. If excommunication only follows in these circumstances:
does this then mean that an Orthodox Christian who marries another Christian in a civil ceremony is thereby married and 'in good standing' in the Orthodox community ?
Would these Orthodox or even non-Orthodox Christians still be in good standing if their civil wedding partners were of the same sex ?
If the Orthodox Church does not permit same sex marriage would it be fair to describe it as bigoted and homophobic ?
Sorry to put all these niggling questions, which may, of course be answered easily by you.
These are the sort of questions, though not always exactly the same, which are put to those attempting to explain orthodox Catholic teaching.
Thankyou,mousethief, for your explanations.
Yes, I would think that an Orthodox wedding service, just like those of all other religious bodies in the USA would take its validity in the eyes of the law of the land from that 'bit of paperwork which makes it all good'
It’s not the paperwork per se that “makes it all good” in the US. What makes it all good is that the couple have consented, in the presence of an authorized officiant and witnesses, to take each other as spouses that makes it all good. The paperwork is the evidence that this has happened.
But without the paperwork would it still be 'all good' in the eyes of the state ?
That is what I am trying to find out. And I emphasise here'in the eyes of the state'
But without the paperwork would it still be 'all good' in the eyes of the state ?
That is what I am trying to find out. And I emphasise here'in the eyes of the state'
Without the paperwork, the marriage would not be legally recognized by the state because the state would have no evidence that the legal requirements for marriage have been met.
It is the consent to marry, in the presence of witnesses, that legally creates the marriage. It is the paperwork that enables the state to recognize that the marriage has been created.
This is a long thread. My only comment is whether length of life and thus length of a marriage, as having greatly increased, figure into any of the religious denominations' views of divorce. And related issues.
If lifespans are 50, 35, 80; if people can actually aspire to being just a bit happy versus just getting by.... this is perhaps some of the most egregious effects of unchanging religious thinking: failure to consider historical conditions and how people actually live.
If there is no recognised ecclesial divorce act does this mean that the bishop gives permission to remarry even if one is already married ?
The bishop would not give permission to remarry to someone who was not already divorced. A divorce is a civil proceeding. It acknowledges that a marriage has ceased to be. In such cases as an Orthodox bishop grants permission to remarry, it is taken as read that the ecclesial marriage ended when the civil marriage ended.
Would the bishop have to give permission to remarry if one of the spouses had died and the marriage candidate was widowed ?
Depends on the circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all rule about this. This might be a good time to introduce the idea of economia (or ekonomia). That is, the clergy have the right (and responsibility) to bend the rules of the church to best facilitate a person's salvation. Remarriage itself is an act of economia -- the strict rule of the church is that one is married one time, that's all. It is by economia that second or third marriages are allowed. Similarly if someone is sick or has food needs that don't allow them to keep the complete fast of the church, then their priest will nearly always grant them economia to "break the fast" (not keep it entirely, or in rare cases not at all) for the sake of their health. We are not supposed to eat before the Eucharist, but if a person has blood sugar problems, the priest will grant economia for them to have something before Church on a Sunday. And so forth. It's our embodiment of the idea that the fast was made for man and not man for the fast.
How does the bishop decide that the person will have permission to marry ?
I've covered this already. Short answer: the bishop thinks it is what is best for the people involved, primarily for their salvation; secondarily for other needs. I'm sure that my wife being a young(ish) single mother had somewhat to do with her being allowed to remarry (i.e. marry me).
Is there no check on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities as to whether the person(s) are free to marry according to state law
That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I suppose it's a matter of due diligence on the part first of the priest, then of the bishop. The priest because it is the priest who petitions the bishop to grant the remarriage.
or indeed according to the understandings of the Orthodox church ?
Well generally if a person has been going to this parish all their life, the priest will know. If they are from a different parish in the same diocese, the priests will talk about it. If they are in a different diocese, then the bishops will talk about it. I know for a fact this happens.
Or does a civil divorce recognised by the law of the land effectively end the religious marriage ?
Covered that above.
Thank you for explaining about the excommunication of an Orthodox Christian who marries an non-Christian in a civil ceremony. If excommunication only follows in these circumstances: does this then mean that an Orthodox Christian who marries another Christian in a civil ceremony is thereby married and 'in good standing' in the Orthodox community ?
To be married and in good standing in the Orthodox community, it would generally be necessary to have their civil marriage "blessed" or acknowledged by the priest. If it is not blessable (say it's the fourth marriage, or the bishop denies a 2nd or 3rd), then the person would not be married in the eyes of the church. I do not know if this would make them excommunicate or not.
Please note that we don't say "excommunicated" because that implies some kind of ceremony or permanent status. A person who is excommunicate (adjective) is denied the privilege to partake of the chalice, but that could be temporary. There are old lists of rules, where for instance if you killed somebody you were excommunicate for 3 years. How well these lists are still used, I do not know.
Would these Orthodox or even non-Orthodox Christians still be in good standing if their civil wedding partners were of the same sex ?
No.
If the Orthodox Church does not permit same sex marriage would it be fair to describe it as bigoted and homophobic ?
If that makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
A difficulty with ‘matrimony’ is that it doesn’t IIRC have a verb, and doesn’t lend itself to coining one. “I’m going to get matrimonied in church tomorrow.”
Here’s a first-rate opportunity
To get married with impunity,
And indulge in the felicity
Of unbounded domesticity.
You shall quickly be parsonified,
Conjugally matrimonified,
By a doctor of divinity,
Who is located in this vicinity.
As the word 'marriage' presupposes the existence of a husband - from 'maritus' in Latin appearing in Italian as 'marito', Spanish as 'marido' and French as 'mari',so does 'matrimony' remind us, from its origins, that the role of the female is to be a mother ,from Latin 'mater'
But it is the earlier meaning and the origin of the word .
'husband' is the person who is 'bonded to a household and 'wife' is originally a neuter word referring to a possession of the husband. Again these words have changed their meaning but it useful and sometimes salutary to know where the words come from.
But it is the earlier meaning and the origin of the word .
'husband' is the person who is 'bonded to a household and 'wife' is originally a neuter word referring to a possession of the husband. Again these words have changed their meaning but it useful and sometimes salutary to know where the words come from.
I'm not actually sure that it is. Words mean what they mean now, not what they might have meant 900 years ago.
'Marriage' means what people usually understand it to mean in ordinary speech. So does 'matrimony'. So do 'husband' and 'wife'. Their possible derivations, whether as far back as Anglo-Saxon, Latin or even ur-Indo-European only changes that if the word history is still present in their current usage. I don't think it is in any of those four instances.
@Forthview I'm not sure whether I've remembered this right, but am I correct that although you live in Scotland, you came there from somewhere else and English is not your first language? One slightly entertaining thought, though I don't think it has any significance, is that there's a difference between English and several neighbouring languages. English normally uses a separate word for 'wife'. A direct translation of sa femme or seine Frau into English is 'his woman', which in English would be a marker that they are not married and is slightly derogatory.
Enoch - of course you are right - words mean now what people understand them to mean and the meanings of 'marriage' and 'matrimony' have changed over the centuries as indeed have changed the meanings of the Germanic 'husband' and ''wife'
Some of the discussions on this board have been about exactly what the word 'marriage' means - its present exact meaning can obviously be understood by different people in different ways.
Generally on its own I would take it to mean whatever the state validating the idea of marriage takes it to be.
It is interesting that in the Latin based languages there is a special word for 'husband' but the word for the female partner in the complementary sex marriage is often just the word 'woman' That is why some people in different languages nowadays use the 'spouse'
On a personal level I was indeed born in Scotland but spent much of childhood and youth in Austria.
Enoch - of course you are right - words mean now what people understand them to mean and the meanings of 'marriage' and 'matrimony' have changed over the centuries as indeed have changed the meanings of the Germanic 'husband' and ''wife'
Some of the discussions on this board have been about exactly what the word 'marriage' means - its present exact meaning can obviously be understood by different people in different ways.
Generally on its own I would take it to mean whatever the state validating the idea of marriage takes it to be.
It is interesting that in the Latin based languages there is a special word for 'husband' but the word for the female partner in the complementary sex marriage is often just the word 'woman' That is why some people in different languages nowadays use the 'spouse'
On a personal level I was indeed born in Scotland but spent much of childhood and youth in Austria.
I'm not sure that we are actually discussing what the word 'marriage' means. I think it's more that we're discussing what we think its incidents and consequences are or ought to be.
The OP asked for a discussion from a theological perspective on divorce and re-marriage.
Surely one needs to know what one understands by the word 'marriage' before one can discuss 're-marriage'
I'm not sure what you mean by the 'incidents' of marriage.
Most states which are democracies allow for divorce and for re-marriage. Usually there has been a period of unhappiness in a marriage before a state validated divorce. The divorced person may find happiness in a second marriage.
The consequences of the first marriage ought to be great lifelong togetherness but we know that this is not always the case. The consequences of a second marriage ought to be continued lifelong togetherness with another partner but we know that this is not always the case.
The idea as to what constitutes a marriage is determined by individual states. In a democracy the representatives of the state are in theory chosen by the people thus the ideas concerning marriage, divorce and re-marriage come from the people.
In a democracy the people who elect their representatives, if there are enough of them of a certain opinion can in time determine what the state's ideas concerning marriage, divorce and re-marriage should be.
Theological perspectives only play a role in this if sufficient number of electors think that their ideas should be followed.
The consequences of the first marriage ought to be great lifelong togetherness but we know that this is not always the case. The consequences of a second marriage ought to be continued lifelong togetherness with another partner but we know that this is not always the case.
It's almost never the case for at least one of the partners in a marriage, unless the marriage ends in something like a messy automobile accident. Despite platitudes about "lifelong togetherness", most people understand that it's overwhelmingly likely that, even without a divorce, one of the parties to a marriage will not have "togetherness" with their partner for the rest of their own life.
The consequences of the first marriage ought to be great lifelong togetherness but we know that this is not always the case. The consequences of a second marriage ought to be continued lifelong togetherness with another partner but we know that this is not always the case.
It's almost never the case for at least one of the partners in a marriage, unless the marriage ends in something like a messy automobile accident. Despite platitudes about "lifelong togetherness", most people understand that it's overwhelmingly likely that, even without a divorce, one of the parties to a marriage will not have "togetherness" with their partner for the rest of their own life.
But what about the traditional Orthodox disapproval of second marriages even after the death of one's spouse? Doesn't that imply some sort of commitment of the living partner even after the death of the other? Or am I completely misunderstanding the reasons behind the disapproval?
But what about the traditional Orthodox disapproval of second marriages even after the death of one's spouse? Doesn't that imply some sort of commitment of the living partner even after the death of the other? Or am I completely misunderstanding the reasons behind the disapproval?
It implies commitment to the idea that one marriage is the ideal.
mousethief , would my friendly neighbourhood* Orthodox priest give me a marriage service should I remarry after Madame dies, she and I having remained married until her death? Would it make any difference if we had been divorced?
* There is actually a Greek Orthodox church about 4 or 5 km away - very rare for these parts, I think it's the only one north of the Harbour.
mousethief , would my friendly neighbourhood* Orthodox priest give me a marriage service should I remarry after Madame dies, she and I having remained married until her death? Would it make any difference if we had been divorced?
* There is actually a Greek Orthodox church about 4 or 5 km away - very rare for these parts, I think it's the only one north of the Harbour.
1. Not if you're not Orthodox, or at least your bride isn't,
But what about the traditional Orthodox disapproval of second marriages even after the death of one's spouse? Doesn't that imply some sort of commitment of the living partner even after the death of the other? Or am I completely misunderstanding the reasons behind the disapproval?
It implies commitment to the idea that one marriage is the ideal.
OK I think I partially see. So a re-marriage after bereavement is considered "non-ideal", but not because it's breaking any commitment to one's previous spouse, but for some other reason.
What I still don't quite see is what that reason is. Why is it that the first marriage is considered "more ideal" than the re-marriage after bereavement?
mousethief , would my friendly neighbourhood* Orthodox priest give me a marriage service should I remarry after Madame dies, she and I having remained married until her death? Would it make any difference if we had been divorced?
* There is actually a Greek Orthodox church about 4 or 5 km away - very rare for these parts, I think it's the only one north of the Harbour.
1. Not if you're not Orthodox, or at least your bride isn't,
2. How should I know? Go ask him.
Thank you for your response to what, on my part, was a genuine, if general, enquiry.
But what about the traditional Orthodox disapproval of second marriages even after the death of one's spouse? Doesn't that imply some sort of commitment of the living partner even after the death of the other? Or am I completely misunderstanding the reasons behind the disapproval?
It implies commitment to the idea that one marriage is the ideal.
OK I think I partially see. So a re-marriage after bereavement is considered "non-ideal", but not because it's breaking any commitment to one's previous spouse, but for some other reason.
What I still don't quite see is what that reason is. Why is it that the first marriage is considered "more ideal" than the re-marriage after bereavement?
While I cannot give a definite answer to TT's question it may have something to do with the comparison between the relationship of husband and wife in marriage and that of Christ and his Church - a relationship which is ongoing. For many Christians ( as well as many other human beings and some animals also) the choice of a mate is one of the most important choices we make in this life. The married couple (for some Christians) are a sort of domestic church from which springs new life.
Although some Christians would say that Jesus meant marriage to be for life, he did also teach that in Heaven (should we get there !) there is no giving and taking in marriage thus one could marry again after the death of one of the partners.
I did not intend to comment again on this topic but I think that my thanks to mousethief, simply saying 'thanks from me too' is not sufficient for the time and effort which mousethief must have put in to answering my questions about Orthodox 'divorce' and remarriage teachings.
I have always admired, since I found out about it a few years ago, the Orthodox teaching of 'economia' . I do see, however, a difference in a dispensation from a pre-Communion fast and the dispensation (if that is the correct word) to marry again. The first is a dispensation from the discipline of the Church (Jesus never mentions pre-Communion fasts) the second is a dispensation from what is seen as the actual teaching of Jesus, even although it may be argued that it is done for the best of reasons..
I was interested to read that the Orthodox Church does not regard someone who is married in a civil ceremony as married in the eyes of the Church. I assume that, just like the teachings of the Catholic Church, this only applies to those who claim to be Orthodox Christians and that the marriages of other Christians and other faiths and none, but contracted in good faith, are regarded as 'proper' marriages.
I understand mousethief's dismissal of the idea of two Orthodox attempting to marry in a religious ceremony a partner of the same sex . His answer to my question as to whether one should therefore classify the Orthodox church as bigoted or homophobic was classic mousethief speak 'if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out !'
I do appreciate his explanation of the difference between 'excommunicate' and 'excommunicated' For what it is worth I think that by 'excommunicate' Catholics would simply say 'excluded from the sacraments' For both Orthodox and Catholics awareness of serious sin excludes one from the reception of Holy Communion. Much of the time this awareness of serious (sometimes called 'mortal') sin is a private thing and can be forgiven immediately by sorrow and repentance, even if in the ordinary way of things this sorrow and repentance should be expressed privately to a priest who can give formal absolution.
'Excommunication' in Catholic speak is the same thing writ larger and with permission from the bishop can be forgiven at any time one repentance has been established.
Thanks again ,mousethief, for all your answers upthread.
Personally, I do not see anything wrong with this, I only managed to find happiness in my second marriage. I am very happy that I found such a cool wife who understands everything about me. With the first wife, we were always fighting and could not restoring relationship trust between us. So I immediately thought about divorce and it turned out to be the only right decision that I made. Now my second wife and I are very happy that we have found each other and I think that this marriage will definitely be the last for me.
I have not noticed a lot of negative reactions among the laity over who the bishops allow to remarry. I'm not sure it's much talked about, on the wholly sensible concept of "keep your eyes on your own plate" (the origin has to do with fasting). There is a growing group of baggage-laden converts who are "Orthodoxer than thou" but I haven't heard any grousing about remarriage even among them. Probably because a goodly number of them are doubtless remarried also.
Thanks.
As far as anyone can tell, does the bishop tend to judge on the basis of blame (e.g., Sergei was at fault for the breakdown of his first marriage, therefore he can't have a second one), or is it more a case of 'Sergei's first marriage is well and truly dead, but Vladimir and Yekaterina's might have a bit of life left in it, they should try to patch up before any talk of second marriages'?
I hope that this is not too much of a tangent.
Over the years I've been asked to review documents related to two separate petitions to Orthodox bishops-- more on my brief-prep skills than any specific Orthodox canon law knowledge (for the curious, there are some canon law courses at Saint Vlad's and Brookline, but no English-language qualifications of which I know). Both procedures required the endorsement of the parish priest, and as far as I can figure out, bishops were not intending to engage in counselling etc. Documents briefly but without specifics referred to the grounds of the end of the marriage (i.e., repeated and consistent inability of spouse to keep vows rather than that dog Hamid was booked into the EasyRest Motel with my sluttish cousin on the following dates). At my suggestion, both included a description of the civil divorce's custody and support arrangements for the children (an Anglican practice from the days when we bothered to have any serious procedures for remarriage) and one appended a copy of a protection order.
In both cases the applications were prepared well after the marriages were dead like the parrot. One went with a nominal processing fee. Both petitions were granted fairly speedily, and the decisions made in English. One was remarkably Byzantine in phrasing (it took me two readings), and the other took the form of a single sentence of blessing to the priest, that a second marriage might take place.
My orthie contacts inform me that until the 80s, a significant payment was part of the process in some jurisdictions, but that this practice seems to have disappeared.
There still are rumours of Simony in the OC but I've not encountered it personally.
I first heard this many years ago when Antiochians in a small city in eastern Ontario complained bitterly of how much it cost them to have the bishop officiate at a marriage. I wonder if this was annoyance at having to pay at all for Sayidna's expenses or if the sum was inordinate. After my post on this, I whatsapped a friend whose family was much involved with another jurisdiction from the 1960s and she told me that remarriage petitions needed a helping hand to move the file along in earlier years but that amount was small ($50 in 1970-still something at a time when gas was 34c a gallon) but she thought that the telephone magnified it, adding zeroes at every retelling. I wonder if the oft-repeated allegations are not something of an urban legend, but there might be more to be learned.
Comments
Destination weddings in France are not really a thing because you or your parents have to be resident in the commune where the ceremony is held for at least six weeks beforehand.
Although with a little bit of paperwork, it's good.
We don't have ecclesial divorce. We have bishop-granted permission to remarry. Divorce is sin, and our bishops don't pronounce or celebrate sin (officially anyway).
No, what I said was an Orthodox who marries a non-Christian in a civil ceremony would be excommunicate.
Yes, I would think that an Orthodox wedding service, just like those of all other religious bodies in the USA would take its validity in the eyes of the law of the land from that 'bit of paperwork which makes it all good'
I am fascinated by the 'bishop granted permission to remarry'. 'remarry' assumes that at least one of the partners was married before. If there is no recognised ecclesial divorce act does this mean that the bishop gives permission to remarry even if one is already married ?
How does this square with the law of the land ?
Would the bishop have to give permission to remarry if one of the spouses had died and the marriage candidate was widowed ?
How does the bishop decide that the person will have permission to marry ?
Is there no check on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities as to whether the person(s) are free to marry according to state law or indeed according to the understandings of the Orthodox church ?
Or does a civil divorce recognised by the law of the land effectively end the religious marriage ?
Thank you for explaining about the excommunication of an Orthodox Christian who marries an non-Christian in a civil ceremony. If excommunication only follows in these circumstances:
does this then mean that an Orthodox Christian who marries another Christian in a civil ceremony is thereby married and 'in good standing' in the Orthodox community ?
Would these Orthodox or even non-Orthodox Christians still be in good standing if their civil wedding partners were of the same sex ?
If the Orthodox Church does not permit same sex marriage would it be fair to describe it as bigoted and homophobic ?
Sorry to put all these niggling questions, which may, of course be answered easily by you.
These are the sort of questions, though not always exactly the same, which are put to those attempting to explain orthodox Catholic teaching.
That is what I am trying to find out. And I emphasise here'in the eyes of the state'
It is the consent to marry, in the presence of witnesses, that legally creates the marriage. It is the paperwork that enables the state to recognize that the marriage has been created.
If lifespans are 50, 35, 80; if people can actually aspire to being just a bit happy versus just getting by.... this is perhaps some of the most egregious effects of unchanging religious thinking: failure to consider historical conditions and how people actually live.
The bishop would not give permission to remarry to someone who was not already divorced. A divorce is a civil proceeding. It acknowledges that a marriage has ceased to be. In such cases as an Orthodox bishop grants permission to remarry, it is taken as read that the ecclesial marriage ended when the civil marriage ended.
Depends on the circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all rule about this. This might be a good time to introduce the idea of economia (or ekonomia). That is, the clergy have the right (and responsibility) to bend the rules of the church to best facilitate a person's salvation. Remarriage itself is an act of economia -- the strict rule of the church is that one is married one time, that's all. It is by economia that second or third marriages are allowed. Similarly if someone is sick or has food needs that don't allow them to keep the complete fast of the church, then their priest will nearly always grant them economia to "break the fast" (not keep it entirely, or in rare cases not at all) for the sake of their health. We are not supposed to eat before the Eucharist, but if a person has blood sugar problems, the priest will grant economia for them to have something before Church on a Sunday. And so forth. It's our embodiment of the idea that the fast was made for man and not man for the fast.
I've covered this already. Short answer: the bishop thinks it is what is best for the people involved, primarily for their salvation; secondarily for other needs. I'm sure that my wife being a young(ish) single mother had somewhat to do with her being allowed to remarry (i.e. marry me).
That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I suppose it's a matter of due diligence on the part first of the priest, then of the bishop. The priest because it is the priest who petitions the bishop to grant the remarriage.
Well generally if a person has been going to this parish all their life, the priest will know. If they are from a different parish in the same diocese, the priests will talk about it. If they are in a different diocese, then the bishops will talk about it. I know for a fact this happens.
Covered that above.
To be married and in good standing in the Orthodox community, it would generally be necessary to have their civil marriage "blessed" or acknowledged by the priest. If it is not blessable (say it's the fourth marriage, or the bishop denies a 2nd or 3rd), then the person would not be married in the eyes of the church. I do not know if this would make them excommunicate or not.
Please note that we don't say "excommunicated" because that implies some kind of ceremony or permanent status. A person who is excommunicate (adjective) is denied the privilege to partake of the chalice, but that could be temporary. There are old lists of rules, where for instance if you killed somebody you were excommunicate for 3 years. How well these lists are still used, I do not know.
No.
If that makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
Thank you.
Here’s a first-rate opportunity
To get married with impunity,
And indulge in the felicity
Of unbounded domesticity.
You shall quickly be parsonified,
Conjugally matrimonified,
By a doctor of divinity,
Who is located in this vicinity.
'husband' is the person who is 'bonded to a household and 'wife' is originally a neuter word referring to a possession of the husband. Again these words have changed their meaning but it useful and sometimes salutary to know where the words come from.
'Marriage' means what people usually understand it to mean in ordinary speech. So does 'matrimony'. So do 'husband' and 'wife'. Their possible derivations, whether as far back as Anglo-Saxon, Latin or even ur-Indo-European only changes that if the word history is still present in their current usage. I don't think it is in any of those four instances.
@Forthview I'm not sure whether I've remembered this right, but am I correct that although you live in Scotland, you came there from somewhere else and English is not your first language? One slightly entertaining thought, though I don't think it has any significance, is that there's a difference between English and several neighbouring languages. English normally uses a separate word for 'wife'. A direct translation of sa femme or seine Frau into English is 'his woman', which in English would be a marker that they are not married and is slightly derogatory.
Some of the discussions on this board have been about exactly what the word 'marriage' means - its present exact meaning can obviously be understood by different people in different ways.
Generally on its own I would take it to mean whatever the state validating the idea of marriage takes it to be.
It is interesting that in the Latin based languages there is a special word for 'husband' but the word for the female partner in the complementary sex marriage is often just the word 'woman' That is why some people in different languages nowadays use the 'spouse'
On a personal level I was indeed born in Scotland but spent much of childhood and youth in Austria.
Surely one needs to know what one understands by the word 'marriage' before one can discuss 're-marriage'
I'm not sure what you mean by the 'incidents' of marriage.
Most states which are democracies allow for divorce and for re-marriage. Usually there has been a period of unhappiness in a marriage before a state validated divorce. The divorced person may find happiness in a second marriage.
The consequences of the first marriage ought to be great lifelong togetherness but we know that this is not always the case. The consequences of a second marriage ought to be continued lifelong togetherness with another partner but we know that this is not always the case.
The idea as to what constitutes a marriage is determined by individual states. In a democracy the representatives of the state are in theory chosen by the people thus the ideas concerning marriage, divorce and re-marriage come from the people.
In a democracy the people who elect their representatives, if there are enough of them of a certain opinion can in time determine what the state's ideas concerning marriage, divorce and re-marriage should be.
Theological perspectives only play a role in this if sufficient number of electors think that their ideas should be followed.
It's almost never the case for at least one of the partners in a marriage, unless the marriage ends in something like a messy automobile accident. Despite platitudes about "lifelong togetherness", most people understand that it's overwhelmingly likely that, even without a divorce, one of the parties to a marriage will not have "togetherness" with their partner for the rest of their own life.
Hence the boilerplate "till death do us part."
It implies commitment to the idea that one marriage is the ideal.
* There is actually a Greek Orthodox church about 4 or 5 km away - very rare for these parts, I think it's the only one north of the Harbour.
1. Not if you're not Orthodox, or at least your bride isn't,
2. How should I know? Go ask him.
OK I think I partially see. So a re-marriage after bereavement is considered "non-ideal", but not because it's breaking any commitment to one's previous spouse, but for some other reason.
What I still don't quite see is what that reason is. Why is it that the first marriage is considered "more ideal" than the re-marriage after bereavement?
Thank you for your response to what, on my part, was a genuine, if general, enquiry.
I don't know the answer to that.
Although some Christians would say that Jesus meant marriage to be for life, he did also teach that in Heaven (should we get there !) there is no giving and taking in marriage thus one could marry again after the death of one of the partners.
I did not intend to comment again on this topic but I think that my thanks to mousethief, simply saying 'thanks from me too' is not sufficient for the time and effort which mousethief must have put in to answering my questions about Orthodox 'divorce' and remarriage teachings.
I have always admired, since I found out about it a few years ago, the Orthodox teaching of 'economia' . I do see, however, a difference in a dispensation from a pre-Communion fast and the dispensation (if that is the correct word) to marry again. The first is a dispensation from the discipline of the Church (Jesus never mentions pre-Communion fasts) the second is a dispensation from what is seen as the actual teaching of Jesus, even although it may be argued that it is done for the best of reasons..
I was interested to read that the Orthodox Church does not regard someone who is married in a civil ceremony as married in the eyes of the Church. I assume that, just like the teachings of the Catholic Church, this only applies to those who claim to be Orthodox Christians and that the marriages of other Christians and other faiths and none, but contracted in good faith, are regarded as 'proper' marriages.
I understand mousethief's dismissal of the idea of two Orthodox attempting to marry in a religious ceremony a partner of the same sex . His answer to my question as to whether one should therefore classify the Orthodox church as bigoted or homophobic was classic mousethief speak 'if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out !'
I do appreciate his explanation of the difference between 'excommunicate' and 'excommunicated' For what it is worth I think that by 'excommunicate' Catholics would simply say 'excluded from the sacraments' For both Orthodox and Catholics awareness of serious sin excludes one from the reception of Holy Communion. Much of the time this awareness of serious (sometimes called 'mortal') sin is a private thing and can be forgiven immediately by sorrow and repentance, even if in the ordinary way of things this sorrow and repentance should be expressed privately to a priest who can give formal absolution.
'Excommunication' in Catholic speak is the same thing writ larger and with permission from the bishop can be forgiven at any time one repentance has been established.
Thanks again ,mousethief, for all your answers upthread.
I hope that this is not too much of a tangent.
Over the years I've been asked to review documents related to two separate petitions to Orthodox bishops-- more on my brief-prep skills than any specific Orthodox canon law knowledge (for the curious, there are some canon law courses at Saint Vlad's and Brookline, but no English-language qualifications of which I know). Both procedures required the endorsement of the parish priest, and as far as I can figure out, bishops were not intending to engage in counselling etc. Documents briefly but without specifics referred to the grounds of the end of the marriage (i.e., repeated and consistent inability of spouse to keep vows rather than that dog Hamid was booked into the EasyRest Motel with my sluttish cousin on the following dates). At my suggestion, both included a description of the civil divorce's custody and support arrangements for the children (an Anglican practice from the days when we bothered to have any serious procedures for remarriage) and one appended a copy of a protection order.
In both cases the applications were prepared well after the marriages were dead like the parrot. One went with a nominal processing fee. Both petitions were granted fairly speedily, and the decisions made in English. One was remarkably Byzantine in phrasing (it took me two readings), and the other took the form of a single sentence of blessing to the priest, that a second marriage might take place.
My orthie contacts inform me that until the 80s, a significant payment was part of the process in some jurisdictions, but that this practice seems to have disappeared.
I first heard this many years ago when Antiochians in a small city in eastern Ontario complained bitterly of how much it cost them to have the bishop officiate at a marriage. I wonder if this was annoyance at having to pay at all for Sayidna's expenses or if the sum was inordinate. After my post on this, I whatsapped a friend whose family was much involved with another jurisdiction from the 1960s and she told me that remarriage petitions needed a helping hand to move the file along in earlier years but that amount was small ($50 in 1970-still something at a time when gas was 34c a gallon) but she thought that the telephone magnified it, adding zeroes at every retelling. I wonder if the oft-repeated allegations are not something of an urban legend, but there might be more to be learned.
Adjusted for inflation, $50 in 1970 is equal to ~$325 in late 2020. (The U.S. inflation numbers for January 2021 aren't in yet.)