Topic: On marrying a second wife

[PJ26]

Yes, in Catholicism a Protestant marriage is valid, so a couple wanting to convert would not have to have their marriage validated.  However, if a couple just has a civil marriage from their local courthouse it's as if they are not married at all.  Again, as far as receiving Communion goes in Orthodoxy, is it not the same?

Going back to Porter's Simpsons post, I'm not sure what issue you think I'm avoiding.  If Catholic teaching can't change, and we've been assured by individuals here that it cannot, then what is now happening is that people who are in an objective state of mortal sin (having sexual relations outside of a sacramental marriage) are being allowed, if not outright encouraged, to commune which, when done in a state of mortal sin, is itself a mortal sin.  And to die in mortal sin sends one to Hell.  It seems to me that if the preceding is still true, rather than helping these individuals to "stop hitting themselves" the growing number of hierarchs permitting this is actually doing great harm to them and their souls.  Again, if Catholicism is true and these people want to remain Catholic, they do have a choice - don't remarry or if you do remain continent.  At least that was the case, now there's just a growing chaos post-Amoris and they can do whatever they want apparently.  Personally, I'd invite these people to consider Orthodoxy, that's also a choice...

[Iconodule]

Yes, in Catholicism a Protestant marriage is valid, so a couple wanting to convert would not have to have their marriage validated.  However, if a couple just has a civil marriage from their local courthouse it's as if they are not married at all.  Again, as far as receiving Communion goes in Orthodoxy, is it not the same?

A civil marriage prior to conversion is typically treated as valid in Orthodoxy. In other words, the converts would not be required to undergo a church marriage ceremony. Keep in mind too that Saint Paul allowed converts to remain married to pagan spouses.

[William T]

Yes, in Catholicism a Protestant marriage is valid, so a couple wanting to convert would not have to have their marriage validated.  However, if a couple just has a civil marriage from their local courthouse it's as if they are not married at all.  Again, as far as receiving Communion goes in Orthodoxy, is it not the same?

A civil marriage prior to conversion is typically treated as valid in Orthodoxy. In other words, the converts would not be required to undergo a church marriage ceremony. Keep in mind too that Saint Paul allowed converts to remain married to pagan spouses.

this is true

[PJ26]

Really!? I had no idea.  So, if my civil wife and I convert and get chrismated we can commune without any crowning or anything?  Eh, I still prefer the Catholic way on this one.  Maybe it's because I was a lifelong Catholic but if I had just been married by some judge, I would feel the need to ask my priest to do some kind of service...

[Lepanto]

As always with canon law... it depends: https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur241.htm
I hope this clarifies things. Really need to go now 

[Iconodule]

Christians were getting married for a long time without a church ceremony.

[Porter ODoran]

Really!? I had no idea.  So, if my civil wife and I convert and get chrismated we can commune without any crowning or anything?  Eh, I still prefer the Catholic way on this one.  Maybe it's because I was a lifelong Catholic but if I had just been married by some judge, I would feel the need to ask my priest to do some kind of service...

I'm so curious what you think marriage is, at this point. If the persons in a marriage are faithful and exchanged honest vows, then how is that something to be brushed aside? You are attacking the institution of marriage itself with this thinking, equating it to whoredom, sowing confusion, surely reaping promiscuity. How do you justify this thinking?

[PJ26]

Ouch. LOL.  I think marriage is a sacrament.  I think sacraments have to be administered by the Church and Her properly appointed representative.  To me, and if this is former-Catholic bias here then so be it, going to my local justice of the peace is meaningless.  I don't care what the state says, because I don't think the state and it's representative have the authority to administer a sacrament.  We are critical, and I think rightly so, of the potentially limitless number of annulments a Catholic could receive, but at least there is a review process.  Can the same be said with regard to civil marriage and civil divorce?  Let me ask this, again out of ignorance, if I'm on my fourth civil marriage and my civil spouse and I want to be received into the Orthodox Church and commune what will I be told?  Also, if a valid marriage is just two people standing in front of a judge pledging to be faithful and exchanging honest vows, then why can't the same hold for a homosexual couple?  No, for me the traditional Catholic view on marriage is still correct and that view does anything but equate marriage to whoredom or sow confusion.  If anything it's post-Amoris Catholicism that is undermining marriage and sowing confusion.  But that's just my view...

[Porter ODoran]

Ouch. LOL.  I think marriage is a sacrament.  I think sacraments have to be administered by the Church and Her properly appointed representative.  To me, and if this is former-Catholic bias here then so be it, going to my local justice of the peace is meaningless.  I don't care what the state says, because I don't think the state and it's representative have the authority to administer a sacrament.  We are critical, and I think rightly so, of the potentially limitless number of annulments a Catholic could receive, but at least there is a review process.  Can the same be said with regard to civil marriage and civil divorce?  Let me ask this, again out of ignorance, if I'm on my fourth civil marriage and my civil spouse and I want to be received into the Orthodox Church and commune what will I be told?  Also, if a valid marriage is just two people standing in front of a judge pledging to be faithful and exchanging honest vows, then why can't the same hold for a homosexual couple?  No, for me the traditional Catholic view on marriage is still correct and that view does anything but equate marriage to whoredom or sow confusion.  If anything it's post-Amoris Catholicism that is undermining marriage and sowing confusion.  But that's just my view...

So, due to your Catholic upbringing, you see no difference between ( a ) the unmarried and married states, provided the latter is not Catholic, ( b ) homosexual and heterosexual marriage, provided the latter is not Catholic, and ( c ) four marriages and a faithful marriage, provided the latter is not Catholic.

And then you wonder why Orthodoxy doesn't do this the Catholic way.

[Iconodule]

You do realize that for centuries all that marriage required in the Catholic church was for the couple to make their vows to each other in the presence of witnesses? That the presence of a priest was not required?

[PJ26]

Catholic upbringing or no, I think on this issue the traditional Catholic view is correct.  Of course I think that there is a difference between the married and unmarried states.  But for me, the heterosexual or homosexual couple, Catholic or not, exchanging vows before some judge are still, in fact, unmarried because, as I said, that judge has no authority to administer a sacrament.  It seems inconsistent to me that if I were baptized in a non-Orthodox Christian church, in many cases I would need to be rebaptized coming to Orthodoxy, but if some atheist judge down at the courthouse marries me, it counts.  Whatever.  Not my problem.  As far as history goes, Iconodule, I'll take your word for it, but I think this is one area of doctrinal development that Catholicism got right.  I am honestly curious about an individual who has entered into four civil marriages and how the Church would approach that if they wanted to convert and commune if anyone has that answer...

[Iconodule]

As far as history goes, Iconodule, I'll take your word for it, but I think this is one area of doctrinal development that Catholicism got right. 

Um, that's not doctrinal development, that's the creation of a new dogma in contradiction to Saint Paul and to over a millennium of church practice. "Traditional Catholic view" is a pretty lightweight label if it applies to something about 500 years old.

[Porter ODoran]

... I am honestly curious about an individual who has entered into four civil marriages and how the Church would approach that if they wanted to convert and commune if anyone has that answer...

Why four? Why not forty, as long as you're making things up? The technical answer is a Bishop would make the evaluation in a case by case basis. But what would be the purpose of keeping them outside the Ark of Salvation?

[PJ26]

It's not my intention to make things up - I think it's an honest question from a convert to Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy sets a limit of three marriages.  I learned today that Orthodoxy accepts civil marriages as being valid.  If the four-time civilly married couple wanted to become Catholic, there wouldn't be a problem because the Catholic church would say these people weren't ever really married to begin with.  So I was just curious how the Orthodox Church would approach it.  That's all.

[Rohzek]

Interesting thread. The various quotes that user Wandile provided are pretty convincing. In the end, this is also a question of credibility and witnessing.

You've probably read the first one of these already, but I would encourage you to read both:

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History: https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: An Addendum: https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/

I've posted passages from these elsewhere, but here they are all conveniently gathered and collated.

I have printed out the contents of the first link to your blog.
For starters:
About the Council of Arles (I did not check whether the quote is correct):
You build up your argumentation around the sentence
“[…]placuit ut, quantum possit, consilium eius detur ne alias uxores, viventibus etiam uxoribus suis licet adulteris, accipiant.”
and you claim that the proper translation would be :
“it has been decided, as long as he is able, even if their adulterous wife is living, he is to be given counsel not to marry another woman.”
I say this is a plain wrong translation.
The Catholic blog got it better with so far as may be.  I would simply translate with as far as possible (you even keep a reference to the verb posse this way).
It is just grammar:  The whole sentence is addressing men in the plural (depraehendunt, eis, accipiant) . Interpreting “possit” as third person masculine singular does not make any sense in this context, there is no mention of a single man. It is a third person singular neutrum, just like  “placuit”
Also, other trusted sources support this: “quantum possit” means “as fast as possible” or “as far as possible” . For example cf. Cicero, “De finibus bonorum et malorum”, 1.30.

Your whole argumentation for Arles crumbles there. I will look at the rest, if I find the time.

Thanks for this. You're correct that it is better translated as "as far/much as possible." But no, "as far as may be" is not a permissible translation. There is no reason to insert an "esse" in there. And the difference between the two translations is very dramatic. Now that you've drawn my attention to it, I'd also like to make some further tweeks to my translation. "eis" is dative plural, so it should not be singular "he" but "they" as in "counsel should be given to them." Again, thanks for drawing this to my attention. I'm certain I have other translation errors. I always find them whenever I go back over things months later, even if I've proofread it so many times before.

I don't see how that causes my argument to fail, however. The meaning remains the same. There is not much of a difference between "as far as possible" and "as he is able" in this context here. And you haven't provided a positive argument for why "so far as may be" is preferable. I'm not seeing how this is a plausible translation. I've never seen it this way. So again, on what basis do you think the Arles argument falls apart?

Again, thank you so much for the correction here.

[ialmisry]

In all my years of being Catholic, including my years in the seminary, I never came across anyone who thought a civil marriage "counted to the Vatican."  From a sacramental point of view it is meaningless.  Pre-Amoris Laetitia, the expectation was that if you were divorced and civilly remarried and you want to go to communion you had better be living as brother and sister.  I'm a convert to Orthodoxy, so again I'm open to being educated here.  If I am in a civil "marriage" and having regular sexual relations with my civil spouse, am I free to approach the chalice on Sunday?  I would have thought the answer would have been "no."

Absolutely right, no doubt. You should definitely not approach.

If you embraced Orthodoxy while in a civil marriage, your brought your marriage with you into the Church. Otherwise you would have been refused communion to begin with.

[ialmisry]

Really!? I had no idea.  So, if my civil wife and I convert and get chrismated we can commune without any crowning or anything?  Eh, I still prefer the Catholic way on this one.  Maybe it's because I was a lifelong Catholic but if I had just been married by some judge, I would feel the need to ask my priest to do some kind of service...

...and he would be happy to do it. Just wouldn't require it.

[ialmisry]

Ouch. LOL.  I think marriage is a sacrament.  I think sacraments have to be administered by the Church and Her properly appointed representative.  To me, and if this is former-Catholic bias here then so be it, going to my local justice of the peace is meaningless.  I don't care what the state says, because I don't think the state and it's representative have the authority to administer a sacrament.  We are critical, and I think rightly so, of the potentially limitless number of annulments a Catholic could receive, but at least there is a review process.  Can the same be said with regard to civil marriage and civil divorce?  Let me ask this, again out of ignorance, if I'm on my fourth civil marriage and my civil spouse and I want to be received into the Orthodox Church and commune what will I be told?  Also, if a valid marriage is just two people standing in front of a judge pledging to be faithful and exchanging honest vows, then why can't the same hold for a homosexual couple?

Because the two people have to be one of each, just like it has to be two people, not three or four.

No, for me the traditional Catholic view on marriage is still correct and that view does anything but equate marriage to whoredom or sow confusion.  If anything it's post-Amoris Catholicism that is undermining marriage and sowing confusion.  But that's just my view...

[ialmisry]

Catholic upbringing or no, I think on this issue the traditional Catholic view is correct.  Of course I think that there is a difference between the married and unmarried states.  But for me, the heterosexual or homosexual couple, Catholic or not, exchanging vows before some judge are still, in fact, unmarried because, as I said, that judge has no authority to administer a sacrament.

You are aware that according to the Vatican the priest does not administer the marriage, the couple does, no? I've heard many Vatican priests of the trad type teaching that Protestants have only two valid sacraments, baptism and marriage because neither requires a priest.

It seems inconsistent to me that if I were baptized in a non-Orthodox Christian church, in many cases I would need to be rebaptized coming to Orthodoxy, but if some atheist judge down at the courthouse marries me, it counts.  Whatever.  Not my problem.  As far as history goes, Iconodule, I'll take your word for it, but I think this is one area of doctrinal development that Catholicism got right.  I am honestly curious about an individual who has entered into four civil marriages and how the Church would approach that if they wanted to convert and commune if anyone has that answer...

This guy:

[PJ26]

"You are aware that according to the Vatican the priest does not administer the marriage, the couple does, no? "

Yes, I know, but there still needs to be some kind of minister present administering the ceremony.

As for the mosaic, I don't know who that is...Saint Vladimir??

[William T]

It's not my intention to make things up - I think it's an honest question from a convert to Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy sets a limit of three marriages.  I learned today that Orthodoxy accepts civil marriages as being valid.  If the four-time civilly married couple wanted to become Catholic, there wouldn't be a problem because the Catholic church would say these people weren't ever really married to begin with.  So I was just curious how the Orthodox Church would approach it.  That's all.

That logic sounds OK to you?  I think my disposition would be to look at that kind of logic with a) derision b) kind of the joke that comes with the caricature of the word "scholastic".

I'm not saying this trying to goad you, or dismiss the Catholics...I'm just utterly confused why anyone would think this is a good thing.  I don't get the desire for the logic behind it.

[Rohzek]

Interesting thread. The various quotes that user Wandile provided are pretty convincing. In the end, this is also a question of credibility and witnessing.

You've probably read the first one of these already, but I would encourage you to read both:

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History: https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: An Addendum: https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/

I've posted passages from these elsewhere, but here they are all conveniently gathered and collated.

I have printed out the contents of the first link to your blog.
For starters:
About the Council of Arles (I did not check whether the quote is correct):
You build up your argumentation around the sentence
“[…]placuit ut, quantum possit, consilium eius detur ne alias uxores, viventibus etiam uxoribus suis licet adulteris, accipiant.”
and you claim that the proper translation would be :
“it has been decided, as long as he is able, even if their adulterous wife is living, he is to be given counsel not to marry another woman.”
I say this is a plain wrong translation.
The Catholic blog got it better with so far as may be.  I would simply translate with as far as possible (you even keep a reference to the verb posse this way).
It is just grammar:  The whole sentence is addressing men in the plural (depraehendunt, eis, accipiant) . Interpreting “possit” as third person masculine singular does not make any sense in this context, there is no mention of a single man. It is a third person singular neutrum, just like  “placuit”
Also, other trusted sources support this: “quantum possit” means “as fast as possible” or “as far as possible” . For example cf. Cicero, “De finibus bonorum et malorum”, 1.30.

Your whole argumentation for Arles crumbles there. I will look at the rest, if I find the time.

Thanks for this. You're correct that it is better translated as "as far/much as possible." But no, "as far as may be" is not a permissible translation. There is no reason to insert an "esse" in there. And the difference between the two translations is very dramatic. Now that you've drawn my attention to it, I'd also like to make some further tweeks to my translation. "eis" is dative plural, so it should not be singular "he" but "they" as in "counsel should be given to them." Again, thanks for drawing this to my attention. I'm certain I have other translation errors. I always find them whenever I go back over things months later, even if I've proofread it so many times before.

I don't see how that causes my argument to fail, however. The meaning remains the same. There is not much of a difference between "as far as possible" and "as he is able" in this context here. And you haven't provided a positive argument for why "so far as may be" is preferable. I'm not seeing how this is a plausible translation. I've never seen it this way. So again, on what basis do you think the Arles argument falls apart?

Again, thank you so much for the correction here.

I just refined my arguments about Soissons. I realized upon a quick review how bad my point was. So I revamped it entirely. Sorry about that, especially since you printed it out. I hope you do find the time to read it. I really do enjoy when I encounter someone else with Latin skills to push back on my opinions and arguments.

[Porter ODoran]

It's not my intention to make things up - I think it's an honest question from a convert to Orthodoxy.

Unless you know a lot of four times -married folks banging on the doors of the Church, then, yes, you're making things up.

Orthodoxy sets a limit of three marriages.

Not really. One marriage is after the divine pattern, two is an animal failing, three is the work of demons. Four is unheard of. This is just the work of the Church among men; it's not to be taken as some kind of legal framework, expect insofar as shepherding may require some kind of canonical framework for the peace of the Church and her bishops.

I learned today that Orthodoxy accepts civil marriages as being valid.

Nope. The concept of a "valid" sacrament is not part of the question of whether faithful vows should be respected by Christians and the world alike, and not part of the Orthodox terminology.

If the four-time civilly married couple wanted to become Catholic, there wouldn't be a problem because the Catholic church would say these people weren't ever really married to begin with.

Putting aside the description "weren't every really married" that is fallacious and pernicious on its face, how can you possibly say "there wouldn't be a problem"? They still have the history they have, only now the church is playing a game in which they haven't the history, and adding the additional problem of mocking their present attempt at union. How does any of these mind games save them?

So I was just curious how the Orthodox Church would approach it.  That's all.

In a fashion that a pastor of souls by the Holy Spirit esteems best contributes to their salvation. Altho, again, you're just making things up and I know the Holy Spirit works toward real, and not theoretical, salvation.

But maybe if we practiced casuistry by a central bureaucracy using elaborate technical terms and high-sounding titles you'd somehow be okay with whatever nonsense we'd come up with in a given situation?

[PJ26]

"But maybe if we practiced casuistry by a central bureaucracy using elaborate technical terms and high-sounding titles you'd somehow be okay with whatever nonsense we'd come up with in a given situation?"

Wow Porter, chill out.  I did convert to Orthodoxy after all.  However, when it comes to marriage I personally think the official, pre-Amoris teaching of Catholicism is correct.  I don't possess any official position in the Church so it's just my opinion.  No need to be so defensive...

[Mor Ephrem]

Interesting fact: if you have a non-Orthodox-but-still-Christian wedding and later convert to Orthodoxy via the GOA, you will have to have an Orthodox wedding.  If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it.  Happened to people known to me. 

[Porter ODoran]

"But maybe if we practiced casuistry by a central bureaucracy using elaborate technical terms and high-sounding titles you'd somehow be okay with whatever nonsense we'd come up with in a given situation?"

Wow Porter, chill out.  I did convert to Orthodoxy after all.  However, when it comes to marriage I personally think the official, pre-Amoris teaching of Catholicism is correct.  I don't possess any official position in the Church so it's just my opinion.  No need to be so defensive...

The point is that the Roman church is hardly above offering all kinds of free passes to those it deems worthy -- and apparently the fact they do so in a highly expensive and complex way with sophistical legal terms is what makes that okay for you.

[Porter ODoran]

Interesting fact: if you have a non-Orthodox-but-still-Christian wedding and later convert to Orthodoxy via the GOA, you will have to have an Orthodox wedding.  If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it.  Happened to people known to me.

Never heard of this and I'm GOAA and surrounded by converts. The second half of the claim sounds like ecclesiological treachery.

[Deacon Lance]

Catholic upbringing or no, I think on this issue the traditional Catholic view is correct.  Of course I think that there is a difference between the married and unmarried states.  But for me, the heterosexual or homosexual couple, Catholic or not, exchanging vows before some judge are still, in fact, unmarried because, as I said, that judge has no authority to administer a sacrament.

You are aware that according to the Vatican the priest does not administer the marriage, the couple does, no? I've heard many Vatican priests of the trad type teaching that Protestants have only two valid sacraments, baptism and marriage because neither requires a priest.

It seems inconsistent to me that if I were baptized in a non-Orthodox Christian church, in many cases I would need to be rebaptized coming to Orthodoxy, but if some atheist judge down at the courthouse marries me, it counts.  Whatever.  Not my problem.  As far as history goes, Iconodule, I'll take your word for it, but I think this is one area of doctrinal development that Catholicism got right.  I am honestly curious about an individual who has entered into four civil marriages and how the Church would approach that if they wanted to convert and commune if anyone has that answer...

This guy:

The Catholic Church actually is of two minds on this.  Latins believe that the couples administer the Sacrament, Easterns believe it to be the priest.  Both beliefs are enshrined in the Latin and Eastern Codes so thouroughly that an Eastern Catholic may not be married by a deacon as the Latin Chrch allows.

[ZealousZeal]

Catholic upbringing or no, I think on this issue the traditional Catholic view is correct.  Of course I think that there is a difference between the married and unmarried states.  But for me, the heterosexual or homosexual couple, Catholic or not, exchanging vows before some judge are still, in fact, unmarried because, as I said, that judge has no authority to administer a sacrament.  It seems inconsistent to me that if I were baptized in a non-Orthodox Christian church, in many cases I would need to be rebaptized coming to Orthodoxy, but if some atheist judge down at the courthouse marries me, it counts.  Whatever.  Not my problem.  As far as history goes, Iconodule, I'll take your word for it, but I think this is one area of doctrinal development that Catholicism got right.

You might find this interesting:

At this point, a brief history of marriage in the Church might be helpful. For a long period, marriage was regarded as a civil act, not one of particular spiritual significance. What was of significance was that the newly married Christian couple came to the church and there together took part in the Mystery of Holy Communion, both partners receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord. That action sealed the civil marriage in terms of the Church. The couple brought their decision to church, and it was blessed by taking part in the supreme experience of Christian living.

Sounds like exactly what happens when a couple is received into the Church. How consistent.

I am honestly curious about an individual who has entered into four civil marriages and how the Church would approach that if they wanted to convert and commune if anyone has that answer...

Well... you're describing what probably amounts to an tiny number of converts. Obviously, this would be a pastoral situation, and I won't make broad claims about what happens across the board, however, I do happen to know someone who fits this bill. On marriage number four, discovered the truth of Orthodoxy, desired to convert. He and his wife are now Orthodox, in full communion with the Church. I don't know more details than that (what marriage # it is for her, etc.) because it's none of my business and I've never asked.

What do you want the answer to this question to be? I'm genuinely asking. Someone who is on their fourth marriage desires to convert to Orthodoxy, never having been Orthodox in their life, and what is the Church supposed to say to them? "Sorry, the ark of salvation is full for the likes of you. Good luck out there in the flood!" or "Divorce is against the rules of our club but if you want to join our club you're going to have to get divorced."

[PJ26]

Thank you for that.  That is interesting.

As far as "What do you want the answer to this question to be?" goes, as I have said, I am a convert to Orthodoxy.  I didn't know that Orthodoxy accepted civil marriages, only that there was a general limit of three, and I have actually known two people in my life that were married five times each.  I was just curious how the Church might approach such a situation in which someone exceeded the limit.  Personally, I don't want any particular answer, I was just wondering...

[Porter ODoran]

Thank you for that.  That is interesting.

As far as "What do you want the answer to this question to be?" goes, as I have said, I am a convert to Orthodoxy.  I didn't know that Orthodoxy accepted civil marriages, only that there was a general limit of three, and I have actually known two people in my life that were married five times each.  I was just curious how the Church might approach such a situation in which someone exceeded the limit.  Personally, I don't want any particular answer, I was just wondering...

Lord, have mercy.

[Porter ODoran]

The Pharisees brought to our Lord's attention a woman who'd married seven times (likely a fiction). Personally, he met a woman who'd married five times and was now cohabiting. Ample opportunity for him to promulgate a Catholic-style defense of the sacrament, which of course he did not do.

[ialmisry]

Interesting fact: if you have a non-Orthodox-but-still-Christian wedding and later convert to Orthodoxy via the GOA, you will have to have an Orthodox wedding.  If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it.  Happened to people known to me.

it goes in the opposite direction with divorce too. Also happened to people known to me.

[ialmisry]

"Divorce is against the rules of our club but if you want to join our club you're going to have to get divorced."

LOL.

[PJ26]

Here's a question regarding Mor's post.  Actually, two.  1. Generally, does anyone know the rationale for GOA's policy?  Just curious.  2. Specifically, I'm going to be moving soon and my new local parish will be a GOA one.  Does anyone know if my Catholic marriage will be a problem for me, because there is currently NO WAY my wife would be willing to go through an Orthodox wedding ceremony?  Thanks.

[mikeforjesus]

If a person knows a person is not suitable and marries them you can't have that marriage annulled even if they cheat on you but you can marry again. However if a person could not see the evil intentions of their partner I think it was not a valid marriage to begin with but you can not divorce without cheating. The question is did God make them one flesh even if they were married in the church if one partner did not receive the sacrament honestly ? I think he does for the sake of the innocent. Sex itself makes one one flesh according to Paul

I do not see why there should be a limit up to 3 marriages for the innocent party unless it is clear the innocent has some problems which need to be resolved but is it not possible that all 3 spouses he married are evil ?

[ialmisry]

Here's a question regarding Mor's post.  Actually, two.  1. Generally, does anyone know the rationale for GOA's policy?  Just curious.  2. Specifically, I'm going to be moving soon and my new local parish will be a GOA one.  Does anyone know if my Catholic marriage will be a problem for me, because there is currently NO WAY my wife would be willing to go through an Orthodox wedding ceremony?  Thanks.

1. Part of it has to do with the Roman/Greek state leaving marriage and divorce registration and regulation to the Church. IIRC civil marriage in Greece didn't existence until recently. 2. No, it should not, given that it predates your Orthodox reception-unless you go for ordination.

[Porter ODoran]

Interesting fact: if you have a non-Orthodox-but-still-Christian wedding and later convert to Orthodoxy via the GOA, you will have to have an Orthodox wedding.  If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it.  Happened to people known to me.

it goes in the opposite direction with divorce too. Also happened to people known to me.

Can you expand? Do you mean ecclesiastical divorce was reviewed again once somebody crossed jurisdictional lines?

[ialmisry]

If a person knows a person is not suitable and marries them you can't have that marriage annulled even if they cheat on you but you can marry again. However if a person could not see the evil intentions of their partner I think it was not a valid marriage to begin with but you can not divorce without cheating. The question is did God make them one flesh even if they were married in the church if one partner did not receive the sacrament honestly ? I think he does for the sake of the innocent. Sex itself makes one one flesh according to Paul

I do not see why there should be a limit up to 3 marriages for the innocent party unless it is clear the innocent has some problems which need to be resolved but is it not possible that all 3 spouses he married are evil ?

Then the Church is keeping them out of falling into relations with evil again.

[Porter ODoran]

Here's a question regarding Mor's post.  Actually, two.  1. Generally, does anyone know the rationale for GOA's policy?  Just curious.  2. Specifically, I'm going to be moving soon and my new local parish will be a GOA one.  Does anyone know if my Catholic marriage will be a problem for me, because there is currently NO WAY my wife would be willing to go through an Orthodox wedding ceremony?  Thanks.

It's not GOAA policy.

[PJ26]

"No, it should not, given that it predates your Orthodox reception-unless you go for ordination."

I hope you're right, because Mor's post did say "If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it."

I guess I'll find out...

[ialmisry]

Interesting fact: if you have a non-Orthodox-but-still-Christian wedding and later convert to Orthodoxy via the GOA, you will have to have an Orthodox wedding.  If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it.  Happened to people known to me.

it goes in the opposite direction with divorce too. Also happened to people known to me.

Can you expand? Do you mean ecclesiastical divorce was reviewed again once somebody crossed jurisdictional lines?

There was no "ecclesiastical divorce"-not all jurisdictions have them. In fact, the matter is reviewed only when someone is trying to remarry, which in this case was not the case. Eventually they had to get a GOA divorce.

[Porter ODoran]

If Catholic teaching can't change, and we've been assured by individuals here that it cannot, then what is now happening is that people who are in an objective state of mortal sin (having sexual relations outside of a sacramental marriage) are being allowed, if not outright encouraged, to commune which, when done in a state of mortal sin, is itself a mortal sin.  And to die in mortal sin sends one to Hell.

The number of assumptions here is staggering and not conducive to furthering honest discussion in my opinion.

It seems to me that if the preceding is still true, ... the growing number of hierarchs permitting [communion to divorced] is actually doing great harm to them and their souls.

They are their souls and their souls are them. So, for the third or fourth time, I'd ask you what productive results you expect to abound from the Catholic position?

Again, if Catholicism is true and these people want to remain Catholic, they do have a choice - don't remarry or if you do remain continent.

That's not a choice so much as a taunt. However, there may be those for whom a life of chastity and obedience might be fruitful. Regardless, you're ignoring the "other" choice -- to by dint of influence or money or unearthly patience or whatever alchemy is required gain an annulment that pretends their lives, loves, and struggles never happened.

Personally, I'd invite these people to consider Orthodoxy, that's also a choice...

Is this mordant humor? "If Catholicism is true" then people should do what's moral in your mind, if Orthodoxy is true, they needn't bother? Fortunately for mankind in need of salvation and blessing, in this life and the next, truth is not a matter of gotchas or gambling. Only the Word is true.

[Porter ODoran]

Interesting fact: if you have a non-Orthodox-but-still-Christian wedding and later convert to Orthodoxy via the GOA, you will have to have an Orthodox wedding.  If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it.  Happened to people known to me.

it goes in the opposite direction with divorce too. Also happened to people known to me.

Can you expand? Do you mean ecclesiastical divorce was reviewed again once somebody crossed jurisdictional lines?

There was no "ecclesiastical divorce"-not all jurisdictions have them. In fact, the matter is reviewed only when someone is trying to remarry, which in this case was not the case. Eventually they had to get a GOA divorce.

Right. Okay, but I'm still a little lost -- forgive me. What about their old jurisdiction was unacceptable to the GOAA metropolis? What part was the "do over"?

[Porter ODoran]

"No, it should not, given that it predates your Orthodox reception-unless you go for ordination."

I hope you're right, because Mor's post did say "If you convert to Orthodoxy in a jurisdiction which would accept your non-Orthodox wedding without the need for an Orthodox ceremony (e.g., OCA) and later become a member of a GOA parish, they will still require an Orthodox wedding despite another Orthodox jurisdiction waiving it."

I guess I'll find out...

He said it happens. I'm saying it also doesn't happen.