 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13th, 2007 10:28 pm |
|
I work for an older couple. They were both Roman Catholic I believe when married. Years ago the wife decided to convert to the Greek Orthodox Church. Now they are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. I do not know all the details, but for some reason her priest may be insisting that her marriage be blessed in the Orthodox Church first. Do they not recognize the marriage as sacrament if it was outside their church? And if the marriage needed blessing shouldn't they have done that before she became a member years ago? Are they maybe doing this just for the joy of it and not because it is necessary? The Catholic Church does recognize when non-Catholics are married outside the Catholic Church I believe and they do not force the marriage to be blessed when one converts, correct?
Also, wouldn't you find this insulting if you were her husband since we believe a mariage in our church was most certainly as sacramental as it gets. We have talked about people on this forum who had husbands who did not want to have to get a marriage blessed by the Catholic Church, but would anyone allow this to happen if their wife was Orthodox and asked this? I am still wondering if I understand all the details about this.
Brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13th, 2007 11:44 pm |
|
brian wrote: I do not know all the details, but for some reason her priest may be insisting that her marriage be blessed in the Orthodox Church first. Do they not recognize the marriage as sacrament if it was outside their church?
We are not experts on the rules of the Orthodox Church, Brian. I think you would have to ask the Orthodox. Of all of the sacraments, we are probably farthest apart on marriage since they permit divorced and remarried members to receive Eucharist.
I just read through the Code of Canons of the Eastern and Oriental Churches (CCEO) on marriage, and it gives permission for an Eastern Rite Catholic priest to witness the marriage of two Eastern Christians who are not Catholic and recommends that their "competent authority" be notified, but it does not say that the marriage will be considered valid by the Orthodox. It also states that a marriage between Eastern Catholics may be validly witnessed by an Eastern Christian priest who is not Catholic under certain circumstances, such as when a Catholic priest is not available, but requires that the blessing of a Catholic priest be obtained as soon as possible.
I don't know how marriage matters are handed by the Orthodox but remember, the Catholic Church permits full intercommunion with the Orthodox, while the Orthodox prohibit it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 12:35 am |
|
I asked an Orthodox priest and this was the answer I got.
Again, this a matter that has to be sent to the hierarch for any dispensation. Each hierarch makes rulings on a case by case determination after consultation with his advisers. There are no blanket answers for whether or there is validity or not. There are cases were it has been blessed again and others were it has not. Each has details to I am not privy to. Each jurisdictional church follows different trains of thought on this matter.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 02:19 am |
|
brian wrote: I asked an Orthodox priest and this was the answer I got.
And that further proves that the lack of a central authority means no authority at all.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 05:44 pm |
|
I would think they would find this an advantage because they figure that each bishop should be the highest authority in matters that were not clearly defined by council. However, when I look at such an example I do tend to side with you and be thankful that I am Catholic. However, I would not agree that it means no authority at all. I think you are using rhetoric to exaggerate the matter. There is a difference between some authority (like pastor priest bishop) and no authority. I do not think it sounds nice to say that other churches have no authority at all in place, simply that our model as the Church in union with the chair of Peter has the fullness of authority that is necessary to guide its flock and without this the authority of other church bodies are missing something God intended them to have.
Brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 06:31 pm |
|
brian wrote: However, I would not agree that it means no authority at all. I think you are using rhetoric to exaggerate the matter.
No centralized authority, no continuity of doctrine or practice. If something as vital as the validity of marriage is left to individual priests/bishops/churches, there is no centralized authority as is present in the Catholic Church.
There is a reason a country has only one leader. Leadership by committee doesn't work. Jesus knew that, so he put Peter in charge.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15th, 2007 12:34 am |
|
I agree with your point, but I was just saying if you were in ecumenical dialogue with an orthodox believer and said there church had 'no authority' they might not take to kind to it. The fact is that of all churches their authority is as closely linked to and modeled after ours as possible and we say they have true apostolic succession, so there is at least some authority.
It isn't like a non-denominational church where there is no place up to go after the pastor and there is no continuitiy of belief from church to church. Most of their doctrine is pretty much the same as ours you usually remind me, so somehow their is a strong authority that holds most of it in place. What is missing is the centralized authority to bind all together on those necessary matters. This I would agree with you on. However, in dialoguing with them the fact remains that we may need to come up with some sort of compromise on the nature of papal authority and how it works, and favor a strong sense of the authority of each bishop. I believe this can be done and that there are Eastern Catholic Churches that are good models of what it can look like.
This is a matter that needs much discussion between Orthodox, Latin Catoholics, and Eastern Catholics, but I think a statement that they have 'no authority at all' would only set us back in the discussion.
Anyway, I understand and agree with your point and see the weaknesses of the authority in the Orthodox Churches in matters such as this and others. I think I agree with what you are saying, I just would word it differently than you originally did in speaking with them because it would lead to them attacking us in return instead of building bridges.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15th, 2007 01:16 am |
|
brian wrote: I agree with your point, but I was just saying if you were in ecumenical dialogue with an orthodox believer and said there church had 'no authority' they might not take to kind to it.
There certainly is authority within each Orthodox Church, but my point was that there is no real unifying authority among the several Orthodox Churches. A few years ago the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem was charged with heresy, and there was no mechanism in place for his removal. As far as I know, he still sits in the official residence and refuses to leave, while another patriarch has been named. Last I heard (which was quite some time ago) there was danger of a schism over which patriarch to support. I admit I haven't kept up with the situation so I'm not sure of the current status.
The situation is really not that different from the Anglican Communion, except that in the Orthodox Churches doctrine is not put up to a public vote. The Anglicans originally were as close to the Catholics in the west as the Orthodox are in the east, but the idea that doctrine should be put to a vote has led them farther away. As late as the 1950's there were serious discussions as to whether the Anglicans had maintained apostolic succession and valid sacraments, but all doubt was removed when they started ordaining women and openly gay people as priests and bishops. And we see the result today that large segments of the Episcopal church are uniting themselves to a Nigerian bishop, and conservative Anglicans in Canada are working on reunion with the Catholic Church. When we look at the overall structure, the lack of a central authority equals no unifying authority at all. The Anglican structure is not that different from the Orthodox structure, with the authority vested in individual bishops and patriarchs and no central structure with real authority to unite them. So the Episcopal church in the U.S. is free to ordain openly gay bishops, and the condemnation of the rest of Anglicanism is totally irrelevant. And when you get right down to it, the Anglicans actually do have a central authority: the Queen of England.
The unity in the Church is provided by the Bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter. Even with a primacy of honor, he provides leadership and guidance. Separated from Rome, there is no real central authority to unify the Churches. Even if his position is considered one of honor rather than actual authority (as the Orthodox believe), he is still the glue that holds the Church together, just as the Queen of England holds the British Commonwealth together even without any real power.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ray2007
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| First Name: | Xpi | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15th, 2007 08:06 am |
|
| There is clearly authority within the Orthodox Churches and that authority is in apostolic succession, albeit separated from the See of Peter. Each Orthodox Church is autocephalous. We see this authority as lacking that unity which is to be had when all the successors of the Apostles are in union with the successor of St. Peter. But I certainly agree that we must, even when speaking among ourselves, speak about our Orthodox brethern with deep love and respect ever seeking among them those who ardently desire that all may be one. Last edited on Tue May 15th, 2007 08:07 am by Ray2007
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15th, 2007 02:24 pm |
|
Ray2007 wrote: There is clearly authority within the Orthodox Churches and that authority is in apostolic succession, albeit separated from the See of Peter. Each Orthodox Church is autocephalous. We see this authority as lacking that unity which is to be had when all the successors of the Apostles are in union with the successor of St. Peter. But I certainly agree that we must, even when speaking among ourselves, speak about our Orthodox brethern with deep love and respect ever seeking among them those who ardently desire that all may be one.
I think this is exactly what I was getting at and I think/hope we all would agree on it.
|
|
|
Current time is 07:23 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
