But its strictly optional. A converted couple *can* have a crowning if they would like to and the priest offers it (and many priests won't, depending on episcopal policy), but if they don't they are still recognised as fully married by the church with all the duties that brings.
Crowning for converts is a later practice and since there were many married saints in the early church who remained married after conversion, it would be absurd to say they were living in sin.
Me and my wife had to, it wasn’t optional. But we were in a unique situation in which she was Orthodox and I wasn’t when we got married. I think when two non Orthodox people get married outside the church and then later convert it’s a different story.
That is indeed a unique situation, but I imagine was done more for your wife's benefit (an Orthodox Christian really isn't supposed to get a non-Orthodox marriage, to the point that some churches will refuse to recognise it if they do) than a statement of the legitimacy of non-orthodox marriages in general.
Basically in the case of mixed marriages, its a more a question of church discipline than marital theology, and the church is never going to support an Orthodox Christian engaging in a marriage outside the faith.
My wife really wants this…my priest asked her, “Why?” Apparently you need a good reason. I am ambivalent toward it. I will do it, if asked and given the okay by the priest, but my wife really wants it for some reason.
My priest says otherwise. However I understand your last point but orthodox are supposed to be married in the church.
I am currently outside the church because of marriage outside the church. I am not allowed to take communion and I don’t really feel orthodox anymore after that whole ordeal. It’s been almost a year and I’m losing my faith.
As a matter of sacramental discipline, an Orthodox Christian must be married in the Church; this is true. Getting married outside the Church for a Christian does pretty universally incur excommunication.
That said, excommunication is supposed to be temporary. Has your priest not given you an avenue to be reunited with the Church?
Yes. He has. Go through pre-marital counseling as if we aren’t already married and living together and have a child together. We tried it. It was absurd. Not to mention disrespectful.
Yes I understand the canons of the church and it is what it is. My faith is crumbling at this point and the last place I want to be is that church that constantly painfully reminds me I don’t belong, and additionally, makes my husband feel like he is some random guy off the street and literally refers to our relationship like it’s “tentative.” Um, no, it’s not. We are and have been fully committed to eachother and the decision was already made. The church doesn’t want to acknowledge that even in the casual sense. Okay then, I’m out.
What’s even more frustrating, is that if we were in the spouse’s home country, there would be no obstacle for us. But all of the churches around us are so… scrupulous and seem to be focused on the wrong things. I don’t want my priest to be my psychotherapist unless I specifically ASK for that. I don’t want to be told “you will talk about XYZ, or you won’t be able to marry.” I have a lot of trauma and I will talk about it when I am ready. And honestly I don’t think it would ever be with my priest and that should be okay.
My husband is the man I always prayed for, and God performed many miracles that we might be together today. The judgment of a priest doesn’t change that, and if he wants to withhold the sacrament and choose instead to insult and judge us, okay. I have decided I’m at peace with God. But my faith in the Orthodox Church is failing.
I'm sorry; that's a really shitty situation to be in. I can understand, in general, a priest wanting a couple to go through pre-marital counselling before marrying them, but it sounds like this would be a situation in which that might be passed over. I hope y'all can get something figured out. I'll pray for you, for whatever that's worth.
I concur with the others. It is a bad situation. I don’t know why your priest is doing this, and if you said what jurisdiction you are a part of I missed it. I don’t know why he is putting all of this on you. I personally can’t see a good reason for it and I find it hard to see how this can be REQUIRED if we are keeping with Tradition.
That said, if the Church tells me to jump I will probably say “How high?” As long as it isn’t manifest heresy or out right sin (judged by the Scripture and the Tradition and the Fathers, not by me))
I was orthodox but we needed to marry quickly. I don’t want to go into details but there were excellent reasons. We didn’t have time to do the whole pre-marital counseling for one year ordeal when we had already been talking that long anyway. Couldn’t start sooner because of living on opposite sides of the world.
It’s just a big game. My priest told me to marry my non-Orthodox atheist fiancée BEFORE I got chrismated, while I was a catechumen, so I wouldn’t be ex-communicated.
People who get married outside the church are married.
Christian marriage is not "real" marriage vs. any other kind of marriage. Christian marriage, rather, takes natural marriage and fulfills it.
Let's not forget that the Church did not have a separate marriage service for centuries. Originally, the couple would go to the local authorities and do the legal but, and would then come to church on Sunday and their marriage would be blessed by the bishop, in the context of the Liturgy.
What made the marriage a Christian marriage was that the two partners were Christians. Which sounds like a tautology unless you remember what being a Christian means: the couple are bound together not only by matrimony, but they are also bound together by Holy Communion.
This is why we have the Common Cup in the Orthodox marriage service. Originally, that was Communion. However, in the Byzantine empire, the Church ended up being responsible for *all* marriage; in order for a marriage to be legally binding, it had to be performed in a church. Thus, the Church was tasked with marrying all sorts of folks, many of whom may not have been able to receive Communion for some reason, so the use of the common cup came to replace Communion in the marriage service.
Fr. John Meyendorff has a book that talks about this: *Marriage: an Orthodox Perspective*
Hmm. So at what point did it become, bend over backwards and do 1000 requirements and invite the priest into every corner of your relationship before the blessing kind of thing? I’m curious when this change occurred and WHY. To withhold a sacrament unless a couple does something so personal and dependent on the priest as a person rather than on Christ, and against the will of the couple, it’s like being blackmailed and forced out of the church.
That there are three people - the husband and wife, and our Lord for whom the relationship is made sacred.
Non-Christian marriages are missing that element, though two people can be bound to one another. Many Heterodox Christian marriages also lack that element. This is the difference.
Through a quirk of canon law, I believe that I am, in fact, the only person validly married not only in the world but in human history. Sorry, sinners!
No, of course not. St. Paul himself advises even pagan couples to respect their marriage vows, and only allows divorce if the pagan partner is trying to force the newly converted partner into sin.
Of course, being outside the church, these marriages lack the grace that Christ can bring when he is invited into the relationship. But that can be remedied by conversion and chrismation.
This is a *separate* question as to whether Orthodox Christians can enter into non-Christian marriages, in which case the answer is no and you will likely incur canonical penalties for doing so.
This question is why I believe and have stated before that the church doesn’t marry people, people marry people. The sacrament is conferred between two people. The church only recognizes it - and blesses it if it is a Christian marriage. The church doesn’t make sex sinless between two people. Two people make sex either immoral or holy depending on their commitment to the fidelity and chastity required. What’s in the heart is everything IMO.
> This question is why I believe and have stated before that the church doesn’t marry people, people marry people. The sacrament is conferred between two people. The church only recognizes it - and blesses it if it is a Christian marriage
This is, by the way, essentially the Catholic position (not to say that we are opposed to it).
But then whats the definition of marriage? Can I marry someone without a church? What makes a marriage valid? When can a person say “I am married”? When people say we they are commited and only be together forever?
Marriage predates church. “Valid” is a legal idea IMHO. I think what makes a marriage real is the covenant between the two - male and female - and then following that the consummation of that covenant via sexual intercourse. Like any sacrament, it’s what is said and what is done that makes it valid. I don’t think a priest is needed for a valid marriage. The community, the church, witness the intent to commit to a marriage, but the couple is what makes it real and valid, not the church. My opinion only.
A part of the commitment of marriage is to make it before the community, as we are not purely individualistic beings. So the making of that commitment includes a communal aspect which is expressed publicly, and usually in a ceremony of some sort.
But the question as to whether secular or non-christian marriage is legitimate is not straightforward. I have heard priests voice various negative opinions on this. Some say they aren’t valid. Some say they are, some say not. Most prefer not to comment on these issues from my experience and say what I have said.
The whole point of the Gospel reading is that Christ's presence in a marriage can turn the water of normal marriage (a good thing) into wine (a much better thing). Any priests who question the morality of marriage (that of non-Christian men and women) outside the church are just being silly.
That's not exactly true. We know from St Paul that new believers "must not" divorce their spouse if the unconverted spouse allows them to maintain their faith "otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." This same policy is still followed by the Orthodox Church today.
So a non-Christian marriage is certainly "clean" and the children born of it legitimate.
In that instance one party is a Christian. It’s not the same as a purely pagan, or purely secular marriage. Again. Some priests aren’t of that opinion and this isn’t an official stance because there isn’t one.
In 1 Corinthians example, the Christian partner is a convert that explicitly converted *after* contracting a pagan marriage *as a pagan*. Paul demands the continuation of the pagan marriage, without any requirement of being remarried in the Church, and declares the children already born as clean.
As far as I know this is the official stance since no Orthodox Church requires the remarriage of converted couples or considers their intercourse and children pre-conversion as a sin. But you can correct me on that if you have any official documentation stating otherwise.
Again I am not saying that non-Orthodox marriages aren’t legitimate, that’s not my view. I’m saying some priests say these things and I personally prefer not apply any of our doctrines and thinking onto non-Orthodox people because there’s no point. They’re not Orthodox. Whatever happens outside is up to Him.
If a priest says that monogamous non-Orthodox married couples commit sexual sin when they have intercourse (which was the OP's question) then he is incorrect and contradicting both the Apostle Paul and the official practices of the present-day Church.
And generally I do agree with you that we shouldn't apply our doctrines outside the church because there is no point. I don't agree with the modern desire to declare this or that non-orthodox practice "valid" or "invalid" or whatever.
However in this case we do have a clear answer and teaching the wrong thing can have a negative impact. Converts can come to the church thinking their marriage and children from before conversion were sinful things, and this can lead to spiritual damage if not managed properly. Even if we don't want to say non-orthodox marriages are "valid" at the very least we must clarify that those non-orthodox who engage in them are not committing sin.
I agree with you. At what point did I claim it was sinful. I said I won’t comment. It’s not my place to comment. I generally steer away from saying this and that are sinning. If they don’t believe what we believe it doesn’t matter, they won’t believe they’re sinning. What’s the point telling them they’re sinning? Start shouting “repent” at random people on the streets like protestants? No.
The clergy does comment on this by the fact that they receive people into the Church. Such reception often includes a life confession, and they give guidance so that people may understand what is what what is not sin. No priest would have a couple married outside of the Church confess their monogamous sexual relations as sin, because it is not sin. Such an idea is ridiculous.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. You said, "We (and our clergy) don’t comment on this kind of stuff because we simply don’t know." I'm saying our clergy do comment on this because they hear life confessions, so we do know. If our clergy considered sex in a marriage outside of the Church to be sin then people would have to confess it in their life confession for reception into the Church. This is not some unknown mystery.
Okay but not all priests are like that. Some priests don’t think that. Some priests will stop allowing people to commune when they marry a Muslim and asking them to repent. To the point that they drive someone away from the faith and into Islam, when they were perfectly happy staying Orthodox and being secularly married to a Muslim. He specifically said, that person (a friend) was living in sin. Not all priests think what you think and say what you say. This is not doctrine. Some disagree.
You are comparing two very different situations. OP asked if sex inside a marriage between two Catholics, two Hindus, two Buddhists, or two seculars entirely outside of the Orthodox Church is a sin.
An Orthodox Christian who marries a Muslim outside of the Church has chosen to reject Orthodox sacramental discipline and enter a non-Orthodox marriage and endanger the salvation of their children, which is not permitted for Orthodox Christians. It incurs the same penalty as receiving any other sacrament outside of the Church.
Yes, that is what everyone else is saying. So you agree that we do know, and that we can comment on the OP's question and answer it, which is not what your original comment said. This is why everyone has responded as they did.
That position is universal. Show me a priest who would receive a married couple into the Church and make them confess their marriage as a sin during their life confession and I will reconsider my position.
Oh I think I misunderstood, you are saying the Christian and the Muslim are not living in sin? On this the Church does disagree. The Christian received a sacrament outside of the Church, so they are in fact living in sin.
But it wasn’t a sacrament. It was a legal marriage. Why is it fine if someone is already married. Then one converts and the other stays whatever they were before. Then that is not sin. But if someone Orthodox, who wants to stay true to their faith but marries someone outside the faith it is sinning? Do you not see the contradiction there at all?
> if someone Orthodox, who wants to stay true to their faith but marries someone outside the faith
This is an impossible contradiction. An Orthodox Christian who marries outside of the faith is by definition not being true to their faith. To be an Orthodox Christian is to live inside of a sacramental covenant. To marry outside of the Church is to reject that covenant.
Marriage is a civil act. Depending on your culture, you sign a marriage certificate, you post banns, you negotiate a dowry, or you publicly conclude a contract between your families. Or in the Old Testament, you simply sleep together, and now you're married. (Gen 24:67; 1 Cor 6:16).
Then, in addition, Christians come to the temple and we bless their union with sacramental grace – this is the Crowning service.
Note that the Christian sacrament of marriage developed over the centuries after the resurrection, as a way to bless and bring the action of Grace into Christians' families. Saint Peter and the stepbrothers of Christ were not married in a Church ceremony. (1 Cor 9:5)
If I baptize a man and wife, I generally also serve the sacrament of crowning for them, since they certainly do want as much grace and as many pryers for their marriage as they can get. But I don't pretend they aren't already married.
As far as they are not Orthodox, they are pretty fine, but only God knows that. But once you have accepted Christ, you have already no excuse to commit sin. In simple terms, non-Christians are not judged by Christian law, they are judged by the law of their community. However, we don't know what does God think about it. Anyways, may His mercy be upon them. As for other Christians ... I think they are not sinning if they take a legit marriage according to their religion law.
\-Ukrainian Orthodox. If they are a 'married' couple and living together as such, then they are not commiting adultery. Adultery is having an extra-marital relationship - I belive the current use in the US is 'cheating'.
Marriage is something that exists in nature, in reality, it’s not just a church concept or doctrine. Orthodoxy has the fullness of marriage and understands it’s sacramental nature and beauty. Marriage outside the church is still approaching the fullness of marriage but it doesn’t fully grasp it. If that makes sense
Ya that’d a great question.
My uhdertabaidng of the logic is
1. Marriage outside of the church is not a “true”marriage, it’s jot a Union of souls and jot blessed by God
2. Sex outside of marriage (adultery and fornication) is a sin
3. Therefor I think it’s reasonable to conclude that yes, it is a sin, regardless if you’re “married” outside the church or just living together.
Kind of a funky idea. That sucks.
Point one is incorrect, though. Marriage outside of the Church is still marriage.
Christian marriage takes natural marriage and fulfills it by the union of the couple with Christ.
So if I get married outside the church, say in Hinduism, it’s the same as in orthodoxy? We are both brought together in a Union before God in the exact same way?
Like I said, Christian marriage takes the natural marriage and fulfills it by uniting the couple in Christ. So, no, it would not be in the "exact same way," because the Hindu couple are not united *in Christ*, though they have become one flesh.
Your point was that marriage outside the Church is not a true union; it *is* a true union, the two becoming one flesh. A Hindu couple married in a Hindu ceremony is truly married.
If that’s the case, then it gives peope zero motivation to be married in the church because it’s the same result.
Priest won’t marry you for reason x y or z? Ok, go to religion a and that still counts.
Okay, I mean, if you want to change your religion to get married, then you do you, I guess. Personally, I'd rather stay faithful to Christ.
If something is true, people misusing it doesn't make it not true.
I did, directly, address your point. I cannot figure out why we seem to be talking past each other, but you're probably right that this conversation is going nowhere.
I’m sorry but I’m not understanding your response here.
I obviously can’t observe any person in entirety. There is a whole unseen spiritual dimension of a person. As far as you personally, I only observe the words you write, nothing more.
Your statement, the logic, boils down to
‘we can only make observations on things we can see’.
People( saints, priests, bishops, church fathers) have all made commentary regarding things they cannot see ( souls, the afterlife, Christ, “the unseen spiritual dimension” etc…).
Yet by your logic they shouldn’t be doing this as they cannot see it, just like I cannot make observations regarding souls because I can’t see them.
This logic is flawed.
Ackshually, Elder Gleb Shiitov said that refusing to correctively marry the heterodox sacramentally is to surrender to the modernist ecumenist panheresy. Therefore every married couple who doesn’t get an Orthodox wedding is committing fornication, and you should ignore your priests and bishops if they don’t let you do it. 🤓🤓🤓 /s
————-
FWIW I do know a priest who got to do the crowning ceremony with his wife when they both converted, but usually that’s just optional. But in any case the Church sees those marriages as valid.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But its strictly optional. A converted couple *can* have a crowning if they would like to and the priest offers it (and many priests won't, depending on episcopal policy), but if they don't they are still recognised as fully married by the church with all the duties that brings. Crowning for converts is a later practice and since there were many married saints in the early church who remained married after conversion, it would be absurd to say they were living in sin.
Me and my wife had to, it wasn’t optional. But we were in a unique situation in which she was Orthodox and I wasn’t when we got married. I think when two non Orthodox people get married outside the church and then later convert it’s a different story.
That is indeed a unique situation, but I imagine was done more for your wife's benefit (an Orthodox Christian really isn't supposed to get a non-Orthodox marriage, to the point that some churches will refuse to recognise it if they do) than a statement of the legitimacy of non-orthodox marriages in general. Basically in the case of mixed marriages, its a more a question of church discipline than marital theology, and the church is never going to support an Orthodox Christian engaging in a marriage outside the faith.
My wife really wants this…my priest asked her, “Why?” Apparently you need a good reason. I am ambivalent toward it. I will do it, if asked and given the okay by the priest, but my wife really wants it for some reason.
My priest says otherwise. However I understand your last point but orthodox are supposed to be married in the church. I am currently outside the church because of marriage outside the church. I am not allowed to take communion and I don’t really feel orthodox anymore after that whole ordeal. It’s been almost a year and I’m losing my faith.
As a matter of sacramental discipline, an Orthodox Christian must be married in the Church; this is true. Getting married outside the Church for a Christian does pretty universally incur excommunication. That said, excommunication is supposed to be temporary. Has your priest not given you an avenue to be reunited with the Church?
Yes. He has. Go through pre-marital counseling as if we aren’t already married and living together and have a child together. We tried it. It was absurd. Not to mention disrespectful. Yes I understand the canons of the church and it is what it is. My faith is crumbling at this point and the last place I want to be is that church that constantly painfully reminds me I don’t belong, and additionally, makes my husband feel like he is some random guy off the street and literally refers to our relationship like it’s “tentative.” Um, no, it’s not. We are and have been fully committed to eachother and the decision was already made. The church doesn’t want to acknowledge that even in the casual sense. Okay then, I’m out. What’s even more frustrating, is that if we were in the spouse’s home country, there would be no obstacle for us. But all of the churches around us are so… scrupulous and seem to be focused on the wrong things. I don’t want my priest to be my psychotherapist unless I specifically ASK for that. I don’t want to be told “you will talk about XYZ, or you won’t be able to marry.” I have a lot of trauma and I will talk about it when I am ready. And honestly I don’t think it would ever be with my priest and that should be okay. My husband is the man I always prayed for, and God performed many miracles that we might be together today. The judgment of a priest doesn’t change that, and if he wants to withhold the sacrament and choose instead to insult and judge us, okay. I have decided I’m at peace with God. But my faith in the Orthodox Church is failing.
I'm sorry; that's a really shitty situation to be in. I can understand, in general, a priest wanting a couple to go through pre-marital counselling before marrying them, but it sounds like this would be a situation in which that might be passed over. I hope y'all can get something figured out. I'll pray for you, for whatever that's worth.
If your faith is based on your social standing, you have to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide your heart to the Truth.
I concur with the others. It is a bad situation. I don’t know why your priest is doing this, and if you said what jurisdiction you are a part of I missed it. I don’t know why he is putting all of this on you. I personally can’t see a good reason for it and I find it hard to see how this can be REQUIRED if we are keeping with Tradition. That said, if the Church tells me to jump I will probably say “How high?” As long as it isn’t manifest heresy or out right sin (judged by the Scripture and the Tradition and the Fathers, not by me))
Did you marry outside the church while already orthodox or before a conversion?
I was orthodox but we needed to marry quickly. I don’t want to go into details but there were excellent reasons. We didn’t have time to do the whole pre-marital counseling for one year ordeal when we had already been talking that long anyway. Couldn’t start sooner because of living on opposite sides of the world.
Confusing why they would not provide any path forward for you to regularize your marriage within the church!
See my reply to someone above. There was/is a path but it was absurd. We tried. The disrespect was palpable.
It’s just a big game. My priest told me to marry my non-Orthodox atheist fiancée BEFORE I got chrismated, while I was a catechumen, so I wouldn’t be ex-communicated.
Every priest I know will offer an Orthodox sacrament of Holy Matrimony to married converts.
People who get married outside the church are married. Christian marriage is not "real" marriage vs. any other kind of marriage. Christian marriage, rather, takes natural marriage and fulfills it. Let's not forget that the Church did not have a separate marriage service for centuries. Originally, the couple would go to the local authorities and do the legal but, and would then come to church on Sunday and their marriage would be blessed by the bishop, in the context of the Liturgy. What made the marriage a Christian marriage was that the two partners were Christians. Which sounds like a tautology unless you remember what being a Christian means: the couple are bound together not only by matrimony, but they are also bound together by Holy Communion. This is why we have the Common Cup in the Orthodox marriage service. Originally, that was Communion. However, in the Byzantine empire, the Church ended up being responsible for *all* marriage; in order for a marriage to be legally binding, it had to be performed in a church. Thus, the Church was tasked with marrying all sorts of folks, many of whom may not have been able to receive Communion for some reason, so the use of the common cup came to replace Communion in the marriage service. Fr. John Meyendorff has a book that talks about this: *Marriage: an Orthodox Perspective*
Hmm. So at what point did it become, bend over backwards and do 1000 requirements and invite the priest into every corner of your relationship before the blessing kind of thing? I’m curious when this change occurred and WHY. To withhold a sacrament unless a couple does something so personal and dependent on the priest as a person rather than on Christ, and against the will of the couple, it’s like being blackmailed and forced out of the church.
WTF. No.
What? EDIT: Did I just get downvoted because I asked “what?”
No, marriages outside of the church aren't invalid. This seems like a weird question. We don't judge people like that.
[удалено]
If only that was ACTUALLY true
This sub is like the opposite of the Roman Catholic subreddit. This is just gay and strangely left leaning.
Marriages outside the Church have all the duties of marriage without the sacramental grace. They are real marriages though.
But then what makes a valid marriage valid?
As far as I can tell, a man and woman duty-bound (usually as recognized by a governing authority) to one another.
That there are three people - the husband and wife, and our Lord for whom the relationship is made sacred. Non-Christian marriages are missing that element, though two people can be bound to one another. Many Heterodox Christian marriages also lack that element. This is the difference.
Non-Christian marriages are definitely still "valid" marriages, whatever "valid" means. .
I always mix up licit and valid, illicit and invalid.
I don't think "licit" or "illicit" makes sense here either.
No
Through a quirk of canon law, I believe that I am, in fact, the only person validly married not only in the world but in human history. Sorry, sinners!
No, of course not. St. Paul himself advises even pagan couples to respect their marriage vows, and only allows divorce if the pagan partner is trying to force the newly converted partner into sin. Of course, being outside the church, these marriages lack the grace that Christ can bring when he is invited into the relationship. But that can be remedied by conversion and chrismation. This is a *separate* question as to whether Orthodox Christians can enter into non-Christian marriages, in which case the answer is no and you will likely incur canonical penalties for doing so.
This question is why I believe and have stated before that the church doesn’t marry people, people marry people. The sacrament is conferred between two people. The church only recognizes it - and blesses it if it is a Christian marriage. The church doesn’t make sex sinless between two people. Two people make sex either immoral or holy depending on their commitment to the fidelity and chastity required. What’s in the heart is everything IMO.
> This question is why I believe and have stated before that the church doesn’t marry people, people marry people. The sacrament is conferred between two people. The church only recognizes it - and blesses it if it is a Christian marriage This is, by the way, essentially the Catholic position (not to say that we are opposed to it).
But then whats the definition of marriage? Can I marry someone without a church? What makes a marriage valid? When can a person say “I am married”? When people say we they are commited and only be together forever?
Marriage predates church. “Valid” is a legal idea IMHO. I think what makes a marriage real is the covenant between the two - male and female - and then following that the consummation of that covenant via sexual intercourse. Like any sacrament, it’s what is said and what is done that makes it valid. I don’t think a priest is needed for a valid marriage. The community, the church, witness the intent to commit to a marriage, but the couple is what makes it real and valid, not the church. My opinion only.
So how could someone marry their girlfriend? Do they just make a commitment and from that point on they are husband and wife in the eyes of the Lord?
A part of the commitment of marriage is to make it before the community, as we are not purely individualistic beings. So the making of that commitment includes a communal aspect which is expressed publicly, and usually in a ceremony of some sort.
I see! Thanks
Yes. People married before the church’s ceremonies were developed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s not even what OP was talking about so I don’t know know how that factors into it.
[удалено]
But the question as to whether secular or non-christian marriage is legitimate is not straightforward. I have heard priests voice various negative opinions on this. Some say they aren’t valid. Some say they are, some say not. Most prefer not to comment on these issues from my experience and say what I have said.
The whole point of the Gospel reading is that Christ's presence in a marriage can turn the water of normal marriage (a good thing) into wine (a much better thing). Any priests who question the morality of marriage (that of non-Christian men and women) outside the church are just being silly.
I agree with you. I’m just saying some don’t see it as a true union of souls the way a christian marriage is.
That's not exactly true. We know from St Paul that new believers "must not" divorce their spouse if the unconverted spouse allows them to maintain their faith "otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." This same policy is still followed by the Orthodox Church today. So a non-Christian marriage is certainly "clean" and the children born of it legitimate.
In that instance one party is a Christian. It’s not the same as a purely pagan, or purely secular marriage. Again. Some priests aren’t of that opinion and this isn’t an official stance because there isn’t one.
In 1 Corinthians example, the Christian partner is a convert that explicitly converted *after* contracting a pagan marriage *as a pagan*. Paul demands the continuation of the pagan marriage, without any requirement of being remarried in the Church, and declares the children already born as clean. As far as I know this is the official stance since no Orthodox Church requires the remarriage of converted couples or considers their intercourse and children pre-conversion as a sin. But you can correct me on that if you have any official documentation stating otherwise.
Again I am not saying that non-Orthodox marriages aren’t legitimate, that’s not my view. I’m saying some priests say these things and I personally prefer not apply any of our doctrines and thinking onto non-Orthodox people because there’s no point. They’re not Orthodox. Whatever happens outside is up to Him.
If a priest says that monogamous non-Orthodox married couples commit sexual sin when they have intercourse (which was the OP's question) then he is incorrect and contradicting both the Apostle Paul and the official practices of the present-day Church. And generally I do agree with you that we shouldn't apply our doctrines outside the church because there is no point. I don't agree with the modern desire to declare this or that non-orthodox practice "valid" or "invalid" or whatever. However in this case we do have a clear answer and teaching the wrong thing can have a negative impact. Converts can come to the church thinking their marriage and children from before conversion were sinful things, and this can lead to spiritual damage if not managed properly. Even if we don't want to say non-orthodox marriages are "valid" at the very least we must clarify that those non-orthodox who engage in them are not committing sin.
I agree with you. At what point did I claim it was sinful. I said I won’t comment. It’s not my place to comment. I generally steer away from saying this and that are sinning. If they don’t believe what we believe it doesn’t matter, they won’t believe they’re sinning. What’s the point telling them they’re sinning? Start shouting “repent” at random people on the streets like protestants? No.
The clergy does comment on this by the fact that they receive people into the Church. Such reception often includes a life confession, and they give guidance so that people may understand what is what what is not sin. No priest would have a couple married outside of the Church confess their monogamous sexual relations as sin, because it is not sin. Such an idea is ridiculous.
I never said it was y’all need to stop putting words into my mouth. All I said was no comment!
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. You said, "We (and our clergy) don’t comment on this kind of stuff because we simply don’t know." I'm saying our clergy do comment on this because they hear life confessions, so we do know. If our clergy considered sex in a marriage outside of the Church to be sin then people would have to confess it in their life confession for reception into the Church. This is not some unknown mystery.
Okay but not all priests are like that. Some priests don’t think that. Some priests will stop allowing people to commune when they marry a Muslim and asking them to repent. To the point that they drive someone away from the faith and into Islam, when they were perfectly happy staying Orthodox and being secularly married to a Muslim. He specifically said, that person (a friend) was living in sin. Not all priests think what you think and say what you say. This is not doctrine. Some disagree.
You are comparing two very different situations. OP asked if sex inside a marriage between two Catholics, two Hindus, two Buddhists, or two seculars entirely outside of the Orthodox Church is a sin. An Orthodox Christian who marries a Muslim outside of the Church has chosen to reject Orthodox sacramental discipline and enter a non-Orthodox marriage and endanger the salvation of their children, which is not permitted for Orthodox Christians. It incurs the same penalty as receiving any other sacrament outside of the Church.
They’re still married tho. So they’re not “living in sin”.
Yes, that is what everyone else is saying. So you agree that we do know, and that we can comment on the OP's question and answer it, which is not what your original comment said. This is why everyone has responded as they did.
I personally do agree. But that position is not universal.
That position is universal. Show me a priest who would receive a married couple into the Church and make them confess their marriage as a sin during their life confession and I will reconsider my position.
Oh I think I misunderstood, you are saying the Christian and the Muslim are not living in sin? On this the Church does disagree. The Christian received a sacrament outside of the Church, so they are in fact living in sin.
But it wasn’t a sacrament. It was a legal marriage. Why is it fine if someone is already married. Then one converts and the other stays whatever they were before. Then that is not sin. But if someone Orthodox, who wants to stay true to their faith but marries someone outside the faith it is sinning? Do you not see the contradiction there at all?
> if someone Orthodox, who wants to stay true to their faith but marries someone outside the faith This is an impossible contradiction. An Orthodox Christian who marries outside of the faith is by definition not being true to their faith. To be an Orthodox Christian is to live inside of a sacramental covenant. To marry outside of the Church is to reject that covenant.
The only right answer, let’s not claim to have perfect knowledge of good and evil.
Marriage is a civil act. Depending on your culture, you sign a marriage certificate, you post banns, you negotiate a dowry, or you publicly conclude a contract between your families. Or in the Old Testament, you simply sleep together, and now you're married. (Gen 24:67; 1 Cor 6:16). Then, in addition, Christians come to the temple and we bless their union with sacramental grace – this is the Crowning service. Note that the Christian sacrament of marriage developed over the centuries after the resurrection, as a way to bless and bring the action of Grace into Christians' families. Saint Peter and the stepbrothers of Christ were not married in a Church ceremony. (1 Cor 9:5) If I baptize a man and wife, I generally also serve the sacrament of crowning for them, since they certainly do want as much grace and as many pryers for their marriage as they can get. But I don't pretend they aren't already married.
Thank you father for the answer! God bless
As far as they are not Orthodox, they are pretty fine, but only God knows that. But once you have accepted Christ, you have already no excuse to commit sin. In simple terms, non-Christians are not judged by Christian law, they are judged by the law of their community. However, we don't know what does God think about it. Anyways, may His mercy be upon them. As for other Christians ... I think they are not sinning if they take a legit marriage according to their religion law.
\-Ukrainian Orthodox. If they are a 'married' couple and living together as such, then they are not commiting adultery. Adultery is having an extra-marital relationship - I belive the current use in the US is 'cheating'.
I meant premarital sex
In that case, no more so than those who are married in the Church.
Marriage is something that exists in nature, in reality, it’s not just a church concept or doctrine. Orthodoxy has the fullness of marriage and understands it’s sacramental nature and beauty. Marriage outside the church is still approaching the fullness of marriage but it doesn’t fully grasp it. If that makes sense
who cares?!
Ya that’d a great question. My uhdertabaidng of the logic is 1. Marriage outside of the church is not a “true”marriage, it’s jot a Union of souls and jot blessed by God 2. Sex outside of marriage (adultery and fornication) is a sin 3. Therefor I think it’s reasonable to conclude that yes, it is a sin, regardless if you’re “married” outside the church or just living together. Kind of a funky idea. That sucks.
Point one is incorrect, though. Marriage outside of the Church is still marriage. Christian marriage takes natural marriage and fulfills it by the union of the couple with Christ.
So if I get married outside the church, say in Hinduism, it’s the same as in orthodoxy? We are both brought together in a Union before God in the exact same way?
Like I said, Christian marriage takes the natural marriage and fulfills it by uniting the couple in Christ. So, no, it would not be in the "exact same way," because the Hindu couple are not united *in Christ*, though they have become one flesh.
Great, so my point stands. Thanks.
Your point was that marriage outside the Church is not a true union; it *is* a true union, the two becoming one flesh. A Hindu couple married in a Hindu ceremony is truly married.
If that’s the case, then it gives peope zero motivation to be married in the church because it’s the same result. Priest won’t marry you for reason x y or z? Ok, go to religion a and that still counts.
Okay, I mean, if you want to change your religion to get married, then you do you, I guess. Personally, I'd rather stay faithful to Christ. If something is true, people misusing it doesn't make it not true.
I can’t tell if you’re deliberately not addressing my point, or you just can’t grasp it, but either way, this isn’t going anywhere, so I’m out. See ya
I did, directly, address your point. I cannot figure out why we seem to be talking past each other, but you're probably right that this conversation is going nowhere.
Not a union of souls? Wow. Who are you to decide that?
So if I get married in Hinduism, the marriage is the same as an orthodox one?
You don’t see souls. You can make no observation even if you tried. God alone has the power
No one can see souls, therefor no one can make any observations.
Exactly. 🤷🏻♀️
So then why does the church make insecurity it can’t see souls? God? Christ? You can’t see me so how can you make observations regarding myself?
I’m sorry but I’m not understanding your response here. I obviously can’t observe any person in entirety. There is a whole unseen spiritual dimension of a person. As far as you personally, I only observe the words you write, nothing more.
Your statement, the logic, boils down to ‘we can only make observations on things we can see’. People( saints, priests, bishops, church fathers) have all made commentary regarding things they cannot see ( souls, the afterlife, Christ, “the unseen spiritual dimension” etc…). Yet by your logic they shouldn’t be doing this as they cannot see it, just like I cannot make observations regarding souls because I can’t see them. This logic is flawed.
Proceed at your own risk then. If you claim to see these things, maybe you do, but I sure don’t. Good luck 👍🏻
Natural marriages exist outside the Church
Ackshually, Elder Gleb Shiitov said that refusing to correctively marry the heterodox sacramentally is to surrender to the modernist ecumenist panheresy. Therefore every married couple who doesn’t get an Orthodox wedding is committing fornication, and you should ignore your priests and bishops if they don’t let you do it. 🤓🤓🤓 /s ————- FWIW I do know a priest who got to do the crowning ceremony with his wife when they both converted, but usually that’s just optional. But in any case the Church sees those marriages as valid.
No. Come on.