Ask an Orthodox Christian

[milovany]

(aka Eastern Orthodox/EO)

 

It was mentioned on another thread that some might appreciate the opportunity to ask those who are Orthodox Christians questions about their beliefs and practices, since eastern Christianity is pretty different from all the different versions of western Christianity. I'm tentative about doing so because none of us are experts, but there are a few of us here who'd be willing to try and provide information on what we believe, why, and how we practice our faith. Hopefully it goes without saying, but we're not going to be big on trying to defend our faith in a Scripture war. It's just not something we're into, really. We fully believe our faith is scriptural to be sure. We respect the faith of non-Orthodox Christians and the faith of non-Christian religions, and the lack of faith in non-believing persons, etc. etc.

 

As an intro, might I provide a neutral timeline of church history, published by US News? Looking at this timeline, you can see where the Orthodox church is coming from. There was one united church at the beginning, then theological differences caused a split into two halves (Eastern and Western) in 1054 A.D.  From there, the western church split more and more into thousands of denominations. Meanwhile, over in the East, things continued on as they always had. The faith saw some rapid development in the beginning, much like an infant develops rapidly in its early years, as it moves toward maturity. It is still the same church with the same faith as a baby is the same person as the adult. Our perspective is this, that the original church still exists, it never ended, it has an unbroken thread throughout history.

 

Hopefully that provides a good starting point for the discussion.  (And I'm open to being corrected by my Orthodox kin for anything I may have described poorly.) May God bless the journeys of all. 

[Liz CA]

I am always interested in things like this. Thanks for the link. So the catholic church split into Catholic and Eastern Orthodox? Then there were lots of "splinter groups" from the catholic church?

[Rosie_0801]

Why can't I get a copy of Sister Elayne's Pascha book *anywhere?*  :banghead:

 

(Not) Seriously, can't you start a petition to make her republish?

 

:P

[PrincessMommy]

I am always interested in things like this. Thanks for the link. So the catholic church split into Catholic and Eastern Orthodox? Then there were lots of "splinter groups" from the catholic church?

 

That is basically correct.  What the timeline didn't  show is that there was an earlier split off of the Oriental churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Indian)  These churches only recognize the first 3 Ecumenical councils.  EO and OO are very close theologically but are not in communion.  This was largely due to language and geographical distance that exacerbated Christological issues (over oversimplifying a bit).

[milovany]

Why can't I get a copy of Sister Elayne's Pascha book *anywhere?*  :banghead:

 

(Not) Seriously, can't you start a petition to make her republish?

 

:p

 

I know!  I'm with you, Rosie.  I have all of the festal series *except* the Pascha and Passover ones -- ergh!  I feel the same way about the festal boxes that used to be put out by Orthodox Christian Crafts.  I started buying them one by one, got 5-6 purchased, and then they closed their doors.  So I have half the feasts and not the other half.  I want completion!  As for Sister Elayne's books, I think I still owe you a look-see at the other parish nearby and will remember to do that next time I go.  They have a stack, although I'm guessing they don't have what we want either but it's worth a look. 

[milovany]

What the timeline didn't  show is that there was an earlier split off of the Oriental churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Indian)  These churches only recognize the first 3 Ecumenical councils.  EO and OO are very close theologically but are not in communion.  This was largely due to language and geographical distance that exacerbated Christological issues (over oversimplifying a bit).

 

Thanks for pointing that out, Debbi.  I had started to include that but felt like I was being too wordy :o, so took it out.

[TeacherZee]

Little hijack

 

I read this book a few years back and thought it explained the split very well

[milovany]

Little hijack

 

I read this book a few years back and thought it explained the split very well

 

Thank you for the recommendation! 

[Elfknitter.#]

That is basically correct. What the timeline didn't show is that there was an earlier split off of the Oriental churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Indian) These churches only recognize the first 3 Ecumenical councils. EO and OO are very close theologically but are not in communion. This was largely due to language and geographical distance that exacerbated Christological issues (over oversimplifying a bit).

Interesting. There's an Armenian Coptic and Eastern Orthodox church near us. I have wondered about the differences. One is certainly smaller, but I assumed that as due to congregation size.

 

What are EO masses like? (I do not know if they are services or masses to be honest) Do they differ, if you know, from a Roman Catholic mass?

 

And bonus question for those outside the US- I have a strange fascination with the "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" shows, but mostly for the ones from the UK. Oftentimes, when the Gypsies marry, it is at church, which I assume is RC (due to vestments or altars or alter boys, etc.) If a church were available, could the Gypsies/ Travellers hold their ceremonies for baptism, communions, confirmations, or weddings at an EO church or would they have to have been members first?

[Juniper]

Interesting. There's an Armenian Coptic and Eastern Orthodox church near us. I have wondered about the differences. One is certainly smaller, but I assumed that as due to congregation size.

 

What are EO masses like? (I do not know if they are services or masses to be honest) Do they differ, if you know, from a Roman Catholic mass?

 

And bonus question for those outside the US- I have a strange fascination with the "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" shows, but mostly for the ones from the UK. Oftentimes, when the Gypsies marry, it is at church, which I assume is RC (due to vestments or altars or alter boys, etc.) If a church were available, could the Gypsies/ Travellers hold their ceremonies for baptism, communions, confirmations, or weddings at an EO church or would they have to have been members first?

*Not an expert* :)

 

I only followed the show a little bit a couple years ago, but I am pretty certain that the gypsy's in the episodes I saw are Catholic, hence the use of those churches.  

 

My Priest is Romanian and I am aware of quite a large gypsy population there. Again, if they are Orthodox they would be welcome to participate in the sacraments of a church (Baptism, Marriage, communion being some of those). Orthodoxy does not have a wedding ceremony that is comparable to the more familiar and traditional ceremony of the West. We have a Crowning (yes, complete with crowns for bride and groom). There are prayers for the new family/kingdom that is being established with the marriage, but we do not have vows. The EO also does not perform the civil portion of the wedding. 

 

 

Clear as mud? ;)

[PrincessMommy]

Interesting. There's an Armenian Coptic and Eastern Orthodox church near us. I have wondered about the differences. One is certainly smaller, but I assumed that as due to congregation size.

 

What are EO masses like? (I do not know if they are services or masses to be honest) Do they differ, if you know, from a Roman Catholic mass?

 

And bonus question for those outside the US- I have a strange fascination with the "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" shows, but mostly for the ones from the UK. Oftentimes, when the Gypsies marry, it is at church, which I assume is RC (due to vestments or altars or alter boys, etc.) If a church were available, could the Gypsies/ Travellers hold their ceremonies for baptism, communions, confirmations, or weddings at an EO church or would they have to have been members first?

 

Elfknitter (love the name, btw).

 

Masses are called Liturgy or Divine Liturgy in the East.  It's kind of hard to explain.  Here's a short synopsis:

 

http://www.newmartyr.info/liturgyshape.html

 

But, everything is either chanted or sung.

 

Here's a video from my parish's Paschal weekend services from a few years ago.  It begins with our priest intoning in chant: "Glory to the holy con-substancial,  life-creating, and undivided Trinity...." then a friend of mine in the choir begins the chanting "Glory to God in the Highest..."  She was about to start chanting one of the Psalms, but it cuts out to singing one of our hymns from the Altar, then the entire congregation begin.

 

 

[Kathryn]

Interesting. There's an Armenian Coptic and Eastern Orthodox church near us. I have wondered about the differences. One is certainly smaller, but I assumed that as due to congregation size.

 

What are EO masses like? (I do not know if they are services or masses to be honest) Do they differ, if you know, from a Roman Catholic mass?

 

And bonus question for those outside the US- I have a strange fascination with the "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" shows, but mostly for the ones from the UK. Oftentimes, when the Gypsies marry, it is at church, which I assume is RC (due to vestments or altars or alter boys, etc.) If a church were available, could the Gypsies/ Travellers hold their ceremonies for baptism, communions, confirmations, or weddings at an EO church or would they have to have been members first?

 

We have quite a few Oriental Orthodox (mostly Eritrean and Ethiopian refugees) that attend our liturgy (what Catholics call mass) but do not commune. They use our church one Saturday a month for their own liturgy. The OO split from the rest of Christianity over the Council of Chalcedon, in what now appears to have been a language barrier issue. Efforts at reunification are ongoing. The OO Church in general, worldwide, is smaller than the EO and is focused in the Middle East and northeastern Africa.

 

This link talks about the Divine Liturgy. Towards the end, there is a "diagram of the Divine Liturgy." I'd say it would be somewhat familiar for those familiar with a liturgical church. For those not, it would be very different.

 

As to your last question, our church hosts other Orthodox jurisdictions' events such as weddings, funerals, liturgies, etc., but would not host unless someone involved was Orthodox (one member of a couple marrying, for example).

 

[Elfknitter.#]

*Not an expert* :)

 

I only followed the show a little bit a couple years ago, but I am pretty certain that the gypsy's in the episodes I saw are Catholic, hence the use of those churches.

 

My Priest is Romanian and I am aware of quite a large gypsy population there. Again, if they are Orthodox they would be welcome to participate in the sacraments of a church (Baptism, Marriage, communion being some of those). Orthodoxy does not have a wedding ceremony that is comparable to the more familiar and traditional ceremony of the West. We have a Crowning (yes, complete with crowns for bride and groom). There are prayers for the new family/kingdom that is being established with the marriage, but we do not have vows. The EO also does not perform the civil portion of the wedding.

 

 

Clear as mud? ;)

In a way, yes,

 

You mentioned, crowns. From the Gypsy perspective, I can see how this might fit a marriage ceremony, not to mention a baptismal or confirmation.

 

But all that aside, the EO and RC had their rift about 1054 ad. About a millennia ago now.

 

Any attempts to reunify? Happy with the status pro quo? Still holding grudges?

[PrincessMommy]

In a way, yes,

 

You mentioned, crowns. From the Gypsy perspective, I can see how this might fit a marriage ceremony, not to mention a baptismal or confirmation.

 

But all that aside, the EO and RC had their rift about 1054 ad. About a millennia ago now.

 

Any attempts to reunify? Happy with the status pro quo? Still holding grudges?

 

yes, there are continual discussions and attempts (probably that's too strong a word though) at reunification.  Sadly, the divide between the Catholic and Eastern churches has widened since 1054... so it's probably harder now than it would have been 1000 years ago.  I suspect and hope to see a reunification between the OO and EO in my lifetime.  I do not expect the same between Rome and the East. 

[milovany]

 

This link talks about the Divine Liturgy. Towards the end, there is a "diagram of the Divine Liturgy." I'd say it would be somewhat familiar for those familiar with a liturgical church. For those not, it would be very different.

 

This (the bolded) was us. We'd never been to a liturgical church before, and then went to an EO Christmas Eve service.  We were pretty much blown away, both in some positive and in some negative ways. Positive because it was so beautiful and reverent.  They sung everything. Nothing  was made up on the spot; it was planned and the organization was comforting ( I personally was tired of churches that functioned around the personality of a leader). Also, standing was the standard posture during the service which we both loved and found difficult (it was a two hour or more service as I recall).  Another difficult thing was the incense.  It was a small church and the person we attended with said her priest tended to use more than most.  But we came away a bit in awe. 

[milovany]

Any attempts to reunify? Happy with the status pro quo? Still holding grudges?

 

Adding to Debbi's thoughts -- a reunification between the Catholic Church and Orthodox church would by necessity involve either the Catholic Church letting go of the belief that the pope is the sole vicar of Christ on the earth, OR the Orthodox Church accepting his sole authority over the church (when we've never had a sole authority).  Neither of these is likely to happen.  There are more things than just that, but that's enough to keep it divided.  From the EO point of view, the early church had five patriarchates of which Rome was one. The bishop of Rome had a place of honor, but not supreme authority.  Each of the bishops had one vote at the councils and synods. Somehow that changed over time in the west to where it was claimed the pope had supreme authority over the others; the east didn't agree, thus the split (again, there were other issues, too, but this was a big one). 

 

[Hoot]

My Priest is Romanian and I am aware of quite a large gypsy population there. Again, if they are Orthodox they would be welcome to participate in the sacraments of a church (Baptism, Marriage, communion being some of those). Orthodoxy does not have a wedding ceremony that is comparable to the more familiar and traditional ceremony of the West. We have a Crowning (yes, complete with crowns for bride and groom). There are prayers for the new family/kingdom that is being established with the marriage, but we do not have vows. The EO also does not perform the civil portion of the wedding.

 

Ok THAT is really fascinating.

[milovany]

Ok THAT is really fascinating.

 

The crowning part?  Some crowns are fancy, some less so. Our were made with branches from the bushes outside the church at the last moment because we'd forgotten about them! (The nine of us had all been baptized in the morning, which was somewhat the focus of the day, and the marriage blessing was later in the afternoon).  It's the prayers that are important, not the style of crown of course. It's a neat part of the ceremony. You can Google "orthodox marriage crowning" and then Images to see lots of pictures of the crowning.  .

 

If not the crowning part, carry on!  :D

[Hoot]

The crowning part? Some crowns are fancy, some less so. Our were made with branches from the bushes outside the church at the last moment because we'd forgotten about them! (The nine of us had all been baptized in the morning, which was somewhat the focus of the day, and the marriage blessing was later in the afternoon). It's the prayers that are important, not the style of crown of course. It's a neat part of the ceremony. You can Google "orthodox marriage crowning" and then Images to see lots of pictures of the crowning. .

 

If not the crowning part, carry on! :D

The crowning, yes, but all the rest, too. Why are there no vows and why does the EO not perform the civil portion? Who does perform it? I love the idea of using branches as the crown, by the way. I think that would be my first choice anyway.

[Hunter's Moon]

The crowning, yes, but all the rest, too. Why are there no vows and why does the EO not perform the civil portion? Who does perform it? I love the idea of using branches as the crown, by the way. I think that would be my first choice anyway.

I would say to the no vow part, the Sacrament of Matrimony in the EO Church is not a recognition of a man and a woman deciding to come together as husband and wife. Instead, God has already established this couple, and we cannot do something that God has already done.

 

Of course, both come willingly and freely, and that is announced in a certain part of the Sacrament, but there is no need for additional vows.

[Hunter's Moon]

IOW, the Sacrament is an earthly recognition of the spiritual commitment that God has already established.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Kathryn]

The crowning, yes, but all the rest, too. Why are there no vows and why does the EO not perform the civil portion? Who does perform it? I love the idea of using branches as the crown, by the way. I think that would be my first choice anyway.

From orthodoxwiki article on marriage:

 

"For the Orthodox Christian, the marriage service (wedding) is the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, a created image of God's love which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending. The early Church simply witnessed the couple's expression of mutual love in the Church, and their union was blessed by their mutual partaking of the Holy Eucharist.

When a marriage service developed in the Church, it was patterned after the service for baptism and chrismation. The couple is addressed in a way similar to that of the individual in baptism. They confess their faith and their love of God. They are led into the Church in procession. They are prayed over and blessed. They listen to God's Word.

The service contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the "baptizing and confirming" of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is the deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity of the eternal Kingdom of God as revealed and given to man in the Church. There is no "legalism" in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is not a juridical contract, it is a spiritual bond."

[milovany]

The crowning, yes, but all the rest, too. Why are there no vows and why does the EO not perform the civil portion? Who does perform it? I love the idea of using branches as the crown, by the way. I think that would be my first choice anyway.

 

I found this explanation: "From a spiritual standpoint, what gives meaning to a marriage? Unlike the wedding ceremonies in most non-Orthodox churches, marriage in the Orthodox Church is not a contract—a legal agreement with the exchange of vows or promises— between two people. Rather, marriage is the setting up, by two people, of a miniature church, a family church, wherein people may worship the true God and struggle to save their souls."

 

I don't know the answer to the second part because we were married 20+ years ago; what we had was a blessing service for our marriage.  If marrying Orthodox couples have to go to a justice of the peace or something separately from the marriage ceremony at the church, I've never heard of it (not that I've heard a bunch about Orthodox wedding practices).  I'm sure someone will be able to answer the question.  Maybe Debbi/PrincessMommy because her daughter was married in an Orthodox ceremony. 

 

ETA -- Sorry!  I didn't see Elisheba's or Katherine's replies before hitting submit. I should also clarify based on Katherine's comment below: Our marriage "blessing" was the full marriage service (crowning, Gospel reading, procession, exhortations, etc.) but minus the parts that wouldn't make sense since we'd already lived as a married couple (for example, the prayers about future children; we already had seven).

[Kathryn]

We had a full marriage ceremony when we became Orthodox although we were already legally married. If we were not, the priest would have just signed the marriage license that he had performed the wedding.

[wintermom]

 

 

As an intro, might I provide a neutral timeline of church history, published by US News? Looking at this timeline, you can see where the Orthodox church is coming from. There was one united church at the beginning, then theological differences caused a split into two halves (Eastern and Western) in 1054 A.D.  From there, the western church split more and more into thousands of denominations. Meanwhile, over in the East, things continued on as they always had. The faith saw some rapid development in the beginning, much like an infant develops rapidly in its early years, as it moves toward maturity. It is still the same church with the same faith as a baby is the same person as the adult. Our perspective is this, that the original church still exists, it never ended, it has an unbroken thread throughout history.

 

Hopefully that provides a good starting point for the discussion.  (And I'm open to being corrected by my Orthodox kin for anything I may have described poorly.) May God bless the journeys of all. 

 

In the timeline, I don't see any reference to the Eastern Rite churches under the Roman Catholic church (e.g., Ukrainian Catholic). These fall under Roman Catholic in that they recognize the Pope as the head of the church, but there are some huge differences between RC and eastern rite churches - for example priests can be married.

[Kathryn]

In the timeline, I don't see any reference to the Eastern Rite churches under the Roman Catholic church (e.g., Ukrainian Catholic). These fall under Roman Catholic in that they recognize the Pope as the head of the church, but there are some huge differences between RC and eastern rite churches - for example priests can be married.

Byzantine Catholics, at least the ones I know, consider these to be cultural, not religious, differences. As they believe the bishop of Rome to be their head, they are in essence "Roman" Catholic.

[milovany]

{Never mind; answered by others!}

[Juniper]

In the timeline, I don't see any reference to the Eastern Rite churches under the Roman Catholic church (e.g., Ukrainian Catholic). These fall under Roman Catholic in that they recognize the Pope as the head of the church, but there are some huge differences between RC and eastern rite churches - for example priests can be married. 

I believe they fall under the umbrella of The Roman Catholic Church. A couple weeks ago I was engaged in a lengthy discussion about the differences between EO and Eastern Rite as far as theology goes. Many believe they are identical except for the Pope issue, in fact some will insist so. They can be very similar depending on location and Priest, but theologically they are different. It is more than the Pope that divides us. Mary's Immaculate conception, Original Sin, Purgatory and indulgences are actually bigger issues for me personally. 

 

I do appreciate that the new Pope has strongly encourage the Eastern Rite churches to be EASTERN. To be distinct from the Western church in practice, but I am not sure that he was intending that to extend to theology. 

[Kathryn]

I believe they fall under the umbrella of The Roman Catholic Church. A couple weeks ago I was engaged in a lengthy discussion about the differences between EO and Eastern Rite as far as theology goes. Many believe they are identical accept for the Pope issue, in fact some will insist so. They can be very similar depending on location and Priest, but theologically they are different. It is more than the Pope that divides us. Mary's Immaculate conception, Original Sin, Purgatory and indulgences are actually bigger issues for me personally.

 

I do appreciate that the new Pope has strongly encourage the Eastern Rite churches to be EASTERN. To be distinct from the Western church in practice, but I am not sure that he was intending that to extend to theology.

My Ukrainian Catholic family is very proud of their culture and their Catholicism. They wanted to be very clear with me when we became Orthodox that it was NOT the same thing.

[AimeeM]

Byzantine Catholics, at least the ones I know, consider these to be cultural, not religious, differences. As they believe the bishop of Rome to be their head, they are in essence "Roman" Catholic.

 

Yes. It's my understanding that Byzantine Catholics are in full communion with the Roman Catholic church. We have a Byzantine parish here, and I know that I was told I could have my children's sacraments performed there, if I chose, and that they were in communion. Interesting difference is that they do baptism, first communion, and confirmation at the same time (infant), instead of the more typical Roman Catholic way of doing it (baptism - baby, first communion - around grade 2 here, and confirmation - around grade 8 here).

[milovany]

. Interesting difference is that they do baptism, first communion, and confirmation at the same time (infant), instead of the more typical Roman Catholic way of doing it (baptism - baby, first communion - around grade 2 here, and confirmation - around grade 8 here).

 

Yes, that is what we do, too.  Once baptized and chrismated (which, if with a newborn is usually around 40 days, and which happen together), children are full members of the church.  There's nothing else that needs to happen later.

 

 

[AimeeM]

Yes, that is what we do, too.   Once baptized and chrismated (which, if with a newborn is usually around 40 days), children are full members of the church.  There's nothing else that needs to happen later. It's very common to see an infant being given Holy Communion at the chalice.

 

Lol - my eldest is fighting confirmation (which we would never force, for fear of pushing her away further). When I talked about it in a Catholic homeschool group I belong to, a couple of them said we should do things the Byzantine way, so that our hormonal teens don't cause us too many gray hairs over confirmation :P

[Greta]

and why does the EO not perform the civil portion? Who does perform it?

 

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you're asking here, but I just wanted to say that an EO priest does do both what is required by local law, and what is required by the church.  He does sign and submit paperwork as the officiant so that the wedding is legally recognized.  This question was asked recently on an Orthodox podcast that I listen to.  A caller, who was divorced, wanted to know if she got remarried whether she could just get the sacramental part of the marriage and skip the legalities.  The priest answering the question said no, priests do have to follow local laws.  

[umsami]

I was really happy to see that the Pope chose an Orthodox guy to be one of his personal secretaries, although I think he's Coptic, rather than Eastern Orthodox.

 

 

So…here's a question…in Egypt, divorce is allowed for Muslims (although socially frowned upon), but not allowed for those in the Coptic Church. (Personal law is determined by one's religion.)  It actually can be a reason why women convert to Islam, so they can divorce.  Does that hold true in EO too?  Are divorces allowed? (Although I get that they would be very much discouraged.)

[AimeeM]

I just wanted to pop in and say that I find EO fascinating and beautiful. We're Roman Catholic, and while I know there are some issues within our respective churches, I see none of that in my area - the EO church (there's only one) and the Catholic churches kind of hang with each other, insofar as social, cultural, and gatherings go.

[PrincessMommy]

I was really happy to see that the Pope chose an Orthodox guy to be one of his personal secretaries, although I think he's Coptic, rather than Eastern Orthodox.

 

 

So…here's a question…in Egypt, divorce is allowed for Muslims (although socially frowned upon), but not allowed for those in the Coptic Church. (Personal law is determined by one's religion.)  It actually can be a reason why women convert to Islam, so they can divorce.  Does that hold true in EO too?  Are divorces allowed? (Although I get that they would be very much discouraged.)

 

Yes, divorce and remarriage is permitted in the EO church (of course, it is discouraged if at all possible).  The marriage ceremony is a bit different than for a 1st time marriage.   I believe the EO church allows up to 2 re-marriages and then they would not allow (Liz Taylor would not be happy).

 

I didn't know that about the Coptic church. 

[mommaduck]

I was really happy to see that the Pope chose an Orthodox guy to be one of his personal secretaries, although I think he's Coptic, rather than Eastern Orthodox.

 

 

So…here's a question…in Egypt, divorce is allowed for Muslims (although socially frowned upon), but not allowed for those in the Coptic Church. (Personal law is determined by one's religion.)  It actually can be a reason why women convert to Islam, so they can divorce.  Does that hold true in EO too?  Are divorces allowed? (Although I get that they would be very much discouraged.)

 

Yes. It's not that it's "allowed", but rather that it's recognized as a failing of us as human beings. It happens. We are permitted up to three marriages at the most (case by case basis, some may be denied depending upon reason). The first is a joyous celebration. The second, is not held as a great celebration, but with a recognition that life is not perfect, we are not perfect, that the past was not ideal and hope to move forward. A third is occasionally permitted in rare circumstance, from what I've heard.

[Greta]

 I believe the EO church allows up to 2 re-marriages and then they would not allow 

 

I could be wrong about this, but I *thought* my priest mentioned once that a third marriage requires the permission of the bishop (anyone know if I dreamed that up?) And, yes, a fourth marriage is not permitted.

 

Priests are held to a stricter standard.  Priests are allowed only one marriage.

 

ETA:  Oops, didn't see mommaduck's answer before I replied.

[Juniper]

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you're asking here, but I just wanted to say that an EO priest does do both what is required by local law, and what is required by the church.  He does sign and submit paperwork as the officiant so that the wedding is legally recognized.  This question was asked recently on an Orthodox podcast that I listen to.  A caller, who was divorced, wanted to know if she got remarried whether she could just get the sacramental part of the marriage and skip the legalities.  The priest answering the question said no, priests do have to follow local laws.  

It was my understanding that the couple often goes and has the civil portion done on their own at a court house or in some cases when one member is not EO they have a second ceremony at a Protestant church (somewhat frowned upon from the EO side). In both cases, I think the EO priest would not be performing the civil portion. I am sure it is on a Priest by Priest basis, but I could be wrong. :)

[Excelsior! Academy]

This is a drive by post.  I need to settle my kids a bit before reading the thread, but wanted to say how absolutely giddy I am at the prospect of these ask and answer threads!  I love learning about people, what they believe and the whys behind it.  I am so thankful that this board allows it and that these discussions are civil and informative!!     :thumbup:

[Hoot]

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you're asking here, but I just wanted to say that an EO priest does do both what is required by local law, and what is required by the church. He does sign and submit paperwork as the officiant so that the wedding is legally recognized. This question was asked recently on an Orthodox podcast that I listen to. A caller, who was divorced, wanted to know if she got remarried whether she could just get the sacramental part of the marriage and skip the legalities. The priest answering the question said no, priests do have to follow local laws.

Nope, you didn't misunderstand at all. You answered exactly the question I was asking. Thank you.

[Kathryn]

I could be wrong about this, but I *thought* my priest mentioned once that a third marriage requires the permission of the bishop (anyone know if I dreamed that up?) And, yes, a fourth marriage is not permitted.

 

Priests are held to a stricter standard. Priests are allowed only one marriage.

 

ETA: Oops, didn't see mommaduck's answer before I replied.

And the priest must have been married before being ordained. A priest is not allowed to get married.

[Greta]

It was my understanding that the couple often goes and has the civil portion done on their own at a court house or in some cases when one member is not EO they have a second ceremony at a Protestant church (somewhat frowned upon from the EO side). In both cases, I think the EO priest would not be performing the civil portion. I am sure it is on a Priest by Priest basis, but I could be wrong. :)

 

Oh, I see.  In that case, the local law is still being followed, even if the EO priest himself isn't the one doing it.  In the case of the scenario regarding the caller that I mentioned on the podcast - I think what she was asking was different, because she was wanting to avoid the legalities entirely, and the priest was saying that no, he couldn't help her do that.  

 

I was married before I became Orthodox.  (I was an atheist at the time.)  So my marriage was basically the legalities only.  We just went to a JP.  I would dearly LOVE to have an Orthodox ceremony now, but my husband is not a Christian, so it can't happen.  Yet.  ;) I keep praying that he will someday come into the church.

[Excelsior! Academy]

Yes, divorce and remarriage is permitted in the EO church (of course, it is discouraged if at all possible).  The marriage ceremony is a bit different than for a 1st time marriage.   I believe the EO church allows up to 2 re-marriages and then they would not allow (Liz Taylor would not be happy).

 

I didn't know that about the Coptic church. 

 

 

I could be wrong about this, but I *thought* my priest mentioned once that a third marriage requires the permission of the bishop (anyone know if I dreamed that up?) And, yes, a fourth marriage is not permitted.

 

Priests are held to a stricter standard.  Priests are allowed only one marriage.

 

ETA:  Oops, didn't see mommaduck's answer before I replied.

 

Does this apply in the case of widows also or just divorcees? 

 

[PrincessMommy]

Does this apply in the case of widows also or just divorcees? 

 

 

I do not know about lay people, but probably there is a limit.   Priests and Deacons (the deaconate is an ordained position)  who are widowed may not re-marry except for very, very rare instances - and then only with the blessing of their Bishop.

[lavender's green]

If you were a convert I'd love to hear why you chose EO over, say, RC.  I'd also like to hear more about the theological and metaphysical differences, if anyone can point me in a certain direction?  DH and I are considering RC but I want to know as much as possible. :)

[mommaduck]

Does this apply in the case of widows also or just divorcees? 

 

 

Widows also. Three marriages at the most. Period. Unlike some faiths, we do put a high value on single people as well. Monastics, widowed yiayias, single college students, etc. Everyone has value, everyone has a place.

[milovany]

If you were a convert I'd love to hear why you chose EO over, say, RC.  I'd also like to hear more about the theological and metaphysical differences, if anyone can point me in a certain direction?  DH and I are considering RC but I want to know as much as possible. :)

 

Background:  I didn't know much about RC at all, and even less about EO, when we started the conversion process about five years ago.  I came across a book at the thrift store about a Pentecostal pastor's conversion to and becoming a priest in the RC church (he and his entire church converted, well, those that wanted to go too).  I believe he must have mentioned Orthodoxy in the book, and I was somewhat aware of it. 

 

Here's why we chose EO:  Ultimately it comes down to believing that the EO church is the original church of the two; we think it is the one that is most like the NT and early church both in theology and practice.  To us, it seemed like a lot of things were added to the Catholic faith that changed earlier theology (things like the Immaculate conception, purgatory, the authority of the pope, the concept of original sin, etc.).  A practical example has been commented on both in this thread and the other one:  In the Orthodox Church, when babies are baptized, they're also chrismated (they call it confirmation) and they received the Holy Eucharist at the same time.  These sacraments were all tied into together.  That has changed in the RC church to where children are baptized, but not confirmed until later and not receiving the Eucharist until later. It seems to have to do with an "age of reason," which we don't have. 

 

We also don't believe historical documents and events support the supremacy of the Pope.  For example, the ecumenical councils were attended by all patriarchates and they all had one vote -- they were equals.  A related issue is the filioque -- the Catholic Church changed the wording of the Nicene Creed after its form had been agreed upon at an ecumenical council.  At the same council where its form was agreed upon by all the bishops, it was also stated that no changes could be made to it without a consensus of all the bishops from the different areas.  Well, it was changed without that consensus. 

 

Things like that.  Again, it just comes down to believing the Orthodox Church is the one that has the same thread running back through history to the beginning of the Church because it hasn't changed its theology (some practices have developed/differentiated to be sure, usually based on culture; that's not an issue).  Besides, Christ was Eastern.  It sounds glib, but that means a lot.  God chose to develop Christianity in the east, not the west, so there's something to approaching the Christian faith from an eastern mindset/heart. I think you see this in the practice of the faith.  We're very much about mystery.  For example, we don't try to explain precisely how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, giving it a name ("transbustantion").  We just say "Hm, it's a mystery." 

 

I don't claim to be any kind of expert but that's what it was for us.

 

ETA - Here's a great link for reading lots of articles about the Orthodox Faith. 

[mommaduck]

If you were a convert I'd love to hear why you chose EO over, say, RC.  I'd also like to hear more about the theological and metaphysical differences, if anyone can point me in a certain direction?  DH and I are considering RC but I want to know as much as possible. :)

 

In my case, I was actually given this option. I knew more about the RC than the EO. I knew quite a bit about Church History. I knew what my issues were with the RC and I went and learned the differences between the two and fell on the EO side. I agree with primacy not supremacy. The EO adapts the culture rather than forcing another culture onto another, causing the demise of the original culture. I agree with Mary's Repose; I do not agree with either Mary's Immaculate Conception or with Mary's Assumption. I appreciate that the EO has accepted mystery as mystery. The RC has worked to codify things that are supposed to be mysteries and come up with explainations that either I don't fully accept or believe that even those that codified it really don't understand themselves but are trying to pacify questions. EO don't try to explain the mystery, simply that it's a mystery and God has been known to work in mysterious ways. I appreciate the individual economia compared to the judicial broad rules (aka, when we fast, there's the main "rule", but in reality, it varies person to person based on age, health, and economics...where is that person at? Same with birth control. Same with many things. It's very much "Eyes on your own plate; what they are doing is between them and the priest and what he guides them to do may not be what he guides you to do." I also agree with paedocommunion as well as paedobaptism (infant).

 

[Alenee]

That triggers a question. I live in a country where the majority is EO. Easter is a big thing, with fasting etc. You don't celebrate Passover, do you?

 

No, we do not.