Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Coulee Croche]

Well, Is me or this is kinda weird that Tim Kaine think that Roman Catholic Church will embrace gay marriage?

Why wouldn't it ? All that is required is that the church acknowledges that there are marriages - civil contracts between couples and the state - and holy matrimony - contracts between a couple and God - and that they are not the same thing.

Except, to the Church marriage and holy matrimony are the same thing. Civil contracts among hetersexual couples aren't even considered marriage, its cohabitation. For homosexuals its just a secular union.

The Church recognises that civil contracts exist, but it doesnt recognise it as any sort of "marriage."

[The Alma Mater]

Why wouldn't it ? All that is required is that the church acknowledges that there are marriages - civil contracts between couples and the state - and holy matrimony - contracts between a couple and God - and that they are not the same thing.

Except, to the Church marriage and holy matrimony are the same thing. Civil contracts among hetersexual couples aren't even considered marriage, its cohabitation. For homosexuals its just a secular union.

The Church recognises that civil contracts exist, but it doesnt recognise it as any sort of "marriage."

Then perhaps the Church should start learning to "render unto Ceasar what is Caesars"

[Salus Maior]

Why wouldn't it ? All that is required is that the church acknowledges that there are marriages - civil contracts between couples and the state - and holy matrimony - contracts between a couple and God - and that they are not the same thing.

Except, to the Church marriage and holy matrimony are the same thing. Civil contracts among hetersexual couples aren't even considered marriage, its cohabitation. For homosexuals its just a secular union.

The Church recognises that civil contracts exist, but it doesnt recognise it as any sort of "marriage."

So, if the couple are not married by a Priest it's not considered marriage?

[Coulee Croche]

Except, to the Church marriage and holy matrimony are the same thing. Civil contracts among hetersexual couples aren't even considered marriage, its cohabitation. For homosexuals its just a secular union.

The Church recognises that civil contracts exist, but it doesnt recognise it as any sort of "marriage."

Then perhaps the Church should start learning to "render unto Ceasar what is Caesars"

Did you read the other part of that verse? "and render unto God, what is God's" Anyways, Caeser already has his civil contracts...

[Terra Principalis]

So, if the couple are not married by a Priest it's not considered marriage?

For a Catholic person to validly marry, it is required that the so-called "Canonical Form" is observed. This means that there must a priest to officially witness the marriage (remember: the man and the woman administer this Sacrament to each other, not the priest) and that the words and rites of the Catholic Church must be used. I believe the bishop can give a dispensation in this regard, allowing the couple to validly marry in, e.g., a protestant church. Catholic people marrying in church also receive the associated graces.

A man and a woman of a different faith or no faith may validly marry outside of the church, even without the observation of Canonical Form. They do however not receive the associated sacramental graces. This means that, if one of the persons later converts and is baptised, and wants to marry a Catholic, a declaration of nullity must be obtained; otherwise the "former" marriage is still valid (former within parentheses, because it still endures).

[The Alma Mater]

Then perhaps the Church should start learning to "render unto Ceasar what is Caesars"

Did you read the other part of that verse? "and render unto God, what is God's" Anyways, Caeser already has his civil contracts...

Yes, and they are called "marriage". That Caesar graciously allows the Church to use the same name for its own matrimonial contracts is very friendly of him - but marriage still is first and foremost the civil contract.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Out of curioustiy, don't you get any comments from your Orthodox community members for joining service in a Anglican church?

No. It's not a communion/mass/liturgy; it's just a local version of the well-known Nine Lessons and Carols, which consists of some Bible readings alongside some lovely carols; I think even the most anti-ecumenical Athonite would allow me that much.

And I'm married to an Orthodox archpriest's granddaughter; my wife's even more enthusiastic about going than I am.

Thank you for the information!

[Constantinopolis]

Except, to the Church marriage and holy matrimony are the same thing. Civil contracts among hetersexual couples aren't even considered marriage, its cohabitation. For homosexuals its just a secular union.

The Church recognises that civil contracts exist, but it doesnt recognise it as any sort of "marriage."

So, if the couple are not married by a Priest it's not considered marriage?

I can't speak for Catholicism, but in the Orthodox Church it goes like this, broadly speaking:

1. If a couple is married through an Orthodox marriage ceremony, then they have undergone the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and they are married.

2. If a couple is married through a Christian but non-Orthodox marriage ceremony, and if they otherwise meet the requirements for an Orthodox marriage, then they have not undergone the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but they are also considered married (and, if they were to become Orthodox, they are considered to have an Orthodox marriage just as if they had gone through the Orthodox sacrament).

3. If a couple is married through a non-Christian religious ceremony, then... things are a little unclear. They fall somewhere between category 2 and category 4. Sexual relations between them are generally not sinful (as long as the marriage is monogamous and heterosexual), but they may not be considered technically "married" for Church purposes, either. A clear choice on the validity of the marriage only needs to be made if the couple later decides to become Orthodox, and in that case the decision is typically at the discretion of the local bishop, and may depend on the specifics of the religion they were married in. Note that in ancient times, the Church considered pagan Roman marriages to be valid, so the religion doesn't need to be Abrahamic necessarily.

4. If a couple is married through a purely secular (non-religious) ceremony, then they are not really married. They are in cohabitation, just as if they were living together without having gone through any ceremony at all. Sexual relations between them count the same as between non-married people - so they are sinful.

Same-sex marriages, as well as polygamous marriages, fall under category 4 in all cases.

These categories are not strictly defined by the Church in any official documents, because, for the most part, the Orthodox Church only concerns herself with the validity of non-Orthodox marriages when a couple decides to become Orthodox (and therefore a decision needs to be made on whether they count as married or unmarried). For couples who were never Orthodox and have no desire to convert, the Church generally says nothing about their marriages one way or the other.

Did you read the other part of that verse? "and render unto God, what is God's" Anyways, Caeser already has his civil contracts...

Yes, and they are called "marriage". That Caesar graciously allows the Church to use the same name for its own matrimonial contracts is very friendly of him - but marriage still is first and foremost the civil contract.

You're arguing semantics. The point is that a Christian Marriage is one thing and a Civil Contractual Marriage is another, and they really should be called by different words. Which one we choose to call "marriage" is irrelevant.

In traditional Christian cultures, where the Church - not the state - was the institution that registered and kept track of marriages prior to the 18th-19th centuries, the word "marriage" has come to be associated with the religious concept.

In Europe the first time that marriage got transferred to the jurisdiction of Caesar was during the French Revolution. In some parts of Eastern Europe it only got transferred to the jurisdiction of Caesar in the 20th century, and in some countries of European cultural heritage (for example in Israel), marriage is still under the jurisdiction of religious authorities today.

[The Alma Mater]

You're arguing semantics. The point is that a Christian Marriage is one thing and a Civil Contractual Marriage is another, and they really should be called by different words. Which one we choose to call "marriage" is irrelevant.

Which is exactly the point I made, but then a haughty christian demanded that marriage was owned by the church and everything else had no value.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Did you read the other part of that verse? "and render unto God, what is God's" Anyways, Caeser already has his civil contracts...

Yes, and they are called "marriage". That Caesar graciously allows the Church to use the same name for its own matrimonial contracts is very friendly of him - but marriage still is first and foremost the civil contract.

Historically that's not true, rather marriage was a customary religious practice, with theocratic and civil laws governing its practice. It is only recently that we've started truly embracing this stringiant break between church law and civil law.

Croche was explaining that, in the eyes of the Church, Marriage is a Sacramental practice administered by their Church. Legal marriage, or eloping as it used to be called, is a form of cohabitation: joining the family legally but without Divine pronunciation.

The ancient equivalent would I suppose closest be related closest to the difference between brides and concubines. Concubines had largely the same legal standing as brides,but in practice were not seen as on the same level. (depending on the culture)

[Coulee Croche]

You're arguing semantics. The point is that a Christian Marriage is one thing and a Civil Contractual Marriage is another, and they really should be called by different words. Which one we choose to call "marriage" is irrelevant.

Which is exactly the point I made, but then a haughty christian demanded that marriage was owned by the church and everything else had no value.

No, you said the Church could view it as marriage and I explained why it could not; homosexuality is an impediment to viewing it as any kind of marriage.

There really was no arguement, demand, or however you imagined the situation. Very simple "it can view it as", "no it can't."

[Coulee Croche]

Except, to the Church marriage and holy matrimony are the same thing. Civil contracts among hetersexual couples aren't even considered marriage, its cohabitation. For homosexuals its just a secular union.

The Church recognises that civil contracts exist, but it doesnt recognise it as any sort of "marriage."

So, if the couple are not married by a Priest it's not considered marriage?

1. Two properly baptised Christians (specifically not involving Catholics) can have a sacramental marriage without a priest.
2. Two Catholics need to follow what the Church has prescribed to have a sacramental marriage.
3. One Catholic and one other properly baptised Christian either need a.) a depensation from the Bishop to marry in another (trinitarian) church or b.) get a depensation to marry in the RC. If they get the depensation, the marriage is Sacramental, but prescriptions are involved.
4. One Catholic and one unbaptised may not have a sacramental marriage, until the other is baptised.
5. Non-Christians of other religions do not have a sacremental marriage but are valid. Its dissoluble, and and there are impediments to what is considered a natural union. Such as: lack of consent, diversity of sex, ability to consumate, an already existing union, and other impediments under natural law (polygamy or zoophilia ectect)
-Without the depensations its cohabitation for both parties. Non-married is cohabitation for all trinitarian Christians, and we view others religions as being valid (if not displaying impediments) because they have some truths (though distorted), and their continual search for the divine inherit in human nature- though of course, not sacramental.

[Diopolis]

Hello Everyone

So, Did you heard a news about Tim Kaine and Catholic Church?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-kaine-christian-faith-lgbt-support-catholic-church-embrace-gay-marriage-169458/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... hange-view

Should have been excommunicated a while ago. All it means is that Kaine is profoundly mistaken, but we already knew that.

[Diopolis]

Except, to the Church marriage and holy matrimony are the same thing. Civil contracts among hetersexual couples aren't even considered marriage, its cohabitation. For homosexuals its just a secular union.

The Church recognises that civil contracts exist, but it doesnt recognise it as any sort of "marriage."

So, if the couple are not married by a Priest it's not considered marriage?

For a Catholic couple, that would be true. A non-Catholic couple's marriage outside the church is presumed valid.
A mixed marriage should be avoided if at all possible, but if it occurs outside of the Church it too is invalid.

[Athartha]

What was the hymn? And was there anti-Catholic content or was it simply Protestant originated?

It was written by Charles Wesley. I like Protestant hymnody, so I can't complain 100%, but I think the cross-denominational pollination is best kept to tactics of evangelization and scholarship.

Almost every Catholic I know sings "Hark, The Harold Angels Sing" at/around Christmas time - another hymn by Charles Wesley. Even before Vatican II, though the typical music used during Liturgy were written by Catholic composers and were often quite old, as long as the song does not contain theological conflicts with Catholicism there was not an issue. And bear in mind, Charles Wesley was an Anglican hymnologist (Methodism, at the time, was still a part of the Church of England and had not fully separated to my knowledge) - it's debatable if Anglicans are protestants or somewhere between, and whether you regard them as protestant or not theologically they do not conflict with Catholics historically as much as they do today meaning most of their hymns (and they have one of the most beautiful hymn traditions in Christendom) do not conflict with Catholic theology. It may be because we're in close proximity to a major Anglican nation (and have our own Anglican Church) but we've used Anglican hymns for quite some time here, long before Vatican II.

[Luminesa]

It was written by Charles Wesley. I like Protestant hymnody, so I can't complain 100%, but I think the cross-denominational pollination is best kept to tactics of evangelization and scholarship.

Almost every Catholic I know sings "Hark, The Harold Angels Sing" at/around Christmas time - another hymn by Charles Wesley. Even before Vatican II, though the typical music used during Liturgy were written by Catholic composers and were often quite old, as long as the song does not contain theological conflicts with Catholicism there was not an issue. And bear in mind, Charles Wesley was an Anglican hymnologist (Methodism, at the time, was still a part of the Church of England and had not fully separated to my knowledge) - it's debatable if Anglicans are protestants or somewhere between, and whether you regard them as protestant or not theologically they do not conflict with Catholics historically as much as they do today meaning most of their hymns (and they have one of the most beautiful hymn traditions in Christendom) do not conflict with Catholic theology. It may be because we're in close proximity to a major Anglican nation (and have our own Anglican Church) but we've used Anglican hymns for quite some time here, long before Vatican II.

"Glory to the newborn King!"

...Sorry, I had to. ^^

[Cill Airne]

Almost every Catholic I know sings "Hark, The Harold Angels Sing" at/around Christmas time - another hymn by Charles Wesley. Even before Vatican II, though the typical music used during Liturgy were written by Catholic composers and were often quite old, as long as the song does not contain theological conflicts with Catholicism there was not an issue. And bear in mind, Charles Wesley was an Anglican hymnologist (Methodism, at the time, was still a part of the Church of England and had not fully separated to my knowledge) - it's debatable if Anglicans are protestants or somewhere between, and whether you regard them as protestant or not theologically they do not conflict with Catholics historically as much as they do today meaning most of their hymns (and they have one of the most beautiful hymn traditions in Christendom) do not conflict with Catholic theology. It may be because we're in close proximity to a major Anglican nation (and have our own Anglican Church) but we've used Anglican hymns for quite some time here, long before Vatican II.

"Glory to the newborn King!"

...Sorry, I had to. ^^

I don't know what we did, but God has definitely decided Anglicans are just going to compose some of the best works of music ever. xD

[Diopolis]

It was written by Charles Wesley. I like Protestant hymnody, so I can't complain 100%, but I think the cross-denominational pollination is best kept to tactics of evangelization and scholarship.

Almost every Catholic I know sings "Hark, The Harold Angels Sing" at/around Christmas time - another hymn by Charles Wesley. Even before Vatican II, though the typical music used during Liturgy were written by Catholic composers and were often quite old, as long as the song does not contain theological conflicts with Catholicism there was not an issue. And bear in mind, Charles Wesley was an Anglican hymnologist (Methodism, at the time, was still a part of the Church of England and had not fully separated to my knowledge) - it's debatable if Anglicans are protestants or somewhere between, and whether you regard them as protestant or not theologically they do not conflict with Catholics historically as much as they do today meaning most of their hymns (and they have one of the most beautiful hymn traditions in Christendom) do not conflict with Catholic theology. It may be because we're in close proximity to a major Anglican nation (and have our own Anglican Church) but we've used Anglican hymns for quite some time here, long before Vatican II.

At my traditional parish we occasionally use hymns written by protestants and no one has any problem with it- especially at Christmas. It's not an everyday thing, because most of our hymns are about the Virgin Mary, but it happens and no one has any problem with it.

[Luminesa]

"Glory to the newborn King!"

...Sorry, I had to. ^^

I don't know what we did, but God has definitely decided Anglicans are just going to compose some of the best works of music ever. xD

Indeed. XD

[Tarsonis Survivors]

"Glory to the newborn King!"

...Sorry, I had to. ^^

I don't know what we did, but God has definitely decided Anglicans are just going to compose some of the best works of music ever. xD

I didn't know Freddy Mercury was Anglican.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

as far as gay marriage goes, I think it should be legal, and I think the Church should stop concerning itself with the legality of gay marriage. it's a non issue what kinds of social union a secular government recognizes.

[Luminesa]

I don't know what we did, but God has definitely decided Anglicans are just going to compose some of the best works of music ever. xD

I didn't know Freddy Mercury was Anglican.

Actually he was Zoroastrian.

[Salus Maior]

I didn't know Freddy Mercury was Anglican.

Actually he was Zoroastrian.

Huh.

[Auristania]

You're arguing semantics. The point is that a Christian Marriage is one thing and a Civil Contractual Marriage is another, and they really should be called by different words. Which one we choose to call "marriage" is irrelevant.

No Const is arguing semantics. Civil Marriage and Church Marriage are very similar. There are differences eg when everything goes wrong, there are different rules. These differences are big enough to deserve different adjectives Civil versus Church. Const says these differences are so huge that they need different nouns.

Paul's epistles define rules for if one member of the marriage converts to Christianity and the other don't. Therefore pre-existing marriages do indeed count. IIRC epistle to Corinthians.

[Czechanada]

Actually he was Zoroastrian.

Huh.

They say Zurvanism had some influence on Armenian and Syriac Christianity back in the day, funnily enough.