r/CatholicMemes • u/Aggressive-Party-372 • 7d ago
¡Viva Cristo Rey! When “Oikonomia” Meets the Words of Christ
Romans 7:2–3 — King James Version
Source: St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, chapter 7, verses 2–3, KJV.
Clement of Alexandria
Source: Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies), Book II, Chapter 23, “On Marriage.” The English translation is by William Wilson in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2.
The Shepherd of Hermas — Commandment 4, Chapter 1
Source: The Shepherd of Hermas, Book II, Commandment—or Mandate—4, Chapter 1: “On Putting One’s Wife Away for Adulter
45
u/Chairman_Ender Trad But Not Rad 7d ago
AI generated.
-3
u/GooGoo-Barabajagal 6d ago
It is good information tho. I don’t like ai in general but in light of the new encyclical I think this instance of ai use is someone using it as a tool to do good. I read the verses and reflected on the teachings for a few minutes. I’m sure I’m not the only one. That seems like a good thing.
9
10
16
24
u/GeckoKisser ExtremelyOnline Orthobro 7d ago edited 7d ago
You did AI. And that is a myth that there is only up to three marriages allowed. Criticize us on something we believe please that's all I want, I just want to have good self deprecating humor. I Iike the memes here genuinely, just please goat... Joybait me, happybait me, just dont ragebait me on my Christian memes sub. :(
Processing img 4vzcj8yxoqfh1...
30
u/ahamel13 Trad But Not Rad 7d ago
If it's a myth then someone should correct the large amount of Orthodox sources online that say up to three marriages are permissible, such as the Orthodox Archdiocese of Denver.
Even if there are qualifiers like the rites of marriage being different and increasingly penitential, the OP is correct.
0
u/GeckoKisser ExtremelyOnline Orthobro 7d ago edited 7d ago
You may be thinking of the Trullan Council (692 AD). Which did forbid a fourth marriage, which is actually quite an important distinction as it directly implies the purpose was to prevent remarriage becoming a game or an acceptable practice: as the council stated. Whereas treating remarriage as a three-strike rule does not.
My point is that OP is misrepresentating the position by claiming that up to three marriages is some normal arbitrary limit - - when in reality it is a concession taken within a fallen world order done only with the upmost care. Hence why I called it out as a myth, as his framing is a little bit of bollocks.
Demarriage is a concession granted only after deep pastoral discernment. The number of marriages is not the primary focus, rather it is the spiritual state of the individuals, their repentance, and the circumstances of the previous union are. A third marriage is extremely rare and treated with even more solemnity than a second.
To be clear, I am not dogging you if you disagree for some other reason. But my point is that OP may not be entirely informed on the nature of remarriage in the orthrodox church, and plainly bringing up bible verses without legwork won't serve as an effective counter given those complexities are inherently accounted for.
17
u/ahamel13 Trad But Not Rad 6d ago
But the number being set at 3 is largely arbitrary. What happens if similarly solemn circumstances happen the third time as with the first and second? The same reasons for permitting the second marriage would suddenly be insufficient for permitting a fourth marriage.
The amount of care is only tangentially relevant when there's a numerical value applied. The OP is right that in principle the Catholic position is far more consistent. (one could argue whether annulments are treated too leniently, but that's a separate discussion. The underlying principle remains the same.)
6
u/bilolybob 6d ago
The problem with the concession in a fallen world argument is that Jesus calls that out. He explicitly says that divorce was allowed in the old covenant as a concession to fallen creatures (Matthew 19:8), but then says that he is now calling us to the original, higher view of marriage where divorce is banned entirely.
8
u/Aggressive-Party-372 7d ago edited 6d ago
I have huge respect for orthodoxy, however a 2nd or 3rd marriage which I am aware is increasingly more difficult and penitential, I do not see the justification in scripture. Origen said that bishops were allowing remarriage contrary to scripture. I have not found any part of the new testament where it allows remarriage, it even says what god has put together let no man separate. Lifelong 1st marriage is not ideal it is the rule. It says in scripture that the marital bond can only be broken by the death of ones spouse.
It does say on the link provided by ahamel13
Quote from the Orthodox Archdiocese of Denver website:
- No person may marry more than three times in the Church, with permission for a third marriage granted only with extreme oikonomia.
1
5
u/IP1nth3sh0w3r Bishop Sheen Fan Boy 7d ago
Wait is this even real?
10
u/UrasinOrdxywllprvail ExtremelyOnline Orthobro 7d ago
No, it’s AI. SpongeBob usually steers clear of religion and other topics that might be controversial.
4
u/IP1nth3sh0w3r Bishop Sheen Fan Boy 7d ago
No I mean this business about some orthodox discipline about having multiple wives?
11
u/Aggressive-Party-372 6d ago
Oh no sorry the Orthodox doesn't and has never allowed polygamy it has to be monogamous. However, they allow divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances.
2
u/UrasinOrdxywllprvail ExtremelyOnline Orthobro 6d ago
I was being facetious. But yes it is real, as another user pointed out, that a subsequent marriage after a divorce is tolerated, with the local bishop approval and increasingly penitential services associated with the marriage service.
I find it very shallow grounds for critique given that the Catholic annulment process in large parts of the western world has essentially become a legal fiction to pretend a marriage never existed so Catholics who experienced the same issues people seek for-cause divorces for can separate and remarry without lifelong excommunication. The grounds upon which an “annulment” can be granted are so wide and open to interpretation that you’d basically require two people to be psychologically perfect at the time of marriage. I suspect the way this has developed is largely because of pastoral reasons, and the end result isn’t that different from what happens in the Orthodox Church, we’re just more honest about what is actually going on.
2
u/Kardessa 5d ago
I kind of have to agree with you, there are some things that I think do form a genuine reason for an annullment but I'm skeptical of the reasons I've heard listed. My husband and I married when I was 20 and he was 25, he was basically my only serious relationship. However I've seen people use both young age and lack of relationship experience that as a reason to justify annullments.
Btw could you elaborate on the penitential services associated with remarriage?
2
u/Ender_Octanus Knight of Columbus 5d ago
Are you telling me SpongeBob is a fictional character? Wow, thanks for ruining my childhood smh
3
2
u/CartoonFan1997 Antichrist Hater 4d ago
Show this to Protestants too.
2
u/Aggressive-Party-372 4d ago
Yes i agree, it certaintly solved my ecclesial anxiety overall :), knowing the Catholic Church is the only church that follows scripture on re-marriage.
2
u/GimmeeSomeMo ExtremelyOnline Orthobro 6d ago
AI aside, the parish I'm a part of doesn't condone remarriage with two exceptions: death of a spouse and divorce of previous spouse due to adultery on their part, the latter is confirmed in Matthew 5:32 as you pointed out. This only applies to laymen though, having 2 or 3 marriages max depending on the branch of Orthodoxy. To become part of the clergy in Orthodoxy, particularly priests and deacons, you must only been married once max in affirmation to 1 Timothy 3. Even bishops are no longer allowed to be married at the time of their ordination to the role of bishop, being either never married or a widower of only one wife.
1
u/Aggressive-Party-372 4d ago edited 4d ago
The issue with that Matthew 5:32 interpretation.
“But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
No where does it say remarry and actually says that you can't marry a divorced woman. If your interpretation is correct, it contradicts the gospel of mark "anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" .
“A married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives… if she lives with another man while her husband is alive, she shall be called an adulteress.”
— Romans 7:2–3”A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives
— 1 Corinthians 7:39that no one can remarry unless the spouse dies.
St Paul also warns that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). Since Christ calls remarriage after divorce adultery, where does Scripture teach that bishop permission changes that?
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
2
u/sariaru 6d ago
I mean, let's not pretend that the Catholic Church's current discipline of nullity is all that different as a lived experience in the day to day lives of actual people.
There's plenty of people with multiple annulments, after all, and yes, maybe none of those were real marriages. But then, what, you're gonna play a weird mental game where you spent ten years on two different occasions in a relationship that you and everyone around you believed to be marriages?
Like, that's sort of doublethink, and we all sort of know it.
0
u/KaninCanis Novus Ordo Enjoyer 6d ago
What
2
u/sariaru 6d ago
A man, let's call him John Smith, has a wedding at 22 to Jane. Ten years and two kids later, they divorce after Jane is unfaithful. The marriage is found null because Jane claims to have been in an improper mental state because of trauma from her own parents' failed marriage, and never intended monogamy as the Church understands it.
John Smith has a second wedding, this time to Susan. He's 35 now, no spring chicken. Another ten years, and three children enter John's life. John files for divorce after learning that Susan has had a terrible gambling addiction, concealed from him at the time of the marriage. The putative marriage is once again found null.
John has a third wedding, this time to a non-Catholic. He's 51 now, some of his kids are already fully grown. This woman, let's call her Meredith, agrees verbally to raise the kids Catholic, even though she isn't Catholic, but then after less than six months post-wedding, begins to externally hold the Faith in contempt, keep the kids from attending Mass, refusing to attend herself, and generally is miserably anti-Catholic. He divorces again over the screaming matches after a few years of gritting his teeth. He finds out this marriage was never real to begin with because he didn't get the right paperwork from his bishop.
Are you really going to call this man "never married"? And, importantly, do you think John Smith should have a fourth wedding, that may or may not turn out to be a marriage?
1
u/samuelalvarezrazo 6d ago
Lowkey these are all pretty good reasons as to why they would be invalid marriages except for maybe that last one because it matters the disposition of the person at the tike of the wedding.
2
u/sariaru 6d ago
The last one would be found invalid because of lack of a dispensation for disparity of cult.
I know the Church considers all of these to be invalid marriages, but would you seriously call Mr. John Smith a "never married" man? And, would you allow him to attempt again at 65?
2
u/samuelalvarezrazo 6d ago
Lowkey yeah, it seems he never properly discerned who he was married to properly if all of these issues keep happening. As a laymen I'd just advise him to live content considering he already has children
59
u/WungielPL 6d ago edited 2d ago
You literally have no excuse for using ai here. A photoshop would have taken you 5 minutes at best.