St. John Chrysostom: On Marriage

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Being as engaged/betrothed, a study of the classics on this particular Sacrament/Mystery of Marriage comes to that of St John Chrysostom's writings on the subject. Even as though a particular couple may be secular, I propose that perhaps they can find some value in his writings with tried and true results. With the divorce rate consuming up to half of total marriages in the USA, perhaps looking to the classics may revitalize this institution?

TL;DR

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yes, I quite like that mindset about marriage. I think it can be applied to/followed by atheists and secularists. Most of the failed marriages I've seen, whether between religious or agnostic/atheist people have been built on very shaky premises, and also they're often built upon presumptions that relationships will not grow or need continual work after the vows, as if the marriage ceremony is a magic fix-all that will lead to a happily ever after ending.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I only intend to get married once. Of course, everyone probably says that.

 

[Polaris]

Taking advice on marriage from a priest is like taking advice on car mechanics from someone who has never seen or touched an automobile. Priests are celibate. They don't have one iota of personal experience to call on.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Taking advice on marriage from a priest is like taking advice on car mechanics from someone who has never seen or touched an automobile. Priests are celibate. They don't have one iota of personal experience to call on.

In Orthodoxy, there are married priests. Priestly celibacy is only required by Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I only intend to get married once. Of course, everyone probably says that.

I hope you find a lovely bride who you can share in a joyful life with. 😊

 

[Polaris]

In Orthodoxy, there are married priests. Priestly celibacy is only required by Roman Catholic Church.

That may be true, but was St. John of Chrysostom ever married? No, he wasn't, unless he married in secret. He may well have done so, considering the types of things many priests have been known to do in secret. Note that I'm sympathetic toward many aspects of Christianity, but its penchant for placing the least qualified people in positions of authority over certain matters such as marriage is not one of them.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

That may be true, but was St. John of Chrysostom ever married? No, he wasn't, unless he married in secret. He may well have done so, considering the types of things many priests have been known to do in secret. Note that I'm sympathetic toward many aspects of Christianity, but its penchant for placing the least qualified people in positions of authority over certain matters such as marriage is not one of them.

Oh ok. So, you were talking specifically about St. John Chrysostom. You said “Priests” and “they” so I thought you meant priests in general.

You do realize that your logic has faults in it in that the same could be said about anyone speaking on any matters outside of their vocation. Even you and I. So, where would you draw the line? If you’re not a psychologist, are you unable to glean insights on what constitutes “Typology (assuming it’s a legitimate science in the first place)?” What if you’re not a psychologist, but most of your friends are psychologists? Would you not learn from them what constitutes “typology” almost as if by osmosis?

The saying: “You are the five people closest to you” comes to mind.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I only intend to get married once. Of course, everyone probably says that.

Once at a time. Then technically you’ll still be keeping to your intentions

 

[Polaris]

You do realize that your logic has faults in it in that the same could be said about anyone speaking on any matters outside of their vocation. Even you and I. So, where would you draw the line? If you’re not a psychologist, are you unable to glean insights on what constitutes “Typology (assuming it’s a legitimate science in the first place)?”

I didn't say anything about vocation. I said personal experience.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I didn't say anything about vocation. I said personal experience.

You said “priests.” Priesthood is a vocation. You asserted that they had not one iota of personal experience regarding marriage because they’re all allegedly celibate. In Orthodoxy not all priests are celibate, so it’s entirely possible for him to have spoken with married priests on the subject of marriage, as well as his congregation which consists of...families. Every Orthodox priest I've come across has been married, my own included, except for one whom is a "Heiromonk" which is to say a "Priest-monk." (which is what St. John Chrysostom would've been)

St John Chrysostom was the Patriarch/Bishop of Constantinople. In Orthodoxy, only monks can become Bishops, so he was most definitely not married, or if he was he no longer was when he took his monastic vows.

Clerical celibacy was implemented later by the Roman Papacy well after St John’s time and would only apply to Roman Catholic priests after the schism of 1054, but would exclude "Uniate" priests.

All of this does not preclude one from having insights into aspects of life they may or may not have personal experience with. This forum is chock full of "political experts" with little to no political experience, for example.

 

[Polaris]

You said “priests.” Priesthood is a vocation.

And apples are fruit. That doesn't mean that if I bring up apples, I must be discussing fruit in general.

You asserted that they had not one iota of personal experience regarding marriage because they’re all allegedly celibate. In Orthodoxy not all priests are celibate, so it’s entirely possible for him to have spoken with married priests on the subject of marriage, as well as his congregation which consists of...families. Every Orthodox priest I've come across has been married, my own included, except for one whom is a "Heiromonk" which is to say a "Priest-monk." (which is what St. John Chrysostom would've been)

It should be evident that I was referring to the type of priest who is forbidden by his church to marry. For example, Catholic priests.

All of this does not preclude one from having insights into aspects of life they may or may not have personal experience with.

No, not necessarily. But it doesn't put one in an ideal position, either. In fact, it puts one in as disadvantaged a position as one could possibly occupy. For people in that position to characterize themselves as foremost experts on the matter is fairly ludicrous. No one is more capable of understanding the workings of a thing than someone who has directly dealt with it. Think about it this way: would you go to a mechanic who has worked with automobiles, or one who hasn't? And what would you think if a mechanic who has never worked with an automobile proclaimed himself to be in possession of more expansive knowledge on the subject than anyone with direct experience? No one would trust such a mechanic. And yet countless people consider the Pope to be a special authority on marriage, an authority more versed on the subject, in fact, than any currently or previously married person.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

[MENTION=6689]Polaris[/MENTION], I think it’s pretty clear from your first post that you weren’t aware I was coming from an Orthodox worldview and that the existence of our married priests must’ve been a new revelation for you. You just assumed I was Roman Catholic, and so we must both be talking about celibate Roman Catholic priests. Not your fault, but mine for not specifying in the OP.

Your last paragraph is somewhat on-point regarding the context, though. Are you married/been married before?

 

[Polaris]

Are you married/been married before?

No, and no again. I don't, in fact, particularly approve of marriage. Beyond the legal benefits it confers upon the participants, I don't see anything good about it.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

No, and no again. I don't, in fact, particularly approve of marriage. Beyond the legal benefits it confers upon the participants, I don't see anything good about it.

I kind of figured that. Probably not your market, this thread.

 

[Nicodemus]

Sounds like an endorsement of gay marriage. Cool.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Sounds like an endorsement of gay marriage. Cool.

If it were, “gay marriage” wouldn’t need that qualifier.

 

[Nicodemus]

If it were, “gay marriage” wouldn’t need that qualifier.

It doesn't. But he obviously didn't know that yet.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It doesn't. But he obviously didn't know that yet.

Ok. Yes ❤️☦️