Civil marriage before baptism / chrismation

[Fr. Gregory (Hallam)]

I have not as yet had to deal with the situation of a couple with a civil marriage (only) later becoming Orthodox through baptism and / or chrismation. I know, of course, that civil marriage has grave consequences for those already Orthodox but what about the situation as described?

I know that one should strive to encourage the couple to have their marriage celebrated in Church but my question rather refers to any strictness in the matter .... from canon or conventional practice. Is it absolutely and invariably required that they have the marriage service or can their marriage (as their baptism if baptised) be "made good" by chrismation?

I would appreciate reflections from (hopefully) a wide background.

[Trudy Ellmore]

Dear Fr. Gregory:

I am not Orthodox....yet. But this same exact discussion is occuring on another discussion board. One priest on that board said that the crowning took place right after his baptism and chrismation.

I got the general idea that, yes, chrismation "makes good" (as you put it) the marriage. I also got the idea that it may be encouraged but not "strictly" so. It appears to vary from parish to parish. It also appears it is done quietly, without much whoo-hoo, if you know what I mean.

But please remember...I'm NOT Orthodox. This is only what I've read. So I'm probably the LAST person you should take their word on! :-)

Sincerely in Christ, Trudy

[Fr. Gregory (Hallam)]

This was my reading of the matter Trudy ... so thank you. It will be intersting to hear what others have to contribute.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr,
We meet again!

I am no expert on this matter either although this and many similiar situations have occured in this parish. I tend to towards the full Church marriage since it is a sacrament. Perhaps Fr Averky would know more here since they deal with so many people from so many situations.
In Christ- Fr R

[Janice Chadwick]

I remember my first priest saying that couples married in a civil ceremony had to go through the full Church marriage ceremony--not just a crowning. Is that one of those issues where the Bishop would decide how it is to be done?

[Donald Wescott]

I guess my question is what about heterodox marriages, it (marriage) is certainly not viewed as a sacrament in any Protestant denomination that I am aware of. And aren't virtually all marriages, whether Orthodox or heterodox inextricably mixed up in civil procedure anyway as the priedt/pastor must be licensed and the official paperwork submitted to the local clerk of courts?
Please understand that this is not meant as an attack on Orthodox weddings, they are truly a beautiful portrait of the Kingdom, it's just that they too, not unlike civil or heterodox services are tied up with the government, at least here in the US, is it different elsewhere?

[Fr. Gregory (Hallam)]

Dear Janice

It is a matter for one's bishop. It's interesting though to review the different practices. They are more or less tied up in the practice of economia ... its scope and limitations.

Dear Donald

One may get married in an Orthodox Church according to the rites and understanding of our church but for that marriage to be legally valid in the west, it has, of course, to be registered. Such registration is frquently an "add-on" ... not an alternative. Practically speaking in the UK, this means (at the moment ... the law is about to change radically) the giving of 3 week's notice at the Registrars and the issue of a certificate without which the marriage cannot be legally recognised if enacted in any form at any place. All Church services have to include so called "contractual words" ... in western ecclesiastical terminology, the vows reflecting the western understanding that marriage is, essentially, a legal contract. Since the Orthodox marriage service does not contain such vows / contractual words it would not be a legally valid enactment of marriage on its own. Two possibilities now arise in the UK. The more common practice is for a couple to get "married" at a civil ceremony first and then go to Church for their sacramental marriage. Less commonly, but a practice we follow, is to get the priest registered as an Authorised Person; which means that he is able to deal with the legal side as well in Church, thus removing the need to have a civil ceremony first. For this to occur, the contractual words have to be said somewhere by the couple in the service. The practice first arose in Poland in the Orthodox Church of inserting these words in between the Betrothal and the Crowning ... with the signing of the Registers, (State and Church), at the end. Happily this works quite well liturgically but it's still a nuisance. However, I would rather have this solution than see the couple go to a Registry Office for a Civil Ceremony first.

To return to the plot and your other point ...

The significance of marriages in other heterodox churches depends on local episcopal policy within the parameters of each jurisdiction and societal context. The issues are similar, (but one step removed) from those of baptism. In the Antiochian Church in the US for example, Episcopal baptisms do not now fall within economia whereas in England, Anglican baptisms still do, (although for how much longer I don't know). A couple becoming Orthodox from the Roman Catholic Church are not in the same position, say, as one coming to us from Methodism. It's not a binary thing ... discernment needs to be exercised and I am well aware that episcopal directives vary from place to place. This is a good thing and gives uis the flexibility we need to respond to the situation on the ground.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr Gregory,

Forgive me first for the 'slip' I made in addressing you in my last posting as if we had met before. I had read another priest's posting, changed pages, didn't look carefully enough at the name and thought I was speaking with the same priest!

Your last posting was very interesting. In Canada all 'ministers' of any registered religion
(easy to be registered) are given certain notary (legal)powers; any marriage they perform once registered with the provincial government has legal status. No special 'legal' words are needed; just the ceremony itself.Also a minister can legally vouch for the authenticity of passport IDs & photos to be submitted to the Federal government. All of this comes from British custom & law of the 18-19th centuries when we were still a British colony. Speaking with fellow priests in the US it seems Canada has some of the most favourable laws regarding religion in the Western world.

In Christ, Fr R