Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: HWT@bnr.ca (H.W.) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: divorce and remarriage Message-ID: Date: 13 Nov 90 09:08:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 24 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes of the nature of true marriage: > arguments about non-marriages go directly to the point. The ceremony > does not a sacred marriage make. The marriage does not exist if spouses > enter the ceremony with evil intent. You may be married without the > ceremony, and unmarried even with it. Firstly, I suspect that positions on this topic are rigid enough that the discussion ought to be dropped, as no one seems to be doing anything but stating positions that are rigid. However, Brendan's logic would appear to put marriage into a position where the church should not attempt to regulate it at all. I'm on shaky ground here, but I thought that most Protestants regarded the Eucharist and marriage as the two sacrements... unlike the seven of Catholic practice. So one has to feel that Brendan is at least out on a limb here, as he seems to be saying that the ceremony can be invalidly administered? [Sorry, the two sacraments accepted by Protestants are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The whole discussion of valid sacraments that has being going on here probably seems somewhat odd to most Protestants. --clh]