Addressing misconceptions about marriage.
Readership: Christians
Theme: A Mini-Series on Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
The Catholic Church’s Teachings on Sacramental Marriage are a Response to the Brokenness in the Real World
Derek L. Ramsey has written many comments about the Catholic Sacramental Marriage construct. I suspect that Derek is reading too much into his interpretations of this, but for now, I’ll go along with his claims for the sake of discussion.
Derek wrote,
“Salvation under the covenant of Jesus should precede both baptism and marriage, as part of the already established covenant, not sacraments. As Ed Hurst and I noted, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy falsely assert that marriage and baptism are sacramental, that is, part of saving grace, and thus sacramental marriage cannot satisfy the prerequisite above.”
At first, I agreed with this stance, but after thinking it over and writing the posts in this mini-series, I do think it has some value as a church policy, but not as a doctrine of salvation. Perhaps that is the primary disconnect in our understanding.
To illustrate what I mean, according to Christian doctrine, marriage is not required by God for salvation. But according to a common understanding of human nature, it is for some. If they can’t control themselves sexually and they refuse to marry, then they’re rebelliously walking down a path to hell. In this situation, the Catholic stance rather appropriately sends the stern message, “Get with the program, or else you’re OUT Forever!” (Whether they will hear it is another matter.)
Perhaps this is what the Catholic stance is getting at — to act as a goad against laziness, self-centeredness, and fallen human nature. Of course, this approach coddles those who are weak in faith at the expense of more mature believers. But perhaps this is right, according to Romans 14.
Is Marriage a Part of Salvation or a Certification of Good Standing in the Church?
Personally, I believe a sanctified sex life can be means of grace, and that sex within marriage is a necessary “sacrament” that maintains the marital covenant. (If you don’t believe this, then try denying sex to your spouse for a few months and tell me how that goes and what hell is like for you as an individual.) I believe marriage can be a vector of redemption / regeneration for some individuals, but this is wholly by the grace of God and therefore cannot be expected as a byproduct or result of marriage, nor does this happen to the majority. I also believe that marriage is infinitely better for those who are regenerated and who are also obedient to God. (That last clause is very important.)
In this case, the joys, shared purposes, sufferings, and tribulations of marriage provide a living path towards salvation / sanctification, by God’s grace. But we should also be aware that what I have just described is a subjective view of marriage that is ignorant of the unfathomable Power of God that uses those experiences to draw one closer to Himself.
Of course, these kinds of blessings don’t happen to everyone who marries, unfortunately. But does this experience of marriage only apply to the elect?
According to the Catholic church, it does. Derek / Ramman3000 quoted the CCC#1213 as saying,
“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments.”
…with marriage being one of those sacraments.
This brings up the question… Does this broadly mean that marriage is only a sacrament to those destined for election (as I described above)? Or does it mean the authority of the church only recognizes marriage as a sacrament to those who are initiated, baptized, bona fide members of the Catholic church (in accordance with the purposes of the Sacramental Marriage construct described in the previous post)?
What is the value of Sacramental Marriage as a Policy / Social Construct?
As Ed Hurst pointed out in There Is No Sacrament (2023/5/15), the daily ins-and-outs of marital life are different from a religious ritual, and neither are sufficient for being “saved”. Furthermore, any doctrine or ecclesiastical policy concerning marriage necessarily takes a step away from the real substance of two people in a marital union. The reason is simply because the ecclesiastical rigamorale of church polity is external to the marriage relationship itself.
However, having a Sacramental Marriage policy is beneficial in helping the church sort out the oddballs from those in good standing by having established protocols and regulations to guide and back up their decisions. Those in good standing (whoever they may be) receive favor and grace with the rubber stamp of the church, while the oddballs are dealt with on various terms, depending on the priest’s interests and time constraints, and the resources available to the parish. This clerical discretion is the weak point at which non-Biblical marriages, usury, and other catastrophic influences make inroads and gain acceptance in the church, e.g. a wealthy powerful patron could entice the clergy to make unwise investments, and an overly “sympathetic” clergy leads to the progressive convergence of the entire church.
Aside from church polity, however, the marriage issue ultimately comes down to “God’s will” for each man’s life, and that man’s capability and willingness to tap into His Power to live it out. At that point, the task of maintaining a marriage falls on the responsibility of the man and woman to “work OUT their salvation” (Philippians 2:12). (This does not mean “work FOR their salvation”.) Keep in mind that in this case, salvation has already been granted / predestined* / “in process” / etc. (depending on your personal beliefs about that), and only nepsis* / redemption / synergeia* / theosis* / etc. remain.
Of course, finding “God’s will” is even more confusing and difficult to sort out. It’s like one of those things where either you “get it”, or you don’t.
Ed Hurst addressed this same question of knowing God’s will in a recent post. He writes,
“If you are Elect but fail to live within the boundaries of Biblical Law (for whatever reason), you still get some thin slice of the promises, but they are consistent with God’s plans for you. Without that feudal orientation, you will never quite understand God’s will and plans. You will carry a lot of false impressions. You won’t know what to expect from His promises, and you’ll end up disappointed quite often.”
Radix Fidem: Covering Differences (2023/5/27)
The Catholic Church and its construct of Sacramental marriage is an attempt to fill in those blanks for the postmodern masses, in lieu of a feudal / hierarchical orientation proscribed by Biblical Law (which is nonexistent in the West). Of course it’s not the same, but it’s better than nothing, I suppose.
* These terms are borrowed from the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions, as the Catholic Church has no supporting doctrine or terminology for these concepts.
Related
- Catholic Answers: Redemption (2015/9/7)
- Σ Frame (Jack): God doesn’t care if you find a wife! (2020/4/13)
- Σ Frame (NovaSeeker): Viewpoints on Man’s Confusion about How God Works in the Life of a Believer (2021/3/29)
- Σ Frame: Summary of Red Pill Redemption (2022/9/30)
- Radix Fidem: Covering Differences (2023/5/27)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
According to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, who make up a majority of self-described Christians, it absolutely is Christian doctrine. Saying otherwise puts one in a numerically inferior position.
There is no value in the “Tim Keller Approach”: compromising the Word of God to appeal to a broader audience. One might gain a large measure of earthly success, but it loses in the end: the church policy is rooted in false doctrine. Romans 14 applies to dietary, purity, and ritual regulations (v1: opinions), not the gospel / salvation (i.e. justification by faith and not works).
The “means of grace” is an Orthodox and RC term-of-art with a specific meritorious meaning. It is not a biblical term. Using ‘means of grace’ with ‘sanctification’ is a non-biblical Roman Catholic understanding of sanctification. There is nothing beneficial about using “sacrament” — as opposed to far superior biblical covenant — with respect to marriage. All the supposed benefits of the former are found in the latter (and more).
If two unbelievers marry, and only later become Christians, their marriage becomes part of the new covenant by nature of their conversion. There is no regulation, no ceremony, no ‘means of grace’.
You quoted part of Philippians, the whole of which explicitly states that works come from God: the in-works of God cause the out-works. You are looking for acts that any person — from any version of the faith — can implement to sanctify a marriage, but there are none outside of obedience to Christ. Not even exorcising demons is a good work if it is not the will of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Derek
My first reaction is I don’t agree with this.
The gospel is mentioned in Romans 10 as being received because of the process of someone being sent, preaching, and hearing and then believing.
Two non-Christians who convert do not automatically know that “natural marriage” is different from “covenant marriage.” I’m using the common definition of the two quoted to get the point across. They don’t immediately know all of the stipulations of covenant marriage in the Bible such as no divorce, Biblical marital roles and responsibilities of marriage, etc.
How can they believe in something they have not heard until it is specified to them? Becoming a Christian means that they accept, believe, and confess that they’re sinners in need of a Savior.
I think it should be logically clear that they haven’t agreed to a covenant marriage either. After all, there are many so-called Christians who do not agree with the Biblical marital roles and responsibilities and no divorce. Sometimes part of the sanctification process is understanding that they’re wrong and God’s way for marriage is the right one too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They believe in someone, not something. There is one — and only one — covenant, with Jesus as their Lord. Marriage is a covenantal part of Christ’s covenant.
LikeLike
@ Derek
No, it’s not.
For Christian singles, marriage is an opt-in covenant before God and man on it’s own apart from Salvation. Yes, it symbolizes Christ and the Church, but it’s not something that arises from just the gospel.
For non-Christians, this does not mean their marriage — or whatever they agreed to as “marriage” before they came to Christ — is grandfathered in just because they became believers.
Take for example non-Christian swingers who became Christians. They may not necessarily know what God’s Biblical marital roles and responsibilities are and continue their swinging parties and orgies. Their marriage is not “grandfathered in” because they became Christians. 1 Corinthians 6 is a good example. They need to know what is right and wrong and strive to do what is right and not continue in sin.
I think the process of Orthodox / Catholic making sure husbands and wives know what God says about marriage and confirming it as covenantal / sacramental / whatever makes the most sense in this regard.
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you can combine the two like that because marriage itself is a separate covenant between two believers.
LikeLike
The marriage covenant is not solely between a man and a woman, but with God also:
Jesus cited this same passage and commented that no man can separate what God has brought together.
Marriage has been a valid and binding covenant with God from the beginning, but the covenant with Christ supersedes all previous covenants. There is no grandfathering involved. You cited 1 Corinthians 6, in which Paul talks of joining to the body of Christ:
Even as he refers to the Old Covenant, he speaks of it within the context of the New Covenant. In joining with Christ, a Christian is now enjoined to follow his standards on sexuality.
There is nothing in scripture that suggests that anything additional is required. A Christian can “opt-in” to a marriage covenant only insomuch as he has already opted-in to being a Christian and is thus obligated to obey Christ according to his preexisting covenant. There is nothing additional to “sign up for”, other than to have sex to seal the joining.
LikeLike
@ Derek
This makes no sense.
Husbands and wives say vows because they are making a marriage covenant. Yes, it is part of Christ’s overarching “how to live,” but it’s still opt in.
Again, two non-Christian’s “pre-existing covenant” that they made before becoming Christians is not necessarily what God defines as marriage. If two lesbians or homosexuals became Christians their marriage would not be considered a marriage because it’s invalid. This is the same as if a swinger couple regularly had orgies. Their previous covenant is invalid.
In any case, EOS said it better than me in the last post though, so I’ll leave it at that.
It would be best to make things crystal clear for new Christians that convert, rather than the mess of what Protestants have now.
LikeLike
That’s a great way to put it. Broaden it way out to “worldview.” That way no Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox on here can feel singled out.
If you convert from one worldview to another, I don’t care if it’s from Satanism to Zoroastrianism, and you were “married” in the former — the new way of conceptualizing marriage is probably wildly different from the old way. Might as well get a primer on that new way — which by the way, offers that new tradition an opportunity to captively explain it to you — and be safe, rather than sorry.
That’s what the Orthodox Church is doing when they say, “If it didn’t happen in an Orthodox church, by an Orthodox Priest, between two Orthodox Christians, it didn’t happen.”
It MAY be correct. But let’s just be safe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I confess that I don’t understand the relevance of these cases you bring up. All marriage is a covenant before God according to his terms. If it wasn’t a covenant under the Old, it isn’t a covenant under the New.
So too are vows irrelevant. It’s nice that people commit to each other, but Christians are already obligated to do so under their covenant with Christ. Marital vows are a redundant formality, not at all required for marriage.
Formal marriage traditions are just like circumcision, dietary restrictions, and feast days. No scripture suggests anything additional is required for the marriage covenant beyond that found in the Old Covenant or the New Covenant with Christ that replaces the old.
Marriage—by believers and unbelievers—under the Old Covenant did not require the consent of those getting married. God did it. Jesus made this point crystal clear when he condemned divorce because what God has joined together, let no man set aside. So when an unbelieving married person becomes a Christian, they are now bound by the principles of the New Covenant in Christ.
I do not understand why this is so controversial. It is rather straightforward reading of scripture and you have yet to point out my error (if any) from scripture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramman,
These cases and others not mentioned are VERY relevant to how the church regards and handles marriage, which is the topic of this mini-series.
Vows are VERY relevant to one’s spiritual life (Matthew 5:33-37). At best, vows can shape the way God’s blessings are dispensed, and sometimes curtail them entirely. At worst, vows can cast a curse over one’s self. The problem with marital vows is that for many who take such “vows”, they are not vows at all. They are not real vows because there is no emotionally charged force of the will behind them, but merely pithy superficial lines that are mindlessly repeated in a public ceremony. Real vows are usually surreptitious interjections muttered under one’s breath (these days, anyway). If people took real vows at the altar, it would be much more unlikely for an affair or divorce to happen.
It is controversial because we are engaging in an ecumenical discussion of things that are not commonly well understood. One of the main purposes of this mini-series is to provide a venue in which we might make some progress in sorting out these things for ourselves and among ourselves.
LikeLike
Recall that Deep Strength brought up vows and non-marriage marriages in the context of his objection to this part of my original comment:
Vows are completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of marriage, with one exception: when two virgins have sex, their marriage covenant is literally sealed in a “vow” of blood, even if they have no idea that a marriage took place. So too are marriages that are not actually marriages irrelevant to God’s covenant for marriage, except to highlight that they are invalid.
This is not to say that vows and non-canonical marriages are not relevant in an absolute sense, but that’s not what we were talking about in this thread, which was Deep Strength’s claim that marriages are “opt-in” through official marriages (e.g. ceremonies) and their vows. To quote Sharkly elsewhere:
God’s covenant of marriage is not negotiable by man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is, marriage — having consensual non-adulterous sex — bound one to God’s marriage covenant regardless of their consent to be bound by those terms. The Law of God for marriage is absolute and unconditional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramman,
Seems like you’re alluding to the basic ideas behind Toad’s “Sex = Marriage” argument. Would you agree? DeepStrength has already made it clear that he doesn’t buy that definition of marriage. Perhaps your disagreement could thus be explained.
LikeLike
Most likely, yes, although I only agree with a small fraction of Toad’s corpus. If that is the case, I’m content to leave it at that.
LikeLike
Re: Toad’s Sex = Marriage argument
In the very hard-line Church of Christ I grew up in, this was basically taught.
I still can’t figure out if it means I currently have like 23 wives, or 1 wife and 22 adulterous relationships.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: Toad’s Sex = Marriage argument
As a disclosure to readers, I agree with Toad’s basic argument as an immutable spiritual reality. In a perfect world, it would be self evidently true and not controversial at all. Where it gets messy and controversial is when it is applied to today’s sexual / marital market stinkpot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reminds me of this song.
LikeLike
What matters is not being able to qualify and quantify everything, but rather recognizing the mere fact of the multiple violations of God’s Covenant for marriage (and the subsequent freedom that comes with repentance and renewal of the Covenant). What difference will focusing on the mechanics or numbers make? It is quite reasonable to stop here and many people will do so.
….
But we are not without ability to actually answer the question.
Why is adultery wrong? Because it is having sex with—proposing marriage to; creating the one-flesh bond with—someone to whom God has already joined to another. It is illegitimate.
Paul attests in 1 Corinthians 6:16-19 that having sex with a prostitute causes them to become one flesh. Paul makes no exceptions (explicit, implicit, or contextual) for how many sexual partners or spouses the participants have. This is the ultimate horror of adultery: it binds two people who are already bound to others. It is why it is one of the ten commandments.
But what is adultery? Adultery can at minimum be thought of as an illicit marriage proposal—sex—that nonetheless creates the marital bond. Or more broadly, it can be thought of as an actual illicit marriage, often combined with an implicit divorce. These are two ways to conceptualize the same thing. To wit:
The act of sex cleaves the two together into one flesh. If the act of marriage—sex and thus the one-flesh bond—takes place without maintaining an actual marriage, is that not the very definition of divorce? What is divorce if not a created marriage that is then cast aside? Each women you cleaved to was sent away and/or sent you away.
You are not married to 23 people, which is obvious to all because you only live with one of them and the rest were sent away long ago. Regardless of whether or not your current marriage was formed in an act of adultery (a point that Christians argue over), we nonetheless thank God that he forgives and that a marriage under God’s Covenant has been restored to you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jack pretty much answered this with the best tact possible. It’s controversial because we aren’t all Berean Baptists spouting canned talking points from that particular faith tradition like automatons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This argument over sacramental marriage is stupid.
How about we get to a point where Christians actually stay married, wives submit to their husbands, and husbands love their wives as Christ loves the Church, and then we argue over all this minutia?
LikeLike
No, you’re just greatly misled to the point where you don’t understand why establishing the fundamental truths of marriage is important. It was all the churches which began teaching lies, which has led us to become such an adulterous generation.
When a man has sex with a virgin they become one flesh, AKA married. But that fact didn’t give the church the control over men to create the earthly kingdom and earthly power they lusted for. So they lied and said, “That makes you a “fornicator”, because only the church can join a man and a wife. Put her away, you’re living in sin, or else come to our church and for a small fee we’ll legitimize your illegitimate relationship.”
Anyhow those sorts of lies and deceit regarding marriage has led the church to become the biggest promotor of sexual immorality down throughout history among all people who claim the name of Christ. The church has been the “Mother of Harlots”, profaning God’s natural marriage bed to gain mastery over men using their God-given sexual drive. Calling their unapproved unions “fornication” and encouraging them to put away those wives and to then marry others who may have also been secretly put away, adulterously. Or else men, considering themselves to already be damnable, decide to continue having sex with other women. And men and women ashamed of their so-called “premarital” sex, then don’t boldly enlist the church and society’s help in keeping that first conjugal relationship going, as God intended. The church’s many false doctrines have turned our sexual marketplace on its head.
God said that the truth will set us free. Not the lies that got us here. Maybe you aren’t seeking the truth, but I am. And I try to share truth as I have it shown to me. How big does a lie have to be to be damaging to an already fragile coupling, especially when it may be hanging by a thread? Sound doctrine and the truth are vitally important. And not everybody is so stubborn that they don’t ever change their mind.
I assume Jack hosts this site with the hope that people do learn something from the discussion and by contending for the faith. Singing Kumbaya won’t get us anywhere. You of all people, Oscar, like to argue. I assume by your comment, you’re just not interested in participating in “iron sharpening iron” on this topic.
Even though I think the churches are apostate, it is still instructive that I learn what they teach, which has brought us to where we are today. And you can learn things from listening to anybody, even if they’re completely wrong in what they are saying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What Sharkly says here is difficult to hear. It echoes what I earlier said (and was quoted in the OP) that….
…the fundamental truths of marriage also pertain to the misleading regenerative salvation/sanctification in marriage. Getting salvation/sanctification wrong is a very real problem for anyone trying to achieve a god-honoring marriage. But lest my quote be misleading, as Sharkly well notes, Protestants get the doctrines of marriage wrong too. All of these things lead to an adulterous generation. And so…
…there can be no real meaningful fixing what is broken with marriage until the fundamental truths of marriage are established, which of course must come after faith/salvation. Cart and horse and all that. As I said…
…for the practical reasons and consequences that Sharkly gave, among others.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mind reading. There’s a surprise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How many times have I heard folks in the Christian manosphere lament that women are putting off marriage until right before they hit the wall. Which gives them a dozen peak years on the sexual market before they’re ready to settle and marry. And that their great grandma married at 16.
What if I told you that today the average age of marriage in the USA is 17 and that most girls today are getting married between 15 and 20, to their high school sweetheart, but that the church teaches them that’s “fornication”, and that they need to end that “sinful” relationship and go on to college and find a more responsible and less “sinful” man. The church puts asunder their one-flesh marriage union while encouraging them to seek “forgiveness” for it and go find another man in college, or after, to enter into a church-approved adulterous relationship with.
Wake up folks! The church’s false teachings are the problem. Culture is downstream of religion. If our culture is Characterized by lawlessness and immorality, it is because our nation’s church’s are lawless and immoral.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “Shotgun Wedding” — though not without its own limitations — was a lot closer to implicitly enforcing God’s Covenant for marriage than anything we have today, and frankly shouldn’t have been necessary if the church had done its duty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack,
This…
…. sounds a lot like what Protestants refer to as the “Ordinary Means of Grace”.
We’ve already established that God uses marriage to sanctify us. And we know that few things are as nourishing to the soul as a loving marriage. Marriage is obviously part of “the church’s discipline and care of souls”.
We (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) seem to be talking about the same thing using different words.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thinking the same thing ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see no point in arguing about this when we could be helping each other restore the sanctity of marriage, which we all agree needs a lot of work.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is what I think. I am perfectly happy to be on here as the resident Orthodox guy and explain the sacrament to people who are interested. But not to get bogged down in arguments about who the Wh0re of Babylon is.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Catholic Church places a great deal of constraint on sexual activity in marriage which results in not making marriage attractive at all for those who can’t control themselves sexually, as mentioned above.
The constraint is basically their teaching that only Natural Family Planning is acceptable and any other type of birth control is forbidden. And any release of semen outside of the vagina is also forbidden. Natural Family Planning doesn’t frustrate the possibility of procreation; it just greatly minimizes that possibility.
I don’t know if the priest would deny marriage to a couple if they said they would not follow these teachings.
LikeLike
You know what’s crazy though? Wouldn’t it be weird if like a church formed out of all this? Like a bunch of guys from all over the world on the internet took all the best features of each tradition and made a real, workable institution for the 21st century that dispenses truth and offers help for the weak, the hungry, the marginalized? A place for fellowship, spiritual growth, and community where marriages and families looked more or less the way we talk about them all the time here?
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is where I’m at. The ‘world’ is jacked up beyond belief right now, especially in the western world. So I’m done trying to solve the world’s problems, I’m gonna do my own thing, my own way, glorifying God the best way I know how. Speaking the truth IRL and sharing my struggles with the men here.
LikeLike
The problem is, how do you police your membership and keep the place pure? If you were to create a respectable institution, how do you keep out the infiltrators. Satan’s minions always like to try to:
Identify a respected institution.
Kill it.
Gut it.
Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
Like disgusted citizens fleeing the woke socialist debacle in California, who then want to vote to turn your state exactly like California was the very moment before the wheels finally fell off. As if the wheels won’t fall off there too as a result of the same drift towards woke policies they allowed in California.
The moment you have a church that isn’t pussified… A million pussified churchian men will all want to join it and naturally begin to try to make it kinder and nicer and less offensive and more tolerant, and more welcoming, like the Great Whore they just came from. They’ll want a pastor who is cool and entertaining and doesn’t piss people off or teach hard topics and take rigid stances which will thin the herd. They’ll want to White Knight for the ladies and bow down and worship women and their fertility hole, and before you know it, the founding red-pilled men will all be leaving disappointed.
How do you create a church with the balls to say, “GTFO we don’t want you here. You’re a Beta who thinks, your daughters are special, your wife doesn’t need discipline, and that talking about football will make you seem more manly. The world loves you because you kiss its ass. Go start your own Church of the Brown Nose. Where y’all can focus on being inclusive and shit. We aim to provide advanced training to a fighting force of responsible men and not be a hospital that treats perennial screw-ups and people with degenerative dysfunctions.”
LikeLike
Pingback: Requirements for Sacramental Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Are Common-Law Marriages the most Biblical? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Divided We Fall | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Peaceful Unity Marriage Model | Σ Frame
Pingback: A Concise History of Marriage Regulations | Σ Frame
Pingback: Apostolic Apostasy | Σ Frame
Pingback: Sacramental Soteriology | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Mystery of Glorifying a Provision for the Flesh | Σ Frame
Pingback: Summary of Sex = Marriage vs. Church/State Sanctioned Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Expectations, Laws, and Policies regarding Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Synopsis of Sacramental Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: 2023 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame