www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Divorce

In the recent thread about annulments, someone touched upon Orthodox divorce.

Just what is the position of the Orthodox on the state of a marriage that fails.

Is divorce allowed? How many? What is the procedure to obtain a Orthodox divorce

Dear Little Green Coat,

Some Orthodox jurisdictions/Churches actually issued "divorce" papers in the past, such as in Greece, but this was because of their role as the state-sanctioned contractors of ALL marriages. Even today in Greece, so I am told, two Roman Catholics or two Jews would need to get their marriage license from an Orthodox priest.

The Church accepts that marriages are dissolved usually due to the sinfulness of one or both parties. Death of one spouse also dissolves the marriage. As Paul says, the person is free. The Church should not authorize this dissolution but recognize it. It may recognize the legitimacy of the dissolution, one may argue, in cases of "porneia" (sexual immorality) as permitted by the Lord himself in Matthew.

"Porneia" has been interpreted very narrowly by some RC scriptural scholars to mean incest and polygamy or other completely perverse and "unnatural" practices. Many Orthodox scholars would include in "porneia" adultery, refusal to conceive children, and severe physical abuse. Is a man who repeatedly breaks his wife's skull really a "husband?"

The Orthodox, will remarry a divorced person, with the bishop's blessing, in a penitential ceremony and without the crowning awarded to first-time marriages. Of course, if one of the partners is Orthodox on their first marriage, the regular, non-penitential service with crowning is done for the sake of that party.

There are a maximum of three marriages (two remarriages). Second marriages are more and more common in N. America, but third marriages are rarely granted.

The Rev. John Garvey, a writer in Commonweal, made the argument that the Church should be more inclined to grant a second marriage to a penitent divorced person than to a widow/widower who was happily married. The second marriage is a replacement of sorts. In the case of the former, the replacement is for a failed marriage but in the second case what are they trying to replace? It is a difficult question all around.

I hope that this is helpful.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

LGC will of course note the difference between Orthodox and Catholic understandings on these issues--in the Catholic understanding a marriage bond can never be dissolved except by the death of one spouse or both.

Adultery is a sin against the marriage bond, as is physical abuse. But they do not dissolve it.

The Church allows for separation from bed and board if necessary--but in order for one party to contract another marriage, it has to be established that there never was a marriage bond in the first place. Defect of consent can be one reason for this.

The "porneia" exception, by which the man can put away the woman, refers to marriages that are not marriages at all--incestuous relationships, etc.--not to a true marriage in which one party is unfaithful. If unfaithfulness freed one from the marriage bond, we would have all kinds of problems!!

LatinTrad

Latin Trad,

I would not posit this as an Orthodox vs Catholic issue, even though the Eastern Catholic Churches have accepted the Latin Church's discipline on this matter for now. Rather, there are true theological differences between the East and West regarding the sacrament of marriage that are still not satisfactorally resolved.

For example the Latin Church views the couple as the ministers of the sacrament, the Eastern Church views the priest as the minister. This is even backed up by Canon Law which requires that a marriage of two Eastern Catholics, or an Eastern man and Latin woman, even when by necessity done in the Latin Church, be done by a priest. If a deacon performs the marriage it is considered invalid. How can one thing be valid for the Latin Church and invalid for the Eastern Church or vice versa? We often talk of things being illicit in one and licit in the other but this is a glaring contradiction.

Likewise, I think the issue of nullity vs eccelsial divorce is something that deserves to be reviewed. While Christ said let no man seperate what God has joined, the Church is no man but the Body of Christ, gifted with the authority to bind and to loose. The Catholic Church should review its practice in light of the experiences of the early Church and the Eastern Church. While I do not advocate wholesale adoption of current Orthodox practice, the Catholic Church could be more pastoral and reasonable.

Trying to dicover whether a person was menatlly capable of consent years later is, while possible in cases, a largely impossible exercise. Also note that the Latin Church is very willing to laicize a priest and allow them to marry, even though this should present the same theological problem of trying to remarry after divorce. If economy can be allowed in these cases why not in a second marriage? I would also say that even though the number of anullments are high in the US, I think it reflects the immaturity of our society and the people probably were incapable of proper consent. Things to ponder.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Father Subdeacon Lance,


Thank you for your thoughtful post. You are correct about the "glaring contradiction" on who is the minister of the Sacrament.

Nevertheless, the laicized priest does NOT present the same theological problem as one who attempts a second "marriage" while his/her spouse is still alive, because the laicized priest has been freed from the disciplines, duties, and rights attached to celibacy. Celibacy is not part of the ESSENCE of Holy Orders (As Easterners well know).

The Church sees it as ontologically impossible, however, for someone who is bound by the marriage bond to contract marriage with another. As far as I know, it is considered "Of the Faith" that a marriage bond can never be dissolved except by death.


LatinTrad

Latin Trad,

This has nopthing to do with the promise of celibacy, but that Holy Orders received before marriage are an impediment from entering marriage. The East and West agree on this. But the Latin CHurch will overlook this and allow a laicized priest to marry even while recognizing that ontologically he remains a priest forever.

It is the "of the Faith" part that needs reviewed. The East has taught something different from the earliest time, first regarding the second marriages of widows/widowers and later for other reasons, but the view was always different. The Latin Church's view cannot be taken for granted as absolutely correct and beyond all refinement.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Father Subdeacon Lance,

I know we're just blowing smoke here, but I have not seen this claim satisfactorily established.

The argument has been made by scholars more competent than myself that NONE of the early Eastern Fathers, at least among those recognized as Orthodox, ever explicitly allowed for divorce-and-remarriage-in-cases-of-adultery.

Such an allowance seems to have been a later development in the East.

Also--while Holy Orders are an impediment to Matrimony, they do not render it strictly impossible, since the obligations of Orders can be dispensed with. An existing marriage cannot be dispensed with (at least in the "western" understanding).

Impediments can be dispensed with, but an existing marriage is not just an impediment--it is an indissoluble bond that prevents a new marriage absolutely. One who is already married cannot marry, any more than one who is dead can marry.

God bless!

LatinTrad

Latin Trad,
I am with you on this one, bud!
Stephanos I

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ's Light,

I have an article which pertains to the this topic by the Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby on my web-site at the following link. If some have trouble accessing it, I can copy it to this thread.

see: "Is Ecclesiastical Divorce Orthodox" at the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Brother Ghazar, I couldn't follow the link.

Actually, I'm afraid that Bishop Zoghby espoused a heterodox view of divorce at the Second Vatican Council, which the Council refused to adopt.


LatinTrad

Dear friends,
Christ is among us!
In the Latin tradition, marriage is basicly a contract, ministered by the couple to each other. In the Byzantine tradition it is a Mystery conveyed by the calling down of the Holy Spirit by the priest upon the couple. In the Byzantine Tradition, it is clear that the couple must be open to and continue to be open to the power of the Holy Spirit for the Mystery to survive. When a marriage fails, someone must have ceased to be open to the Holy Spirit.

The Byzantine Tradition handles such failures in a more pastoral methodology than the Latin tradition. When I was in Seminary my canon Law professor Archbishop Peter L'Hullier of New York, called such a failure "Cardiac arrest". And the Church needs to respond to this failed marriage like a death. Which would mean that after an appropriate review of the circumstances, and period of penance the "innocent" party could have a second marriage blessed in the Church with an appropriately penetential Marriage Service.

this pastoral tradition finds its sources in the works of a number of Eastern Fathers.
The unworthy priest, Fr. Vladimir

LatinTrad,

I am afraid you will find the entire Eastern Church heterodox then. Archbishop Elias only presented what the East has always taught and practiced.

"The Indissolubility of Marriage"
by Archbishop Elias Zoghby
of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church

The problem which probably causes more anguish to young married people than birth control is that of the innocent spouse in the prime of life (usually the young lady, so we shall use the feminine form throughout this chapter to denote the wronged spouse) who is deserted by her partner and contracts a new union. The innocent party goes to her parish priest or bishop for a solution but hears: "I can do nothing for you. Pray and resign yourself to living alone for the rest of your life because you cannot marry again and expect to remain in the good graces of the Church."
Such an unrealistic response is an insult to the young person's inherent dignity! Furthermore, it presupposes an heroic virtue, a rare faith and an exceptional temperament. This almost abnormal way of life is not for everyone. After all, the young person was married in the first place because she didn't feel called to perpetual continence. Now she is being cornered into contracting a new and illegitimate union outside the Church so as to avoid physical and emotional pressure. This good and normal Catholic now "officially" becomes a renegade and is even tortured by her own conscience. Only one course of action is left open: either become an exceptional soul overnight or perish!
Nothing but common sense tells us that perpetual continence is not the answer for the majority of Christians in such a predicament. In other words, we Church officials know that we are leaving these young and innocent victims without an answer. We ask them to depend upon that faith which works miracles, but we forget such faith is not given to everyone. Many of us, even we who are priests and bishops, still have a long struggle and a great amount of prayer ahead of us before we will even be able to approach it, let alone attain it!
The question presented us today by these disturbed people is, therefore, the following: "Does the Church have the right to tell an innocent member of the laity, whatever the nature of the problem disturbing him: 'Solve it yourself! I have no solution for your case,' or indeed can the Church provide in this case an exceptional solution which she knows to be suited only for a tiny minority?"
The Church has certainly received sufficient authority from Christ, its founder, to offer all its children the means of salvation proportionate to their strength. Heroism, the state of perfection - these have never been imposed by Christ under pain of eternal perdition. �If you wish to be perfect,� Christ says, but only �if you wish...�
The Church, therefore, has sufficient authority to protect the innocent party against the consequences of the other partner's wrongdoing. It does not seem normal that perpetual continence, which belongs to the state of perfection alone, can be imposed upon the innocent spouse as an obligation or a punishment simply because the other spouse has proven to be false! The Eastern Churches have always known that they possessed the authority to help the innocent victim and, what is more, they have always made use of it.
The marriage bond has certainly been rendered indissoluble by the positive law of Christ. Yet, as the Gospel of St. Matthew points out: "except in circumstances of adultery." (Cf. Matt. 5:32; 9:6) It is the duty of the Church to make sense of this parenthetical clause. If the Church of Rome has interpreted it in a restrictive sense, this is not true in the Christian East where the Church has interpreted it, from the very first centuries of its existence, in favor of possible remarriage for the innocent spouse.
It is true that the Council of Trent, in it's twenty-fourth session (canon 7 of De Matrimonio) sanctioned the restrictive Roman interpretation, but it is well known that the final formula adopted by Trent for this canon had been purposely altered so as not to exclude the Eastern Christian tradition. This tradition followed (and still follows) a practice contrary to that of the Church of Rome. History gives credit for this act to the representatives from the area of Venice (1) who were well acquainted with the Greek tradition, which was founded upon the interpretation of the Greek Fathers and even of some Western Fathers, such as St. Ambrose of Milan.
We know how the Eastern Fathers tried to discourage widows and widowers from contracting second marriages, following in this the counsel of the Apostle Paul; but they never intended to deprive the innocent spouse, who had been unjustly abandoned, of the right to remarry. This tradition, preserved in and exercised by the East, was in no way dissolved in the six centuries of union. There is no reason why it could not be brought back into use today and adopted by Western Catholics. The progress of patristic studies has, in effect, put in bold relief the doctrines of the Eastern Fathers who were no less competent moralists and exegetes than the Western Fathers.
Pastoral solicitude for the wronged is suggested in another way by Western canonists. By means of a subtle casuistry, which sometimes borders upon acrobatics, they have devoted themselves with diligent application to uncovering every impediment capable of vitiating the marriage bond. This is done because of their pastoral concern. Sometimes, for example, it happens that somebody suddenly discovers an impediment is permitted to afford a complete resolution of the �problem� as if by magic! Though canon lawyers find this state of affairs both natural and normal, those of us who are pastors have come to realize that our people are very often confused and scandalized by this.
Is it not the tradition of the Eastern Fathers, as outlined above, more suitable than the impediments to marriage in extending Divine Mercy toward some Christian spouses? (2) Undoubtedly, inconsiderate action cannot be tolerated here either; abuses are always possible. But, the abuse of authority does not destroy authority.
During this age of ecumenism and dialogue, can the Catholic Church recognize this long-standing tradition of the Eastern Churches? Or, what is more important to it: Can its theologians apply themselves to the study of this problem and provide a remedy for the anguish of the innocent party, permanently abandoned by his or her spouse, and to deliver this person from a danger constituting a grave menace to the soul?
My statements above are of a strictly pastoral nature. My aim is to help the Western Catholic Church discover a solution for the problem faced by so many young marrieds who are doomed to a single life of loneliness should they decide to separate. As it is now, through no fault of their own, they are forced to endure continence as a matter of obligation.
In addition, I have clearly affirmed the immutable principle of the permanency of the married state. In doing this, I have purposely avoided using the word �divorce� because the Catholic use of this word clearly denotes an infraction of the unchangeable principal of the indissolubility of marriage.
This indissolubility is so deeply imbedded in the traditions of both East and West, Orthodox as well as Catholic, that it can never be questioned. In effect, the Orthodox tradition itself has always held marriage indissoluble as the union of Christ and His Souse, the Church, a union which remains the type exemplaire of the monogamous sacramental marriage of Christians. In Orthodox theology, divorce is nothing but a dispensation allowed the innocent party in certain, well-defined instances and from motives of purely pastoral concern, in virtue of what Orthodox theology calls the �principle of economy,� which means �dispensation� or, more accurately, �condescension.� This dispensation does not exclude or set aside the principle of indissolubility. This principle is even used in much the same way as the dispensations of a valid consummated marriage are allowed by the Western Catholic Church through the Pauline Privilege. We are not speaking here of abuses; they are always possible, but they do not change the theological reality.
Therefore, it is this �dispensation� on behalf of the innocent spouse that I suggest be employed by the Catholic Church of the Western tradition. When I referred to the traditional Eastern interpretation of Matthew 5 and 19, I saw the eventual possibility of additional reasons for dispensations to supplement those already admitted by Western Catholics, such as fornication and the abandonment of one spouse by the other, so as to keep away the peril of damnation which menaces the innocent spouse. Such a dispensation would not cast any doubt upon the indissolubility of the marriage bond any more than do the other dispensations.
Such a proposal is not fruitless, despite what certain militant Roman canonists contend, because it rests upon the indisputable authority of the blessed Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Churches - these same saints who are annually commemorated in the Roman liturgical calendar - who cannot be accused of having given up truth while interpreting the Lord�s words, or of interpreting the Lord�s words to suit their personal ambitions.
It is the perspective of the universal fidelity of the East, as well as of the West, that the Roman Church has never contested the legitimacy of the Eastern ruling favorable to the remarriage of the innocent marital partner, either after the separation of the two great Christian halves of the Church, or during their long centuries of unity.
To anyone who has observed the Eastern Catholic communities in union with Rome, it goes without saying that in these days - and it grieves me to admit it - almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches follow contemporary Latin-Roman discipline and practices with regard to remarriage.
As for the Eastern way of viewing divorce and remarriage, objective evidence proves that the Fathers and Doctors of the East who developed the basic tenets of all Christian doctrine could not have been influenced by politics or any other aspect of Byzantine civil or legal tradition in interpretation Christ�s words in Matthew, chapters 5 and 19 as they did. To assume this would be to forget what the universal Church owes to their knowledge and holiness.
The Justinian Code which was promulgated toward the end of the sixth century adopted the Eastern discipline on marriage. But it could scarcely have influenced Origen, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil (3), St. Epiphanius (4), and others who lived some 350 years before this Code was ever conceived, as some Latin canonists believe. The Justinian Code merely reflected the doctrine and practices of the Eastern Churches.
As we have seen, long before the schism with Rome, Eastern Christianity adopted the more lenient interpretation of the law (favoring the innocent party) and also put it into practice. And yet the Easterners were never condemned for this - not during the first thousand years when they were in full visible communion with the Roman See; not by the Ecumenical Councils over which presided representatives of the Bishop of Rome and were attended by both Eastern and Western bishops; and not by any other high authorities in the undivided Church. These facts alone should be enough to prove that the Roman Church never contested the legitimacy of the Eastern discipline in this matter.
The Church of the East has always followed this tradition of tolerance of divorce and has remained faithful to it. The West maintained it for many hundreds of years with the positive approval of many of its bishops, popes, and councils, and in fact never attempted to condemn it in the East, even after the cessation of its practice in the West.
In conclusion, we reiterate that this is an exegetical, canonical and pastoral problem which cannot be ignored. As for the opportunity of permitting a new reason (or reasons) for dispensation analogous to those already introduced in the Roman Church by reason of the Pauline Privilege, this decision remains in the hands of the Church.

-taken from the book: A Voice from the Byzantine East, 1992, published by Educational Services

notes:
1. There is still a somewhat large and visible Orthodox population in Venice and vicinity.

2. Father David Kirk, a Melkite Greek Catholic priest (founder of Emmaus House in Harlem, New York City) has recently said: �The tradition of Eastern Christianity is essentially one of compassion. People must be given a second chance. The absolute value of the human person must be underlined. Just as the monk can abandon his state in the name of his person, so the same freedom exists [in the Eastern Churches] for a married person. We are not free if we can only say yes at one moment and cannot say no at another moment.� (Cf. Rev. David Kirk, An Eastern Catholic Understanding of Sexuality in U.S. Catholic-Jubilee, March, 1970, pp. 39-42.)

3. St. Basil, in whose immediate family were several saints, was Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia during the fourth century. He said: �I am not sure that a woman who lives with a man who has been abandoned by his wife could be called adulterous.�

4. St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Constantia on Cyprus during the fourth century wrote: �Divine Law does not condemn a man who has been abandoned by his wife, nor a woman who has been abandoned by her husband, for remarrying.�

See also the following:

�Better to break a marriage than be damned.� from Homily on 1 Corinthians by St. John Chrysostom (Minge: P.G. 61, 155)

�He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife [in similar circumstances] takes another husband, the Divine Logos does not condemn him or exclude him from the Church...� from Against Heresies by St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Minge: P.G. 41, 1024)

For a further explanation of conditions that are tantamount to death so far as the marriage bond is concerned, see Marriage: an Orthodox Perspective, by John Meyendorff (Crestwood, N.Y. St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1970)

Appendix: Support for the Eastern Tradition stated above

Tertullian:

�I maintain, then, that Christ now made the prohibition of divorce conditional: �If anyone should dismiss his wife for the purpose of marrying another.� �Whoever dismisses his wife,� He says, �and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who has been dismissed by her husband, is equally an adulterer� -dismissed, then, for that very reason for which dismissal is not permitted: to marry another. And he that marries a woman who has been dismissed unlawfully is as much an adulterer as he that marries one who has not been dismissed. The marriage which is not rightly dissoved is permanent. To marry again, however, while there is a permanent marriage, is adultery. Therefore, if he conditionally forbade the dismising of a wife, He did not forbid it absolutely; and what He did not forbid absolutely, He permitted in certain cases, where the reason for prohibition was not present. ... Indeed, in your sect, what is a husband to do, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own Apostle, you know, would not join the members of Christ to a prostitute. The justice of divorce, therfore, has Christ, too, for its defender. Henceforth Moses must be considered as confirmed by Christ, Moses having permitted divorce for the same cause that Christ permits it: if there sould be found any unchaste commerce on the part of the woman. For in the Gospel of Matthew He says: �Whoever dismisses his wife, except for the cause of adultery, makes her commit adultery.� And thus he too is regarded as an adulterer, who marrries a woman who has beend dismissed by her husband.� - Against Marcion, 4, 34, 4-6

Origen:

Our Savior does not at all permit the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife....� 9.511 (Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (DECB), David W. Bercot).

Novation:

�When being inquired of, Christ gave this judgment: He said that a wife must not be put away, except fro the cause of adultery.... Laws are prescribed to married women, who are so bound that they cannot thence be seperated.� 5.589 (Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (DECB), David W. Bercot).

St. John Chrysostom:

�How then in this case is the uncleanness overcome, and therefore the intercourse allowed; while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out? Because here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage; but in the other case the marriage has already been dissolved; and there again both are corrupted; but here the fault is in one only of the two. ...For how will she who dishonored him in former times and became another�s and destroyed the rights of marriage, have power to reclaim him whom she had wronged; him, moreover, who still remains to her as an alien? Again, in that case, after the fornication the husband is not a husband...� - Homily on 1st Corinthians 19.4

�And not thus only, but in another way also He hath lightened the enactment: For asmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal when He saith, �Except for the cause of fornication;� since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery.� - Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew 17

Ambrosiaster:

Neither can a man divorce his wife; [for he says]: �A man is not to divorce his wife.� It presumes of course: �except for cause of fornication.� And therefore does not subjoin what he says when speaking of a woman: �but if she has separated, she is to remain so;� for it is permissible for a man to marry a wife, if he has divorced a sinful wife, because man is not bound by the law as a woman is; for man is head over woman.� Commentaries on Thirteen Pauline Epistles -on 1 Cor 7:11

Lactantius:

�He who marries a woman divorced from her husband is an adulterer. So is he who divorced a wife for any cause other than adultery, in order to marry another.� 7.190 (Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (DECB), David W. Bercot).

Apostolic Constitutions:

�Do not let it be considered lawful after marriage to put her away who is without blame. For He says, � you will take care to your spirit and will not forsake the wife of your youth� [Mal. 2:14-15].... And the Lord says, �What God has joined together, let no man put assunder.� For the wife is the partner of life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two that body that has become one -he is the enemy ofthe creation of God and the adversary of His providence. Similarly, he who retains her who is corrupted [by adultery] is a transgressor fo the lwas of nature. For �he who retains an adulteress is foolish and impious [Prv. 18:22]. Also, He says, �Cut her off from your flesh� [Sir 25:26]. For she is no longer a helpmate, but a snare, havin turned her mind from you to another.�

Excuse my simple opinion on this issue - much of what "Divorce" "dissolution" "annulment" "separation" all mean in the English language is a lot of legalistic semanthics. The marriage is over, ended, dead! Of course if you are a Kennedy it doesn't matter, you get what you want anyway.

Bless me a sinner, Fr. Vladimir!

Father, with all due respect, you seem to have a very reductionist understanding of the western concept of marriage. The calling down of the Holy Spirit is part of the RC marriage and always has been.

Anyway, this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice -- The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes.

We read in Hermas (about the year 150), "Pastor", mand. IV, I, 6: "Let him put her (the adulterous wife) away and let the husband abide alone; but if after putting away his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery (ed. Funk, 1901). The expression in verse 8, "For the sake of her repentance, therefore, the husband ought not to marry", does not weaken the absolute command, but it gives the supposed reason of this great command. St. Justine Martyr (d. 176) says (Apolog., I, xv, P.G., VI, 349), plainly and without exception: "He that marrieth her that has been put away by another man committeth adultery." In like manner Athenagoras (about 177) in his "Legatio pro christ.", xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965): "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery"; Tertullian (d. 247), "De monogami�", c, ix (P.L., II, 991): "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away"; Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), "Strom.", II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096), mentions the ordinance of Holy Scripture in the following words; "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives." Similar expressions are found in the course of the following centuries both in the Latin and in the Greek Fathers, e.g. St. Basil of C�sarea, "Epist. can.", ii, "Ad Amphilochium", can. xlviii (P.G., XXXII, 732); St. John Chrysostom, "De libello repud." (P.G., LI, 218); Theodoretus, on I Cor., vii, 39, 40 (P.G., LXXXII, 275); St. Ambrose, "in Luc.", VIII, v, 18 sqq. (P.L., XV, 1855); St. Jerome, Epist, lx (ad Amand.), n. 3 (P.L., XXII, 562); St. Augustine, "De adulterinis conjugiis", II, iv (P.L., XL, 473), etc., etc. The occurrences of passages in some Fathers, even among those just quoted, which treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed. This permission was mentioned, not without reason, as a concession for the innocent party, because at some periods the Church's laws in regard to the guilty party forbade forever any further marriage (cf. can. vii of the Council of Compi�gne, 757). It is well known that the civil law, even of the Christian emperors, permitted in several cases a new marriage after the separation of the wife. Hence, without contradicting himself, St. Basil could say of the husband, "He is not condemned", and "He is considered excusable" (ep. clxxxviii, can. ix, and Ep. cxcix, can. xxi, in P.G., XXXII, 678, 721), because he is speaking distinctly of the milder treatment of the husband than of the wife with regard to the canonical penance imposed for adultery. St. Epiphanius, who is especially reproached with teaching that the husband who had put away his wife because of adultery or another crime was allowed by Divine law to marry another (H�res, lix, 4, in P.G., XLI, 1024), is speaking in reality of a second marriage after the death of the divorced wife, and whilst he declares in general that such a second marriage is allowed, but is less honourable, still he makes the exception in regard to this last part in favour of one who had long been separate from his first wife. The other Fathers of the following centuries, in whose works ambiguous or obscure expressions may be found, are to be explained in like manner.

The practice of the faithful was not indeed always in perfect accord with the doctrine of the Church. On account of defective morality, there are to be found regulations of particular synods which permitted unjustifiable concessions. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity" (Labbe, "Concilia", II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, "They are forbidden to marry" (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.

The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, "Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." Compare also with "Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.", xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): "In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died." The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin.
__________________________________________________


Etc. Etc.


By the way, Lance, Porneia does not mean "adultery" either.

I am afraid that belief in divorce and remarriage IS grounds for heresy.

LatinTrad

This argument is not at all convincing. What about those who are not married? They are also required to live in continence!! Why is it all-of-a-sudden so necessary and important for the deserted spouse to "find someone else"? Is sex that important, that she just needs someone, anyone? In the absence of her husband, God will give her the grace she needs to be chaste.

Bishop Zoghby is caricaturing the Church with that "I can do nothing for you" statement. THe priest can do nothing for her? NONSENSE!! The priest dispenses the Holy Mysteries which will provide the deserted spouse with the strength to lead a Christian life. She needs Christ a lot more than she needs a man.

This reminds me of the thread on homosexuality, when the dissenters were telling me that it was wrong to expect those with homosexual tendencies to refrain from homosexual sex. Why the hell is it wrong to expect some people to refrain from sex? I am a weak man, and I will not be married until January. Christ and the Theotokos expect me to abstain until then. Can I do it on my own? NO WAY!! I need grace, but I trust that the grace will be there because God never asks the impossible of us. Thus, when He asks something of us we know He will give us the strength to do it.

Similarly, Christ and the Theotokos will be the portion and cup for a deserted spouse who remains faithful.


LatinTrad