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

All,

Just a quick observation.

I think that the Orthodox 'allowance' of more than one divorce is unnecessary. It had to do with those Byzantine Emperors, if I am not mistaken. (Alex, if you know any more historical detail on this, or if I am incorrect, I WELCOME your input)...

On the other hand, I don't know many Orthodox who have been divorced more than once. An ecclesiastical divorce, (which most of them go through) is quite sobering, and I have seen wonderful, Christ centered second marriages.

In my experience, my Roman Catholic friends and relatives who get divorced just don't care about seeking an annulment, and well-- if they were lost to the Church before, they become even more lost, apathetic and alienated after. It is sad, and it breaks my heart to see how little they care.

So, for the sake of one's soul, one's salvation,(through the Church) and one's family life, which is better?

Just some thoughts.

In Christ Jesus,
Alice

Dear Lance:

Most of the quotes you provide allow for separation from bed and board--but say nothing about allowing remarriage thereafter.

The Catholic position is that "porneia" may justify separation of the parties--even their civil divorce--but it does not justify subsequent remarriage.

The overwhelming majority of the citations you've provided do not contradict this position.

Blessings,

ZT

ZT,

Of 13 quotes 6 refer to divorce and remarriage. That is a far cry from your statement that no Eastern Father taught this and that it was invented by Justinian. Some more food for thought. The Oriental Orthodox have the same teaching, yet they seperated after Chalcedon in 451 and certainly did not accept any law from the Emperors after that break.

CANON IV.

They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two. They that marry a third time, three or four years. But we have a custom, that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by canon, but tradition. Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when they have shewed some fruit of repentance.

CANON L.

We look on third marriages as disgraceful to the Church, but do not absolutely condemn them, as being better than a vague fornication.

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.”

“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)

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

Dear Lance,

I think you should be very grateful to ZT for keeping you on your canonical law toes as she has been doing.

If and when you are ready to be a priest, you'll know more than most priests, thanks, in part, to Zoe!

Alex

Dear Alice,

You are right absolutely!

It was Emperor Leo VI who was excommunicated for trying to contract a fourth marriage, I believe.

Among the Orthodox in Eastern Europe, there is a saying about the three wives that a man could possibly have during his life:

The first wife is from God;

The second wife is from the people;

The third wife is from the devil . . .

This leaves some men on the horns of a dilemma, to be sure . . .

Alex

With all due respect to our irenical Alice--who puts the rest of us to shame, especially me--she is comparing apples and oranges.

A faithful Orthodox who secures an "ecclesiastical divorce" is not the equivalent or counterpart of a faithLESS Catholic who doesn't bother applying for an annulment because frankly he or she doesn't give a hoot.

One would have to compare non-practicing Orthodox to non-practicing Catholics to make a fair comparison. And a non-practicing Orthodox would probably not bother with an "ecclesiastical divorce" (now there's an oxymoron!)...now, would he/she?

No communion should be judged by the activities of those who have effectively left it.

As for you, Subdeacon Lance...back atcha later. Sheesh, we working stiffs can't keep up with youse guys!

Blessings,

ZT

Dear Zoe,

With all due respect, my Orthodox Sister in Christ, Alice, was NOT comparing anything.

She was merely describing her experience with Orthodox who are in second marriages according to their Church's rules and regulations AND her experiences with loose Latin lackadaisical lovers who are living in sin.

This is also my experience, especially when I worked for a Catholic school board where more than 50 per cent of the people were divorced and living in sin in a second secular marriage.

And they all went to Communion at the board's Masses.

And one priest who knew several told them that "whatever is fine with you, it is O.K. with me."

Strictness of Catholic doctrine is wonderful.

The strict application of it by Catholics would be even more wonderful.

Alex

These quotes do not necessarily refer to divorce at all.



So he's "not sure."



The second paragraph here does not seem to allow remarriage if one's spouse is committing adultery--it says that after the death of one's first wife, one may take a second wife to avoid fornication or other misdeeds.

The first paragraph, and the passage from Ambrosiaster, are the only real supports for your claim.

But they are up against the testimony of the other Eastern Fathers, of all the Western Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church of which you are a member--and a cleric no less. They are also up against Mark and Luke.

The opinion of one Father and one other guy do not override the teaching and praxis of the Church on this issue. Sacramental marriage is absolutely indissoluble.

That St. Epiphanius fellow also said that we did not know whether the Theotokos rotted in the grave. His opinions do not rule the roost.

LatinTrad

Dear LT,

Actually, you are right.

Alex

Thanks, Alex.

Dear LT,

I try to be nice to the Irish.

They've suffered enough . . .

Did you know there is a site that has the full translation of the Celtic Rite Breviary, Mass etc?

If you are interested, it is: www.celticchristianity.org [celticchristianity.org]

This is not a canonically recognized group, but they are very traditional and wear the green scapular of St Patrick.

Alex

Thanks for the site--I am very wary of these people.

To be frank, I think they are full of nonsense.

Their historical arguments remind me of the evangelicals who claim that St. Patrick was a "sola scriptura" guy.

And I don't like how the "Celtic Orthodox" will mindlessly promote Calvinistic criticisms of Catholicism, simply because they are criticisms of Rome.

Anyway . . .

God Bless!

Dear LT,

Yes, I agree with you.

I only use them as a source for the Celtic liturgical translations.

Alex

Amen. But the answer is not to get rid of the strict doctrine,but rather to bring the praxis in line with the doxy. Which is what I've been saying all along (viz. my posts re the abuses of the tribunal process).

Blessings,

ZT

Heh! That reminds me of a quote from leMaistre that I've just run across. He was commenting on the fact that Russian Orthodox would make common cause with Protestants against the Dread Roman Bogeyman. And Protestants would also make common cause with Russian Orthodox against Rome:

Some things never change.

Blessings,

ZT