www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Steps to Reunion

Ask Father Serge and Robert Taft, among others.

I asked whether it is true that the Eastern Catholic Churches in general, UGCC in particular, had followed the Orthodox discipline of divorce (whatever the specific grounds for divorce were) until 1917. The answer I got was that this is not true. Therefore I would like to see the source for StuartK's claim.

I see that EWTN remarks that the Melkite Catholics are at odds with Rome over the issue of second marriage after divorce. Whether this extends to the UGCC?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, who lived in the fourth century, says that “he who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or for a valid motive such as fornication, adultery or another misdeed, if he takes a wife, or if the wife (in similar circumstances) takes another husband, the Divine Logos does not condemn them or exclude them from the Church.

The Council of Neocaesarea imposed on the clergy the obligation to divorce an adulterous wife (See on this subject the study in Concillium, Vol.55-1970, p.76f). And Father Nicholas van der Wal adds: This position may have been reached in the early Byzantine Church by taking Matthew 5:53 as part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is indeed possible to see the exhortation of the Sermon as the precepts of an ideal ethic which the Christian striving after perfection must try to live up to (and here the Byzantine Church would first of all think of monks and nuns) while this would not be asked of ordinary people” (p.80) (See also Korbianman Ritzer for details, Concillium, Vol.55-1970, p.67 seq.).

St. Basil has a special dissertation on Oikonomia which was officially approved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council of the Undivided Church of East and West, the Second Council of Constantinople in 680. Canon 25 states: “Spouses abandoned without reason are excused, and this pardon means they will be accepted to communion if they remarry”. St. John Chrysostom adds, “It is better to break up a marriage than be damned”. Archbishop Elias Zoghby declared at the Second Vatican Council that “even the Church of the West maintained this practice for many hundreds of years with the positive approval of many bishops, popes and synods; and in fact, never attempted to condemn it in the East, even after it had ceased to practice it” (The Melkite Church at Vatican II, p.24). . .

After ceasing to apply the principle Oikonomia, in its concern and solicitude for its children, the Western Church established the system generally known as annulment. It should rather be called “declaration of nullity”. It consists in a declaration that since wone of the partners had entered a prospective marriage without fulfilling one of the basic conditions of indissolubility—full consent, freedom and understanding—the marriage actually had never existed, even after children had been born. Both partners are then free to remarry.

In some instances, this system has been extended by western Marriage Tribunals—rightfully or not, it is not for us to judge—to cases in which marriage were presently and actually dead, even though originally valid.

The Church of Rome uses its power over the sacrament of the priesthood, and releases some of its bishops and priests from the ministry of their priesthood. The bond of priesthood is no less sacred and no less eternal than the bond of matrimony. The Church of Rome allows bishops and priests to give up their life of ministry in the Church and marry, while still recognizing the eternal character of their priesthood. In fact, this same power is used [in the Byzantine Church] over the sacrament of marriage to help and heal a painful state of abandonment and solitude.

There are some unavoidable circumstances in which some people are totally unable to continue living with their original sacramental partner. If in such cases, a union is contracted with a different partner, this in fact honors the Gospel command making the human person more precious than the law of indissolubility. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Absolute enforcement would lead to cruel legalism.

I've tried to send a PM to Fr Serge Keleher to ask to shed some light on the issue of sources that claim that before 1917 the UGCC allowed divorce and remarriage under Orthodox-like conditions, but unfortunately Fr Serge is "over their Private Topic limit" - whatever it means.

I think we basically should return to the canons of Serdica, under which Rome was the ecclesiastical court of final appeal. As long as Rome limited itself to an appellate role, there was general accord among the Churches.

I see that EWTN remarks that the Melkite Catholics are at odds with Rome over the issue of second marriage after divorce. Whether this extends to the UGCC?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

Stuart,

I couldn't agree more.

-Scott

This is an interesting discussion and it leads me to the thought that always is in the back of my Orthodox head. That is of course what is the balance point of the 'sui juris' churches with respect to the 'universal' teachings of the Western Church when those teachings or perhaps better stated as 'practices' , as applied by the West differ from those historically exercised by the Eastern world?

I suspect that is the ultimate question and been so since Florence. In any event, such questions must not stop us from talking towards and striving for the unity of the faith

What are the canons of Serdica ? What council do they come from? When exactly did the Church of Rome drop these canons?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Before separating, the bishops enacted several important canons, especially concerning the transfer and trial of bishops and appeals. These canons, with the other documents of the council, were sent to Pope Julius with a letter signed by the majority of the attending bishops.