www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Other Sacramental Mysteries Communion for the divorced and remarried?

Pope Francis may end ban on remarried divorcees receiving Communion - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...64oi6-1226743749521#sthash.pjAQnCm0.dpuf

I seriously doubt. Most likely a reporter misunderstood or lied about something he heard and reported it. Then other news outlets picked up on it and spread it.

Couldn't read the link as it wants a subscription.

Is this the report from Germany about permitting Communion ?

I see Zenit has published a denial
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/holy-see-refutes-news-reports-on-communion-for-remarried-divorced

This was the report that I had seen about it


Vatican Insider [vaticaninsider.lastampa.it]

I wrote this over at Fr.Z:

The Orthodox have been criticized by some Catholics in the past for allowing divorce and up to three marriages with withdrawl of the Sacrament for some years as penance. Unfortunately, the “annulment process” sometimes creates a worse theological problem – instead of divorce with penance, annulled are treated as no sin even occurred and all is peachy. For the Eastern Catholic Churches, many adopted this annulment process in the 19th Cent., creating a theological nightmare. Since in the East, the priest is Crowning the couple representing the Church, there can be no room for annulment – except extreme situations, such as a forced marriage, fear of death, or mental illness.. by accepting the Latin annulment method, the Eastern Catholic Churches find themselves in the same troubling pattern, treating a second marriage as the first, even though all present, including the priest performed the Sacrament with other spouses earlier. Since it was annulled, there is no penitential rite and everything is treated as new.

This “new” faith criteria can and will be treated broadly so as to allow everyone living in sin to be treated as a baptized and chrismated infant. Strangely, some of the Eastern Churches adopted the Latin practice of restricting Communion for their own baptized and chrismated infants to mimic the Latins – if this “new” rule goes into effect, the sinless children are restricted, while the sinful adults are not. Topsy-turvy!

Actually, almost all the Greek Catholics relied on the Orthodox nomocanons until the promulgation of the first Code of Canons in 1917. For a few, the Orthodox disicpline may have been maintained even longer.

The problem with Eastern Catholic Churches adopting the Latin discipline of marriage is it is based on a totally different theology of marriage. Having adopted the Latin approach, our whole theology of marriage has been watered down to the point of being unrecognizable.

Did you read the Arbp. Mueller document? Any thoughts?

http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false%3D&path=%2Fnews%2Fcultura%2F2013%2F243q13-Sull-indissolubilit--del-matrimonio-e-il-di.html&title=The+Power+of+Grace&locale=en

St. John the Baptist would not have been put to death today. He would have said to Herod, "Let's go see the marriage tribunal and get this all worked out."

Look at it from a different perspective. Indeed there is a penance with the annulment process. First the husband and wife have to admit to a priest that they are failing or had failed, They have to confess that they used poor judgement. They have to shamefully give names of people who will confirm that they gravely erred. No penance?? Maybe its not formally called penance, but in fact it truly is. With God's grace they will be repentant and become a better person. Much depends on their motives and the loving spiritual direction of their pastor.

Well, the following section may not sit well with our Orthodox brethren:

As I mentioned on another forum, the CDF has a very interesting take on history, as well as a penchant for working backwards from its conclusion to find a justification. I can just imagine what Archimandrite Robert Taft is saying at this very moment, especially in light of the reality that the Greek Catholic Churches employed the Orthodox nomocanons regarding marriage right down to (and in some cases past) the promulgation of the first unified Code of Canons in 1917.

In other words, CDF is full of it and can get stuffed. Oh, wait--that's what Father Robert is saying, through probably in suitably refined Jesuit vocabulary.

Sigh...

I have some thoughts, they are not kind regarding the Church of Rome and I shall keep them to myself. But as the French say, 'Plus ca change....'

Sigh again.

Quite correct.

The GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE in the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek
Orthoodx Church in America

oOo-

Grounds for divorce in the Russian Church

adultery and a new marriage of one of the parties
a spouse's falling away from Orthodoxy,
perversion,
impotence which had set in before marriage or was self-inflicted,
contraction of leprosy or syphilis,
prolonged disappearance,
conviction with disfranchisement,
encroachment on the life or health of the spouse,
love affair with a daughter in law,
profiting from marriage,
profiting by the spouse's indecencies,
incurable mental disease,
malevolent abandonment of the spouse,
chronic alcoholism or drug-addiction,
abortion without the husband's consent.

See the 2000 Synodal document
"BASES OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH"
http://3saints.com/ustav_mp_russ_english.html


Grounds for divorce in the Greek Orthodox Church in America

one or both parties is guilty of adultery.
one party is proven to be mad, insane or suffers from a social disease which
was not disclosed to the spouse prior to the marriage.
one party has conspired against the life of the spouse.
one party is imprisoned for more than seven years.
one party abandons the other for more than three years without approval.
one partner should be absent from home without the other's approval, except
in in stances when the latter is assured that such absence is due to
psycho-neurotic illness.
one partner forces the other to engage in illicit affairs with others.
one partner does not fulfill the responsibilities of marriage, or when it is
medically proven that one party is physically impotent or as the result of a
social venereal disease.
one partner is an addict, thereby creating undue economic hardship.

http://www.saintdemetrios.com/OurFaith/Divorce.dsp

Frankly I don't think the Catholic Church could cope with 300 million Orthodox Christians joining them and insisting on their rights to divorce and a second sacramental marriage as well as non-abortive contraception. Their system could go into meltdown as their own people begin to demand the same prerogatives.

The canons permitting divorce and a second sacramental marriage for Eastern Catholics were promulgated in the 6th century, simply putting on paper existing practice. The majority of Catholic bishops observed these canons – the majority of Catholics during this period were Eastern Catholics and not Western Catholics. In the West roughly 3 out of 10 were Catholics. In the East it was more like 7 out of 10. Christianisation of the Empire had proceeded more rapidly in the East.

We often forget that divorce and remarriage was allowed right up to the southern gates of Rome itself. Southern Italy was comprised of Byzantine provinces ruled from Constantinople and under the ecclesiastical authority of the Patriarch, until the Normans arrived and took the territory. There is no record of any Pope ever complaining about divorce and remarriage which was the majority practice in his Church and among his bishops for 600 plus years.

Once again, Father Ambrose, I remind you that the Rite of Remarriage is NOT sacramental. Orthodoxy believes in one sacramental marriage per lifetime. And, please, don't give me a line about what your bishop says. I can point to abuses going way back into Russian history. The norm is the norm, Or, to put it another way, go look at the text of the rite itself--it is NOT sacramental, on its face.

And try to remember that things which were not an issue in the first millennium cannot be made into an issue in the third.

But that is an outstandingly mischievous claim. A second marriage is certainly one of the Holy Mysteries. The Rite of a second marriage is most certainly a Holy Mystery. Have you actually read the Service?

As a priest I would rather die than perform a church blessing of fornication and sex outside a sacramental marriage.

Perhaps it is the case that Byzantine Catholics have adopted Roman theology in this area?

Pick up a service book. You will see that the Rite of Crowning is identical in both instances. The difference is not in the marriage ceremony but in the preceding Rite of Betrothal where the repetitive prayer of "Bless them, O Lord our God..." is omitted and replaced with two penitential prayers.

You may be right! During the first millennium the majority of Catholics "enjoyed" the right of divorce and a sacramental second marriage, under the authority of the successor of Saint Peter. The question emerges... why the prohibition in the third millennium?

I see that Vatican Insider is keeping alive the possibility that there could be changes ahead

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...zio-divorce-chiesa-iglesia-church-28418/

"Behind the scenes the Holy See is urging caution over the issue of communion for remarried divorcees as it is one of the subjects that is being addressed by the Pope’s Council of Cardinals - the “G8” -, ahead of the Synod of Bishops on pastoral care of the family and there could be surprises on the horizon."

I'm sorry, Father, but I am just flabbergasted that you could possibly be so ignorant of your own Tradition. I hope that ignorance continues, though, because I would not want you to die.

I invite you to seek enlightenment by contacting any Orthodox bishop and enquiring whether our second marriages are a Holy Mystery or not.
I do not understand what you want to say.

Here is Fr Ambrose (Alexey) Young correcting a young convert who, like you, was adamantly claiming that Orthodox second marriages are not sacramental....

"Fr. Seraphim [Rose] and my seminary studies taught me that a second marriage is fully sacramental. And this within the context of the ultra conservative Russian Church Abroad!

"Just because divorce and remarriage were discouraged by the Fathers--and by the way still are discouraged today--doesn't mean that they are always forbidden under every circumstance, or that the original marriage is indissoluble. Your conclusions are incorrect, as is your premise."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/34076

Again, from Fr Ambrose (Alexey) Young.....

“What on earth? In my 30+ years as an Orthodox priest I have never heard of a second marriage that was considered non-sacramental. This idea is peculiar. --Fr. A”


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/33317

^ Re: Father Ambrose: +1

That article is from October 8 and it is actually the Vatican pouring cold water on the idea (circulating after one of the Pope's interviews and expanded by a minor diocesan official in Freiburg) about for changes saying that there isn't one and wouldn't be any such big moves until after the synod meeting.

Vatican Insider than tries to keep alive the possibility, at the end for whatever reason, but the essay by Cardinal Mueller in today's L'Osservatore Romano will pour yet more cold water on the idea of any big change.

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Are you sure about this? I recall reading something a while back (I think it was from Fr. Meyendorff(?)) stating that the Church did not regularly grant divorces until the 10th century. There's probably sparse examples before that time, but it might be too extreme to claim that this was any kind of norm prior to the 10th century.

Humbly,
Marduk

The Church did not grant divorces or even perform remarriages before the 10th century, because it relied upon the civil authorities to address those aspects of marriage. But, when the Emperor Leo VI ("The Wise"!) abolished civil marriage (after his notorious "quadrogomy"), and made the Church responsible for all aspects of marriage, it became necessary to address the issue of broken marriages and remarriage.

Previously the Church simply allowed those who divorced or were widowed and who wished to remarry to avail themselves of a civil union, and then sought to reintegrate those people into the Body of Christ (for even remarriage after being widowed was considered adultery), through prayer, fasting, and abstention from the Eucharist (two years for a second marriage, five for a third, with fourth marriages prohibited--"this is a swinish life", according to Basil the Great).

Afterwards, in order to protect its believe in the indissoluability of marriage as a sacrament that perdures beyond the grave, the Church developed a non-sacramental Rite of Remarriage, which was nothing more than a civil union plus the penitential prayers that had previously been used to reconcile remarried couples with the Church.

The Church also had to issue bills of divorcement, since there was no other authority that could do so, and it limited the reasons for divorce to adultery, cruelty, abandonment, insanity and --interestingly--treason (by divorcing her husband, a woman could protect her dowry and her children's inheritance, otherwise forfeit to the state). All divorces had to be for cause; irreconcilable differences was not acceptable, and only the innocent party would be given permission to remarry. If a couple colluded to obtain a divorce, e.g., if a husband moved to another village so his wife could claim abandonment, then neither partner would be permitted to remarry.

From the OCA's Guidelines for Clergy:


As a matter of oikonomia, then, the OCA allows the use of the Rite of Crowning, i.e. the sacramental form, if only one party is divorced or widowed--presumably out of consideration for the other party. But if both parties are either divorced and/or widowed, then the non-sacramenta Rite of Second Marriage is employed.

Maybe it's different in different EO jurisdictions? I've often heard that in a Second Marriage, the person who is contracting a second marriage does not receive a crown (while if one of the parties is entering their first marriage, that person will receive a crown). So is it true that the Rite of Crowning is exactly identical in both Marriages?

Also (IIRC), the marriage rite for second marriages in the Eastern Church as developed in the 10th century excluded the Eucharistic celebration. The Eucharist is what empowers the Sacramental character of the Marriage in the Eastern Tradition (from what I've READ, so please correct me if I'm wrong). So wouldn't the exclusion of the Eucharist from the rite of second marriage be an indicator that a second marriage is (at least Traditionally) not considered a Sacrament?

Maybe there has been a development on the matter in certain EO jurisdictions, but perhaps the Tradition is actually that the second marriage is not considered a Sacrament? OR maybe this was only the case if BOTH couples were contracting a second marriage, but it would remain a Sacrament if at least one of the couples was contracting a first Marriage?

Just throwing out questions that I hope you can answer.

Humbly,
Marduk

P.S. I've never gone through a second marriage myself, and have never even attended one in the Coptic Orthodox Church, but I've been told by others that in the CO second marriage rite, it is the blessing of Matrimony that is omitted, not the blessing of Betrothal.

Armenian Apostolic scholar Vigan Guroian briefly summarized the matter in an essay in Touchstone, Let No Man Join Together [touchstonemag.com]

The classic Service Book of the Holy Orthodox Church [ia700409.us.archive.org] by Hapgood gives the Order of Second Marriage on pp.303-

After the standard betrothal, the marriage service per se begins with this prayer:


The penitential tone of the service is established at its beginning, and continues throughout:


As there is no crowning, no dance of Isaiah, and no sharing of the common cup, the non-sacramental nature of the service is duly recognized.

Some Orthodox jurisdictions, under pressure from the laity to broaden the scope for sacramental marriages, may have compromised upon the Tradition, but the Tradition remains the norm, and deviations therefrom must be duly noted as such.