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

LT,

My point remains. The East and West have differing views on the Sacrament of Marriage and divorce/nullity and remarriage. It is beyond me to reconcile them.

I do not buy the Latin line that porneia does not mean adultery. I have heard the arguements and they are not compelling. The early Church always considered it so. This is born out by the canons.

I think in this area the Latin Church is overly legalistic. The Eastern Churches are more pastoral and in my opinion correct.

That you choose to reduce the Archbishop's arguement to sex is unfortunate and misses the point. Permanent celibacy is a gift and should never be a mandate. A wronged spouse should not be forced into celibacy because it makes Latin canonists feel better. That one gets married should be proof that God has not given the gift of celibacy. That the Latin Church turns its back on the abandoned spouses who remarry is a scandal to the Eastern Church. Archbishop Elias' point is that of course to remain celiabte is the way of perfection but not all are capable. In mercy the Eastern Church condscends to weakness in order to save the individual by an act of economy.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Father Subdeacon Lance in Christ,

The Catholic Church turns its back on abandoned spouses who "re"marry? Of course not. The Church does not turn its back on them any more than the Church turns its back on those who have abortions, or those who have homosexual relationships. Those who choose to disregard the Church's teaching have turned their backs on Christ--not vice versa.

Lance wrote:
The early Church always considered it so. This is born out by the canons.

Not true. The early Church allowed separation from bed and board on grounds of adultery--but never a second marriage while the original spouse was alive. This is borne out by Hermas.

"Wronged" spouses are "forced" into celibacy? They are forced by circumstances, not by "Latin canonists." If your spouse takes off, you can't just pick up another spouse.

Pro-homosexuals offer the exact same argument--"how can you force us into celibacy?", they say. The answer is that homosexual relationships are against human nature and against God's law. Thus, if a man cannot marry a woman, he must be chaste, period. That is REALITY.

This "pastoral approach" nonsense has to stop. Giving people what they want is not more pastoral than giving them reality. Once you depart from the Church's teaching, you open up a Pandora's box. How far will one's dissent go? If it starts with second "marriages" for "wronged" spouses, will it proceed to "second marriages for people who are sick of their first marriages"? What about a lenient, "pastoral" approach to other evils like abortion and contraception? Certain Orthodox jurisdictions have gone so far as to allow abortion as a matter of principle in cases of rape and incest.

I stand with the Rock.

LatinTrad

Latin Trad,

You state: "Not true. The early Church allowed separation from bed and board on grounds of adultery--but never a second marriage while the original spouse was alive. This is borne out by Hermas."

It is true. The ancient Eastern Canons provide epitemia (prohibition from communion but not excommunication) of three to five years for those who have a second marriage in such circumstances. Also, Hermas is a Western writing that never carried any authority in the East.

As one entering the pastoral ministry, I believe in the "pastoral approach nonsense" as you put it. It has worked for the East for over 2000 years. The Orthodox Church is proof that economy in cases of wronged spouses works and does not lead down a slippery slope. Second marriages are not granted becasue one partner is sick of another but for quite specific reasons. Also the Orthodox Church does not condone either artificial birth control or abortion in cases of rape or incest. It simply does not automatically excommunicate those who fall and commit the above sins. There are also no automatic excommunications in the CCEO either as there are in the CIC.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Father Subdeacon Lance,

From the "Eastern" (we'll call it "Eastern" and not "Orthodox" for now) point of view, exactly what dissolves a marriage? If a husband abandons his wife, it is said that the Church can recognize this divorce (but the Church doesn't confect the divorce). Andew has stated this clearly:

How so? We are all guilty of sin. So, every time a spouse sins, the marriage is dissolved? Does the sin have to be a specific type (i.e., something sexually or maritally related) or can it be any type if sin that "dissolves" a marriage? Once/if the spouse who has sinned is sorrowful and penitent, is the marriage re-established?

How can sin conquer and destroy a sacrament?! What this is saying is that, through human errors and sinfulness, we can destroy a sacrament. On top of that, the idea that marriage can be dissolved because of the sinfulness of someone is very vague. If anything is rigid and legalistic, I'd say this is. We all sin. That basically means that, from the "Eastern" point of view, all marriages will be dissolved at one time or another- - -because everyone sins. And this is said without even knowing if the marriage can be somehow re-established! If it cannot, then the first time a spouse sins, his or her marriage is dissolved, apparently. If the marriage can be re-established, then it seems the relationship between the man and woman is in a constant state of change: one minute they're married, the next they're not...one minute this, one minute that. The questions above demand answers before this can be discussed further, IMHO.

I must echo LatinTrad in believing that is is quite un-pastoral and spiritually harmful to "change the rules," if you will, on reality. Part of the Church's role is to clearly make known what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, not to rearrange things so that something unacceptable and harmful is thus rendered "acceptable" and benign.

Logos Teen

Right on, TotIL.

Fr. Subdeacon Lance, I have not seen any "ancient canons" that agree with you--at least no canons that were accepted by the Church Universal.

It is interesting that Western patristic texts like Hermas (AD 150), and even St. Augustine, mean nothing to modern Easterners, while the West still accepts the entire Patristic patrimony, incl. the Cappadocians, Ephrem the Syrian, etc etc--texts that never reached the West in their own day.


LatinTrad

Friends,

I should make it clear that as a cleric I bow to the current practice of the Catholic Church. However, I think it is wrong to discount the ancient practice of the East and current practice of the Orthodox. I think these practices valid and that the Catholic Church should review its practice inlight of these. I have nothing to add to Archbishop Elias' comments. If he does not sway you, nothing I can say will. LT, if the West did not accept a canon or practice it is not valid?

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Father Subdeacon,

I had forgotten you were a cleric until you mentioned it. I apologize for addressing you by your first name in the post above. I'll change it immediately.

Logos Teen

Dear Brothers in Christ's Light,

Despite all the Latin hostility here, I have to say that I am agreed with Father Lance and Archbishop Elias Zoghby about Eastern Tradition on Ecclesiastical divorce. Its something that has been with the Eastern Churches (whether Chalcedonian or Nicean) since time immemorial. Yet, please understand, this does not mean that we "promote" divorce. It is viewed with great sadness and if the parties are married again, the service is pennitential.

I'm against divorce as many Eastern Christians are. I believe God hates divorce as the "Breath of God" clearly states. But He hates all sin, yet offers a path of reconcilliation to all. And this path, in the Eastern Churches, whether you Latin brethren like it or not, has always been along the lines of Archbishop Elias' discription. The more I study the Eastern Tradition, the more evident this becomes to me (although I didn't want to believe it at first).

And, by the way, remember Occidental and Oriental Churches remained in Communion for several centuries without this difference between them ever being a cause for rupture.

specific replies to Latin Trad:

Dear Latin Trad:

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 in many of its articles is very opposed to the Eastern Tradition. Its not at all an autority for us.

Since many (if not all) of the Fathers took the "Porneia" of Soorp Mateos (St. Mt.), chp. 5 and chp. 19 to mean "adultery," then so will I. This is inspite of the modern Roman Catholic apologists' arguments.

As far as the Eastern view being "heterodox" I don't think this is your perogitive to declare. Like I mentioned above, no Churches were excommunicated for this difference in the early Church. Therefore, I think the two views could be allowed today in a united Church. Yet this will be for Church leaders to decide when the day comes (Grant it, O Lord).

As far as Archbishop Elias' article. I agree with you the first paragraph is week. Although Father Lance did a nice job of strengthening and explaining it. I certainly would not have accepted Zoghby's argument or even presented his article if he had stopped there. You must read the entire article to get the full force of the Eastern argument. Otherwise, there's no sense commenting on it.

As far as your depicting this teaching as one of dissent, being novel and in accord with that of the homosexual lobby: you forget one thing, brother, this has been our approach all along. None of the consequences you mention have resulted from this fact. This teaching is neither, "novel" nor "dissenting." It is our consistent Tradition which fact is obvious when you study our Tradition (taking off the Latin lenses).

Now, to my Latin brethren, allow me to say this: I know this teaching is causing you all a lot of anxiety and stress as you think something sacred is being compromised here by our Traditional teaching. But we cannot deny the fact that this has always been the Eastern teaching. Whether you agree with it or not, doesn't matter. We cannot change history nor our Tradition. Eastern culture has not had the terrible social consequences that you all are claiming necessarily follows from our teaching. Perhaps just the reverse is the truth. Perhaps the Latin overly-strict interpretation of Christ's teaching, led Western culture to totally abandon any sacredness of marriage and the social circumstances we see in the West today (e.g. 50% divorce rates). This has never been the case in the East.

Let us remember, as Father Lance said so clearly and profoundly:

"As one entering the pastoral ministry, I believe in the "pastoral approach nonsense" as you put it. It has worked for the East for over 2000 years. The Orthodox Church is proof that economy in cases of wronged spouses works and does not lead down a slippery slope. Second marriages are not granted becasue one partner is sick of another but for quite specific reasons."

As far as which Church accepts which Fathers, I think you are overstating, Latin Trad. Did the Latin Church accept St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Constantia of Cyprus who, 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.� ? How about the many other examples given in the article and appendix by Archbishop Elias? These Fathers' teachings certainly were not accepted or endorsed in the West. Maybe they were at one time, but they are not today. Lets face it, we are dealing with two distinct ways Tradition was developed or at least interpreted. Neither of which is more valid than the other. Instead of attacking our Traditional teaching as "heterodox," why don't we work together to see where we are agreed?

These are some points I hope you all can consider,

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

Dear Teen,

In addition to my replies above to Latin Trad, I will try to address your questions.

As far as I know, I don't think there is a systematic, elaborate teaching in the East on this. I think it is a very simple teaching and practice which may do violence to your Western systematic minds which demand endless speculation about what if this or what if that.

The way I see it (I'm speaking for myself here and not for Eastern Tradition) the Fathers seem to teach, the very sin of adultery dissolves the union (see the quotes from the appendix to A.B. Zoghby's article). The Church having the authority of God, has the power to grant the innocent party the opportunity to re-marry and the power to forgive the guilty party if he/she she repents and seeks this forgiveness. The preferrable way would be for the couple to reconcile rather than seperate and re-marry. But this is dependent on repentance of the guilty party which is not always the case. In such a case, the innocent is not bound, he may re-marry.

I think the teaching of our Lord, "What God has joined together, let not man seperate" is thus understood differently by the East. This means the Church alone has the power to allow innocent parties to seperate and re-marry, not the civil government or any "man." Again, this is based on my reading of the Fathers.

I think a lot of Roman Catholic apologists through their zeal to defend the Latin teaching are guilty of being somewhat deceitful by being selective in the quoting of Patristic souces. This selectiveness leads many to believe that all the Fathers who spoke to the issue held the Latin view. Yet if you look a little further, you see that many of the same Fathers they quote (i.e. Catholic Answers), also say exactly the opposite of what the RC apologist would lead you to believe was their position. Such tactics are unnecessary and unbenificial to ecumenical dialogue b/t the Oriental and Occidental Churches.

As far as what other sins constitute the dissolving of the marriage, I think you are getting into Canonical legislation, which is out of my area of competence. I'm just dealing with the historical fact of the Eastern Churches approach which, again, is defended very well by Archbishop Elias Zoghby. As he shows, if you have a beef with the Eastern teaching on this, your beef is actually with the Eastern (and some Western) Fathers and the Eastern Tradition.

As far as "sin destroying a sacrament" this is your way of seeing it, not ours. Just as, becuase of old Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant, God had to establish a new covenant with a new Israel, a spouses' unfaithfulness allows for the establishment of a new marital covenant.

reply: There is no "change" going on here, nor is there any "re-arranging" going on. Again, read the article Father Lance has copied for us and see this is the Eastern unchanging approach.

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

That is my understanding, too. Justinian was the first to advance this idea--an emperor, not a Father. And even then, it was resisted by the Eastern Church. It wasn't until c. the 10th century and later, gaining momentum post-Schism, that the Eastern Church began to justify divorce/remarriage for a multiplicity of reasons--some of which, BTW, have only the most tenuous connection with adultery.

IMHO, this is not a Mysterious Eastern Mindset vs. Legalistic Western Mindset Thing. "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Jesus said it; I didn't. Those who justify divorce/remarriage will have to take it up with Jesus.

Blessings,

ZT

Amen, LT.

What Fr. Subdeacon Lance and Wm. Ghazar are advancing is Situation Ethics, pure and simple. Far from being the Eastern Tradition from Time Immemorial, it is precisely the sort of ear-ticking stuff that appeals to us decadent contemporary Westerners.

One can't justify absolutely anything simply by claiming it's the Inscrutable Eastern Way, which we Dumb-Cluck Latins can't possibly understand.

I am getting so tired of that reasoning!

Truth is Truth. "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" means the same thing in every linguistic and cultural context--including an Eastern context. After all, it was first uttered in an Eastern context. And the apostles sure seemed to figure out what it meant! Which is not surprising, since all you need to figure out what it means is a modicum of common sense. After all, it's a pretty darned straightforward statement.

Blessings,

ZT, wondering which NT verse says "it's OK to divorce and remarry as long as you're penitential about it"...if Jesus said that, I must have missed it :p

This modern Latin claim is already answered by Archbishop Elias' article. I encourage all to read it before they attack the Eastern position.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Ghazar

p.s. If you find the article too long for your tastes, I could locate the quote for you which speaks to the above comment

reply: You know what Zoe? it is precisely this above tone that gets you the kind of responses you often receive. You could understand our view if you made an honest effort at it. But instead its the same old story: if the Eastern view doesn't agree with the Latin, then the Eastern view has to be wrong. I don't have time for your inconsiderate accusations and feeble attempts to stigmatize our historic teachings as morally lax and lacking.

reply:
Yes, so is "except for adultery" as many Fathers clearly interpreted this verse. I'm very content to follow their lead dispite your rude accusations and arrogant charges.


reply: see above.

Dear Dr. Ghazar:

I am not saying that the Eastern view is wrong. I am saying that the current Orthodox view is wrong. And I am saying that, IMHO, your contention that this has always been the Eastern view "from time immemorial" is also wrong.

It is most certainly not the Catholic (read: Universal) view...so if you represent it as "our historic teachings," i.e., as the Eastern Catholic view, then, IMHO, you are misrepresenting Eastern Catholicism. Doesn't Eastern Catholicism have anything to do with adherence to the Universal Faith of those churches in communion with Rome? Or is it really just a satellite of Orthodoxy, as your posts seem to suggest? I would contend that it is indeed supposed to adhere to the Universal Catholic Faith (albeit with different liturgical/devotional/cultural expressions). This means Eastern Catholicism must accept the indissolubility of marriage--a doctrine which is de fide for all Catholics. If you insist otherwise, then IMHO the conclusion is inescapable: You are misrepresenting Eastern Catholicism. (In line with this, you are also forgetting to mention that Rome has most emphatically refused to endorse Abp. Zoghby's views....but apparently that doesn't matter, right?--since, according to your arguments, Eastern Catholicism doesn't kow-tow to Rome but only to Moscow and Constantinople!)

Bottom line, IMHO: Catholic Teaching on divorce/remarriage is not a matter of East vs. West. It is a matter of Our Lord's words versus sophistry.

If you can show me one single Dominical saying that explicitly allows for divorce/remarriage for up to 20 reasons under the aegis of "oikonomia," I'll eat my words. I'll also be very, very surprised.

I'll refrain from commenting on your personal insults.

God bless,

ZT

P.S. You still haven't explained one thing: If the Orthodox view of divorce/remarriage is supposedly so Inscrutably Eastern, then how come it also has the convenient advantage of appealing to selfish, self-indulgent Westerners? I know several U.S. ex-Catholics who were drawn to Orthodoxy precisely because it let them do that divorce/remarriage thing. And believe me, they're as American (NON-Eastern) in their cultural sensibility as one can possibly be.

If here Andrew is speaking of Romans 7, contextually, this passage is not applicable to marriage in an Orthodox Christian context. Romans 7 is speaking of (as is ALL of Romans!) Jewish law, the so called "law of the husband". He is making a parallelism to, especially, Jewish believers (or gentile believers who have been Judaized) that the law is dead to them and they are no longer bound to it, just as in Jewish law, the woman was no longer bound to her dead husband. But the Romans passage is not a teaching on Orthodox Christian marriage.

St. Paul only begrudgingly allows remarriage to widows in I Cor 7. In I Tim 5 he encourages younger widows to remarry for the sake of avoiding a possible scandal.

Priest Thomas

reply: If I have insulted you personally, I am sorry. I tried to only speak to your manner of posting which I find to be rather sarcastic, rude and arrogant in its tone and claims. I would never want to insult anyone, especially a woman. In the future I will try harder not to show how your posts sound to me, since you think by doing this I am attempting to personally insult you. Sorry.

reply: This has already been demonstrated in this thread. You must have missed it. I'm sorry you did. Please read the article by Elias Zoghby which demonstrates historically Eastern Christians helds this view (several centuries before Justinian). You have not commented on this Patristic testimony. Btw, If the "Orthodox view is wrong" then so must be the Pope of Rome, H.H. John Paul II. Because he who said that he "listens to the East" also said that the East was an "authentic interpreter of the Tradition entrusted to them" (cf. Orientale Lumen).

reply: First of all what you speak of as being "Catholic and universal" many Eastern Catholics see to be "Latin" and "Western." Sure, we adhere to the same universal faith that East and West have always adhered too. Unfortunately, this is not of what you speak. Rather you seem to want us to hold to every Latin developement and theological position, or else we are not "Catholic." Many, if not most, Eastern Catholics would find this is unnacceptable. As far our being "satellites" of Orthodoxy within the Cathoilc Church, I kind of like that idea. It certainly flys in the face of what many Latins want us to be, i.e. satellites of Rome to the Orthodox.

reply: Perfect. This is exactly what Latins see us as: Roman Catholics who just have different "liturgical/devotional/cultural expressions." Most Latins couldn't care less that most Eastern Catholics find such an discription to be abhorrent. We certainly do not define ourselves this way. All this time you've been on this forum, I would really think that you would know this by now. That is, if you are really serious about respecting our Churches and heritage.

reply: The argument "from authority" is certainly the least persuasive. Usually people resort to this when their position is very weak. Besides, if you had read the article by Archbishop Zoghby you would've realised that he affirmed the indissolubility of marriage. But, I guess you aren't going to read. I don't even know why am I discussing this with you???

reply: Let me help you a little here. Forget Zoghby's views, just look at the historical data which is presented in his document. This has nothing to do with Archbishop Elias. So, please, don't get hung up on him.

reply: See how rude you are? And you wonder why you get insulted? After this, I'm done with you. All the data is there. You're not interested in even looking at it. You just want to continue riding on your Latin high-horse with your sarcastic statements. Oops. There I go again. Sorry. I need to bow out here. Btw, apparently you missed the fact that I am an Armenian Christian. Our Church does not defer to either of the Orthodox Sees you mention. Therefore, your insult is apparently misguided.

reply: We gave you one for one reason. And I gave you Fathers which corroborated our HISTORIC position. That's all that's necessary here.


reply: Nor will I because you are twisting my original point which was merely a suggestion not an argument. Nor have you commented on the clear patristic witness that directly contradicts your "Catholic" (read "Latin") position.

p.s. I find it interesting that you seem to have trouble calling me by one name. First I saw "Wm. Ghazar" now I see "Dr. Ghazar." What is your point here. I hope this last attempt to address me is not another manifestation of your sarcasm. If so, your "blessings" at the end of your posts are rather meaningless. From this point on, continue with the others. I'm sorry but you epitomize the Latin arrogance which helped bring about the schisms in the Church. I could assure you that if the Popes and the Latin Church's hierarchy still acted as arrogantly as you post, I would not be in communion with ANY OF THEM. Thanks God, this is not the case today.

Good grief. I meant no disrespect by calling yiou Dr. Ghazar. I thought that was your title...? I assumed you had a PhD or MD?

You are right...if this sort of misunderstanding is arising, then further discussion is pointless.

My apologies for having offended you.

I hope to continue this discussion with people who do not react to every counter-argument with the charge of "Latin arrogance."

ZT

More and more often we Eastern Catholics find ourselves caught between Latin and Orthodox arguments.I just want to learn more about MY eastern faith.

Dear Ghazar,

In keeping with my penchant for always staying on topic, I understand the Armenian Church divides the Psalter into eight sections.

Could you share this division with me?

Alex

Sorry - wildly off topic - Alex please e-mail or PM me !!

my apologies to all for this

Anhelyna

Dear Zoe,

How are you today? Are you ready for a comment from me?

Yes? O.K., here we go . . .

The Christian East did indeed allow for marital separations, annulments or whatever one would wish to call them when it was still in full communion with the West - and also allowed for remarriages in those cases.

Surely this is common knowledge? I've attended lectures on this topic given by RC theology profs here at the University of Toronto and this was mentioned matter-of-factly.

Rome never issued warnings to the East for this, nor did it threaten Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops with excommunication.

The West also had its ways of ending marriages, one of the more famous ones was, of course, having a spouse sent to a monastic community and tonsured there.

"Get thee to a nunnery" essentially was a way a Catholic man in the West got rid of a wife he no longer wished to have around, since monastic tonsure annulled all previous contracts etc. including marriages.

The Church could and did grant annulments which stated that the marriage never really existed in the first place.

I still don't see how any Latin Catholic here has answered my earlier question/charge about the annulment farce in North America.

Really traditional Latins condemn them as wrong, promoted by liberal laity, Bishops etc.

Others work around them by saying people don't take marriage seriously and so this results in grounds that can later lead to a valid annulment.

So Latins can have sex in marriage and later get an annulment on psychological and other grounds suggesting that they didn't take marriage seriously . . .

Also, your comment on Moscow is REALLY out of line.

Do you know about what happened to the Eastern Catholic Church in Eastern Europe in 1946?

Hmmmm?

I"ll compare our martyrs for the Catholic faith and the Papacy under communism with yours anyday.

It was the Roman Catholic Church, may I add, in the era of "ostpolitik" that kow-towed to the atheistic communist state of the USSR, my dear, keeping quite mum about the Eastern Catholics.

Thanks to John Paul II, that attitude was reversed. But he knew about what life under communism was like, unlike Western Catholic ecumenists.

Ultimately, I think you and other Latin traditionalists are barking up the wrong tree here.

For all its moral pronouncements against divorce and remarriage, the RC Church, in North America especially, is granting what can really only be called "church divorces" under the guise of "annulments." And then allowing remarriages.

It's a divorce by another name.

I have many RC acquaintances who have received Catholic divorces, oops, I mean "annulments" and are remarried.

I know the particulars of their annulments and while it isn't any of my business, I think the RC Church has truly compromised itself in this area of moral theology and praxis.

Again, what we have is the RC Church officially saying one thing on the one hand and then officially doing something else on the other.

Call me "naive" about the liberals infesting your Church or whatever.

If a Church doesn't practice what it preaches, there is a problem, don't you think?

So before anyone here comes after the Eastern Churches or Constantinople or what-not about their practices in this regard, take a good, long look in your own Latin backyard.

The RC Church of today is not only doing what the East has done - one could say it is going well beyond what the East has allowed in terms of annulment/ecclesial divorce and remarriage.

I can here foot-stamping already . . .

Alex

As a Coptic Orthodox, I am in the middle of it all.

1) As with the rest of Orthodoxy, we do believe that adultery can dissolve a marriage because one spouse has sought to join him/herself with another. However, the original marriage bond is not broken. If the offending party returns to the innocent spouse, no new marriage is necessary since it still and ALWAYS exists. However, I have recently been exposed to an argument put forth by Western Catholic apologists in response to Protestant apologetics on the issue of Matthew 5:31-32 which might change my mind. I will discuss this below, and I hope to get some input on it since it has not yet previously been discussed.

2) As with all of Christendom echoing God Almighty's injunction, we hate divorce.

3) As with Catholicism, we believe in the "Pauline privilege."

4) As with Western Catholicism, we do not believe that abuse, future disinterest, illness, etc. are sufficient grounds for any divorce.

5) As with Catholicism, we believe in the legitimate soundness of the principle of "nullity." I do not agree with some Easterns here that the nullification of marriage is nothing more than a dressed up ecclesiastical divorce. The very theological principle behind nullity is different from ecclesiastical divorce. Ecclesiastical divorce is based on the principle that God has granted the keys to His Church, and by divine economy, the Church has the right to grant such divorces (one has said that the Eastern Church only "recognizes" divorces, but this is incompatible with an appeal to the power to bind and loose). In distinction, a declaration of nullity is based on the principle that marriage binds a man and woman by the indissoluble power of the Holy Spirit. If a marriage is invalid, it can only mean that a marriage never existed - that the Holy Spirit was not active in the marriage.

This is a difference between the Eastern Orthodox concept of marriage, the Coptic Orthodox concept of marriage, and Western Catholic concept of marriage. In our view, the priest (by calling on the Holy Spirit to seal the union as minister of God) AS WELL AS THE COUPLE (by virtue of their sacramental love) share an EQUAL responsibility in the validity of the marriage. In distinction, Eastern Orthodoxy seems to say that the priest has the PRIMARY if not SOLE hegemony in determining the validity of the marriage (by calling on the Holy Spirit to seal the union as minister of God). In Western Catholicism, the couple have the PRIMARY role in validating the marriage, with the priest having only a secondary role as witness of the Church. Thus, the principle of "nullity" is completely in line with Coptic Orthodox spirituality.

Now, I want to present what I have heard from Western Catholic apologists regarding the Matthean passages, and I would appreciate a thoughtful response (not like the name throwing between Easterns and Westerns that has been going on):

It has been proposed that since Matthew was written orginally in Hebrew, we must look at the passages in question from a Hebrew perspective. In the Jewish tradition, the marriage of two spouses begins NOT at the marriage ceremony, but DURING THE BETROTHAL. The marriage ceremony is only a ritual formality (though its importance should not be dismissed). Take for instance, the OT injunction that a fornicator is bound by God's laws to take the unmarried woman as a wife. Becoming the "wife" is the ceremonial aspect of the marriage. The two had ALREADY been joined by divine law by virtue of the sexual union.

Now, Western Catholic apologists have suggested that given this Jewish background, Matthew speaks of "porneia" not in the context of marriage as the West or the modern world understands it. Rather, the porneia had to occur during the BETROTHAL stage. Being unfaithful to the betrothal is just as much an instance of "porneia" as being unfaithful after the actual pronouncement of the words "man and wife."

On its own, this might seem to be nothing more than another interpretation. However, this is where the actual scriptural context comes into play. Western Catholic apologists immediately point to the following verse (v.32) to solidify, if not actually determine, the true meaning of this passage. Verse 32 uses the word "adultery." W.Cath. apologists have (ingeniously, IMHO) pointed out that verse 31 uses a different word - that is, "fornication." If the holy writers of Sacred Scripture intended verse 31 as unfaithfulness IN MARRIAGE, then they would have use the word "adultery." But they did not. This means that in verse 31, the state of marriage was not intended, but only the state of betrothal. In the state of betrothal, unfaithfulness can still occur, and in this instance, the "wife" can be "put away." In fact, THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SITUATION IN WHICH MARY AND JOSEPH FOUND THEMSELVES. Joseph thought that Mary in their betrothed state was unfaithful to him, and he deemed it necessary to "put her away quietly."

It is also highly important to note that in verse 32, one who divorces a divorced woman COMMITS ADULTERY. Now, if verse 31 is intended to mean that the MARRIAGE has been dissolved by virtue of infidelity, why is it that in verse 32, a person who marries a "divorced" woman COMMITS ADULTERY? One can only commit adultery if the woman that was "divorced" was STILL MARRIED IN GOD'S EYES.

There is something else that needs to be considered. There is no word that differentiates "woman" from "wife" in Hebrew or Greek. I think it is simply an unfortunate misunderstanding that verse 31 uses the word "wife." That denotes a married state. In fact, given the entire context of the two passages, the word for "wife" could, and SHOULD, be interpreted to mean only "woman" - as in a woman betrothed.

This cannot be looked at as a disparagement of the Eastern Fathers who interpreted Matthew 5:31 as a state of marriage. The Fathers were not inspired, nor are the Fathers individually infallible. We must give heed to the Scriptures where there is a disagreement among the Fathers. Can we agree on this principle?

I think it was the Catholic Council of Trent who proposed that the only things that can be accorded infallibility from the Fathers are in those instances where there is a clear unanimity of belief regarding an interpretation of Scripture. Perhaps we can all learn from that exhortation. Let us not say, "the East is right, and the West is wrong," or "the West is wrong, and the East is right." Rather, we should give heed, where there is disagreement, to the Scriptures.

Unless someone here can show me a kink in what I have read from Western Catholic apologists, I can only submit to the wisdom of Scripture and adhere to the Western Catholic understanding of this issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

The teaching of the Fathers is indeed inspired and does not contradict Scripture - just as the teaching of the Councils is inspired, as are the Canons and Dogmatic definitions and Creeds.

And we can agree that divorce is something that is condemned by all.

The betrothal part of the marriage tradition of Judaism was really, in every way, as valid a union as was the marriage itself.

Joseph's betrothal to the Most Holy Mother of God was already a union that bound him to look after her.

In my Church we used to have the ceremony of Betrothal (which is now part of the wider Mystery of Crowning) and it was done in church and certainly does imply that a union has been achieved, although it does not mean that sexual relations may be had as a result.

The point is that our Lord Himself appears to have made allowance for separation on the grounds of adultery (we're not talking about remarriage, just separation).

And the fact is that the Church is also charged with the responsibility to "bind and loose" also implies that our Lord has left such in the hands of the Church.

The Western Church does indeed declare "annulments" of marriages on the basis of facts presented to local bishops and their tribunals.

And the Western Church does indeed use its ecclesial authority in these matters on the basis of what is presented before it, psychological evidence and the like to determine if a marriage ever took place in the first instance.

So the Western Church does not limit its judgements in the thousands of "annulments" that it grants yearly in North America to the words of Christ or those of the Fathers.

If it did, I don't think we'd see that many annulments . . .

Alex

Dear Alex:

I have no time now to comment fully on your response. But two things come to mind:

(1) I am NOT a "Latin Traditionalist." I am simply a middle-of-the-road Catholic layperson who attends a Novus Ordo Mass, obeys the Magisterium, and would be very interested in the Byzantine Rite were I not so thoroughly turned off by the sneering anti-Latinism rampant on this board.

(2) The current annulment situation in America is a scandal and an abuse; it's certainly not normative. You're perfectly correct--those tribunals that abuse the annulment process are not heeding Christ or the Fathers. But this is an abuse, Alex. We shouldn't draw therefrom the conclusion that it's OK not to heed Christ or the Fathers! Rather, we should clean up our act re annulments, because someday we'll be before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and He'll want to know why we didn't heed His clear command. This applies as much to us Catholics as to the Orthodox. (However, I would still note that -- given authoritative Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage -- even with all the abuses in praxis, there are still far, far, far fewer annulments than there are divorces.)

(2) I am well aware, as I've already noted, of pre-Schism Eastern tolerance for divorce/remarriage. But as I also already noted, this was basically introduced by the secular authority (the emperors), not by Early Church Fathers. It was only later--c. 10th century and onward--that Eastern patriarchs started jumping on the bandwagon. And IIRC, this unfortunate development was the sad result of caesaropapism. As LatinTrad has pointed out, we are not making this up! There are reputable historians aplenty who'll bear out these claims.

Alex, please give me a break here. Look at Our Lord's words. I don't care whether one is Eastern, Western, or whatever: There is no way that Our Lord's words can be twisted into such a pretzel as to be made to mean: "Go ahead and get divorced/remarried up to three times for up to 20 reasons--as long as you're penitential about it."

As I said earlier (perhaps too bluntly, but I don't know how else to say it, frankly), this isn't a matter of East versus West. This is a matter of Christ's own words versus sophistry and casuistry.

You don't have to be a "Latin Traditionalist" to see this. IMHO, it's a matter of common sense.

Blessings,

ZT

Dear Zoe,

I'm sorry if I sound hard on you or Latins in general.

It just seems to me that some of our Latin posters are ganging up on the East, on Orthodoxy etc.

I agree with you and don't dispute our Lord's words.

But I'm trying to give the East a fair shake here in light of the practice of Western annulments.

Thousands of annulments are granted to Western Catholics officially by the West in North America - I don't know about other continents.

The numbers of annulments have skyrocketed.

I, for one, and perhaps I'm naive, you tell me, seem to have a problem with seeing such "annulments" as anything other than church-sanctioned divorce.

It is "divorce" by another name.

And I daresay the Orthodox Church isn't as quick to dissolve marriages as the RC Church seems to be these days.

Far from it.

There are Our Lord's words and those of the Fathers on this matter on the one hand, and then what the Church does on the other.

If you can help me see the consistency between the two, I'll be much in debt to you!

(If you think I'm being harsh, just tell me off. My wife does it to me all the time.)

Alex

I'm sorry to be blunt but one's love and interest in the Byzantine Church should not be subject to postings on an Internet Forum which tends to attract some of the more extreme opinions. :rolleyes:

Dear Brian,

Yes, I can't believe the extreme Anti-Latinism that sometimes rears its ugly head . . .

(why is my nose suddenly growing?)

Alex

Dear Friends,

Please accept my apologies when and if I, in any way, expressed "Anti-Latinism" in anything I posted here.

I should have known better than to want to defend the Orthodox Church (Alex, stop that!).

No, really, I should have been more circumspect.

I didn't like some overtly anti-Orthodox statements made here by those who are, shall we say, not Orthodox.

And if I expressed anger at those statements, and there are those who believe I was wrong in doing so, I refer you to Aquinas who believed it was a virtue to be angry in a just cause.

And to defend Orthodoxy from incomplete and therefore false slander here is, I believe, a just cause.

The positive side is that ecumenism is really sizzling when a Catholic can go to the mat for his Orthodox brothers and sisters, no?

Er, you know what I mean - I hope.

Alex

ZT,

You state:
"(2) I am well aware, as I've already noted, of pre-Schism Eastern tolerance for divorce/remarriage. But as I also already noted, this was basically introduced by the secular authority (the emperors), not by Early Church Fathers. It was only later--c. 10th century and onward--that Eastern patriarchs started jumping on the bandwagon. And IIRC, this unfortunate development was the sad result of caesaropapism. As LatinTrad has pointed out, we are not making this up! There are reputable historians aplenty who'll bear out these claims."

You bring this claim out again and again yet it is a false statement, although it is bandied about a lot by Latin apologists. Archbishop Elias illustrates this and you choose to ignore it. Any cursory reading of the Eastern Fathers and the Canons of the Eastern Churches of their era show this. That Latin apologists take differing statements out of context and recaste them to suit their claims does not mean a thing.

I will say this, like William, I approached this issue with a bias for the Latin understanding. The Orthodox through seperation from Rome has allowed an error to enter, I thought. But then instead of listening to Latin apologetics, I researched the issue for myself and was forced to recognize that the East had always taught this, therefore I am obliged to defend it. And now that I am preparing for ordination I am forced to look at the pastoral application of the Latin and Eastern systems and am again obliged to recognize the pastoral superiority of the Eastern with in the Eastern theology of marriage.

You see, as Marduk points out, there is no possibilty of a declaration of nullity in the Byzatnine Church, or at least there should not be if we are being consistent. If the priest blesses the marriage it is a valid marriage period. No going back and trying to figure out mental states and ability to consent. Our sacramental theology demands a different approach.

I agree that Our Lord disallowed divorce. But he also gave the Church the power to bind and to loose. The Church has the right to intervene for an abandoned/wronged spouse. East and West have formulated different ways of doing this.

Please understand I am not advocating an Eastern Catholic disregard the system we are currently under, but I, like Archbishop Elias, do call on the Church Hierarchy to review the situation in light of Eastern practice.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

But Alex, I'm not defending the contemporary annulment system! Au contraire--I have decried the excessive use of annulments as a scandalous abuse.

OTOH, I would say annulments are definitely not "Catholic Divorce" because:

(a) The overuse of annulments is an abuse in praxis, not in doxy. Our theology is rock-solid, but we're messing up in practice! Such a situation can be corrected: You crack down on the abuses. But when a communion's theology allows for divorce/remarriage for up to three times and for up to 20 reasons, then it's a whole lot harder to reform that situation. The communion actually has to do a massive paradigm shift and change its moral theology in order to bring it back in line with Our Lord's command. That's a tall order...and frankly, I don't see it happening in EOxy anytime soon.

(b) Even with all the abuses in the Catholic tribunal system--abuses that I hope will be reformed soon--even with all the abuses, it remains true that the number of annulments granted yearly pales in comparison with the number of divorces. If annulments were really "Catholic Divorce," then there would be a heck of a lot more of them, IOW. (And that's in the current climate of abuse of the system.)

(c) I appreciate your concern to defend our Orthodox brethren against unjust charges. But is my observation that the Orthodox are wrong on divorce really an unjust charge? Ecumenism doesn't mean glossing over our very real differences or seeing our two communions as completely equivalent or identical. If Orthodoxy were "just as right" about everything as Catholicism is, then there would be no compelling reason to be Catholic rather than Orthodox. In fact, I believe that there are some things Orthodoxy is seriously wrong about--the papacy, divorce, and contraception, to name three biggies--and that's why I'm Catholic. Two contradictory statements can't both be true...so there comes a point where you have to choose. If you choose FOR Catholicism, then that means you are (inevitably) choosing AGAINST Orthodoxy...and especially against those aspects of Orthodoxy which are in flat contradiction to the counterpart teachings in Catholicism.

As a Catholic, I can endorse much of Orthodoxy--after all, there are far more similarities than differences. But there [i[]are[/i] differences--and those of us in communion with Rome must choose the Catholic "side" in these disputed areas, if we are to be Catholic in any recognizable sense.

Believe me, our Orthodox brethren understand this point. They have no problem whatsoever telling us where they think we're wrong! Moreover, they don't define "ecumenism" as meaning that they must agree with absolutely everything we Catholics say, even at the expense of the Orthodox POV. Can you even imagine such a thing?

It seems so ironical that ECs bend over backward to accommodate EOxy--even jettisoning Catholic distinctives in the process, sometimes--while the Orthodox folks they're courting would never dream of extending them the same "courtesy." And I hafta say--I think the Orthodox are quite right not to "give away the store" this way. However, the flip side of this is--we shouldn't be giving away the store either!

Lastly, while your ecumenism is sizzling, do you think you could extend a little of it to your Catholic brethren? Please try to see the rationale for our beliefs and practices, too...rather than slamming us for annulments whilst justifying the Orthodox on the divorce issue. Thanks much!

And my own sincere apologies for having offended you (and others) on this board with my bluntness, rudeness, etc.

Blessings and back to work....

ZT

Dear SubDeacon Lance,

Yes, this is exactly what I find consistent in the Orthodox position - and inconsistent in the modern RC position.

I don't understand the RC view that one can go back and try to figure out psychological states, attitudes before the marriage ceremony took place and then presume to pronounce that a marriage was non-existent, "and now you can go marry others."

That really does seem to be dishonest or, at best, "borderline hokey."

The "binding and loosing" authority of the Church is applied here and that is AS AUTHORITATIVE as the Scriptures and Tradition, in Catholic understanding.

Am I not correct? (You are the one with all the seminary training, Big Guy).

So the modern Roman Catholic Church does indeed allow for an "ecclesial divorce" which it calls "annulment" to assert that it is not circumventing its doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage etc.

In Canadian hockey, I believe that is called "fast-sticking."

And I believe that the Eastern Church's historic practice in this regard is at least more honest in its approach than that of the modern RC Church.

The "Error of the Latins" here is that they are taking things not only out of context, but also they choose to ignore the fact that their Church does apply its power of "binding and loosing" to situations of marital breakdown.

And so does the Eastern Church.

My final point is that there is no room for smugness on the part of our dear Latin friends on this score as a result.

Alex

Dear Zoe,

How are you today, dear lady?

I don't dispute much of what you say.

For us EC's, the Orthodox tradition IS in fact our tradition - we have just brought it into communion with Rome. Nothing that is Orthodox is alien to us, not the spiritual, liturgical, theological traditions and culture, not most of anything.

The fact is that the marriage practices were in place in the East even when it was in communion with the West. That is a fact.

And I'm not accusing you of agreeing with modern RC practice over annulments.

I'm only accusing you of not taking into consideration the fact that the RC Church does indeed exercise its power of "binding and loosing" in the case of marriages, in the case of priests who are laicized, in the case of monastics etc.

So this is how I see things in a nutshell:

The RC Church grants annulments to those married couples where the marriage broke down on the basis of "attitudes" and "views" that the couples say existed before they were married - and the RC Church believes them.

The Orthodox Church dissolves marriages that have broken down without trying to justify itself on the basis of attitudes and views the couples say existed before they were married.

In either case, it has nothing to do with Scripture or Tradition in any event.

It has everything to do with binding and loosing.

I'm just saying that modern RC official praxis is more "loose" when it comes to undoing the "binding."

Alex

Dear Alex,

I love your posts and the way you philosophize, as well as the way you lovingly, clearly, simply and intellectually explain things!

GREAT post!

You have definitely been blessed with a special 'charism' my friend!

Please continue to share it with us on this forum.

Hope that all else is well with you and yours.

With much respect,
Alice

Dear Alice,

Thank you for your kindness!

This reminds me of some lines from the movie, "Blackrobe," when some Indians were upset with the Jesuit Father La Forgue.

Father then replied, "Why should they be upset with me? I told them the truth . . ."



God bless, Orthodox Catholic Sister in Christ!

Alex

I'm fine, thanks, except for that sore spot on my head where I've been banging it against the wall. :p

I think we're talking past each other, dear Alex. And not getting very far as a result.

If ECs follow the "Orthdox tradition" on divorce/remarriage, then God help 'em. Because that "tradition" is (to put it bluntly) not of God but of man.

And as for RC loosey-goosey praxis re annulments--this is NOT a good thing either. I look forward to the day (soon, I hope) when our praxis will be brought back in line with our doxy on this score.

Our Lord's teaching on divorce is a "hard saying." Hard as the wood of the Cross. But that's just the way it is. We can soften it to accommodate "the world." Or we can remain faithful to Our Lord's command without excuses or compromise.

As for me and my house, I choose Our Lord's command. And so does the Catholic Magisterium--which I always thought was part of EC Tradition, too, but hey, what do I know?

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. Brian, I agree that I should not draw too many conclusions from Internet debate. But when folks on this board persistently represent something that's against Catholic teaching as "the EC Way"...well, what am I to think? Are they right, or are they wrong? Is
I wish there were a handy Internet source giving the official EC position on such matters.....

ZT,

Please note I did not say this was the "EC Way". Our current praxis is the same as the Latin Church. What William and I are pointing out is that this goes against both our theology concerning the Mystery of Marriage and our historical practice. I am not advocating anyone disobey or malign current Church teaching, I am simply in favor of review as I do not think this can be said to be de fide considering the East and West have and do differ on this issue.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

I could not disagree more; sorry.

Serial divorce/remarriage has no part in "the Mystery of Marriage" -- not if we're going to be faithful to Christ, Who (last time I checked) was pretty darned Eastern Himself.

Catholic Teaching on the inidssolubility of valid sacramental marriage is not merely "current" teaching. It is Dominical Teaching and hence for all time--"Jesus Christ yesterday, today, and forever."

Some things don't change with the times. Truth is one of those things. If the East has tried to change Our Lord's clear teaching re marriage/divorce, then that is not some sort of alternative "mystery." It is a betrayal of the Truth. It is a Bad Thing. I don't know how to say it more strongly.

I hope and pray that y'all are misrepresenting the EC view here.

Blessings,

ZT

Dear Zoe,

You aren't really paying attention to Lance and so are making wrong assumptions about what he is saying.

Lance is affirming that we, as Catholics, are to obey our Church - period. And the fact that you disagree with previous Eastern Church practice in this regard, prior to the schism, doesn't take away from the fact that it existed.

In that case, the Church was using its powers of binding and loosing. As does the Latin Church today when it grants thousands of annulments to members of its flock and allows thousands of remarriages.

The point I've made time and again here is that talk is cheap. It is what the Latin Church actually DOES that indicates what it actually BELIEVES about this or that.

Your zeal and idealism are laudatory. But the Latin Church has only found ways to go around things in order to come up with what secular society already allows - divorce that it calls "annulment."

At one time in its history, the Latin Church could defend a very tightly defined system of allowing annulments. But today? It is really a joke.

As for the Latin Church annulment assembly-line in North America - yes, I join with you in the hope that the Latin Church's practice will one day mesh with what it believes.

Alex

The Eastern pre-schism practice and the current US/Canadian RC diocesan practice are similar then. I would not characterize them as excercizes of the Church's power to bind and loose, however--I would characterize them as departures from the teaching of Christ and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

I remind you that a whopping 95% of American annulments appealed to the Rota are overturned.

LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

The constant teaching of our Lord on binding and loosing is also quite clear.

I've yet to meet Latin Catholics, who have had their first marriages annulled, and are now living in their second, Church-sanctioned marriages, appeal their annulment decisions to Rome.

Perhaps if their second marriages don't work out?

Yes, the two Churches' practices are similar.

It is just that we in the East didn't have psychologists around in pre-schismatic days . . .

Pity . . .

Alex

It's a pity that we DO have them around now . . .

Dear LT,

(That sounds like a U.S. military term for "Lietenant" doesn't it? )

Yes, whoever let the psychologists into the Church should have his head examined . . .

Alex

The 2 snippets above seem contradictory. Not bashing you just wondering which is true. The first seems to indicate that if one's spouse dies then you can marry again w/ no problem. The latter seems to indicate that the marriage to the dead spouse somehow isn't over and they aren't free.

Please, Alex--condescension is uncalled for.

Yes, I have been paying attention to Lance. He says he goes along with current Church Teaching but hopes it can change to accommodate the "Eastern Tradition." But neither he nor you nor Wm. Ghazar has yet produced one iota of evidence to show that the ECFs, whether Eastern or Western, supported the unbiblical view that divorce/remarriage is OK as long as it's "penitential." You claim this Eastern tradition "existed" pre-Schism, but you don't bother producing any evidence. I say the Eastern Church didn't start tolerating divorce/remarriage until c. the 10th century--and especially after the 13th. IIRC, there's a book on Christian marriage through the ages, both East and West, called (appropriately) Christian Marriage: It's the definitive scholarly work on the subject, and it should settle this little historical dispute much better than your say-so versus mine can do!

Back to the topic at hand: Neither you nor Lance nor William has produced the slightest evidence that Catholic Teaching in this area is changeable. We cannot change Our Lord's command, period. The Orthodox attempt to do so slides inevitably into situation ethics, which is sheer casuistry.

Moreover, as I've said repeatedly (and I'm getting tired of making the point:()...you cannot posit a false equivalence between Orthodox tolerance for divorce and U.S. Catholic abuse of the annulment process. The two are qualitatively different. The latter is a lapse in praxis. The former is a violation of both orthodoxy and orthopraxis. This is substantively, qualitatively different...and more serious. (It also leads to far greater violation of praxis.)

I can see how it would be tempting to characterize annulments as "Catholic Divorce," but it's also facile and inaccurate.

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. BTW, the one person I know who tried to get an annulment--her former husband was a wife-beating dope addict--was turned down. Yup, it does happen. Even the abuses are less widespread than our critics claim, I suspect.

ZT,

You state:
"But neither he nor you nor Wm. Ghazar has yet produced one iota of evidence to show that the ECFs, whether Eastern or Western, supported the unbiblical view that divorce/remarriage is OK as long as it's "penitential." You claim this Eastern tradition "existed" pre-Schism, but you don't bother producing any evidence."

From THE FIRST CANONICAL EPISTLE OF OUR HOLY FATHER BASIL, ARCHBISHOP OF CAESAREA IN CAPPADOCIA TO AMPHILOCHIUS, BISHOP OF ICONIUM.
(about A.D. 370)

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.


And since you did not bother to read it the first time a repost these:

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, therefore, 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 marries 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 for 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 laws 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.�

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

[Thank you, LT, for your excellent analysis of the Patristic citations provided by Subdeacon Lance.

This issue has come up before in my message-board and private correspondence. On one occasion, my Orthodox (OCA) correspondent cited so-called "Basilian canons" supposedly permitting more laxity re divorce/remarriage. The sentence from St. Basil cited by Subdeacon Lance was supposedly among those "canons." At the time, I wrote to James Likoudis for his take. Here is his reply, drawn from the deepest recesses of my yahoo inbox. (Attention, all those who shoot down the messenger in order to avoid engaging the message: Please ignore the fact that this is from James Likoudis, Orthodoxy's favorite whipping-boy, and focus on the substance of what he's actually saying. Thank you, thank you, thank you! )

[quote]