www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Divorce and Apostolic Fathers

My Catholic-turned-Protestant friend says divorce is permitted by Jesus words about divorce in St Mathhew Chapter 5. Catholic teaching disagrees with my friend as does Jesus' teaching about divorce in St Mark's and St Luke's gospels.

A Catholic biblical commentary says the early church taught that marriage is indisoluable by authority of Christ's teaching about divorce.

Does anyone have the testimony of a few apostolic Fathers concerning the complete prohibition of divorce and remarriage?

Thank you for your help.

Christ is our peace.

Paul

Paul,

According to my notes on Mt 5:32 from my beloved Confraternity version,"But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife save on the account of immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery"."

#Unfaithfulness justifies separation from bed and board, but the bond of marriage remains unbroken.
This truth is clear enough from the conclusion of this verse, but still clearer in Mark 10:11-12;

" And he said to them, Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,(12)and if the wife puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery".

I can't locate exactly your request, but thought it may help.

james

james

Does it matter what the early Church Fathers or anybody say about divorce when Jesus Christ the Son of G-d was very clear about it and was very specific about it?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

It does matter to the extent that the writings of the Fathers and the words of the Councils are used in some Eastern Churches to countenance remarriage while a first spouse still lives.

In the early Church, two important issues were addressed: whether married couples can live separately if one should fall into sins against the marriage (and how the injured party should respond); and whether a widow or widower ought to remarry (called "digamy" - and the likely origin of the directive that the bishop should be "the husband of one wife". A Christian who remarried after the death of a spouse might be assumed to be marrying again because the "lusts of the flesh" were two strong to remain without a spouse -- such remarriages WERE treated as a cause for some embarrasment, and in some cases the couple was expected to refrain from Communion for some time and do penance, as I recall).

Some of these statements about "second marriages" (i.e, digamous ones) were later taken as evidence that the Fathers countenanced a second marriage while an original spouse still lived - thus the idea of divorce and "penitential remarriage". But the earlier rule was certainly that a married couple ought to live together, but that if they COULD not, the bishop (!) might give permission that they reside apart, each remaining without a new spouse so that they might be eventually reunited - and that, as our Lord said, anyone coupled to them in the meantime was a party to adultery.

References on request; I was in a debate years ago (on the Indiana list, I believe) on this very subject.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear James,

I think the core of the Protestant permission of divorce in certain cases is "account of immorality" which best I can tell is they interpret that as adultery of one of the parties in marriage.

The Greek word is "porniea" which is not Greek for adultery, but rather an incestuous relationship (cf. Leviticus) which would make the attempted marriage invalid. No divorce really takes place.

The church Fathers would show that, from the earliest church teachings, the proper interpretation of Jesus' so-called "exception" for divorce. This would make Matthew's account reconciled whth the absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage in Mark and Luke.

Thanks to all of you for your replies.

Keep 'em coming.

Paul

"But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife save on the account of immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery"."

Actually, the translation is wrong. It should read "even on the account of immorality, ..." because it was common in Jesus's time to divorce one's wife because of immorality.

What about Jesus' statement "Whatsover God has joined let no man put asunder.???

How many times must we re hash this so called Matthean exception clause. It is not exception at all.
Stephanos I

By failing to look at the historical biblical context of the Lord's words in Matthew one will inevitably fail to discern their meaning.

The Greek "pornea" is hardly limited to incest, but extends to all manner of sexual immorality.

It is important to remember that the exception is not for "immorality" but "sexual immorality."

If "pornea" meant only "incest," then one would not need a divorce from what never was a legitimate marriage. Thus the "annullment" of the West (try to find that one in scripture).

To wit: my good friend received an annullment because his wife was taking steroids in an attempt to avoid conceiving a child. She failed in her attempt. It helped that his brother was ordained by the Holy Father in Rome and that they are all members of Opus Dei. But where was the incest?

The East has never had such (annullment) because it took the Matthean exception at full value.

One may not divorce for "immorality;" i.e. because their spouse drinks too much or is lazy.

If one's spouse robs people in dark alleys or murders, then one ought to turn them in, assuming that he or she refuses to repent and take responsibility for his or her "immorality." For such serious crimes they might have been stoned (killed) and thus the marriage dissolved by the death of the perpetrator, but not by divorce.

[Please remember, one may always separate from a violent, abusive, addicted, or insane spouse in order to protect oneself and one's children. However, the desire and attempt must be there for eventual reconciliation.]

The exception for "sexual immorality" covers such: incest, rape, adultery, bestiality, sodomy, polygamy, a refusal to attempt a conjugal marital relationship, a refusal to attempt the procreation of children.

These are the pornea of the Gospel of Matthew.

Look in the canons and we find serious pennances/excommunications for engaging in these acts. These are the acts that may dissolve the marriage bond while both parties are living.

They were obvious to the people of God then (the Jews). They ought to be obvious to the people of God now (the Apostolic Churches).

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Stephnos I,

I'm certain that this topic has been discussed before on the Forum. However, my search of past posts turned up nothing.

For a faithful Catholic "no divorce" is a no brainer. Protestants operate "sola scriptura." In English, Jesus teaching (In Matthew) on divorce is easily misinterpreted. One must interpret His teaching using the original Greek.

Protestants lack the gift of a church that speaks with authority. When I talk to my Protestant friend I want to teach him from the scriptures that there are no exceptions for allowing divorce.

The testimony of the early church will show that, from its beginning, the church taught Jesus� doctrine of the indissolubility of a valid marriage.

It is for quotes on divorce from the Fathers (preferably Apostolic Fathers) that I am looking for.

Thank you for your patience.

Christ is our peace.

Paul

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have waited to see if anyone was going to do any posting on this subject. Since no one has, permit me to make some references:

"What then, sir," said I, "shall the husband do if the wife continue in this disposition [i.e., continue to commit adultery]?" "Let him divorce her," he said, "and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife [even in adultery] and marry another, he too commits adultery."
---from the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, Mand.6
(document dates from appr. 140/155)

"In regard to chastity, He has this to say: If anyone look with lust at a woman, has already before God committed adultery in his heart...and 'whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.' According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman."
St. Justin Martyr, FIRST APOLOGY
(document dates 144/155)

Tertullian does not agree with this,
but he is in a very small minority.

"But just as a woman is an adultress, even though she seem to be married to a man,while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does NOT marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her."
Origen, COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW
dated as after 244

"Likewise, a woman of the faith who has left an adulterous husband of the faith, and marries another: her so marrying is prohibited. If she ha so married, she may not receive communion--unless the bishop see that she has left him or he has since departed from this world, or except if, perchance, the necessity of illness urge that communion be given."
Council of Elvira, c.300, Can. 9

"Lest anyone think that he can circumvent the divine commands, these points are added in order to remove all occaison of chicanery or deceit: he is an adulterer, who married a woman divorced from her husband, or who divorced a wife on account of any crime except adultery, so that he he might marry another; for God did not wish the body to be broken and torn apart."
Lactantius, DIVINE INSTITUTIONS
document c. 304-310

It is my sincere hope that these are helpful to you.

(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

I have to catch a plane in a few minutes, and don't have my sources handy, but the Orthodox Church canons mandate divorce of priests or bishops if their wives committed adultery that was proven. If they did not divorce them, they could be deposed.

Gaudior, in haste

Dear Professor Thompson,

Thank You.

The quotations you posted are helpful. They are the kind I am looking for.

Christ is our peace.

Paul

The Professor's posts, when shown in conjunction with the liturgical and canonical traditions, demonstrate that the (Eastern) Church:

(A) accepts the possibility of divorce on the grounds of pornea (sexual immorality),

(B) establishing canonical penalties for those who divorce, except upon cause of pornea (sexual immorality),

(C) and, incredible to some, even insists upon divorce in the case of a clergyman whose wife is a proven adulteress [and with the implication that he wishes to continue to serve] (thank you Gaudior!),

(D) but at the same time looks upon the second or third marriage as a condescension to the fallen nature of man, a marriage ceremony without the crowning and allowed only with the hierarch's express permission,

(E) unless one party to the marriage is an member of the Church who has never been married before. In this case, out of deference to the party on his or her first marriage, a crowning is performed, according to longstanding practice.


I add the liturgical and canonical traditions to this very important discussion of the Patristic tradition on Divorce lest we forget that the liturgical and canonical traditions are the "creme de la creme" of the Patristic tradition. This approach came out of a private discussion with a learned member of this forum who questioned (in a very nice way) whether or not I had become a prisoner of a "sola scriptura and sola canona" viewpoint. I thought it over and realized what I have condensed above - "the creme de la creme" argument, if you will.

Were they not the fathers themselves who formulated the very canons and the liturgical principles, formulas, and norms that we have today?

For just one example, Holy Father Basil wrote numerous works and letters, but only selected passages and letters were chosen by the fathers of the ecumenical and lesser councils to be held as normative (canonical) for the Church.

This does not mean that Basil's great mass of other works and letters, by function of their exclusion, are deficient, but that the Councils allowed them to remain at the level of theologumena, while holding up a few others as disciplinary norms or even dogmata. Indeed, the fathers locked his liturgical formula, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, into our Lenten cycle!

So, in effect, the Patristic Tradition scrutized itself in picking the very best testimonies to the faith and called these Canons and Liturgy!

In Christ,
Andrew

I have read many canons on marriage and not one of them seems to UNEQUIVOCALLY allow for what we Orthodox do: permit second and even third marriages. Given the clear testimony, apart from these mentionings of second/third marriages, that any marriage after the first is adultery, the concession for second/third marriages in the canons seems to refer only to those cases when one of the spouses HAS DIED.

Can any one refer to any canons of the undivided Church that CLEARLY allow for second/third marriages when both spouses are STILL ALIVE?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

The Emporer who married a fourth time was clearly the abuser that caused establishment of the canon allowing no more than three marriages, in extremis. I do not believe that his first, second, and third wives had all died, but I could be wrong.

I'll look into it this evening.

In Christ,
Andrew