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

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