www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Remarriage after divorce

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the Orthodox Catholic Church there an Eclesiatical Divorce/Annulment is granted by the Bishop of the Diocese only. The reasons that a Divorce/Annulment may be permitted are: (1) Adultry of the other partner (2) Abandonment by one's spouse (3) legnthy or Life Prison Sentence (4) Homosexuality of the other partner (5) Refusal to consummate the marriage and/or the inability to produce children (6)Extreme Violence toward spouse (7) To permit both spouses to enter the monastic/religous life.

In all cases that I have seen only the agrieved spouse is allowed to remarry (i.e. the non-adulterous husband or wife. The Bishops encourage the coupel to work with their parish priests in counselling and confession to resolve the sin and reconcile rather than divorce. In the Orthodox Church, this may take years. Ecclesiatical Divorce/ Annulment is seen as a very serious action and allowed only because of our own sinfulness and weaknesses.


Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Good News Eric,
I have the book from my office and was glancing through it. Saw a little mention of the canon by St Basil. Will read it a little more in depth and share with you some ideas. It is called Divorice and Remarriage by Theodore Mackin SJ

Peace and Grace,
Fr Stephanos

Dear Friends,

What Stuart has elucidated is correct. The Eastern Orthodox AND Eastern Catholic Churches have the same view of marriage, divorce/annulment (yes, Fr. Stephanos, the two are different) and remarriage.

The fact that the Latin theology and practice is NOW imposed on the Eastern Churches doesn't change this.

Western Canon laws aside, my main beef with the American Roman Catholic church is that it seems to pay very little attention to the canon laws that you Latins are proclaiming from roof-tops and soap-boxes.

What is the use of your canon law when there seems to be such flagrant violation of it in North America?

The Vatican has criticized your bishops for being lax etc.

As someone who has worked and studied in Roman CAtholic institutions all my life, I have seen how "strictly" your marriage laws are followed.

I once heard a priest tell his marriage preparation class, "And if you get divorced and remarried, I don't want to hear about it. Don't tell me etc."

That's one point.

Secondly, please realize, my dear Latin friends, that there are other theologies of marriage in the Church than your own.

If you are going to get back on your soap boxes with your volumes of canon laws, save it for members of your own flock and for your own bishops.

Rather than try to see the speck in the historic practices of the Eastern Church in this respect, you should try to do something about the logs in your own Church first.

And leave Stuart alone. There are people who speak what they know and those who know what they speak. Stuart knows what he speaks.

Alex

ORTHO, I must say that your analysis is most incorrect.

The fact that you are "Eastern" doesnot mean that you can believe just what you want just because your church happened to be in schism for many years and during that time developed it's own theology.

There are different theological emphasis between the Latin and the Eastern churches, but there cannot be any difference or contradiction.

Either marriage is indissoluble or it's not.

This is not a matter of theological speculation but of dogma.

The fact that the Orthodox church has taken a more liberal stance in this issue in no way means that the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to.

Dear Theosis,

I understand where you are coming from and I agree.

But the real liberals are those who allow psychologists to dictate policy in the Church.

The Eastern Church doesn't do that.

That's my main concern. I know the Catholic Church doesn't teach that and that's not at issue here. Laxity is.

God bless,

Alex

>>>Either marriage is indissoluble or it's not.<<<

Is the sacrament of Holy Orders indissoluable or not? The Catholic Church teaches that it is not--it is a true sacrament that perdures in kairos. "Thou art a priest forever, according to Melchizedek". Yet the Catholic Church laicizes priests and deacons (and even bishops!). In so doing, it does not dissolve or declare void the sacrament of ordination, but it does release the cleric from the bonds and obligations of his order.

Similarly, in the Eastern Churches, in recognition of human weakness, and for the salvation of souls, the Church through its power to bind and loose can release the innocent party of a broken marriage from the bonds and obligations of that marriage, and allow him or her to remarry "by oikonomia". The principle is entirely the same.

On the other hand, the Latin Church does not recognize marriage as a true sacrament that perdures in Kairos, but rather as a life contract that ends with the death of one of the spouses. The Latin Church places no limitation on the number of times a person may remarry, provided that there is no surviving partner of a previous union. The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, recognize but one sacramental marriage, and that as a true sacrament that exists beyond the grave. For that reason, it upholds as the ideal ONE marriage in a lifetime. But it recognizes that not all are called to celibacy, and that it is in the interests of the person and the Church to allow remarriage, not only in cases of widowhood, but also in cases of failed marriages. But it places strict limits on the number of such "economical" remarriages it will allow: a second marriage is generally allowed without comment (but only for the innocent party in a divorce); third marriages are strongly discouraged; and fourth marriages are prohibited.

Overall, the Eastern Churches have the more developed and more consistent theology of marriage as a sacrament, to say nothing of a policy regarding the disolution of marriages that is more honest and less cynical, more willing to confront the weaknesses of the human condition, and less prone to casuistry.

>>This is not a matter of theological speculation but of dogma.<<>

Nobody disputes that the indisoluability of marriage is a dogmatic belief of the Church, yet it is quite clear that the Eastern and Western Churches have very different views on what constitutes "disolution". The West does indeed claim that the sacramental bond is disolved upon the death of a spouse. That would seem to contradict the understanding of a sacrament as a bond which exists through all eternity.

The East believes that the marriage bond persists beyond the grave, but it also recognizes the necessity of cooperation with the Holy Spirit if a sacrament is to remain efficacious. Thus, in the same way that the benefits of baptism can be squandered through unrepentent sin, without disolving the sacramental bond of baptism, the benefits of matrimony can also fade due to sin on the part of one or both parties. At times, it may be necessary to release one party from the bonds and responsibilities of marriage for the salvation of his or her soul; but that does not disolve the sacramental bond of Crowning.

The Western Church, in conformity to ITS understandig of the sacramental nature of marriage, does not allow such a release, but feels that it can, in fact, nullify the sacrament--or rather, say that such a sacrament never existed. That may in fact be true in some cases, but one is hard pressed to say how a marriage that existed for decades and produced children, in which there was ample evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the union, NEVER EXISTED. To say such merely exposes the cynicism of the Western juridical approach, reduces the respect of the faithful for the Church, and undermines her moral authority.

The Latin Church in the United States is the most eggregious in its application of the nullification of marriages. The rationales given in many cases are unconvincing and so general that any marriage can be nullified if one is so inclined (outside of the US, the number of nullifications is much smaller, simply because most Catholics who divorce and remarry ignore Church teaching--often with the tacit acceptance of their hierarchs). Certainly the criteria applied by the Orthodox Church in granting ecclesiastical divorces and permission to remarry are far more stringent, and to the extent that they apply judgement and assign blame, far more fair and equitable.

As to how important this matter is in the scheme of things, I will only point out that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were at each other's throats for nine centuries, and in that time they hurled all sorts of accusations of heresy, apostacy, and other offenses at each other. They picked at all sorts of nits, from how tonsure should be applied to clerics, to what kind of bread to use in the Eucharist, to the addition or non-addition of hot water to the chalice, to the use of sponges for cleaning off the diskos. Any idiotic thing of which you could think, they argued about it.

But, strange to say, the Latin Church NEVER, EVER raised the issue of the Orthodox regulations governing divorce and remarriage. A funny oversight, don't you think? And, even more interesting, when the Uniate Churches were formed in the 16th and 17th century, Rome made no effort to interfere with their regulation of divorce and remarriage. In fact, in some places, like Romania (and probably the Middle East) the Greek Catholic Churches continued to use the Orthodox regulations governing divorce and remarriage until 1917, when a single, uniform (and utterly Latin) Code of Canons was imposed on the entire Catholic Church.

[This message has been edited by StuartK (edited 08-23-2001).]

>>>The fact that you are "Eastern" doesnot mean that you can believe just what you want just because your church happened to be in schism
for many years and during that time developed it's own theology.<<<

I reiterate once more that the Eastern disciplines (for they are indeed disciplines, not doctrines, let alone dogma) regarding divorce and remarriage predate the separation of the East and West by a good many centuries. The Eastern theology of marriage, in fact, predates that of the Latin Church by some 800 years, for it was only in the 13th century that Pope Innocent III actualy and formally made marriage one of the seven sacraments recognized by the Laitn Church (we in the East never got around to canonically limiting ouselves to just seven, probably because we know that all of creation is itself a sacrament).

The Latin theology of marriage, in which the couple marry each other and the priest merely stands as a witness (a role that can be filled by a deacon, in fact), reflects the ad hoc nature of marriage in the West during the Dark and Middle Ages. People without property simply announced to the village that they were living together as man and wife, everybody said, "Oh goody! Let's party!" and they got on with life. A priest, if one was around, might bless the union in the name of the Church. For the propertied classes, marriage was a more serious business that involved the transfer of wealth, and so it involved solemn oaths and contracts, and its disolution was a matter of some concern. But, for all that, divorces were pretty common in the Middle Ages, particularly for the nobility and royalty (the lower classes seldom bothered, but in fact just moved out and took up with another partner). The reason, of course, was that marriage was a matter of state, and could affect war and peace, in which the Church had a vested interest. One of the most stunning and famous divorces in Medieval history was the divorce of Louis VII of France by Eleanor of Aquitaine, so that she could marry the studly Henry Plantagenet, Duke of Anjou and soon to be Henry II of England. Later in life, Henry wanted to ditch Eleanor, but she would not consent, and had enough influence over the Church to prevent it.

Henry VIII was well within his rights to expect a bill of divorcement from Catherine of Aragon. Barreness was long recognized as grounds for divorce, especially in royal marriages where succession was so critical. What Henry did not count on was the fact that (a) Catherine was the niece of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V; and (b) that Charles would at that moment be occupying Rome with his armies and subjecting the Pope to house arrest. Not surprisingly, when Charles objected to the divorce, the Pope was happy to comply with his wishes and deny it to Henry.

Remarriage thus only became a big deal to the Latin Church AFTER the Reformation, and largely because of Henry VIII and the willingness of the Protestants to allow it. Since they were fur it, the logic of the Counter-Reformation said that the Catholic Church must be agin' it (same thing for liturgy in the vernacular, by the way). This may make for easy policy, but its bad theology and ecclesiology.

The net assessment was this: the new rigor of the law had no effect on the upper classes, who entered into marriage for dynastic reasons, and who could live with polyamory with no ill effect. The Church generally looked the other way if the aristos were discreet, and even if they were not so discreet, if a king was involved. The lower classes didn't give a hoot. Women confronted by intolerable marriages up and left, and since they could not live alone in the world, generally entered into happily adulterous relations with a new man, while her husband did the same with another woman. It was the burgeoning middle class, with its sense of propriety, and its need to protect property, that suffered, particularly the women, who were left with a very few unpalatable choices: to stay in an intolerable marriage and suffer; to leave and try to live an independent life without property (difficult if not impossible); or to become a "fallen woman" living "in sin" with another man (often happily and for many years) because it was impossible to remarry in the Church.

I don't really think that is what Christ had in mind, do you?

>>>The fact that the Orthodox church has taken a more liberal stance in this issue in no way means that the Eastern Catholic Churches are
allowed to.<<<

It's an open question as to whether the Orthodox position is more "liberal" than that of the Latin Church. But there is no question that the Eastern Churches today are following the same practices that they have been following since the fifth century. If anyone has innovated in this matter, it is the Latin Church. And since the Eastern Catholic Churches follow (or should follow) their Tradition in its fullness, that would mean doing what the Orthodox Churches have always done.

Since Rome voices no objection to the Orthodox regulation of divorce and remarriage, and NEVER HAS, I fail to see where you come off saying that it is the Orthodox who must change, or even the Eastern Catholics, for that matter. At the end of the day, it is our vocation to disappear back into our Mother Churches when reconciliation makes our continued independent existence redundant. In preparation for that day, the Catholic Church has called upon us to eliminate all differences between us and our Orthodox counterparts. All. Not "All except those which we of the Latin Church find inconvenient".

In regard to you statements regarding schism, I find them to be anachronistic and one-sided. The Orthodox are not in schism from Rome, nor is Rome in schism from Orthodoxy, but both are in schism with each other. The estrangement was mutual, and as the Catholic Church readily concedes, there is blame enough to go around. The "Prodigal Son" model of reunion which you seem to hold, in which the Orthodox must admit their "sin" and "return" to its proper subordination to the Church of Rome is not the belief or policy of the Church of Rome, nor is it justified by historical facts. I suggest, therefore, that you familiarize yourself with the facts before making assertions that are tendentious and inflammatory.

The assertion that "marriage lasts beyond the grave" is an utterly laughable one!

Our Lord tells us that in Heaven there is no marriage.

Case closed.

The Latins are the ones being inconsistent?

I think not.

If marriage is indissoluble, then allowing the "innocent" party of a divorce to remarry is adultery, since that "innocent party" is still married to his/her former spouse.

No one disputes the fact that it is legitimate for a couple to be separated for a period of time if the marriage isn't working out. Still, the couple is indissoubly bound, and this bond cannot be broken in light of the Church's power to bind and loose.

Once someone accepts this Orthodox (and un-Catholic schismatic) conception, then it becomes easy for one to claim that the Church can change other doctrines. The Church can then declare that there really is not a Trinity, or that it really is unlawful to venerate Icons, etc.

Where does it end?

>>>The assertion that "marriage lasts beyond the grave" is an utterly laughable one!<<<

Laugh all you want, it is what ALL the Eastern Churches teach, including those in communion with Rome. It is what they have ALWAYS taught, in fact, since long before the Latin Church even turned its mind to whether marriage was in fact a sacrament.

I think you praestantia ritus Latini is showing, and it isn't a pretty sight. As I said earlier, you need to learn a lot more history (and sacramental theology) before you start pontificating like that, or you will never achieve your eponymous objective.

I never said that Orthodoxy was in Schism from Rome.

I said that Orthodoxy is in schism with Catholicism.

The Orthodox are schismatics.

They are in schism with the visible leader of the Church, His Holines Pope John Paul II.

People from both sides are always to blame for schism. Thus the Church is in part responible for the schism with Protestants.

This is not to say, of course, that our two communions are on an equal footing.

The True Church subsistis in the Catholic Chu4ch, not the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church is in fuller communion with the Catholic Church than Protestants are, but they do not posess the fullness of truth, since they reject the Church's visible leader.

>>>The Orthodox are schismatics.<<<

The Pope says they aren't. But what does he know?

Dear Theosis,

You and I are guests here. We come here to learn.

The Eastern and Oriental Catholic and Orthodox posters here share with us what their Churches teach as dogma which must be believed. They also share with us what their theological tradition teaches to be true as doctrine. They even share with us what the disciplines of their Churches for liturgy and sacraments are.

We come here to learn. Eastern Christians do not need for us to come here and to tell them what they believe or what their practices are or mean. They do that quite well, I think.

I have found that when a discussion is carried on by Eastern Christians in this forum, if there is a discrepency between what is posted and what the teaching or practice is in the East, someone will correct that error and will provide support for his or her position. That is not our role it seems to me.

When the discussion wanders into Latin Catholic dogma, doctrine or practice and there is an incomplete understanding or misperception, it is appropriate for us to clarify in a spirit of love. Even when our Church or its beliefs and practices are belittled and we feel obliged to say so, we are constrained by the Law of Love. IMO we must speak with respect for persons, their Churches and the beliefs and practices.

We are not here to make points or to show how much better one Church is or how much more correct its practices are when compared with another Church and its practices. Rome did not do so when entering into the agreements enacting our union with the Eastern Catholic Churches hundreds of years ago. Rome does not do so now.

We are children of the Roman Church. Unless you are a bishop or someone authorized by one to teach, we are not here to teach. If it becomes necessary to share information about dogma, doctrine, or practices of the Latin Church, we must learn what she teaches in the matter under discussion. Then we must share that humbly without adopting triumphal tones or language.

May the Spirit grant us the wisdom to take in what we are meant to learn here without preconception that what we learn will be the same as what we already know! Our Churches are in communion with each other. They are not carbon copies of each other.

In the differences among the Churches, as well as in the similarities, God is showing His Image more fully. Isn't the reason we come here to meet Him in our brothers and sisters as individuals and in our Sister Churches?

Silence and quiet attention make it easier for me to see Him in a different room in His House.

Please do not allow the written expression to impede the meaning or the love!

JOY!


[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-23-2001).]

INAWE, I don't know how to tell you this, but the faith of the Eastern Catholics is my own faith.

I am Catholic. Period.

God cares less to the fact that Christianity developed in a Western and Eastern territory.

Truth is universal and absolute. East and West cannot have two truths. Either what the Latin Church teaches is right or wrong. The same goes for the East.

The truth is, both sides are supposed to have a common faith, not just say that they do and then not have it.

I'll tell you what: Read your Catechism (the Catechism is not just for Latins). In addition, read any and all Catholic Catechisms, East or West, and tell me what they teach on divorce and remarriage.

Orthodox Catechisms don't count. The Orthodox are schismatics. Read the definition of schism in the Catechism if you don't believe me.

I do come here to learn. But if I hear anyone spreading a false gospel, I will correct it, no matter whether or not they say they are Latin or Eastern.

All the following is from Divorce: Early Church vs. Eastern Orthodoxy. In it, he cites numerous facts which may be of interest.

First, on the pressence of divorce of remarriage in Eastern Catholicism in the pre-1054 Church:


Suprise! Early on the East had heretical tendencies! Naw!

Also,


Dave Armstrong notes:


Armstrong's conlusion is thus:


The entire link is here:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ332.HTM

Now, Armstrong is not the Magesterium, but he provides more than ample documentation for the CATHOLIC CHURCH'S view on divorce on remarriage. Thankfully, those Eastern Churches in union with Rome once again teach the biblical and patristic doctrine of the indissolubility of mariage.

Methinks some Eastern Catholics tend to forget that they aren't Orthodox; that the Orthodox Church was not given the charism of infallibility. That the Catholic Church alone has the right to teach true doctrine, not the Byzantine Emperors or Ceaseropapist Patriarchs.