Catholic and Orthodox views on marriage

[dvdjs]

Absolutely not true! … now it seems the Roman practice (unique to Rome alone!) of refusing to commune with those who have been twice married is beginning to be falsely attributed to St Basil.

In the present time, second marriages of divorced people are performed in the Orthodox church in a ceremony that, according to a ROCOR priest, is essentially undiscernible from the rite of a first marriage.

In the time of St. Basil, there was no such thing as a second marriage performed in the church - no such thing. A divorced and remarried person was excommunicated. Readmission to communion was possible after a period (years) of penance.

Those are facts that AFAIK are undisputed.

What Ghosty is bringing to the discussion that is new, at least to me, are the actual writings of St. Basil. At the very least, these writings suggest that repentance includes turning away from the adultery (St. Basil’s word) of the second marriage.

This is nothing less than courting separation for the Church.

I disagree. We need a shared perspective on history, that is judged by truth rather than self serving mythos. It would be very helpful to mutual understanding if the EOs who, against all history, hold to the view that they’ve changed nothing from the patristic age, would get over it…

 

[JohnVIII]

This is nothing less than courting separation for the Church

The earliest teachings of the Church say that separation from the Church happens when the Church is loved less than adherence to any ultra-strict practice. For example, the Novations would not allow re-admittance into the Church for anyone who denied Christ. The Church however did provide for this after a (I think it was 10 years) period of repentance. From the earliest of times it was thought that anyone who has made any sort of transgression should be allowed a second chance. It was this “second chance” concept, together with the early Churches special consideration for men who are weak in their ability to contain themselves, that brought about the early custom of allowing for a second marriage in certain cases. Some people in the early Church refused to commune with some of these whom the Church allowed to marry twice. Therefore, to make it clear that separation from the communion of the Church over this issue is not to be allowed, canon 8 of the 1st Ecumenical Counsel labeled schismatic anyone who refused to commune with those who were twice married. RC apologist insist that this reference referred only to those who after their first wife died they then re-married, but their is no evidence for this assumption, nor does such a claim fit in with the consensus of what was said and practiced by so many fathers in the East (where the 1st Ecumenical Council took place).

…We’re dealing with actual text and citations here, not mere assertion. If you have alternative evidence, please share it so we can all grow in our understanding…

If you just read through the 92 canons of St Basil (with an open mind - as I’m sure you already have) it became abundantly clear. I have read them through at least 3 times. To deny that this matter is clearly taught therein would be like denying that Rome is located in Italy.

I am posting from a laptop and am away from my home where my books are located. I’ve been away, on the road, now for a week. I not going to be home now until Tuesday, and then I will be there for just one day. I will do my best to get some in context quotes from St Basil at that time. Somehow though, I think you already have read anything that I may quote. When you say you ‘never come across any thing like this’ it’s like looking at a map and saying ‘as far as I can see, Rome is not anywhere in Italy’.

Not everything the Pope teaches is correct. His infallibility is limited to when he speaks TO THE WHOLE CHURCH. The strict understanding of this matter has never gone beyond the boarders of Rome. It was the East that tolerated the practices of Rome, not Rome tolerating the practices of the East in this case. Clearly we both hold differing bias’s. We both need to learn to respect each others bias’s if we are to join in open communion between East & West again one day. I sorry, on my part, for having a hard time tolerating the West’s view of this matter.

Peace!

 

[dvdjs]

The earliest teachings of the Church say that separation from the Church happens when the Church is loved less than adherence to any ultra-strict practice. For example, the Novations would not allow re-admittance into the Church for anyone who denied Christ. The Church however did provide for this after a (I think it was 10 years) period of repentance. From the earliest of times it was thought that anyone who has made any sort of transgression should be allowed a second chance.

It was this “second chance” concept, together with the early Churches special consideration for men who are weak in their ability to contain themselves, that brought about the early custom of allowing for a second marriage in certain cases. Some people in the early Church refused to commune with some of these whom the Church allowed to marry twice.

Therefore, to make it clear that separation from the communion of the Church over this issue is not to be allowed, canon 8 of the 1st Ecumenical Counsel labeled schismatic anyone who refused to commune with those who were twice married. RC apologist insist that this reference referred only to those who after their first wife died they then re-married, but their is no evidence for this assumption, nor does such a claim fit in with the consensus of what was said and practiced by so many fathers in the East (where the 1st Ecumenical Council took place).

Some of what you say is easy to document and some is not.

The Novations… “Novatian had refused absolution to idolaters; his followers extended this doctrine to all “mortal sins” (idolatry, murder, and adultery, or fornication). Most of them forbade second marriage” from the Cath Enc.

But consider also this:

“In Phryigia they condemned second marriages; at Constantinople that had no definite rule as to this; in the West they received bigamists to communion without scruple.” from “History of the First Council of Nice”, Dudley.

So the same issue that Ghosty raises seems to be pertinent here. Certainly they Novations agreed to accept and grant absolution and communion to those who had committed the sin of idolatry. But certainly not to to those who continue in the practice of idolatry. Second chance does not mean continuing license. Ditto: murder, adultery, and fornication.

In that context, What are we to make of the canon regard “second marriage”: what are these second marriages: post-death, post-divorce, bigamy? The latter would seem totally unlikely except for the fact that these strict Novations were in some areas communing bigamists! If you have a documentable case to make for the idea that the reference is to an open practice of readmitting those who entered into, and remained in, a second marriage after divorce to communion, I am all ears. I would like to understand this history much better. But you have only made claims not a case. Ghosty’s objection still applies.

And let’s please agree that whatever these second marriages were, they did not involve the ritual of Holy matrimony in the temple as is the current practice in Orthodoxy; the current practice is a substantial innovation that diverges from the practices of the fathers.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by dvdjs:

In the present time, second marriages of divorced people are performed in the Orthodox church in a ceremony that, according to a ROCOR priest, is essentially undiscernible from the rite of a first marriage.

I’ve heard that in the situation where it’s the first marriage for one spouse and the second marriage for the other, the ceremony can be that of a first marriage, in consideration for the spouse never before married.

 

[dvdjs]

I’ve heard that in the situation where it’s the first marriage for one spouse and the second marriage for the other, the ceremony can be that of a first marriage, in consideration for the spouse never before married.

Yes I’ve heard that too. And that the second marriage ritual is somehow penitential. But the only posts that I have seen from an Orthodox priest suggests that the actual contemporary praoctice is far more liberal.

 

[Ghosty]

JohnVIII: First off, my talk about strictness and mercy was a direct response to Madaglan’s question about the same. I hardly brought it up pre-emptively.

Also, I’m not bringing the Pope into this at all. I’m in this discussion as an Eastern Christian who has concerns about contemporary Eastern Orthodox practice on divorce and remarriage. I’ve also said (in the other thread) that I don’t consider this to be a matter for remaining disunited.

I’ll tell you outright that my concern is that a secular practice may have wormed its way into Church practice during a time when the boundaries between Church and state were not so clear. Over time this secular practice became the norm within the Church and various justifications for it were developed/invented. This wouldn’t be the only time it’s happened, and it’s certainly not unique to the East (just look at how annulments are treated in the U.S. Latin Church, for example).

St. Basil is often cited as supporting this activity, but now reading his own writings, not just the Canons but the letters used to form the Canons, it does not appear that he can be so easily used to support divorce and remarriage aside from cases of adultery, especially since the Canons close with the admonition that those who don’t turn away from their activities must be excommunicated.

I’ll happily wait until you can get home and cite your materials. I’ll say ahead of time, though, that my argument is not based upon St. Basil’s position; he’s simply come up because Mardukm raised the question of why he is always used to support divorce and remarriage, and we began digging into his actual writings. He’s more of a side discussion to the real issue.

Madaglan: I hadn’t thought about the murder angle. I really did walk into that one.

As for the pastoral provisions for re-married Catholics, I must frankly say that I’m not qualified to give any kind of pastoral direction on such delicate matters. I would imagine that remaining continent, and Confession when that fails, would be the norm. If it became an ongoing difficulty I’m not sure how the situation would be resolved.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JohnVIII]

…bigamy…

St Basil called a second marriege “digamy”, not bigamy.

 

[JohnVIII]

…St. Basil is often cited as supporting this activity, but now reading his own writings, not just the Canons but the letters used to form the Canons, it does not appear that he can be so easily used to support divorce and remarriage aside from cases of adultery…

“Aside from cases of adultery”! Of course, adultery (I think) was the only grounds for divorce and remarriage. Sorry, maybe we are closer in our opinions that I had realized. I’m sorry if I drew you into a side issue.

 

[Ghosty]

“Aside from cases of adultery”! Of course, adultery (I think) was the only grounds for divorce and remarriage. Sorry, maybe we are closer in our opinions that I had realized. I’m sorry if I drew you into a side issue.

Yeah, I think divorce in the case of adultery is defensible, even though it is not allowed in the Catholic Communion. I think it’s the Church’s prerogative to place more restrictions like this, whether I prefer them or not. I just have a problem with making allowances for sins that God has said demand repentance and life-change.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

It seems odd to me that “St. Basil admits that he does not know of a canon which would treat the man as an adulterer,” in light of Mark 10:11-12 (Rheims-Challoner):

[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Could that be a confirmation that the canons, of that time, did not literally follow the intent of the Gospel?

That’s an excellent passage from Scripture for this discussion, and one that is often overlooked (I have ignored it myself).

I think the fact that women were considered differently in these Canons shows that they were heavily influenced by secular thought. The reason women were considered differently, I’m almost certain, has to do with material inheritance.

If you think about this it makes sense: a woman cheating on her husband could potentially bring home a “false heir” that would divide the inheritance of rightful heirs. A man cheating on his wife would not be dividing the household in this way. I think it’s on these grounds that some Fathers (and the Old Testament) insisted that a man leave an unfaithful spouse, because if he didn’t leave her he could potentially be defrauding his own children and brothers of their rightful inheritance, hence becoming a party to the woman’s unfaithfulness. I think this is also the root of St. Joseph’s thinking when he was going to “divorce Mary quietly”; he was righteous and had to divorce her to avoid fraud (especially if he had children of his own from a previous marriage), but he didn’t want her to come to shame so he wouldn’t make a public spectacle of it.

Just my thoughts!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Formosus]

**In the present time, second marriages of divorced people are performed in the Orthodox church in a ceremony that, according to a ROCOR priest, is essentially undiscernible from the rite of a first marriage.
**

Why is that relevant? I could find at least one Catholic priest who could tell me something like contraception or homosexual activity is ok. Just because one priest says something is the case, doesn’t make it so.

 

[dvdjs]

Why is that relevant? I could find at least one Catholic priest who could tell me something like contraception or homosexual activity is ok. Just because one priest says something is the case, doesn’t make it so.

Are you actually suggesting: that since all sources could be in error that no sources are relevant?

We had reached a point on these discussion on the rite of Second Marriage (See post #439 on “Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?”) at which people started to stipulate that they actually hadn’t had much experience with the Rite. (Do you have relevant experience?)

I linked to a thread that featured a ROCOR priest from New Zealand, well-known on the internet, who spoke with certainty on the current practice. I would suggest that you look at the link.

 

[dvdjs]

I recently posted this on another thread, so I will post it again here. Fr. Josiah Trenham gave a great lecture series on the Orthodox view of marriage, procreation, etc. I highly recommend them to anyone wanting to better understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

Fascinating. I am curious where you get the idea that Fr. Trenhams’s perspectives represent the “Orthodox view”. On an Orthodox board, he seem be viewed as an outlier. Money quote:

Haven’t we been told that Fr Josiah Trenham has been forbidden by his bishop to preach and enforce his views on contraception on the laity in his parish?

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31512.225.html

 

[Formosus]

Are you actually suggesting: that since all sources could be in error that no sources are relevant?

We had reached a point on these discussion on the rite of Second Marriage (See post #439 on “Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?”) at which people started to stipulate that they actually hadn’t had much experience with the Rite. (Do you have relevant experience?)

I linked to a thread that featured a ROCOR priest from New Zealand, well-known on the internet, who spoke with certainty on the current practice. I would suggest that you look at the link.

No I am not suggestiong that no source is relevant. I am saying that it is a straw man to use one priest’s opinion(no matter how well known he is on the internet) as the undisputed teaching of the Orthodox Church. A single ROA priest on the internet does not define what is or is not the Orthodox opinion on the matter. I have read the relevant thread on that forum, and I found it quite interesting.

Just a side note, ROCOR doesn’t exist anymore, it is now known as The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (or ROA).

 

[dvdjs]

No I am not suggestiong that no source is relevant. I am saying that it is a straw man to use one priest’s opinion(no matter how well known he is on the internet) as the undisputed teaching of the Orthodox Church. A single ROA priest on the internet does not define what is or is not the Orthodox opinion on the matter. I have read the relevant thread on that forum, and I found it quite interesting.

Having read the relevant thread, you ought to realize that your claim of a straw man argument is competely unfounded: I have no intention or interest in knocking down what Fr. said.

It goes without saying - or at least it ought to - that Fr cannot define Orthodox opinion, disputed or undisputed, on the matter. On the other hand he is certainly competent to talk of his experience in celebrating and witnessing these rites. And IIRC this is the only direct testimony on any of these long threads on Orthodox second marriage. Facts are useful things.

I am happy to receive more factual observations that would argument the experience of this priest and help to paint a more complete picture of the practice of second marriages in the contemporary Orthodox church. Personally I would prefer facts, not the usual platitudes, which evidently do not embrace the practice of the whole church.

Can the practice reported by Fr. be regarded as typical? Given his association with relatively conservative jurisdictions, I think that that is a reasonable provisional conjecture. If you have evidence to the contrary, I am all ears.

I realize that it might be surprising to discover that practice - even in relatively conservative jurisdictions - is not what people imagine from reading some books. It might be even more surprising to find out how much this practices has changed since the time of the fathers. So be it.