Did the East deviate from the fathers on remarriage?

[Isa_Almisry]

What I argued was not that the Latin model is right or wrong, better or worse, but that it is consistent. It is consistent within itself to say a valid sacramental wedding may not be dissolved and to allow the dissolution of non-sacramental weddings in favor of entering into sacramental weddings. I further argued that the Orthodox model is inconsistent within itself.

I know of an Orthodox couple where she was married, had a child, and divorced after growing apart. She was emotionally and financially fine. She soon started dating and fell in love with another guy. Their priest, who is known to be conservative,

In what sense: he won’t use English?

was joyous and quickly said her previous marriage posed no problem to a subsequent one. He told her they’d even do the non-penitential first wedding service out of respect for the groom’s first marriage and told her she “only” had one more try after this so she should do what she can to make it work.

At least he added this part. From what you’ve said, I’d be suprised, although I don’t get a picture of what happened to the first marriage.

The take-home message was that an Orthodox person has three strikes before they are out and she was on her second try.

Fair assessment of the message the priest gave.

However, he would not marry them during Advent as they wished and would not consider marrying them outside of an Orthodox church building. He said he was not able to because it was outside of the bounds of the faith that has been handed on to him.

Yes, we have our pharisees.

This is not internally consistent. That same faith doesn’t say grow bored of your husband and ditch him for another guy who makes you feel better, either, but the Orthodox Church supported her doing that and called it economy. He could apply economy when it meant divorcing and remarrying and the subsequent pain it would cause many, including a child, but he couldn’t apply it for smaller liturgical matters like what date they could marry.

Getting married wouldn’t even rise to the level that economy comes into play.

I understand that this is one couple and one priest, but this is how I understand the Orthodox model to play out.

On the other thread (Council of Jerusalem) I think I mentioned a case where and adulterer wanted to marry his mistress of ten years (ten years since the divorce). The priest’s response was that he was a priest, not a witch doctor. No wave of my hand is going to make this OK.

People told not to come back to Church, until they reconciled with their spouse.

People refused absolution (I happened to be in the Church and overheard the argument), because they wanted to leave their spouse and confess it.

A parish where parishoners left and told the bishop they wouldn’t come back, because of a lawless marriage being performed there, untilt the priest was disciplined.

I could go on. As I was typing, I was listening to ancientfaith.com, where the priest guest was complaining of a woman who was refused marriage at one church, and went to another jurisdiction to get one.

The only thing which would stop this from happening is social pressure to remain married. How is it internally consistent to say a marriage must follow these rules (proper church, proper priest, proper ceremony) to be recognized under the law and nothing else may suffice, and if they are recognized then they are eternal, and to also say that the requirement to marry only once may be set aside up to three times with economy?

At defrocking proceedings, I would ask the same questions.

How is it consistent to have teachings strongly discouraging widowers from remarrying and only tolerating it if they are unable to control themselves otherwise, and to tell people who divorce that they have two more tries?

Ditto. My guess is that said priest might have no problem with it, or, insisting on form, might.

How is it consistent to say that a proper marriage is eternal and to also allow widowers or abandoned spouses or divorcees to remarry?

By the same priniciples that St. Paul ennuciated.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry,

Okay, this has been my thesis. I now found a flagrant paper on the Internet that actually addresses the problem of second marriages with the clergy but also makes some fascinating remarks about the evolution of the divorce-practice in the East that wholly comply with my thesis:

Here the link:
holy-trinity.org/morality/troitsky.html

The important text I supply here:

If the Church later permitted the marriages of digamists, this was not as a result of a change in its teaching about such marriages but as a result of civil orderly procedure. At first the marriage of digamists was a manifestation of illegal pressures upon the Church on the part of the State. Theodore Studite thinks that the practice of marrying digamists began during the reign of the dishonorable Constantine Copronymus and iconoclast (741-775) as a result of his trigamy since “it was not so before that.” For a long time marriage of digamists was a rare exception and there were patriarchs who with their own hands prevented twice-married emperors from entering the Church, there were pastors, according to Theodore Studite, who would rather sacrifice their whole life, confront danger, exile or death rather than agree to dishonor and violate Christ’s gospel and marry a digamist, and Emperor Leo III’s fourth marriage brought about a lengthy discord between the Church and the State, ending in the year 921 with the proclamation of the “Tome of Union” which would be read from the Church’s cathedras every July and which sharply spelled out the Church’s position on subsequent marriages. However there were patriarchs who feasted at an emperor’s second marriage which Balsamon notes with great sadness.
**It was only when a church wedding was mandated by imperial law to make a marriage valid **and as a result of which a refusal of a wedding ceremony was tantamount to the declaration of the union as simple adultery, did the Church permit the marriage of digamists and at first this was allowed only in Constantinople and this special rite was not found in other churches even in the XIII c. and it is not known in Rome to this day.

Brief (that’s all I have time for):

The NT and Apostles EXPLICITELY allow digamy, and with the Church’s blessing (e.g. I Corinthians 7:39). The Fathers speak of it enough.

St. Theodore had an axe to grind (rightly so) against Constantine the iconoclast. His father reformed the law, but before he went heretic, and in an explicit Christian spirit. Constantine didn’t do much in the law department (his name Copronymos was spread by Iconophiles like Theodore, refering to their rumor that he deficated in his baptismal fount).

The source, ROCA, I have to admit a certain animus in this regard. They praise the idea of “spiritual marriage,” something that transgresses the Mystery.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I want to draw attention, Isa Almisry, to two of your remarks that are, I believe, quite misguided.

The later development, or, if we may more properly say so, deviation from apostolic Orthopraxy, that second, adulterous marriages were blessed in Church-rite, can in no way whatsoever be justified by the canon of Basil. What the canon of Basil really means we may grasp when comparing it to similar declarations of the early Church, such as you already diligently offered:

Do you really think, Isa, that the Church strictly forbade such marriages in theory(cf. my original post), but then celebrated such marriages in Church, only to severely punish such marriages afterwards with the exclusion from Communion even in death?
St. Basil’s canon addresses the same problem. Civil adulterous marriages have taken place outside the Church and now the Church has to deal with this problem. St. Basil takes a less strict stance viz. punishment, but he never would be the one to bless such marriages.

Only later, when civil marriages were abolished, were the early canons misinterpreted and AFTER the adulterous marriage haven taken place in Church, penance was commanded.

This is, I hink, quite irrefutable. Well, what are we to make about it?

I’m not quite sure: are you refering to second marriages of adulterers (still forbidden by canon, the source of much of today’s abuse) or that all second marriages are adulterous (which would include widows, again the Apostle explicit on this I Corinthians 7:39?

It’s late, and I have a big, busy week ahead. When and if I can continue Lord only knows. P(name removed by moderator)onting the date of the abolition of civil marriage would be key (no, I think St. Theodore is mistaken on this), but I won’t have time, and I’d rather not speculate more.

 

[TheWhim]

I’m not quite sure: are you refering to second marriages of adulterers (still forbidden by canon, the source of much of today’s abuse

I am completely referring to second marriages of adulterers, or, to put it in another way, to second marriages that weren’t preceded by the death of the original spouse: each and every second marriage that isn’t the marriage of a widow.

**Isa, I’m heavily upset. Maybe I shall be so presumptuous to bid you to read all my posts, and the links included, carefully again. Take your time. **

I cannot see why you do not see the problem that is so distinctly rising on my mind. Adulterous marriages(defined as above) are celebrated in the Church with no, no single trace of such a practice with the early fathers!!! And they are celebrated in, blessed by the Church Orthodox since hundreds of years since!

This practice couldn’t but affect theology. I once asked our distinguished Father Ambrose, dean of orthodox learning on this forum, if one could not hold the opinion that no grace whatsoever was transferred in a second marriage(again, always as defined above). It was about the time shortly after Pope Benedict said that even for the Orthodox second marriages are no real marriages. Father Ambrose said, no, Benedict was wrong. The second marriage was a real marriage, that received a real blessing and real grace by the priest(so the priest isn’t doing some ignominous fake-action). I believe he went even so far as to call it sacramental(though not ideal). Do you want to know how the defended his stance? With pointing at the Liturgy! He compared the crowning-ceremony with the penential service and said, even when the latter is used(that happens rarely enough today), the important parts, wherein bride and bridgegroom are explicitly united, are retained.

For hundreds of years since the Orthodox Church practised what cannot be else than an abomination: the blessing of adultery!
This couldn’t but confuse theology and make forget the clear teaching of the fathers.

Well, well…. I said to myself: okay, what has been happening since hundreds of years is deadly wrong but hey, the Orthodox church is a Church semper reformandi. Ad fontes! Back to the roots! Maybe one time again the fathers and the true teaching of Gospel we be rediscovered. Orthodoxy is not the Papal Church. What is wrong doctrine now must not be so forever. The fathers stand immutable – the possibility of regeneration is always present.

 

[TheWhim]

But I thought of it a little longer and wasn’t so sure anymore. For once, the problem is that many doctrines in the Church are defended with regard to liturgical use. Even the fathers did so. There are numerous examples. (For instance, St. Augustine said it is a practice universally established in the Church that infants are baptized. But surely infants aren’t baptized just for fun and nothing else. Therefore, the salvation of unbaptized infants must in some way fall short.) And Fr. Ambrose did nothing else. The Assumption of Mary is a purely liturgical tradition. And so are maybe some of the other privileges(viz. sinlessness) we grant to her.

Well, Mary’s sinlessness(I’m not talking about the Immaculate Conception). This issue was undecided in the early church. Chrysostom, Cyrill Jerusalemus, Origen etc. seemingly didn’t believe in her sinlessness(Cardinal Newman, who investigated from a Roman Catholic perspective into their texts, does hold another opinion, cf. newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/notes.html#note3 – well, but that’s not the issue here). But it would be frivolous to say that Ephraim the Syrian didn’t either and Augustine remarked that he can’t speak of any sin whatsoever in regard to Mary for the honour of the Lord.
But, later on – the top-notch apologist Mark Bonocore www.catholic-legate.com compiled a list, I think – each and every Eastern churchman couldn’t bear the thought of Mary sinning in earthly life and Photius and especially Gregory Palamas went even so far as to virtually believe in her Immaculate Conception(an interesting assessment can be found at: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/IMCONCEP.htm)

Well, here we have an issue where a doctrine is developed by common consent, by the whole Church expanded throughout the earth: Mary did not sin in her earthly mission.

The same, as said, holds true for the Doctrine of her Assumption.

But how can I believe either in her Assumption or in the special privileges of grace granted to her when I would have to base my belief on a foundation(consent of centuries of the Church universal) that has proven devastatingly wrong in another instance(second marriages)?

Yeah, weren’t the Councils established by common consent? One could interpret everything into the apostolic fathers but there’s a clear line of interpretation starting with Athanasius that led to the seven great councils that were received by the Church universal.

And so our dear Fr. Ambrose might come up, look quite plainly at me and say: “We bless second marriages since centuries. This is established by universal practice. This is Holy Liturgy. This is Orthopraxy. Do you really want to say that even the greatest saints the Church has known since(and who didn’t fight thus marriages bitterly, but rather blessed them themselves), do you really think that all the Orthodox believers have gone astray like sheep? Do you really want to say that the Church has been encouraging her children for centuries to make fornication with the devil and receive even blessing and grace for this! NO! The Orthodox Church is the true Church and if it is the true Church this cannot possibly be.”

Well, then, what shall I conclude but that it is not the true Church?

Well, but I’ve been just sliding some superficial reasons so far. There are some important things in Orthodox life that do not allow even to rely on the fathers. Some things that are completely depended on the prayer life. Of course, I mean the veneration of saints. What gives us assurance of the reasonableness of this usage?

“In the Church”, St. Thomas Aquinas says(I paraphrase), “there can be no damnable error. This would be so if someone venerated as a saint really was a sinner.”

But in the Orthodox liturgical life there has been damnable error and there still is. The same Church that confers rich graces on adultery may also pray in front of beautiful icons for the help of the depicted “saints” that really are burning in hell.

This is my whole misery. I’ve left Rome. But I cannot move forward to Universal Orthodoxy. I really hope, Isa, you will carefully weigh my arguments and devise some decisive replies that may lift my hope. For the present I see no alternative to Protestantism.

By the way, I posted a question here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208375
you might wish to answer when you can spare some time.

Yours,
Whim

 

[Isa_Almisry]

But I thought of it a little longer and wasn’t so sure anymore. For once, the problem is that many doctrines in the Church are defended with regard to liturgical use. Even the fathers did so. There are numerous examples. (For instance, St. Augustine said it is a practice universally established in the Church that infants are baptized. But surely infants aren’t baptized just for fun and nothing else. Therefore, the salvation of unbaptized infants must in some way fall short.) And Fr. Ambrose did nothing else. The Assumption of Mary is a purely liturgical tradition. And so are maybe some of the other privileges(viz. sinlessness) we grant to her.

Yeah, weren’t the Councils established by common consent? One could interpret everything into the apostolic fathers but there’s a clear line of interpretation starting with Athanasius that led to the seven great councils that were received by the Church universal.

And so our dear Fr. Ambrose might come up, look quite plainly at me and say: “We bless second marriages since centuries. This is established by universal practice. This is Holy Liturgy. This is Orthopraxy. Do you really want to say that even the greatest saints the Church has known since(and who didn’t fight thus marriages bitterly, but rather blessed them themselves), do you really think that all the Orthodox believers have gone astray like sheep? Do you really want to say that the Church has been encouraging her children for centuries to make fornication with the devil and receive even blessing and grace for this! NO! The Orthodox Church is the true Church and if it is the true Church this cannot possibly be.”

Well, then, what shall I conclude but that it is not the true Church?

Well, but I’ve been just sliding some superficial reasons so far. There are some important things in Orthodox life that do not allow even to rely on the fathers. Some things that are completely depended on the prayer life. Of course, I mean the veneration of saints. What gives us assurance of the reasonableness of this usage?

“In the Church”, St. Thomas Aquinas says(I paraphrase), “there can be no damnable error. This would be so if someone venerated as a saint really was a sinner.”

But in the Orthodox liturgical life there has been damnable error and there still is. The same Church that confers rich graces on adultery may also pray in front of beautiful icons for the help of the depicted “saints” that really are burning in hell.

This is my whole misery. I’ve left Rome. But I cannot move forward to Universal Orthodoxy. I really hope, Isa, you will carefully weigh my arguments and devise some decisive replies that may lift my hope. For the present I see no alternative to Protestantism.

By the way, I posted a question here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208375
you might wish to answer when you can spare some time.

Yours,
Whim

I already posted a reply, but evidently it didn’t take.

In brief (time is short): if you don’t like the Orthodox or Latin answers, you really are not going to like the Protestant answers. Reminds me of someone who coverted to Islam to get away from his repressive evangelical background. I asked if that wasn’t like going from the pan into the fire. He’s Orthodox now.

I haven’t been able to get it, but John Scholasticus is the beginning of the Church amalgamating civil and ecclesiastical law (EP 565-577). The Emperor Justinian (following Theodosius, and even before to a decree, Constine) started this process from the other side. His nomocanon (lit. law-canon) is what I am looking for for our answer (or at least a start).

The canons do not contain the Faith, they reflect it. For that reason even Ecumenical canons are not eternal, nor infallible (but are authoritaive). In that respect, Liturgy is above the canons, as prayer is the Faith in action.

Adultery and apostacy are dealt by the Fathers, as directly destroying the sign of Christian marriage. Dygamy also, but the distinction is made, and with Scriptural reference.

The topic is basically on the same level with war, and treated as such by the Fathers. Christ had a lot to say on pacificism, but look at the martial tone of much of the NT.

Note, Christ tells St. Photini (the Samaritan woman) to bring her husband, although pointing out he is really not her husband. Given what follows, she brought him anyways (cf. St. John Chrysostom
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.xxxiv.html)

I went through the canons of Elvira (I didn’t have time for more) to show, yes there were canons alvailable that perhaps reflect the present Latin view, BUT THE ECUMENICAL FATHERS DID NOT receive them. And seeing some of the other canons, we can see why. There existence, however, tell us what was going on (otherwise why forbid it?): remarriage at least of innocent parties.

 

[TheWhim]

I went through the canons of Elvira (I didn’t have time for more) to show, yes there were canons alvailable that perhaps reflect the present Latin view, BUT THE ECUMENICAL FATHERS DID NOT receive them. And seeing some of the other canons, we can see why. There existence, however, tell us what was going on (otherwise why forbid it?): remarriage at least of innocent parties.

Well, this sort of tires me…

I think we can shut the whole thread down if we continue to speak past each other. I continue to wonder if you’ve read my posts and the links related to carefully.

Of course remarriage at least of innocent parties was going on. But outside the Church. Just civilly. That’s the whole point I’m making for.

Do you really think, Isa, that the Church strictly forbade such marriages in theory(cf. my original post), but then celebrated such marriages in Church, only to severely punish such marriages afterwards with the exclusion from Communion even in death?
St. Basil’s canon addresses the same problem. Civil adulterous marriages have taken place outside the Church and now the Church has to deal with this problem. St. Basil takes a less strict stance viz. punishment, but he never would be the one to bless such marriages.

Only later, when civil marriages were abolished, were the early canons misinterpreted and AFTER the adulterous marriage haven taken place in Church, penance was commanded.

Again, please read carefully my posts again…

But I think we can altogether end the discussion if you are, for what reason whatsoever, not inclined to specifically address the problems I posed.

And, another thing has to be said:
There is no Protestantism as there is Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. There are indeed some Protestant congregations following the early fathers and the Catholic Church in their condemnation of remarriage(always meant as defined above) - and much more individual Protestants. cf. John Piper

Yours,
Whim

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Of course remarriage at least of innocent parties was going on. But outside the Church. Just civilly. That’s the whole point I’m making for.

At the time of Elvira the canons could only be affecting the Church, as the Church had no civil status at the time.

I’m not sure: are you asking was there a Church weddings? At the time, there wasn’t much of a ceremony for a wedding, even a first one: the couple wed civilly, came to the Church as a couple, received the bishop’s blessing of the civil union, and communed together. This is the origin of the betrothal, marriage prayers and litanies and the common cup at Eastern weddings today. In the Middle East, the betrothal is still often down separately, but in Church, as the Christians of the caliphate were treated as if subjects, in the juridical sense, of their bishops (seperate ecclesiastical courts handled anything legal, such as theft, fraud, etc., for Christians. Mixed litigants went to the muslim court).

The Crowning service was part of the wedding reception, the reason why the ceremony of removing them on the eight day.

The crowning was a pagan practice, which Tertullian spoke out against. While trying to find the quote, I came across this (he is speaking against the Marcionites):

Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry,therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely”; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions,when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle [Marcion], you know, not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.” Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.”He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.” Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.v.xxxiv.html

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Again, please read carefully my posts again…

I’m still not quite sure about certain aspects of them, and what you are looking for. Besides stating that somemone is excommunicated, the Church had no interest in those who married outside the Church. To say one was allowed to marry and commune meant that you were married in the Church. In the earliest Fathers, this meant just the bishop blessing the couple, who communed together as a couple in Church. It was the acceptance of the Church of the civil union (including the first), because the Church marriage was a spiritual union (which if destroyed by adultery or apostacy, ceases to exist), it was not a legal contract nor legalistic. You have to remember too, that the Church’s blessing had no legal force: based only on that the children would be illegitmate, and the wife a concubine only. So every “Church wedding” was the blessig of an already enacted civil marriage. Only latter, with the legalization of the Church, did the Church ceremony as we know it, based on the baptism service in the East, evolve. Btw, the civil ceremonies of the Roman empire were also extremely simple affairs.

That said, second marriages (in the Church) are not going to leave much of a footprint because 1) they are rare, 2) are subdued to their comtemporaries, let alone us, 3) the Church’s comments would usually be brief. What exactly you expect to find, I am not clear.

And, another thing has to be said:
There is no Protestantism as there is Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. There are indeed some Protestant congregations following the early fathers and the Catholic Church in their condemnation of remarriage(always meant as defined above) - and much more individual Protestants. cf. John Piper

Then there’s that Apostolic succession thing. Christ didn’t found congregations, He founded a Church. Anyone claiming to be that Church has to show its continuity with that which Christ founded. John Piper might condemn remarriage, but he, among other things, has no valid orders and believes in double predestination, something totally alien to the Fathers.

 

[TheWhim]

Well, Isa, I checked your posts again and would like to draw attention to some mistaken statements.

Woodstock wrote:

I don’t understand the Orthodox response, though. The entire premise is that one must stay within the bounds of what is known and what has been handed on. It is my query how Orthodox priests can apply economy with good faith, hoping the Lord will accept a second or third remarriage, when the early church fathers were clear about that not being an option.

Isa wrote:

As St. Basil, and the other Fathers in the Pedalion show, that option was taken. It is the abuse today that is the problem.

Okay, I don’t know anything about the Pedalion, but as reagards St. Basil, an early church-father, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Well, what St. Basil really thought about second marriages is this:

The man who has deserted his wife and goes to another is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery

MIND THIS! Basil says that the man commits adultery(goes to another) but that the woman, victim of such adultery, will, when remarry, nevertheless commit adultery. Basil knows of no legal dissolution of the marriage-bond in case of adultery so boldly enunciated by modern Orthodoxy.]

; and the woman who live with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her…The woman who lives with an adulterer is an adulteress the whole time.
The woman who has been abandoned by her husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is.

MIND THIS! The innocent woman!]

The Lord said, “If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery;” thus, by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man.

MIND THIS! She has to lead a celibate life!]

For how can the man being guilty, as having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame, when she is called an adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another man?

And please do not point to the Canons of St. Basil to make it appear that St. Basil was somehow schizophrenic or so; spoke out against such marriages in preaching, but would happily bless them in practice. I already gave my explaination for his canons in my postings; just look it up; it’s all there. In summary, I said that, as only civil marriages took place in these times(we all discussed this over), the Church would impose penance on such civil adulterous marriages(always understood as I later clarified I want them to be understood: second marriages of non-widows)** and never, ever bless them!** The situation of the Church was this: um, well, the adulterous marriages have happened outside. What are we to do with it inside now? The answer was: penance. The Councils Elvira and Arles took a much stricter stance than Basil, that is true, but the principle remains the same. Today’s Roman practice seems to be nearest to the mindset of the very primitive church, that is, not allowing to communion adulterous-second-marrigees a lifetime. For, as St. Basil says The woman who lives with an adulterer is an adulteress the whole time. They continue in a state of public sin. Now take a look at the Didache:

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

(earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html)

When reading this, I would spontaneously be inclined to say that the current Roman practice of principially excluding adulterers from communion is better Orthopraxy than Basil; but the underlying foundation is, again, the same, and both incompatible with Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[TheWhim]

Again, Isa, you wrote:

The NT and Apostles EXPLICITELY allow digamy, and with the Church’s blessing (e.g. I Corinthians 7:39). The Fathers speak of it enough.

Well, the NT and fathers allowed for digamy but only by death of the former spouse. The Orthodox seem to be quite confused about this. I now insert a comment of an Orthodox Christian(found at: fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/who-is-rod-dreher-why-did-he-leave-the-church/)

Orthodoxy accepts only one sacramental marriage which is considered to be eternally indissoluble. However, the legal bonds of the marriage can be dissolved by death or sexual immorality by one of the spouses (cf. Matt. 5:32, and 19:9).

[Haha, that’s funny. He’s using MT 5:32 to jutsifiy his claim. Haven’t heard of a better joke for some time, I think.]

This enables the spouse to contract another valid, legal marriage, but not another sacramental marriage. This is an irregular situation, as the spouse is sacramentally married to one person, but legally married to another. However, it is permissible, for when the legal bonds of the marriage are dissolved, the obligations given to the couple are removed. They are free to live as single people again, even though the sacramental reality/character of their marriage remains intact. Of course, Orthodoxy has recognized the dissolving of the legal bonds of marriage for reasons beyond that of death and sexual immorality, in the past. However, this is an abuse (much likened to the abuse of the annulment process in the Roman Church, since the 1960s). But 1,000 abuses, a false doctrine, doth not make.

[It was an abuse right from the beginning to recognize a dissolution in case of adultery. I remember on a German Internet board some Orthodox posters told me that I could not even have the hope of being admitted to the Orthodox Church so long as I maintained that the Orthodox Church has fallen into grave error in her interpretation of the Bible and the early fathers in claiming that adultery doesn’t dissolve the marriage-bonds.]

But you can only brutally fight against Scripture if you want to allow for Christ allowing remarriage in case of adultery. Please read John Piper’s essential text I linked to in my original post: www.geocities.com/frneissen/by-John-Piper.doc ; for a more profound discussion, please go to: desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/articles/bydate/1986/1488/ Let’s face reality: Mt 5,31-32 flys in the face of Orthodoxy. The only thing that can’t be attested biblically with absolute certainty is that Christ also condemned second marriages in case of adultery on part of the innocent man(This was the only exception Ambrosiaster allowed for.) But it is highly unlikely that Christ should set up such a double standard, given his general conduct towards women and given that, when his audience is broader than the narrow Jewish perspective, he well includes women as well(compare Mt 19,9 with Mk 10,11-12). Sorry, but out Lord isn’t a Chauvinist.

 

[TheWhim]

Well, I could pick up one or two more remarks but my time is limited, so I’ll just briefly touch the quote of Tertullian which you obviously believe to support your Orthodox position. Perhaps you wouldn’t have thought so if you would have pondered my remark in the OP:

One often fails to differentiate between divorce and remarriage. Surely Chrysostom was ready to allow for divorce, but not so is the case with remarriage.

Well, well… but let’s tackle it:

Well, Tertullian is facing a Marcionite challenge. The Marcionited rejected the OT since they thought it flatly contradicted the New Gospel; and they had the habit of supporting this claim with Scripture-passages that let appear Christ taking a stance against the OT. Tertullian now addresses the claim that what Christ said about divorce is in unconquerable conflict with what Moses said.

Tertullian writes:

But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ.48074807 St. Matthew’s Gospel. There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: “Moses,” says He, “because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so”48084808 Matt. xix. 8. —for this reason, indeed, because He who had “made them male and female” had likewise said, “They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”48094809 Matt. xix. 4, 6. Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose48104810 Direxit. the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented48114811 Gestans. the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated48124812 Excusaverit. than abolished the enactment of Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that 405His teaching is not contrary to them. **I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. **

[Tertullian says that Jesus said divorce can only be made if it is not made in the intention to remarry!]

His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,”48144814 Luke xvi. 18. —“put away,” that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced.

[The last sentence is highly complicate and difficult to comprehend. Maybe the original Latin could help. But in context, I would suppose it means: For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away[that is, he who marries an innocent woman rejected by her former husband, divorced by her former husband who had the intention to remarry, what is an unlawful form of divorce according to the New Law of Christ] is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced(that is, the man who dropped the innocent woman and now marries a virgin).]

 

[TheWhim]

I now supply your passage of Tertullian, retaining your editions, and commenting on them:

Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry,therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery.

[Well, who denies this? And the fathers allow for only one reason that dissolves matrimony at least legally: the death of the former husband.]

Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely”; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition.

[Again, every Roman Catholic would readily concur; we are talking about divorce, not remarriage.]

In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, if his wife commit adultery?

[Well, Isa, you seem to want to make it appear that Tertullian directs this attack in like manner to the Roman Catholics as to the Marcionites. The ‘Latins’ allow not for remarriage, therefore destroy marriage. But Tertullian is talking about marriage, not remarriage. Indeed, the Marcionites didn’t allow for marriage for persons to be baptized:

With regard to discipline, the main point of difference consists in his[Marcion’s] rejection of marriage, i.e. he baptized only those who were not living in matrimony: virgins, widows, celibates, and eunuchs (Tert., “Adv. Marc.”, I, xxix); all others remained catechumens.
(newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm)

Shall he keep her? But your own apostle [Marcion], you know, not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.” Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender.

[Divorce, not remarriage. The Shepherd of Hermas reads:

But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?” And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.”
So the members of Christ can’t be joined to a harlot, an adulterous woman. Divorce has even in Christ a defender. The overall statement of Paul remains true: Men, do not dismiss your wives(1 Cor 7:10-11) – but Christ’s body can’t be joined to a harlot.]

to be continued…

 

[TheWhim]

Continued.

Tertullian goes on:

So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.”He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, **except **on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement!

[Even in OT times, the man could have only dismissed, that is, got divorced of the violated damsel on account of adultery! **This reference to the violated damsel makes it clear once more that Tertullian is talking about divorce and divorce only: the OT-passage(DT 22:28-29) is only concerned about the fact that the man can’t divorce the damsel anymore, and nothing more.]

This has the sanction of the prophet: “Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.” Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness.

[As is said in the Shepherd of Hermas.]

You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated.

[The first part of the sentence refers to the ban of the Marcionites on marriage, the second of their failure to see that even Christ permitted divorce and that his declaration is, therefore, if we take the Deutetonomy-passage of Moses(Dt 24:1-4) at face-value - which only talks about divorce – not in such gross conflict with the OT, though tension remains, as Tertullian admits:* for it was for the hardness of hearts etc.]

 

[TheWhim]

What the early fathers – Eastern ones included - thought about remarriage in case of adultery can be inferred from: marriagedivorce.com/mdfathers.htm and geocities.com/frneissen/Athenagoras-Origen.doc and

Pope Innocent I

“[T]he practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead” (Letters
2:13:15 [A.D. 408]).

from catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp

I’ve now led down my case in a very lengthy manner: I won’t response to distractions anymore. I want answers – but I come to believe that the only answer possible is that Orthodoxy is not true Christianity. Why, I outlined in posting Nr. 64.

Yours,
Whim