Did the East deviate from the fathers on remarriage?

[TheWhim]

Hello!

I left the Catholic Church about a year ago and am earnestly pondering to enter the Orthodox Church. However, this process is complicated by my doubts concerning the validity of second marriages. I mean, I would have no problem at all if the church would say: if you marry a second time, that’s your own business, but the teaching of the Church is immutable, we can’t run the marriage service here in Church a second time.

But that’s exactly what happens in Orthodoxy.

It is often argued that Basil, Chrysostom, Clemens Alexandria, Origen and some other fathers allowed for second marriages. But this is, to put it mildly, not even half the truth.

For instance, Basil and Clemens among the above named took a strong stance against remarriage even in case of adultery.

(A fine father-compilation can be found at:
marriagedivorce.com/mdfathers.htm; for Athenagoras, see: www.geocities.com/frneissen/Athenagoras-Origen.doc ; you should be made shortly aquainted with the biblical problems, so read the two small texts copyright by John Piper here(google for other startling articles by him if interested):
www.geocities.com/frneissen/by-John-Piper.doc )

Indeed, the only one of the early fathers allowing for a second marriage in case of adultery is Ambrosiaster, but he even excludes the woman from this permission and only grants it to man.

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.

Again, the only of the early fathers is Ambrosiaster.

 

[TheWhim]

Well, let’s cite Basil:
“The woman who has been abandoned by her husband[that is, the woman not guilty of adultery!], ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. 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. 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?
A man who marries another man’s wife who has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery… “- Amphilochius 199 (a)

I’ve looked on the Internet for the supposedly plain statements of Basil and Origen where they explicitly allowed for a second marriage celebrated in the Church – but I couldn’t find any.

For instance, I read the following: “The Holy Basil the Great, for example, referred not to a rule but to usage, as far as this problem was concerned. Speaking concerning the man who had been cheated by his wife, he declares that the man is “pardonable” (to be excused) should he remarry.”

But this may be took wholly out of context. A long quotation is missing. But I would readily concur that if this was what Basil said, it would completely agree with his condemnation of remarriage, because he does not say that the one may marry in the Church, but just that a marriage(maybe civil?), when contracted, was perhaps a lesser evil.

The whole question I’m posing here is the following:

Did the early church celebrate second marriages in the church, were they blessed by the priest, as the Orthodox practise today?

Well, let’s cite another passage I found on the Internet, again not the long quotation I yearn for, but just a brief claim:

“He[Origen] noted that Christ rejected "the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause,"8but he did not seem to rule out divorce completely. Indeed, he admitted that some church leaders “have permitted a (divorced) woman to marry, even when her husband was living,” and he confessed that such permission was “not altogether without reason,” being undoubtedly a lesser of evils.9”
(by the way, another passage on the Internet concerning this issue reads as follows: ”On the subject of remarriage, Origen wrote, “Already contrary to scripture, certain Church leaders have permitted remarriage of a woman while her husband was alive.” Origen then quotes 1 Corinthians 7:39 word perfect, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”)

Well, Well, Well…… but did the bishops grant a marriage in the Church?? This is the only question of interest. That the bishop/presbyter in general should be consulted on questions of sex- and family-life was not unusual in such times, consider, for instance, Ignatius:
“If any man is able in power to continue in purity, to the honour of the flesh of our Lord, let him continue so without boasting; if he boasts, he is undone; if he become known apart from the bishop, he has destroyed himself. It is becoming, therefore, to men and women who marry, that they marry with the counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in our Lord, and not in lust. Let everything, therefore, be done for the honour of God." Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp, 5 (A.D. 110).

Okay, here again is my main question:
Did the early church celebrate second marriages in the church, were they blessed by the priest, as the Orthodox practise today, or was this incorporation of formerly only civilly/legally performed second marriages into the rite of the Church a later development, yeah, deviation from the thinking of the Fathers?

Well, all the Orthodox out there: Fetch me from the snares of Protestantism(the only alternative left).

Please don’t indulge in polemical or superfluous reactions but condescend to offer scientifically sound explainations. I’ll also post this topic on byzcath.org to hopefully secure many helpful answers.

Yours,
Whim

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, let’s cite Basil:
“The woman who has been abandoned by her husband[that is, the woman not guilty of adultery!], ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. 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. 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?
A man who marries another man’s wife who has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery… “- Amphilochius 199 (a)

I’ve looked on the Internet for the supposedly plain statements of Basil and Origen where they explicitly allowed for a second marriage celebrated in the Church – but I couldn’t find any.

For instance, I read the following: “The Holy Basil the Great, for example, referred not to a rule but to usage, as far as this problem was concerned. Speaking concerning the man who had been cheated by his wife, he declares that the man is “pardonable” (to be excused) should he remarry.”

But this may be took wholly out of context. A long quotation is missing. But I would readily concur that if this was what Basil said, it would completely agree with his condemnation of remarriage, because he does not say that the one may marry in the Church, but just that a marriage(maybe civil?), when contracted, was perhaps a lesser evil.

The whole question I’m posing here is the following:

Did the early church celebrate second marriages in the church, were they blessed by the priest, as the Orthodox practise today?

Well, let’s cite another passage I found on the Internet, again not the long quotation I yearn for, but just a brief claim:

“He[Origen] noted that Christ rejected "the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause,"8but he did not seem to rule out divorce completely. Indeed, he admitted that some church leaders “have permitted a (divorced) woman to marry, even when her husband was living,” and he confessed that such permission was “not altogether without reason,” being undoubtedly a lesser of evils.9”
(by the way, another passage on the Internet concerning this issue reads as follows: ”On the subject of remarriage, Origen wrote, “Already contrary to scripture, certain Church leaders have permitted remarriage of a woman while her husband was alive.” Origen then quotes 1 Corinthians 7:39 word perfect, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”)

Well, Well, Well…… but did the bishops grant a marriage in the Church?? This is the only question of interest. That the bishop/presbyter in general should be consulted on questions of sex- and family-life was not unusual in such times, consider, for instance, Ignatius:
“If any man is able in power to continue in purity, to the honour of the flesh of our Lord, let him continue so without boasting; if he boasts, he is undone; if he become known apart from the bishop, he has destroyed himself. It is becoming, therefore, to men and women who marry, that they marry with the counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in our Lord, and not in lust. Let everything, therefore, be done for the honour of God." Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp, 5 (A.D. 110).

Okay, here again is my main question:
Did the early church celebrate second marriages in the church, were they blessed by the priest, as the Orthodox practise today, or was this incorporation of formerly only civilly/legally performed second marriages into the rite of the Church a later development, yeah, deviation from the thinking of the Fathers?

Well, all the Orthodox out there: Fetch me from the snares of Protestantism(the only alternative left).

Please don’t indulge in polemical or superfluous reactions but condescend to offer scientifically sound explainations. I’ll also post this topic on byzcath.org to hopefully secure many helpful answers.

Yours,
Whim

As for the Latins, look up Petrine privilege, to see that indeed the pope dissolves a valid marriage.

Yes, second marriage means one in Church. For one thing, the Council of Trullo adopted St. Basil’s canons on this, and I believe (I have to check this though, but I can’t right now) by this time the emperor had abolished civil marriage entirely.

A problem with the patrisitics, they (nor the Church today) makes a stark distinction between a marriage dissoled by death or divorce (on grounds, i.e. adultery). Patriarch Teoctist reiterated this when he stopped the Romanian parliament a few years ago from loosening up the divorce laws.

The Pedalion’s section on this would give you the relevant canons, including the ban on someone marrying a “lover” even when the original spouse dies.

 

[dessert]

WHIM here is a book better suited for reference;
Maybe if you like The Fathers of the Churchby Mike Aquilina our Sunday Visitor publishing division 2006
expanded edition

Another that is listed in the book;
The human couple in the Fathers by Giulia Sfameni Gasparro
Pauline Patrisic Series vol.1
Includes slections from the Fathers with detailed and useful introductions.

 

[dessert]

Hello!

I left the Catholic Church about a year ago and am earnestly pondering to enter the Orthodox Church. However, this process is complicated by my doubts concerning the validity of second marriages. I mean, I would have no problem at all if the church would say: if you marry a second time, that’s your own business, but the teaching of the Church is immutable, we can’t run the marriage service here in Church a second time.

But that’s exactly what happens in Orthodoxy.

It is often argued that Basil, Chrysostom, Clemens Alexandria, Origen and some other fathers allowed for second marriages. But this is, to put it mildly, not even half the truth.

For instance, Basil and Clemens among the above named took a strong stance against remarriage even in case of adultery.

(A fine father-compilation can be found at:
marriagedivorce.com/mdfathers.htm; for Athenagoras, see: www.geocities.com/frneissen/Athenagoras-Origen.doc ; you should be made shortly aquainted with the biblical problems, so read the two small texts copyright by John Piper here(google for other startling articles by him if interested):
www.geocities.com/frneissen/by-John-Piper.doc )

Indeed, the only one of the early fathers allowing for a second marriage in case of adultery is Ambrosiaster, but he even excludes the woman from this permission and only grants it to man.

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.

Again, the only of the early fathers is Ambrosiaster.

Your links didn’t work for me anyway.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Yes, the Orthodox have changed their position on divorce and remarriage and artificial birth control.

 

[Alexius]

Yes, the Orthodox have changed their position on divorce and remarriage and artificial birth control.

How is this statement helpful?

 

[SemperFidelis]

How is this statement helpful?

Because if he is considering the Orthodox he needs to come to “grips” with this. That being said, is it an untrue statement?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, the Orthodox have changed their position on divorce and remarriage and artificial birth control.

You of course will tell us which Fathers, and which canons set up the annullment tribunal.

And which ones came up with the Petrine “privilege.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, the Orthodox have changed their position on divorce and remarriage and artificial birth control.

You of course will tell us which Fathers, and which canons set up the annullment tribunal.

And which ones came up with the Petrine “privilege.”

No, the Orthodox Church has NOT changed her position on divorce and remarriage: the canons in force then are the same now. The abuse of them happening now, happened also then.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because if he is considering the Orthodox he needs to come to “grips” with this. That being said, is it an untrue statement?

Yes.

Can you cite the Fathers/canons on the annullment tribunal?

 

[Fuerza]

You of course will tell us which Fathers, and which canons set up the annullment tribunal.

And which ones came up with the Petrine “privilege.”

No, the Orthodox Church has NOT changed her position on divorce and remarriage: the canons in force then are the same now. The abuse of them happening now, happened also then.

I’m not really an expert in this area, but according to scripturecatholic.com one of the sources of the Petrine Privilege is found in Ezra 10:1-14.

With regards to annulments, I don’t see why a tribunal would have to have been estblished by the Fathers. Marriage is a sacrament, just like baptism and reconciliation. Since both baptism and reconciliation, as well as any other sacrament, can be invalid (due to improper form, lack of intent, etc…) it only stands to reason that a marriage can also be invalid for those same reasons. Since various factors must be studied to determine whether a marriage was valid when a doubt arises, it only makes sense that someone should be assigned to investigate it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m not really an expert in this area, but according to scripturecatholic.com one of the sources of the Petrine Privilege is found in Ezra 10:1-14.

Then it would be the Esdrean, not Petrine, privilege.

And that predates Our Lords ruling on the matter on earth.

With regards to annulments, I don’t see why a tribunal would have to have been estblished by the Fathers. Marriage is a sacrament, just like baptism and reconciliation. Since both baptism and reconciliation, as well as any other sacrament, can be invalid (due to improper form, lack of intent, etc…) it only stands to reason that a marriage can also be invalid for those same reasons. Since various factors must be studied to determine whether a marriage was valid when a doubt arises, it only makes sense that someone should be assigned to investigate it.

There is plenty in the canons and the Fathers on the validity of baptism and the investigation of the same. Why the silence on the marriage tribunal (divorce and remarriage is talked about)?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Yes.

So the Orthodox don’t allow divorce then? This is contrary to everything I’ve heard…

Can you cite the Fathers/canons on the annullment tribunal?

So you’ll admit your Church has changed then since they grant annulments too? That being said, I’m not so quick to do so, and I can’t find anything on the Fathers that says “no annulments,” because they all say “no divorce.” Since Divorce does NOT equal anulment I guess Catholics are in the clear. I’m sure you know this, but an annulment is the recognition that a Sacramental Marriage never took place. The fact that it is used “somewhat widely” today is of no consequence as the Church still hasn’t changed anything regarding the teaching that Divorce is a sin and that the Church won’t allow it. I’ll admit that annulments are used too widely today, but it still doesn’t change the principle.

As to the OP, I do recommend you take this issue over to www.byzcath.org, as the Eastern Catholics on there regularly make the Orthoox (and there’s many on their too) look foolish as they try to attack the Catholic stance on this issue. Interesting to note the Orthodox hardly ever try to defend their position on this, probably because most Orthodox have realized they’ve changed on this issue, and that the their position on divorce is almost untenable when looking at the historical Orthodox teachings regarding this.

For once I’d like to see someone who is Orthodox actually defend the Orthodox position on divorce without their first words being: “well the Catholics have annulments, and those are really just Catholic divorces” (No, no, and not the case).

 

[TheWhim]

Okay, there’s been a fault on my part with the link to the church fathers; here it is again:

marriagedivorce.com/mdfathers.htm

But the other two links work, don’t they?

Isa Almisry, you write:

Yes, second marriage means one in Church. For one thing, the Council of Trullo adopted St. Basil’s canons on this, and I believe (I have to check this though, but I can’t right now) by this time the emperor had abolished civil marriage entirely.

What would greatly interest me if it is scientifically established if the canons of St. Basil really were St. Basil’s - or if they were rather pseudo-Basilian, so to say. Well, I’m further interested in the content of these canons in relation to the remarriage question; maybe the Council of Trullo quite plainly misused them?
And civil marriages weren’t abolished before or long before Trullo, were they?

The Pedalion’s section on this would give you the relevant canons, including the ban on someone marrying a “lover” even when the original spouse dies.

Please quote or offer the link.

Yours,
Whim

P.S.: The thread at byzcath.org was shut down for reasons incomprehensible to me.

 

[SemperFidelis]

P.S.: The thread at byzcath.org was shut down for reasons incomprehensible for me.

I actually just read the thread you started over there. They probably shut it down because there are a whole bunch of theads that have already hacked out the divorce issue. I read some good ones just today after you started this thread. Do a search and you’ll find plenty.

 

[TheWhim]

Well, I already spend a hard time looking, but I couldn’t fetch up a sufficient, or even superficial answer to my one and only question:

Okay, here again is my main question:
Did the early church celebrate second marriages in the church, were they blessed by the priest, as the Orthodox practise today, or was this incorporation of formerly only civilly/legally performed second marriages into the rite of the Church a later development, yeah, deviation from the thinking of the Fathers?

If you know a thread on byzcath.org adressing this question, let me know.

 

[mgy100]

So the Orthodox don’t allow divorce then? This is contrary to everything I’ve heard…

So you’ll admit your Church has changed then since they grant annulments too? That being said, I’m not so quick to do so, and I can’t find anything on the Fathers that says “no annulments,” because they all say “no divorce.” Since Divorce does NOT equal anulment I guess Catholics are in the clear. I’m sure you know this, but an annulment is the recognition that a Sacramental Marriage never took place. The fact that it is used “somewhat widely” today is of no consequence as the Church still hasn’t changed anything regarding the teaching that Divorce is a sin and that the Church won’t allow it. I’ll admit that annulments are used too widely today, but it still doesn’t change the principle.

As to the OP, I do recommend you take this issue over to www.byzcath.org, as the Eastern Catholics on there regularly make the Orthoox (and there’s many on their too) look foolish as they try to attack the Catholic stance on this issue. Interesting to note the Orthodox hardly ever try to defend their position on this, probably because most Orthodox have realized they’ve changed on this issue, and that the their position on divorce is almost untenable when looking at the historical Orthodox teachings regarding this.

For once I’d like to see someone who is Orthodox actually defend the Orthodox position on divorce without their first words being: “well the Catholics have annulments, and those are really just Catholic divorces” (No, no, and not the case).

I challenge you to find a post that backs up your claim highlighted in red. Everyone is friendly and nice over there and doesn’t engage in negative commentary towards each other and there is almost always good discussion.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I challenge you to find a post that backs up your claim highlighted in red. Everyone is friendly and nice over there and doesn’t engage in negative commentary towards each other and there is almost always good discussion.

I challenge you to find a post that backs up your claim highlighted in red. Everyone is friendly and nice over there and doesn’t engage in negative commentary towards each other and there is almost always good discussion.

You can find them in, among others, the very short thread started by the poster who started this thread. In fact it’s under the same name. I agree the atmosphere is very friendly over there, but after reading a few of the posts on there about divorce, it made it clear to me that the Orthodox position on divorce is untenable. It doesn’t have to be a “heated” debate to prove something. However, I don’t have the time to pick out all the specific posts for you, but here’s a few threads with some of the posts in them:

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=271626

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/96960/fpart/1

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/77229/fpart/1

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=2&Number=63564&Searchpage=2&Main=4568&Words=divorce&topic=0&Search=true#Post63564

I still have yet to see an Orthodox Christian give a good defense of the Orthodox teaching on divorce without accusing the “Latins” of having “Catholic divorces,” which for anyone who’s done any studying, is most definitely not the case for annulments. I guess when that’s all you’ve got, you come short…

 

[mgy100]

You can find them in, among others, the very short thread started by the poster who started this thread. In fact it’s under the same name. I agree the atmosphere is very friendly over there, but after reading a few of the posts on there about divorce, it made it clear to me that the Orthodox position on divorce is untenable. It doesn’t have to be a “heated” debate to prove something. However, I don’t have the time to pick out all the specific posts for you, but here’s a few threads with some of the posts in them:

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=271626

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/96960/fpart/1

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/77229/fpart/1

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=2&Number=63564&Searchpage=2&Main=4568&Words=divorce&topic=0&Search=true#Post63564

I still have yet to see an Orthodox Christian give a good defense of the Orthodox teaching on divorce without accusing the “Latins” of having “Catholic divorces,” which for anyone who’s done any studying, is most definitely not the case for annulments. I guess when that’s all you’ve got, you come short…

If people wouldn’t break up their marriages, then we’d wouldn’t have to sit here and listen to everyone rip apart other people and their beliefs.