Divorce - licit in early church?

[TheWhim]

Well, I’ve surfed a few internet-pages on Orthododxy and met on several times the claim that in the EARLY church - even so in the West - the Orthodox practice was applied: though the indissolubility of marriage was teached, divorce and remarriage was granted because of pastoral concern. It was not until the forth century that in the West the rigoristic opinion beagn to develop.
Now I ask myelf: is that true? I know that for example the synod of Elvira allowed communion under certain circumstances to those that had a second marriage. But what concerns me is if this “second marriage” was celebrated in the church, with the priest uniting them(as it is in Orthodoxy nowadays), or if the church didn’t approve of such second marriages and din’t allow them to be fulfilled in a church-celebration.

If in early Christendom in the West the priest also assisted at second marriages, this would mean that the rigoristic attitude(second civil marriage, but not second SACRAMENTAL marriage allowed) was a later developement and not the unique Apostolic teaching.

Does anybody know an Internet-page where the claims of the above-mentioned pages are refuted?

Yours.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

TheWhim:

Well, I’ve surfed a few internet-pages on Orthododxy and met on several times the claim that in the EARLY church - even so in the West - the Orthodox practice was applied: though the indissolubility of marriage was teached, divorce and remarriage was granted because of pastoral concern. It was not until the forth century that in the West the rigoristic opinion beagn to develop.
Now I ask myelf: is that true? I know that for example the synod of Elvira allowed communion under certain circumstances to those that had a second marriage. But what concerns me is if this “second marriage” was celebrated in the church, with the priest uniting them(as it is in Orthodoxy nowadays), or if the church didn’t approve of such second marriages and din’t allow them to be fulfilled in a church-celebration.

If in early Christendom in the West the priest also assisted at second marriages, this would mean that the rigoristic attitude(second civil marriage, but not second SACRAMENTAL marriage allowed) was a later developement and not the unique Apostolic teaching.

Does anybody know an Internet-page where the claims of the above-mentioned pages are refuted?

Yours.

Well if you look at history through the Apostolic teaching recorded in the scriptures. Christ taught the Apostles: If a man divorces his wife and marries another he committs adultry, If anyone marries a divorced woman they also commit adultry. Did some try to "work around " this? I’m sure. But the Church never taught otherwise.

 

[TheWhim]

Well, I don’t deny that Jesus condemned second marriage. But also does the Orthodox Church does - in her teaching! In pratctice, compassion is used - second marriages are permitted. The priests assists at such marriages and they are regarded as SACRAMENTAL. That’s the point I’m making for. The Catholic Church would never regard them as such. But now I read on those mentioned internet-pages that in the early church of the west - though the indissolubility of marriage was teached - second marriages were also permitted because of compassion and the priest assisted with them: “ego conjuge vos in nomine patre et filie et spiritu sancti. Amen.” (Indeed, one cannot deny this, it was not after much later that the “Western Church” understood marriage solely as a contract between the man and the woman.) My question now runs as follows: did the western church in her beginnings also regarded the second marriages as SACRAMENTAL? If priests assisted at them, she must have done so. If not, she never regarded them as sacramental- Therefore, my question is:

Did priests assist in the early western church at second marriages(like today in the Orthodox Church)?

Yours.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

TheWhim:

Well, I don’t deny that Jesus condemned second marriage. But also does the Orthodox Church does - in her teaching! In pratctice, compassion is used - second marriages are permitted. The priests assists at such marriages and they are regarded as SACRAMENTAL. That’s the point I’m making for. The Catholic Church would never regard them as such. But now I read on those mentioned internet-pages that in the early church of the west - though the indissolubility of marriage was teached - second marriages were also permitted because of compassion and the priest assisted with them: “ego conjuge vos in nomine patre et filie et spiritu sancti. Amen.” (Indeed, one cannot deny this, it was not after much later that the “Western Church” understood marriage solely as a contract between the man and the woman.) My question now runs as follows: did the western church in her beginnings also regarded the second marriages as SACRAMENTAL? If priests assisted at them, she must have done so. If not, she never regarded them as sacramental- Therefore, my question is:

Did priests assist in the early western church at second marriages(like today in the Orthodox Church)?

Yours.

I think it would be the case of “As Moses permitted…” Individual priests, Bishops maybe, I’ve never read anything “official” that they did. Did the Church allow this or teach this? I don’t believe so.

 

[sjangelini]

No Divorce was not allowed in the early church. Catholicism is much closer to the early than Orthodoxy on this subject. Here’s an article you should read on this subject:

web.archive.org/web/20030401134608/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ332.HTM

It talks about the genesis of divorce in Orthodoxy and how it’s roots are found not from a theological shift promulgated by the Church but by a secular Emperor who wanted a divorce in the sixth century, a later development. The Orthodox would argue that they allow divorce for reasons of oikoinomia or economy, but the way I see it, this is a misapplication of economy. Economy should be used pastorally on matters of discipline but not doctrine. Our Lord’s words in the bible are strong, that anyone who remarries commits adultery. Concessions to human weakness and pastoral care should never lead people into sin.

 

[gardenswithkids]

From I Corinthians 7 12-16

*To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her; and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy. *

*If the unbeliever separates, however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband; or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? *

A new Christian wasn’t bound to remain married to a non-Christian. I believe this is called something like the “Pauline exemption” in annulment cases and can still be used today. It’s not merely a divorce–it is a declaration that a sacramental marriage never took place. Basically, a non-sacramental marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian can be dissolved.

As to your question on second marriages, I know your question was about the early Church. I don’t have any formal information on that, but I suspect the Church has not changed her teachings. Today, if a Catholic is not being bound in a prior sacramental marriage (or vows not to marry), that Catholic as free marry in the Church. They still must go through the formal annulment process today to determine if the first marriage was sacramental or not, but I understand those are easier annulments to obtain. Again, this is not merely a divorce; it is an annulnent.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m too late to edit my above post, but I wanted to add this. In the Roman rite they still must go through the formal annulment process today to determine if the first marriage was sacramental or not. I don’t know the eastern rites annulment procedures. I suspect the second marriage is a sacramental marriage, the first marriage was not regarded as a sacramental marriage through whatever process the eastern rites determine that.

 

[Loy]

gardenswithkids:

A new Christian wasn’t bound to remain married to a non-Christian.

In 1 Cor. 7:12—15, “unbeliever” should be understood to mean “pagan”. If we read these passages correctly, St. Paul is saying that Christians are bound to remain married to their pagan spouses, unless the pagan spouse makes the election to separate.

Reading verses 2—4, 10—14 together, one could argue that a Christian in a marriage with a consenting pagan must affirmatively sustain the marriage. By giving a consenting pagan spouse the same dignity as a Christian spouse, perhaps the Christian might lead the spouse to conversion. See 1 Cor. 16.

 

[gardenswithkids]

gardenswithkids:

…If the unbeliever separates, however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; …

A new Christian wasn’t bound to remain married to a non-Christian. I believe this is called something like the “Pauline exemption” in annulment cases and can still be used today.

I should have qualified my statement (quoted in black above) by adding “in some cases”. And the term is “Pauline privilege” in Catholic marriage legislation. I didn’t write to support divorce, but since the thread title asked if divorce was licit in the early Church, I thought First Corinthians 7 was pertinent to the discussion.

 

[John_Henry]

TheWhim:

Well, I don’t deny that Jesus condemned second marriage. But also does the Orthodox Church does - in her teaching! In pratctice, compassion is used - second marriages are permitted.

I am sure others will handle the rest, but how can it be called “compassion” to fail to admonish the sinner. To allow someone to enter into an adulterous relationship is to participate in their sins.