Eastern Catholics & Remarriage

[twf]

Many Eastern Orthodox Christians, even on this board, seem to be convinced that the second marriage IS a sacrament. There was an extensive discussion here on the subject a while back - as well as an indepth thread on the Byzcath forums. Anyone have any links? My understanding is that the idea of a second sacramental marriage is a novelty introduced in recent centuries. In fact, the Church granting second marriages period was a later development. The Byzantine imperial authorities permitted second marriages, so very gradually an ecclesiastical rite for second marriages developed in the East.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Many Eastern Orthodox Christians, even on this board, seem to be convinced that the second marriage IS a sacrament. There was an extensive discussion here on the subject a while back - as well as an indepth thread on the Byzcath forums. Anyone have any links? My understanding is that the idea of a second sacramental marriage is a novelty introduced in recent centuries. In fact, the Church granting second marriages period was a later development. The Byzantine imperial authorities permitted second marriages, so very gradually an ecclesiastical rite for second marriages developed in the East.

If I recall, St. Basil writes in his first canonical epistle that custom allows for a man to leave his wife and remarry in the case of adultery, but not the other way around, even though Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9 apply to both sexes. He also says that it is acceptable for a man who has been abandoned by his wife to take another wife (he makes no comment as to whether this is true for women). It is interesting, however, to note that St. Basil takes it for granted that such practices are both acceptable and well established customs. I don’t know if we can simply write off the Eastern practice with divorce and remarriage as being a later development.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html
For reference, St. Basil’s first canonical epistle is linked above. Chapter nine is the one on divorce customs with respect to gender.

 

[Sepp]

Not so fast. The theology itself is different. It isn’t clear cut by saying that “we must be united in faith and morals”. Don’t think Orthodox divorce and remarriage is something that is handed out like giveaways during conventions. While I haven’t known anyone to avail of it, from what I’ve heard its easier to get an annulment in the Catholic Church than a remarriage in the Orthodox Church. But hey, those Orthodox folks could just be biased in this view, but at least their point is that its not a simple, straightforward thing anyone can just get for themselves.

Though I’m sure it happens, I don’t personally know anyone who has been denied a divorce or a second marriage in the Orthodox Church. Perhaps it varies by jurisdiction. Among most people I know, there isn’t really a sense that this is a special dispensation which the Church might deny, it’s just understood that Orthodox can divorce and remarry. This isn’t to say that Orthodox people take divorce lightly, of course. And the Catholic Church certainly has its own issues regarding the ease with which annulments are granted, which make it easier to avoid the real issues.

In the interest of full disclosure, the EO understanding of divorce and remarriage has always troubled me to some extent, so I may not be the most objective source myself.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Though I’m sure it happens, I don’t personally know anyone who has been denied a divorce or a second marriage in the Orthodox Church. Perhaps it varies by jurisdiction. Among most people I know, there isn’t really a sense that this is a special dispensation which the Church might deny, it’s just understood that Orthodox can divorce and remarry. This isn’t to say that Orthodox people take divorce lightly, of course. And the Catholic Church certainly has its own issues regarding the ease with which annulments are granted, which make it easier to avoid the real issues.

In the interest of full disclosure, the EO understanding of divorce and remarriage has always troubled me to some extent, so I may not be the most objective source myself.

Read section X. 3 of this document: orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

In the Russian Orthodox Church at least, divorce can only be granted for specific reasons. No-fault divorces and the like cannot be granted.

 

[Vico]

Cardinal Ratzinger (in 1972) did comment on the historical development here:Only against this background can we rightly ask how it is that on the one hand in the West the practice of a tolerating permission beneath the ideal form of the dogmatic statement increasingly disappeared, whereas in the East it grew to such strength that it virtually conceals the ideal form. I do not know of more precise examinations of this subject. We can therefore for the time being only make guesses. It seems to me that we should look for the decisive reason in the different political and legal state-church development of the two halves of the Empire. In the East the Roman Empire continued to exist as a christian empire, in which the difference still emphasized by Chrysostom between the standards that are valid before the Church and before God and the standards of secular law18 gradually become insignificant. The christian state creates christian law, in addition to which there is no reason to develop a comprehensive church law. In fact the state marital law increasingly, even if hesitatingly, adapted itself to the ecclesial demands. As we know, the concrete administration of justice remained certainly much more flexible; here, too, was the difference between the “written” and the practically “not senseless” greatly developed. The written law could evidently not prevail against the legal practice. Under Emperor Leo III, the iconoclast, the law itself is then brought into a more flexible form, which influences the following time period.19 In the West a corresponding secular power is absent; thus the legislature falls to the popes and can only take place within the line of the Church tradition with its much stricter commitments. Accordingly, on this account the reason for the difference is that in the one case imperial, and in the other case papal law decisively influenced the path of development.

pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/

 

[twf]

If I recall, St. Basil writes in his first canonical epistle that custom allows for a man to leave his wife and remarry in the case of adultery, but not the other way around, even though Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9 apply to both sexes. He also says that it is acceptable for a man who has been abandoned by his wife to take another wife (he makes no comment as to whether this is true for women). It is interesting, however, to note that St. Basil takes it for granted that such practices are both acceptable and well established customs. I don’t know if we can simply write off the Eastern practice with divorce and remarriage as being a later development.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html
For reference, St. Basil’s first canonical epistle is linked above. Chapter nine is the one on divorce customs with respect to gender.

Yes, it was tolerated, with the appropriate penance, but is there any evidence that the second marriage was consider a sacrament? I think not. As far as I know, a second ecclesiastical marriage, blessed by an Orthodox priest, was a much later development. If you can prove me wrong, I am open to correction. That the Church can grant a second sacramental marriage while the first sacramental marriage has not yet been dissolved by death, is, I am quite sure, a novelty and a departure from patristic thought. As I said earlier, there was an extensive thread on this a while back - does anyone have a link?

 

[dixieagle]

Would it be fair to say that in the case or divorce and remarriage that the Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome are not permitted to retain their tradition?

There are no “Orthodox” churches in communion with Rome. There are, however, numerous Eastern Catholic churches which, of course, are.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are no “Orthodox” churches in communion with Rome. There are, however, numerous Eastern Catholic churches which, of course, are.

We are Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome. The term actually came from a Pope, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[dixieagle]

We are Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome. The term actually came from a Pope, if I’m not mistaken.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

**Schismatical Churches

1. Orthodox
   **
   The first of the Eastern Churches in size and importance is the great Orthodox Church. This is, after that of the Catholics, considerably the largest body in Christendom. The Orthodox Church now counts about a hundred millions of members. It is the main body of Eastern Christendom, that remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. It remained in union with the West till the great schism of Photius and then that of Caerularius, in the ninth and eleventh centuries. In spite of the short-lived reunions made by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439), this Church has been in schism ever since. The “Orthodox” (it is convenient as well as courteous to call them by the name they use as a technical one for themselves) originally comprised the four Eastern patriarchates: Alexandria and Antioch, then Constantinople and Jerusalem.

The entry goes into lengthy detail. Here is the link to the page:
newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

This clearly indicates a distinction between Orthodox Eastern Churches and those in communion with Rome.

Here is a link to a previous discussion in these forums:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61723

 

[dcointin]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

**Schismatical Churches

1. Orthodox
   **
   The first of the Eastern Churches in size and importance is the great Orthodox Church. This is, after that of the Catholics, considerably the largest body in Christendom. The Orthodox Church now counts about a hundred millions of members. It is the main body of Eastern Christendom, that remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. It remained in union with the West till the great schism of Photius and then that of Caerularius, in the ninth and eleventh centuries. In spite of the short-lived reunions made by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439), this Church has been in schism ever since. The “Orthodox” (it is convenient as well as courteous to call them by the name they use as a technical one for themselves) originally comprised the four Eastern patriarchates: Alexandria and Antioch, then Constantinople and Jerusalem.

The entry goes into lengthy detail. Here is the link to the page:
newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

This clearly indicates a distinction between Orthodox Eastern Churches and those in communion with Rome.

Here is a link to a previous discussion in these forums:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61723

“Orthodox in communion with Rome” is a self-designation often used by Eastern Catholics in this forum, and I was using it to reference them. I think it’s best to use the terms that people use for themselves out of charity, and I meant nothing else by that.

 

[dixieagle]

“Orthodox in communion with Rome” is a self-designation often used by Eastern Catholics in this forum, and I was using it to reference them. I think it’s best to use the terms that people use for themselves out of charity, and I meant nothing else by that.

Interesting. My Ruthenian Catholic husband absolutely bristles at ANY intimation he is “Orthodox” with a capital “O” as mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Is that usage accurate, however, or is it just confusing? Sincere question.

 

[dcointin]

Interesting. My Ruthenian Catholic husband absolutely bristles at ANY intimation he is “Orthodox” with a capital “O” as mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Is that usage accurate, however, or is it just confusing? Sincere question.

I would say it could be confusing for the average person not familiar with the term. Roman Catholics who are new to this forum are often confused by it, and it sometimes results in some debate on the issue.

In my experience here there are Eastern Catholics who view themselves as Catholic with Orthodox traditions, or Orthodox with Catholic communion. In both cases of course they are in communion with the Pope and thus “Catholic” in the proper sense, but it says a lot about how they view their churches. Your husband seems to be the former type, emphasizing his Catholic identity. What sui uris church is he a member of? I’ve heard that Melkites in particular emphasize their Orthodox tradition quite strongly, but I’m not sure about the converse. Just to be clear, I’m personally Eastern Orthodox, not in communion with Rome.

 

[dixieagle]

I would say it could be confusing for the average person not familiar with the term. Roman Catholics who are new to this forum are often confused by it, and it sometimes results in some debate on the issue.

In my experience here there are Eastern Catholics who view themselves as Catholic with Orthodox traditions, or Orthodox with Catholic communion. In both cases of course they are in communion with the Pope and thus “Catholic” in the proper sense, but it says a lot about how they view their churches. Your husband seems to be the former type, emphasizing his Catholic identity. What sui uris church is he a member of? I’ve heard that Melkites in particular emphasize their Orthodox tradition quite strongly, but I’m not sure about the converse. Just to be clear, I’m personally Eastern Orthodox, not in communion with Rome.

He is Ruthenian, of Slovak background.

It seems, then, that this preference to identify primarily as Orthodox, though in communion with Rome, is a personal choice and not the way the (Catholic) Church would refer to these members.

 

[dcointin]

He is Ruthenian, of Slovak background.

It seems, then, that this preference to identify primarily as Orthodox, though in communion with Rome, is a personal choice and not the way the (Catholic) Church would refer to these members.

I’m sure you’re right about that!