Eastern Orthodox and the term "Divorce"

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I’ve read numerous threads here and articles, and there always is the accusation from Catholics that Orthodox have strayed from Christ’s teaching on “Divorce”. Eastern Orthodox likewise uphold that they may remarry three times, further confusing the debate. This is what I’ve surmised and I just want to make sure I’m right. That this debate, much like the filioque debate is about terminology and language rather than any departure of teaching.

The orthodox concept of “divorce” is that a marriage is no longer a marriage because of one or several conditions that were never fulfilled for marriage to have been proper. In which case, it is very similar to the Roman Catholic concept of “Annulment”. However, when the orthodox say you can get married three times, they are really saying, it would be ridiculous for an individual to have not truly entered into a real sacramental marriage after three “Chances” so to speak. Whereas, theoretically, all things assumed, a Roman Catholic could get “married” beyond three times, if insufficient evidence was found that that person had truly entered into a marriage.

Thus, I don’t think many orthodox properly understand what Orthodoxy means by divorce. Much like the misinterpretation and abuse of Oikonomia and the filioque debate. I want to put a nail in this debate so we are clear both churches are on the same page, but using different language and terminology for the same concept and that it’s a large misunderstanding. If this is not the case, I would greatly appreciate the correction.

Additionally, the three marriage rule I believe is from the Council of Trullo, considered the last session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which set in writing many of the canons that govern the Spiritual Praxis of the Byzantine Rite. Correct me if I’m wrong on this one too my brothers. Thanks!

 

[Vico]

I’ve read numerous threads here and articles, and there always is the accusation from Catholics that Orthodox have strayed from Christ’s teaching on “Divorce”. Eastern Orthodox likewise uphold that they may remarry three times, further confusing the debate. This is what I’ve surmised and I just want to make sure I’m right. That this debate, much like the filioque debate is about terminology and language rather than any departure of teaching.

The orthodox concept of “divorce” is that a marriage is no longer a marriage because of one or several conditions that were never fulfilled for marriage to have been proper. In which case, it is very similar to the Roman Catholic concept of “Annulment”. However, when the orthodox say you can get married three times, they are really saying, it would be ridiculous for an individual to have not truly entered into a real sacramental marriage after three “Chances” so to speak. Whereas, theoretically, all things assumed, a Roman Catholic could get “married” beyond three times, if insufficient evidence was found that that person had truly entered into a marriage.

Thus, I don’t think many orthodox properly understand what Orthodoxy means by divorce. Much like the misinterpretation and abuse of Oikonomia and the filioque debate. I want to put a nail in this debate so we are clear both churches are on the same page, but using different language and terminology for the same concept and that it’s a large misunderstanding. If this is not the case, I would greatly appreciate the correction.

Additionally, the three marriage rule I believe is from the Council of Trullo, considered the last session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which set in writing many of the canons that govern the Spiritual Praxis of the Byzantine Rite. Correct me if I’m wrong on this one too my brothers. Thanks!

There are annulments in the Orthodox Church, as you mention, however the allowing of remarriage after divorce is something else that is not an annulment, which you are thinking of, which can result in up to three marriages.
“It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour” - St. Cyril of Alexandria

This is different than what the Catholic Church holds to be true, that there can be only one valid marriage between the baptised while the spouses still live, and an annulment is a declaration that a valid marriage never existed because of an impediment or invalid covenent, etc…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

There are annulments in the Orthodox Church, as you mention, however the allowing of remarriage after divorce is something else that is not an annulment, which you are thinking of, which can result in up to three marriages.
“It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour” - St. Cyril of Alexandria

This is different than what the Catholic Church holds to be true, that there can be only one valid marriage between the baptised while the spouses still live, and an annulment is a declaration that a valid marriage never existed because of an impediment or invalid covenent, etc…

Yes, and then there are the many RC annulments which MIGHT lead some to think that the RC Church wants to have its cake and eat it too!

Alex

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

So is the orthodox position on divorce a deviation from ancient practice and misrepresentation of patristic teaching?

 

[mardukm]

So is the orthodox position on divorce a deviation from ancient practice and misrepresentation of patristic teaching?

We should distinguish between teaching and praxis.

The Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches formally teach what our Lord Jesus Christ affirmed - the indissolubility of marriage. I am not aware that this is a formal teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

In praxis, all Churches seem to accept the principle of (at least) civil divorce or separation.

It is the issue of re-marriage that is most contentious. All Churches recognize that remarriage is permissible upon the death of one spouse, and under the principle of the Pauline privilege. Apart from that commonality:
(a) the CC’s allow for remarriage under the Petrine privilege.
(b) the OOC’s allow for remarriage as a matter of oikonomia, only under 2 circumstances (adultery and apostasy, though under some theories, adultery is regarded as merely a form of apostasy; it is my opinion that permitting remarriage due to apostasy can be considered a species of the Petrine privilege).
(c) the EOC’s allow for remarriage as a matter of oikonomia for other reasons beyond the 2 generally accepted by the OOC’s, but I’ve also encountered the idea that remarriage is normative.

From my observation, the EOC has moved the farthest from both ancient practice and patristic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Yes, and then there are the many RC annulments which MIGHT lead some to think that the RC Church wants to have its cake and eat it too!

True, borther Alex. I recall reading several years ago that the Roman Rota had overturned over 1,000 annulments granted by tribunals in the U.S., including a highly publicized one involving the Kennedy’s. So annulments can and have been abused in the Latin CC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Q. What is the Orthodox position on the indissolubility of marriage,
of divorce and remarriage, and why?

A: The Orthodox Church views marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman that is established and blessed by God. Marriage therefore is “a bond of a covenant that may not be broken,” according to the words of the sacrament. And yet the Church, for certain grave reasons, permits divorce and remarriage. This seemingly paradoxical position arises out of, on the one hand, respect for biblical teaching and, on the other, compassionate concern for human weakness.
The authority for the unbreakable character of marriage is Christ himself. In Mark 10:6-8, Jesus rejects divorce allowed by the Mosaic Law (Dt 24-14) and appeals to God’s order of creation: “God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gn 1:27; 2:24). Then he commands: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mk 10:9). The same teaching is found among the radical standards of conduct proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-33). These principles are intended for all those who accept Christ’s saving message and commit themselves to live by the reality of God’s kingdom revealed by Christ.

The Orthodox tradition has always fostered the ideal of the permanency of marriage on the basis of Christ’s teaching. For example, the great Church Father, John Chrysostom (fourth century), writes, “Both by the manner of creation and by the manner of [new] lawgiving, Christ showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually and never break off from her.” In his book “Against Remarriage,” Chrysostom goes as far as to counsel widows and widowers themselves not to remarry but to remain faithful to their deceased spouses and honor their memory.

However, because of human frailty, not all people can uphold the ideal of the permanency of marriage. And the radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount must ultimately be interpreted in the light of the Gospel, not law. In cases of moral failure, the Gospel requires that we respond to people with compassion and forgiveness, not judgment and condemnation. According to the Gospel of Matthew, divorce can occur for reasons of “unchastity” (porneia, literally “fornication”), probably referring to sexual misconduct (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Similarly, though St. Paul mentions the standard of Christ’s strict teaching about marriage, nevertheless he accommodates his pastoral instructions to human weakness, including the possibility of separation and divorce (1 Cor 7:10-15).

In this spirit, the Orthodox Church has developed the principle of “economy” ( oikonomia, meaning “flexibility”), by which it permits divorce and subsequent remarriage. But it does so only in the context of individual pastoral guidance, and for grave reasons such as abandonment, permanent insanity, adultery, forcing the spouse into prostitution, or endangering the life of the spouse. In such cases, it is not that the Church “dissolves” a marriage by granting a divorce, but rather that the Church officially acknowledges and certifies that a marriage has already tragically failed. To quote St. Cyril of Alexandria (fifth century), “It is not a writ of divorce that dissolves marriage before God, but bad actions.” The Church acts by God’s mercy to recognize the failed marriage and to allow the possibility of another in order to forestall worse moral consequences."

stmichaelsgeneva.org/MoralTeachings–Divorce&Remarriage.htm

 

[Vico]

We should distinguish between teaching and praxis.

The Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches formally teach what our Lord Jesus Christ affirmed - the indissolubility of marriage. I am not aware that this is a formal teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

In praxis, all Churches seem to accept the principle of (at least) civil divorce or separation.

It is the issue of re-marriage that is most contentious. All Churches recognize that remarriage is permissible upon the death of one spouse, and under the principle of the Pauline privilege. Apart from that commonality:
(a) the CC’s allow for remarriage under the Petrine privilege.
(b) the OOC’s allow for remarriage as a matter of oikonomia, only under 2 circumstances (adultery and apostasy, though under some theories, adultery is regarded as merely a form of apostasy; it is my opinion that permitting remarriage due to apostasy can be considered a species of the Petrine privilege).
(c) the EOC’s allow for remarriage as a matter of oikonomia for other reasons beyond the 2 generally accepted by the OOC’s, but I’ve also encountered the idea that remarriage is normative.

From my observation, the EOC has moved the farthest from both ancient practice and patristic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

Saint Paul states that married Christians (both) are not to re-marry - 1 Corinthians 7.

The Petrine privilege is a Christian with a non-Christian, a non-sacramental natural marriage. Even so, the Holy See rarely grants the Petrine privilege.

There is also the Pauline privilege in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 where two non-Christians may dissolve their non-sacramental natural marriage because one is becomes a Christian.

 

[mardukm]

The Petrine privilege is a Christian with a non-Christian, a non-sacramental natural marriage. Even so, the Holy See rarely grants the Petrine privilege.

Actually, the applicability of the Petrine privilege has changed over the centuries. In Orthodox terms, the Petrine privilege would be an exercise of oikonomia, so that its standards have changed should be no surprise to anyone. It used to be the case that the Petrine privilege was never applied to cases wherein one of the parties was married with a dispensation of cult. The current standards allow for the use of the Petrine privilege even in those circumstances in favorem fidei. I have hope that the “definition” of “Petrine privilege” can change in the future to cover instances of apostasy, for in such instances, the principle of in favorem fidei can surely be applied. That would bring at least the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics closer together. Since the EO allow for divorce and remarriage for many other reasons other than adultery/apostasy, it may be a little harder to find a common basis with them.

A possible common ground among all the Churches, at least theologically speaking, seems to have been “proposed” by HH Pope Benedict last year(?), when he commented that Orthodox do not consider second and third marriages to have a truly Sacramental character. In truth, I have not researched this particular aspect of the matter at all, and am not aware of Orthodox responses to that suggestion by HH Pope Benedict. I recall it was discussed at ByzCath when it first came to people’s attentions, but the participants were not united pro or con on the topic. I had the impression that no one was really sure what the Orthodox position was.

There is also the Pauline privilege in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 where two non-Christians may dissolve their non-sacramental natural marriage because one is becomes a Christian.

Well, there’s a few other conditions, but that’s basically correct.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Mardukm,

Rev. Fr. Schmemman notes in For the Life of the World that the character of second and later marriages is penitential… So yes, the EO do have a different character. I don’t have my copy to hand, but he makes it clear that the remarriage is an act economia even for widows and widowers…

One should also note that the restrictions on clerics biblically tend to be seen as if each was suffixed with “in his lifetime”… and so being a man husband of more than one wife is grounds for exclusion from even minor orders.

 

[Alexius]

Mardukm,

Rev. Fr. Schmemman notes in For the Life of the World that the character of second and later marriages is penitential… So yes, the EO do have a different character. I don’t have my copy to hand, but he makes it clear that the remarriage is an act economia even for widows and widowers…

One should also note that the restrictions on clerics biblically tend to be seen as if each was suffixed with “in his lifetime”… and so being a man husband of more than one wife is grounds for exclusion from even minor orders.

This is correct. I have seen many sources that speak of second and third marriages as Fr. Schmemman does…penitential in nature…

There are many views from the Orthodox on “divorce” on the internet. There is a decent article out there comparing and contrasting the Orthodox marriage, divorce and remarriage process with the Catholic one (it is slightly polemical on that note, but it is still very thorough from the Orthodox explanation I believe).

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[dvdjs]

Many speak of it, but this idea is something of a pious legend, or a vestige of pre-modern times. The only person who has posted around this matter who has actually performed an EO second marriage says that the rite is essentially indistinguishable from a first marriage.

Here are some relevant threads from this one:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7682274&postcount=58

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthr…opics/333262/1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…light=marriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…light=marriage
and the last several pages of
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…rriage&page=19

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Just because the character of the marriage is changed, does not mean it is not a marriage.

At this time, I am led to the conclusion the Orthodox Church underwent a departure from biblical and patristic church practice in antiquity.