Eastern Orthodox?

[Rohzek]

I do not say that you are a modernist, but I would say that contemporary Orthodoxy, not surprisingly, contains voices that re-interpret the fathers and traditions in a way that is more palatable to modern ears. It is not the easiest thing to discern what, among the widely available contemporary resources, accurately represents tradition. A good razor, however, is that fact that second marriages were not conducted in Orthodox churches until close to the end of the first millenium.

I would again strongly recommend Meyendorff - who can hardly be considered a purveyor of RC Kool-aid. He reputation is as a contemporary theologian is much, much stronger than the alternatives that you provided.

If you are interested in proof texts from the fathers, here is a decent resource.
calledtocommunion.com/2011/09/what-therefore-god-has-joined-together-divorce-and-the-sacrament-of-marriage/

I’ll be happy to read it, although I have read an article of his on the same matter. But my book list is already near 50 books, so it will naturally be a while.

As for second marriages not happening until the end of the first millennium, obviously that is not the case if St. John Chrysostom talks about such matters as well as St. Jerome.

And no, Orthodoxy’s position is as I say, insofar that sin can destroy a marriage. Indissobility is the ideal and not absolute. This is not a modernist notion. Additionally, Meyondorff’s historical opinion: that the Orthodox view is that marriages continue in the afterlife and so marriage after becoming a widow is discouraged on such grounds, this historical position is disputed among many Orthodox theologians.

stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/divorce/divorce-in-church-history

 

[Tomdstone]

A good razor, however, is that fact that second marriages were not conducted in Orthodox churches until close to the end of the first millenium.

How do you explain the words of St. Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion written between between 374 and 377, in which he wrote: “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness”

 

[dvdjs]

How do you explain the words of St. Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion written between between 374 and 377, in which he wrote: “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness”

What needs to be explained?

 

[Tomdstone]

What needs to be explained?

He says divorce and remarriage are allowed under certain circumstances.

 

[dvdjs]

He says divorce and remarriage are allowed under certain circumstances.

What does that have to do with your quote from my post?

A good razor, however, is that fact that second marriages were not conducted in Orthodox churches until close to the end of the first millenium.

Moreover, he does not say it is “allowed”, but that his church “tolerates it on account of …weakness”. There was no such thing as an ecclesiastical divorce at that time, or a second marriage in the church or even a blessing of it by the church. Remarriage after divorce did happen in the civil arena, but was clearly seen as missing the mark by the church. At that time, in some situations, churches responded to this fait accompli by allowing people back into the church after penance, a lengthy period of excommunication, and, as directed by some in the link I gave, termination of sexual relations by the remarried partners.

Even many centuries later, when the Emperor mandated that marriages, including second marriages would be conducted by the church, a second marriage was said to have a penitential tone, did not involve crowning, and did not allow for clergy to participate in any celebration of the marriage.

Such practices are a far cry from contemporary practice. I am not interested in criticizing the modern practices, however; just the revision of history that pretends that the current ideas are unchanged from the time of the fathers.

 

[Rohzek]

You’re missing the point. Second marriages were undesirable, and an indication of the failure of the first which is a grievous sin. The second marriages are still performed in a solemn ceremony. However, the notion that marriages were metaphysically indissoluble instead of ideally indissoluble is a historical invention. So the Orthodox practice isn’t in any way modernist whatsoever.

And so what if second marriages weren’t performed by the church at the time. Most first marriages weren’t performed by the church, at least in the Latin West well into the High Middle Ages. People got married and then showed up afterwards at the doorstep at the church for what was usually like a 2 minute blessing for something that already occurred. So yeah, ecclesiastical divorces is a new process, but only because all marriages were mandated to be conducted by the church. The church effectively took over something that was in the so-called public sector. None of this has any bearing on the argument whether or not marriages were considered absolutely indissoluble or ideally indissoluble. And again, Saints Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Cyril all believed in the latter.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You’re missing the point. Second marriages were undesirable, and an indication of the failure of the first which is a grievous sin. The second marriages are still performed in a solemn ceremony. However, the notion that marriages were metaphysically indissoluble instead of ideally indissoluble is a historical invention. So the Orthodox practice isn’t in any way modernist whatsoever.

And so what if second marriages weren’t performed by the church at the time. Most first marriages weren’t performed by the church, at least in the Latin West well into the High Middle Ages. People got married and then showed up afterwards at the doorstep at the church for what was usually like a 2 minute blessing for something that already occurred. So yeah, ecclesiastical divorces is a new process, but only because all marriages were mandated to be conducted by the church. The church effectively took over something that was in the so-called public sector. None of this has any bearing on the argument whether or not marriages were considered absolutely indissoluble or ideally indissoluble. And again, Saints Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Cyril all believed in the latter.

I’ve heard some Eastern Orthodox theologians ‘theologize’ that marriage goes to eternity. How can this be if it is only ideally indissoluble? It then begs the question, which one?

 

[Rohzek]

I’ve heard some Eastern Orthodox theologians ‘theologize’ that marriage goes to eternity. How can this be if it is only ideally indissoluble? It then begs the question, which one?

There is that dispute. Meyendorff seems to think this idea goes way back. Other Orthodox theologians say the idea originated in the modern era. History is a messy affair in the hallowed walls of academia.

 

[dvdjs]

You’re missing the point…

I think that you are missing my point: your perspective on Orthodox theology of marriage needs some tuning. Here is a passage from Meyendorff on the Byzantine Church. Some key points:

• Marriage, a gift of grace, is eternal and not dissolved by death.
• In some cases the church can discern that the grace of marriage “was not received”, and accept divorce, and even remarriage.
• Remarriage is never encouraged - even after the death of a spouse - because of the “eternal character of the marriage bond”.
• The Early Church, through nearly all of the first millennium, blessed only first marriages in Church; remarriages, even after widowhood, were civil ceremonies, not blessed in the Church; they carried a penance of a period excommunication.
• The Early Church “neither ‘recognized’ divorce, nor ‘gave’ it.”
• The Church did not object to and ultimately received the civil practice of the Empire

It should also be clear the the penitential aspects of divorce and remarriage have all but vanished over time, marking a significant departure from the Early Church.

XII. Divorce

The Roman Catholic traditional view, canonical regulations on divorce and remarriage are based on two presuppostions. 1) Marriage is a legal contract, and for Christians is legally indissoluble. 2) The marriage contract concerns only earthly life and therefore, is legally dissolved by the death of one partner.

The Orthodox approach starts from different presuppositions. 1) Marriage is a sacrament conferred upon the partners in the Body of the Church through the priest’s blessing. As any sacrament, marriage pertains to the eternal life in the Kingdom of God and therefore, is not dissolved by the death of one partner. An eternal bond is created between them—“it is given to them” (Matthew 19:11). 2) As sacrament, marriage is not a magical act, but a gift of grace. The partners, being humans, may have made a mistake in soliciting the grace of marriage when they were not ready for it; or they may prove to be unable to make this grace grow to maturity. In those cases, the Church may admit the fact that the grace was not “received,” tolerate separation and allow remarriage. But, of course, she never encourages any remarriage—we have seen that even in the case of widowers—because of the eternal character of the marriage bond; but only tolerates it when, in concrete cases, it appears as the best solution for a given individual.

Christ repeatedly condemned divorce (Mt. 19:8-9; 5:31-32; Mk. 10:2-9; Lk. 16;18). The indissolubility of marriage does not imply the total suppression of human freedom. Freedom implies the possibility of sin, as well as its consequences; ultimately, sin can destroy marriage. Nowhere does the New Testament explicitly condone remarriage after divorce. …

In the Christian Empire under Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and others, laws defined the various legal grounds and conditions on which divorce and remarriage were permissible. It is sufficient to say that they were relatively lenient. However, no Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. …

However, the Church always remained faithful to the New Testament ideal. Only the first and unique marriage was blessed in Church during the Eucharist. As seen above, second and third marriages, after widowhood, were concluded at a civil ceremony only, and implied a penance of one to five years of excommunication. After this period of penance, the couple was again considered as full members of the Church. A more prolonged penance was required for married divorcees (see canon 87 of Sixth Ecum. Council). The classification of the marrying divorcees among the adulterers—in strict conformity with the Gospel text—implied that they spent sufficient time standing in Church not among the faithful, but at the doorway, with the “weepers,” the “hearers” (i.e., those who listened to Scripture, but were not admitted to the sacraments), and the “prostrators” (i.e., those who held, during certain parts of the service, a prostrated position, instead of sitting or standing).

The Church, therefore, neither “recongized” divorce, nor “gave” it. Divorce was considered as a grave sin; but the Church never failed in giving to sinners a “new chance,” and was ready to readmit them if they repented. Only after the tenth century, when it received from the emperors the legal monopoly of registering and validating all marriages, was the Church obliged to “issue divorces.” It did it generally in conformity with civil legislation of the Roman Empire, and later with that of the various countries in which it developed. But this new situation greatly obliterated in the consciousness of the marriage. Both the Church marriage and the “Church divorce” appeared as a mere formality giving external legality to acts which were generally quite illegitimate from the Christian point of view.

Practically, and in full conformity with Scripture and Church tradition, I would suggest that our Church authorities stop “giving divorces” (since they are secured by civil courts), and rather on the basis of recognition, based upon the civil divorce, that marriage does not in fact exist, issue “permissions to remarry.” …

 

[Rohzek]

It should also be clear the the penitential aspects of divorce and remarriage have all but vanished over time, marking a significant departure from the Early Church.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Those penitential aspects are still there. Listen, you can quote Meyendorff all day long. Meyendorff isn’t the only scholar on the issue and he isn’t the Orthodox Church. Some of his claims are disputed, especially the claim that it is a long-held tradition that marriage continues into the afterlife. All you have done is called alternatives I cited modernist without exactly explaining why.

 

[Rohzek]

[Col.0135A] (Vers. 9.) Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur. Et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur. Sola fornicatio est quae uxoris vincat affectum: immo cum illa unam carnem in aliam diviserit, et se fornicatione separaverit 146 a marito, non debet teneri: ne virum quoque sub maledicto faciat, dicente Scriptura: Qui adulteram tenet, stultus et impius est. Ubicumque est igitur fornicatio, et fornicationis suspicio, libere uxor dimittitur. Et quia poterat accidere, ut aliquis calumniam faceret innocenti, et ob secundam copulam nuptiarum, veteri crimen impingeret, sic priorem dimittere jubetur uxorem, ut secundam, prima vivente, non habeat. Quod enim dicit, tale est: Si non propter libidinem, [Col.0135B] sed propter injuriam dimittis uxorem: quare expertus infelices priores nuptias, novarum te immittis periculo? Necnon quia poterat evenire, ut juxta eamdem legem uxor quoque marito daret repudium, eadem cautela praecipitur, ne secundum accipiat virum. Et quia meretrix, et quae semel fuerat adultera, opprobrium non timebat, secundo [a 1Kb] praecipitur viro, quod si talem duxerit, sub adulterii sit crimine.

Saint Jerome, Commentary on Matthew PL 26

Therefore when one has divided the one flesh into two, and has separated themselves by fornication from the marriage, the marriage ought not to hold: lest the man too fall under evil, as it is said in the Scriptures: He who holds an adulteress is foolish and impious.Wheresoever therefore there is a fornicator and a suspected fornicator, the wife (the presumed cheater) is to be divorced freely. And because he (the husband) was able to sever [the marriage] so that anyone may make a false accusation without harm, and on account for the second bond of marriage, he would have been driven to a crime with the old [marriage] (he eludes to murder). Thus he wishes to divorce the first wife; so that he may not have the second wife living with the first. In fact [or rather on the contrary for such evil lustful designs], what he says is such: if it is not on account for pleasure, but rather injury, you divorce [your] wife: Why then would the injured party who endured an unfaithful first marriage, allow for the peril of a new one? And indeed he was able to proceed so that the joined wife may too wish to render a legal divorce. The same caution is advised [to the woman] in that she may not marry another man. And since the whore who was once an adulterer does not fear punishment, to the second man it is warned, that if he marries such a person he may be under the crime of adultery.

The highlighted portion is to emphasize the point that Jerome thinks it is a possibility, not a destiny for the case of being in adultery. Jerome says quite clearly that adultery destroys a marriage. But then he gives us two case examples. In the first case, the husband wants a new wife due to lust. So he accuses the first wife of adultery in order to divorce her. It is either that, or murder her, which is the graver sin. So the husband falsely accuses her. There is no way to really know if she is really an adulterer.

Then in the second case, there really is adultery. So the divorce is legitimate.

Jerome then cautions against remarriage for either of them. For the wronged husband, Jerome says that he risks heartbreak again. For the second husband of the accused adulteress, he cautions against bigamy, because again there is no way to know if she was falsely accused by her former husband due to lust for another woman.

The Latin is incredibly precise on this conditional statement at the end of the excerpt, using both future perfect (which we translate into present tense in English to suit our language), and present subjunctive in the latter part of the phrase.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

So, now that Amor Latitiae has been released, does the Catholic position now more closely approximate the Orthodox one? I haven’t read the document due to its length, but I’ve read that it seems to delegate the decision for giving communion to divorced and remarried couples to the local parish priest. If that’s the case, wouldn’t that seem to approach the Orthodox position?

 

[SyroMalankara]

So, now that Amor Latitiae has been released, does the Catholic position now more closely approximate the Orthodox one? I haven’t read the document due to its length, but I’ve read that it seems to delegate the decision for giving communion to divorced and remarried couples to the local parish priest. If that’s the case, wouldn’t that seem to approach the Orthodox position?

It doesn’t and no. The Orthodox position allows ecclesiastical divorce and a penitential 2nd marriage. The couple is excommunicated from the Eucharist for about 3yrs, depending on the prescription of their bishop, and hopefully restored. I see no guidelines here on penitence or restoration, just a little but vague on details. And ecclesiastical divorce doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church

 

[dvdjs]

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Those penitential aspects are still there. Listen, you can quote Meyendorff all day long. Meyendorff isn’t the only scholar on the issue and he isn’t the Orthodox Church. Some of his claims are disputed, especially the claim that it is a long-held tradition that marriage continues into the afterlife. All you have done is called alternatives I cited modernist without exactly explaining why.

1. Which penitential aspects? No church service? No Eucharist? No crowning? Lengthy period of excommunication? According to a ROCOR priest that used to past here - and who was the only person posting who had experience in second marriages - the contemporary practice is to incude a single prayer at the outset, which in his church was in Church Slavonic and not well understood by any of the participants. Not much of the Patristic practice is left after the long development.
2. Would love some links to other scholars who dispute the historical work of Meyendorff. The chat by Fr Hopko wasn’t scholarly nor discuss Meyendorff. Patristic proof-texting is not scholarly either.
3. Things that pertain now and at variance with the past are modern.

 

[Rohzek]

1. Which penitential aspects? No church service? No Eucharist? No crowning? Lengthy period of excommunication? According to a ROCOR priest that used to past here - and who was the only person posting who had experience in second marriages - the contemporary practice is to incude a single prayer at the outset, which in his church was in Church Slavonic and not well understood by any of the participants. Not much of the Patristic practice is left after the long development.

In GOAA just getting an ecclesiastical divorce is ridiculously difficult. And yes, extensive bans on communion still occur as well as the others.

1. Would love some links to other scholars who dispute the historical work of Meyendorff. The chat by Fr Hopko wasn’t scholarly nor discuss Meyendorff.

Sure. Concerning the matter of marriages continuing into the afterlife see “The Formation of Marriage in late Byzantine Canon Law" by Patrick Viscuso or his Sexuality, Marriage, and Celibacy in Byzantine Law. As for the issue of divorces and second marriages, while not being done by the church, in which case most marriages weren’t anyways until much later in the medieval period in both east and west, recognition of divorced recognized the dissolution of the sacrament. I’m not disputing that marriage ceremonies are different between whether or not they are the first, second, or third. I don’t find that important. All marriage liturgies, especially when concerning the mass populace, are much later innovations in church history, east or west. Strangely enough, current Latin practice emerged much later than Byzantine practice. What I’m disputing is the notion that first marriages were considered absolutely indissoluble. Unique =/= indissoluble. This is simply not the case.

Patristic proof-texting is not scholarly either.

See this is what I’m talking about. Any time I present anything that contradicts you, instead of providing either a counter-argument or more sources, you just label mine as either modernist or say it isn’t scholarly. The Fr. Hopko link was from a lecture. Furthermore, Fr. Hopko was a well-regarded Orthodox theologian on par with Meyendorff. Any lecture by a professional is considered scholarly. And yes, not only quotes but also citations of primary source material, even from the Fathers, counts as scholarly. There are two types of sources in the discipline of history: primary sources and secondary sources. If you don’t like how I use some of them, then perhaps you should formulate an actual argument. That’s how history works and is written.

1. Things that pertain now and at variance with the past are modern.

Well, if that’s your definition of modern then arguably the current Catholic practice of liturgical marriage is modern too or to be more specific an invention of the 12th and 13th centuries. But this isn’t what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about specific conceptions of marriage. You disputed my claim that Orthodox view marriage as only ideally indissoluble. You said rather that they believe that they were absolutely indissoluble in the past, but eventually came to bless second-marriages anyways. This is akin to common and misguided label against us Orthodox as accepting bigamy. It’s not true.

 

[Rohzek]

I’ll add this one other lecture that also makes it clear: the first marriage is unique but not indissoluble. This has and will always be our position.

oodegr.co/english/ekklisia/marriage_divorce.htm

 

[Vico]

I’ll add this one other lecture that also makes it clear: the first marriage is unique but not indissoluble. This has and will always be our position.

oodegr.co/english/ekklisia/marriage_divorce.htm

Catholic too:

• Natural marriage (one or none baptized): may be dissolved.
• Sacramental marriage (both baptized): may be dissolved when unconsummated.
  Annulment means they were not joined by God due to some defect of their attempt.

 

[dvdjs]

I’ll add this one other lecture that also makes it clear: the first marriage is unique but not indissoluble. This has and will always be our position.

oodegr.co/english/ekklisia/marriage_divorce.htm

Thank you for the link that includes this:

The Church has been faithful throughout the centuries to the principle referred to by Paul, that a second marriage is an aberration of the Christian statute. In this sense the orthodox doctrine confirms not only the “indissolubility” of marriage, but also its uniqueness. Every true marriage can be uniquely the “only” one.

 

[dvdjs]

In GOAA just getting an ecclesiastical divorce is ridiculously difficult. And yes, extensive bans on communion still occur as well as the others. The fact that there are ecclesiastical divorce at all is a post-patristic age development. I am curious about the bans on communion. When are they applied, how long, etc.

Concerning the matter of marriages continuing into the afterlife see “The Formation of Marriage in late Byzantine Canon Law" by Patrick Viscuso or his Sexuality, Marriage, and Celibacy in Byzantine Law. What I’m disputing is the notion that first marriages were considered absolutely indissoluble. Unique =/= indissoluble. This is simply not the case.

Thanks for the link. I realize what you are disputing. I am pointing out that scholarly evidence for that perspective is lacking, and that is is flat out contradicted by a significant Orthodox theologian.

See this is what I’m talking about. Any time I present anything that contradicts you, instead of providing either a counter-argument or more sources, you just label mine as either modernist or say it isn’t scholarly. The Fr. Hopko link was from a lecture. Furthermore, Fr. Hopko was a well-regarded Orthodox theologian on par with Meyendorff. Any lecture by a professional is considered scholarly. And yes, not only quotes but also citations of primary source material, even from the Fathers, counts as scholarly. There are two types of sources in the discipline of history: primary sources and secondary sources. If you don’t like how I use some of them, then perhaps you should formulate an actual argument. That’s how history works and is written.

The problem with proof texting is that the full context is lacking, often intrinsically. The writings here were not aimed to provide a detailed historical record. Without careful historical scholarship, then there is every opportunity to read contemporary practices falsely back in the past. For example, when remarriage is older texts, is it referring to a civil wedding or, as in the contemporary Orthodox church, a church wedding? Discernment and serious scholarship is required to answer these kinds of questions. Fr Hopko, as is his wont and great gift, gave a nice pastoral talk, but not a seminar on the theology of marriage.

You disputed my claim that Orthodox view marriage as only ideally indissoluble. You said rather that they believe that they were absolutely indissoluble in the past, but eventually came to bless second-marriages anyways. This is akin to common and misguided label against us Orthodox as accepting bigamy. It’s not true.

Your claim is explicitly disputed by Orthodox theologians. It is therefore a dubious claim. The is no standing to say this or that is what Orthodox always believed, when a major theologian is saying just the opposite.

 

[Rohzek]

Thank you for the link that includes this:

Thanks for neglecting to quote the following from the link ( oodegr.co/english/ekklisia/marriage_divorce.htm ), which is what I have been saying all along and is directly above the portion you quoted:

1. HOLINESS AND INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE

We have already said that marriage in its purest form is a natural order according to divine intention. It is the basis of the family, which is the community where man’s noblest feelings are able to develop. Marriage is in its essence a holy institution and its holiness has been sealed through the Church, which views marriage as a divine institution and mystery.[14] It is not therefore the agreement and free will of the marriage partners that establishes the marriage, but it is the grace of God in particular which is essential, and this is given through the approval of the Church, in the person of the bishop.[15]

Doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage is based on its holiness. The holiness and indissolubility of marriage exalt monogamy. References are often made to the Old Testament in this regard (Mal. 2, 14).

But as mystery or sacrament the Christian marriage is undoubtedly confronted with the “fallen” state of mankind. It is presented as the unachievable ideal. But there is a distinct difference between a “sacrament” and an “ideal”, for the first is “an experience involving not only man, but one in which he acts in communion with God”, in this he becomes a partner of the Holy Spirit while remaining human with his weaknesses and faults.[16]

**The theory of the indissolubility of marriage has a strong pedagogical significance. The motivation Christ gives is a command. Those who commit themselves to the covenant of marriage should do all they can not to separate, as they have God to thank for their oneness. But the additional motivation: “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10, 9; Math. 19, 6) does not signify a magical adherence. In every mystery or sacrament, excluding baptism, the exertion of man’s free will is required. The “not separate” is a divine request, as is “do not kill”. But man is free and can dissolve his marriage and kill his fellow man. In both cases he commits grievous sin.[17] **

The Church has been faithful throughout the centuries to the principle referred to by Paul, that a second marriage is an aberration of the Christian statute. In this sense the orthodox doctrine confirms not only the “indissolubility” of marriage, but also its uniqueness. Every true marriage can be uniquely the “only” one.

Thanks for the link. I realize what you are disputing. I am pointing out that scholarly evidence for that perspective is lacking, and that is is flat out contradicted by a significant Orthodox theologian.

After reading Meyendorff’s much shorter article on the matter, I really do think you are misunderstanding him. Aside for the issue regarding marriage lasting into the afterlife, Meyendorff clearly endorses the idea that marriage is not absolutely indissoluble. It is only ideally indissoluble. And from the excerpt of the book you pulled from, it seems to me that he is only advocating that the Church stop issuing canonical divorces because the Church only got involved directly with the process due to the convergence of Church and State under Justinian. Now that we are in a secular society, it would seem appropriate that the Church adjust, probably with some conditions, itself by having some sort of streamlined process that recognizes secular legal divorces. Source:

Meyendorff, John. “Christian Marriage in Byzantium: The Canonical and Liturgical Tradition,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 99-107.

The problem with proof texting is that the full context is lacking, often intrinsically. The writings here were not aimed to provide a detailed historical record. Without careful historical scholarship, then there is every opportunity to read contemporary practices falsely back in the past. For example, when remarriage is older texts, is it referring to a civil wedding or, as in the contemporary Orthodox church, a church wedding? Discernment and serious scholarship is required to answer these kinds of questions. Fr Hopko, as is his wont and great gift, gave a nice pastoral talk, but not a seminar on the theology of marriage.

Normally I would agree with you except that the source I pulled from was an exegesis on the Gospel of Matthew. The context is pretty clear just from the short passage by the very nature of the genre of literature of exegesis. It is on the singular verse Matthew 19:9. As for what he is referring to, it seems clear to me that he is referring to it on the sacramental level as Christ was in the verse.

Your claim is explicitly disputed by Orthodox theologians. It is therefore a dubious claim. The is no standing to say this or that is what Orthodox always believed, when a major theologian is saying just the opposite.

No, not really. Meyendorff endorses the historical tradition of marriage only ideally being indissoluble. The first marriage is unique, but not absolutely/metaphysically indissoluble.

I’m about done with this discussion however. I was reluctant to even object considering my disputed post is from months ago. You’re more than welcome to have the final word.