Economia

[suissemissed]

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches subscribe to “economia” like the Orthodox do? If so, what are some of the similarities/differences between the two?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches subscribe to “economia” like the Orthodox do? If so, what are some of the similarities/differences between the two?

To my knowledge, yes, we Eastern Catholics (i.e. of the Byzantine tradition) subscribe to economia. The only real difference between us and the Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) on this issue is divorce. Since Rome has pretty much foisted its view of marriage upon us we are required to go through the process of annulment. This goes against the Eastern/Byzantine theology of marriage. There has been, however, a small movement within Eastern/Byzantine Catholicism to restore our authentic traditions and theology regarding marriage (and by extension divorce and remarriage). By and large, however, this movement has been either ignored or trampled down by Rome.

Economia is roughly equivalent to what Roman Catholics would call “pastoral solutions”. These are solutions to very human problems that try to remain consistent with Gospel teaching while at the same time bearing in mind that we are fallen human beings. Of course the Gospel is always our golden standard and ideal of living, but we must admit that not everyone is able or yet capable of such a radical lifestyle. Such ability takes a lifetime of constant conversion and repentance, and the Church uses economia not to cater to our weaknesses, but help us to gradually over come those weaknesses by giving us alternative solutions until that time when we are strong enough not to need those alternatives.

 

[dvdjs]

… The only real difference between us and the Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) on this issue is divorce. Since Rome has pretty much foisted its view of marriage upon us we are required to go through the process of annulment. This goes against the Eastern/Byzantine theology of marriage. There has been, however, a small movement within Eastern/Byzantine Catholicism to restore our authentic traditions and theology regarding marriage (and by extension divorce and remarriage). By and large, however, this movement has been either ignored or trampled down by Rome…

I would like to learn more of the “foisting” and “trampling”. Can you give some documentation?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Phillip,

I have encountered two distinct viewpoints on this matter from EO:

(1) Divorce and remarriage is not “short of the mark,” but is normative since it is permissible through economia.

(2) Divorce and remarriage is “short of the mark,” and those who do it must realize this. Economia does not make anything normative, but is used only sparingly in particular circumstances.

What is your personal understanding?

Btw, the Oriental Tradition also recognizes the value and practice of annulments. I was certain I had read somewhere that it was also recognized in the Eastern Tradition (of course, I’m referring to our mother Oriental/Eastern Orthodox Churches). But, judging from your comments, it is not so in the Eastern Tradition?

Blessings,
Marduk

To my knowledge, yes, we Eastern Catholics (i.e. of the
Byzantine tradition) subscribe to economia. The only real difference between us and the Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) on this issue is divorce. Since Rome has pretty much foisted its view of marriage upon us we are required to go through the process of annulment. This goes against the Eastern/Byzantine theology of marriage. There has been, however, a small movement within Eastern/Byzantine Catholicism to restore our authentic traditions and theology regarding marriage (and by extension divorce and remarriage). By and large, however, this movement has been either ignored or trampled down by Rome.

Economia is roughly equivalent to what Roman Catholics would call “pastoral solutions”. These are solutions to very human problems that try to remain consistent with Gospel teaching while at the same time bearing in mind that we are fallen human beings. Of course the Gospel is always our golden standard and ideal of living, but we must admit that not everyone is able or yet capable of such a radical lifestyle. Such ability takes a lifetime of constant conversion and repentance, and the Church uses economia not to cater to our weaknesses, but help us to gradually over come those weaknesses by giving us alternative solutions until that time when we are strong enough not to need those alternatives.

 

[dvdjs]

Or more simply, PR, what is your conception of Eastern/Byzantine theology of marriage, and where does it come from? Something that would help to make sense out of your statement

"… we are required to go through the process of annulment. This goes against the Eastern/Byzantine theology of marriage. "

 

[Seamus_L]

If the EC churches are ever allowed to grant divorces, and if the Latin Church ever cracks down on annulments, you’ll see a record number of people headed East.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Dear brother Phillip,

I have encountered two distinct viewpoints on this matter from EO:

(1) Divorce and remarriage is not “short of the mark,” but is normative since it is permissible through economia.

(2) Divorce and remarriage is “short of the mark,” and those who do it must realize this. Economia does not make anything normative, but is used only sparingly in particular circumstances.

What is your personal understanding?

Btw, the Oriental Tradition also recognizes the value and practice of annulments. I was certain I had read somewhere that it was also recognized in the Eastern Tradition (of course, I’m referring to our mother Oriental/Eastern Orthodox Churches). But, judging from your comments, it is not so in the Eastern Tradition?

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello Marduk,

My own personal understanding, and the understanding that I’ve read from various Orthodox and Eastern Catholic authors, is that economia, when applied to the issue of divorce and remarriage, is always seen as falling short of the mark and is not normative under any circumstances. That being said, it seems to me that the practice of economia in relation to divorce and remarriage has become about as “normative” among the Orthodox as annulments have among Catholics. A sad reality, but reality nonetheless.

Annulments themselves, from what I’ve read, aren’t really part of the Eastern/Byzantine tradition. According to Fr. John Meyendorff (as you know an Orthodox theologian), Fr. Lawrence Cross (a Russian Catholic theologian), Archbishop Elias Zoghby (Melkite Greek Catholic), etc., annulments do not fit in with the Byzantine perspective on marriage because in the Byzantine tradition the priest is seen as the one marrying the couple, not the couple marrying each other with the priest acting as a representative on the part of the Church. To claim an annulment would be to claim something defective on the part of the priest marrying the couple, not something defective on the part of the couple themselves. To dvdjs, I believe if you turn to the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches you’ll find the issue of “foisting” there.

All this being said, I really have little to no opinion. I tend to still somewhat follow the “Roman” theology of marriage is I find it to be much more “mystical” than the Byzantine theology of marriage, which I’ve heard termed as much more “juridical” by a very “Orthodox” Eastern Catholic priest.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Also, dvdjs, I suggest that you check out Fr. Meyendorff’s book “Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective”, as well as the two books by Fr. Lawrence Cross “Eastern Christianity in the Byzantine Tradition” and “Image, Symbol and Mystery: An Eastern Christian View of the Sacraments”. Kyr Elias Zoghby touched upon this issue in his book “A Voice from the Byzantine East”, and I remember reading Kyr Joseph Raya on the same topic, but I don’t remember where. It’s possible that I read it in “Face of God”. That being said, Kyr Raya does/did have a book out on the Byzantine perspective on marriage. Sadly this book is very hard to come by. In fact, I once knew where to find it, but haven’t had any luck relocating it for purchase. I’m very disappointed about this because I’m a big fan of Raya and I would love to read what he has to say about marriage from a Byzantine perspective.

I would also like to add the proviso that I’m not speaking for the entire Eastern/Oriental tradition of the Church. I’m only speaking from a Byzantine perspective. I know that the Oriental Churches have their own perspectives and traditions. I’m hoping to learn more about their perspective soon (ahem, Marduk, please!!! )

 

[dvdjs]

That being said, it seems to me that the practice of economia in relation to divorce and remarriage has become about as “normative” among the Orthodox as annulments have among Catholics."

I am skeptical. Can you give some facts, for example, on the rejection on requests for second marriages vs annulments?

Annulments themselves, from what I’ve read, aren’t really part of the Eastern/Byzantine tradition. According to Fr. John Meyendorff (as you know an Orthodox theologian), Fr. Lawrence Cross (a Russian Catholic theologian), Archbishop Elias Zoghby (Melkite Greek Catholic), etc., annulments do not fit in with the Byzantine perspective on marriage because in the Byzantine tradition the priest is seen as the one marrying the couple, not the couple marrying each other with the priest acting as a representative on the part of the Church. To claim an annulment would be to claim something defective on the part of the priest marrying the couple, not something defective on the part of the couple themselves.

I think that this line of thinking has to be considered more carefully. Does the East have or has it ever had annulments, for example, for issues of consanguinity, bigamy, and other proscribed practices? I think that the answer is yes, and if, so, vitiates this entire line of argument. Moreover, if you have read Meyendorff than surely you have noticed that contemporary EO practice has precious little to do with Byzantine practices of the patristic age - practices that are viewed by many EOs as defining “Tradition”.

To dvdjs, I believe if you turn to the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches you’ll find the issue of “foisting” there.

Well, yes, I suppose there are those who think that the Code was foisted upon us, but, in reality, didn’t these canons represent a continuation of practices within Eastern Catholic Churches. I am sure that we had marriage tribunals long before the promulgation of the Code.

I am genuinely curious to learn about the whole history of divorce and remarriage among Melkites and other Greek Catholics. Was it three tries in the medieval Levant or Rus? Were there really enough examples of divorce in the church, until the past century, to delineate a common practice?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

dvdjs,

I will admit my own ignorance on this issue because, to this point, it’s never really been much of an issue for me. I know only a very little and can only point to certain references and relate what others have said to me.

So I’m open to correction and contrary opinions if others are willing to provide their sources. I’ve listed the few sources that I know. If anyone has other sources to suggest please provide them as I will happily expand my admittedly limited knowledge.

From what I’ve heard there is the standard in Orthodoxy that one is only allowed to marry three times (whether the remarriage occurs after divorce or death). This practice was started during the reign of one of the Byzantine emperors. I don’t know which, but I’m sure someone on here probably does. As far as the current practices of Eastern Catholicism, I don’t know. To my knowledge the current practice tends to mirror the Roman practice. I don’t know if that means one can marry as many times as one can get an annulment, or if one is limited to three marriages and then that’s that.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I suppose there are those who think that the Code was foisted upon us, but, in reality, didn’t these canons represent a continuation of practices within Eastern Catholic Churches. I am sure that we had marriage tribunals long before the promulgation of the Code.

The canons may represent a continuation of common practices within the Eastern Catholic Churches, but the real question is whether they represent a continuation of authentic Eastern/Byzantine tradition or just the concretization of certain Latinizations that have crept in over time. I can’t answer that question.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am skeptical. Can you give some facts, for example, on the rejection on requests for second marriages vs annulments?

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking for here. But I will say that I can only give impressions with regards to how divorce and remarriage is currently looked upon in Orthodoxy. I know from experience that annulments in the Roman Church are relatively easy to come by, the question is simply how long one is willing to wait. I cannot provide statistics or a source because again my knowledge comes from my own experience and from the experience of others.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think that this line of thinking has to be considered more carefully. Does the East have or has it ever had annulments, for example, for issues of consanguinity, bigamy, and other proscribed practices? I think that the answer is yes, and if, so, vitiates this entire line of argument. Moreover, if you have read Meyendorff than surely you have noticed that contemporary EO practice has precious little to do with Byzantine practices of the patristic age - practices that are viewed by many EOs as defining “Tradition”.

I’ve never come across anything that has made the claim that the Byzantine East has ever had annulments. In the cases that you mentioned above I believe the current practice would be to allow divorce and remarriage as an exercise of economia.

I will have to look at Meyendorff. But, that being said, I’ve never found any references to annulments in the Patristic Latin West through all of my extensive studies on the issues of marriage from a Roman perspective. If that is defining tradition, then is it traditional for Latins to permit annulments?

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to Fr. John Meyendorff (as you know an Orthodox theologian), Fr. Lawrence Cross (a Russian Catholic theologian), Archbishop Elias Zoghby (Melkite Greek Catholic), etc., annulments do not fit in with the Byzantine perspective on marriage because in the Byzantine tradition the priest is seen as the one marrying the couple, not the couple marrying each other with the priest acting as a representative on the part of the Church.

Interesting. So what about shotgun weddings? Perfectly valid?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Interesting. So what about shotgun weddings? Perfectly valid?

To my understanding, yes. Again because it is the priest/Church marrying the couple. Admittedly, however, my understand may, and probably does, need refinement. I wonder if Ancient Faith Radio has any programs on the Byzantine theology of marriage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To my understanding, yes. Again because it is the priest/Church marrying the couple. Admittedly, however, my understand may, and probably does, need refinement. I wonder if Ancient Faith Radio has any programs on the Byzantine theology of marriage.

In a way I wouldn’t be surprised since from the Middle East like Jerusalem, arranged marriages have been pretty much the norm even at the time of Jesus, and in some cases until today. If they take their understanding of marriage from that, then I can understand why free consent is not part of what makes the Sacrament/Mystery valid.

 

[Formosus]

In a way I wouldn’t be surprised since from the Middle East like Jerusalem, arranged marriages have been pretty much the norm even at the time of Jesus, and in some cases until today. If they take their understanding of marriage from that, then I can understand why free consent is not part of what makes the Sacrament/Mystery valid.

Arranged marriages probably have little to do with it. Arranged marriages were a universal practice throughout Europe and the rest of the world during much of the Church’s 2,000 year long history.

I do not know much about the theology of marriage so I will leave that to Phillip to respond to your point about free consent and its role in marriage validity in the Byzantine east.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I myself am uncertain as to the role of free consent in the Byzantine East. I suspect that while the emphasis is on the action of the priest (or rather Christ through the priest) in marrying the couple, the free consent of the couple is necessary. Conversely, while the action of the couple and their free consent is emphasized in the West, the actions of Christ through a priest are deacon are still deemed necessary to marriage, hence civil marriage is no longer permitted. Interestingly, from what I’ve heard, in the early Church all marriages were originally civil marriages that were later blessed by the Church through the couple’s sharing together in the Eucharist. This can still be seen in the Byzantine ceremonial when the betrothal takes place outside of the nave itself, while the wedding ceremony takes place within the nave before the iconostasis.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ll be monitoring this thread to learn more about the Eastern view on marriage. Maybe the topic needs to be modified a bit? Because understanding Eastern view on marriage will help understand why economia will allow divorce and remarriage.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Both Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia and Archbishop Elias Zoghby have nice brief discussions on economia. It is necessary to understand what economia is before we apply it to marriage and divorce. God willing I will post some summaries of what Metropolitan Kallistos and Kyr Elias have to say some time early tomorrow. For right now, it’s getting late and I’m going home soon, so I don’t have time. If anyone wants to look it up though, check out “The Orthodox Church” by Kallistos, or “A Voice from the Byzantine East” by Zoghby.