Orthodox accept artificial contraception?

[Dan_Daly]

If the marriage is valid, it’s valid. No one can separate what God has put together, not even the Church- so this kind of “discretion” meaning the church sanctioning a life of grave sin (adultery) because the alternative life of chastity is a struggle for the person simply cannot happen.

This is an interesting point that requires more explanation.

A valid sacramental marriage cannot be disolved by anyone, not even the Church. It is a marriage until one of the spouses die.

However.

A valid natural marriage- that would be one in which at least one of the spouses is not a baptized Christian, can be dissolved by the Pope.under certain circumstances.

Look up Petrine Privilege

Pax Christi

 

[Zekariya]

I see. Do the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox who are not in communion differ on other moral issues, or is it only contraceptioon?

I think we differ on marriages as well. We believe that marriage is forever. We offer annulments only in extreme circumstances.

HG Bishop Youssef:

“While divorce is on the rise in the world and among Christians, our Coptic Church follows the teachings of the Holy Bible considering a marriage to be everlasting “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mt 19:6). Divorce should be strictly forbidden except when adultery is proven “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt 19:9).”

“In cases where there is an abusive spouse, and the abuse is severe and prolonged despite extended separation and extensive intervention from the church, an annulment may be granted, if it is because a spouse being unfit psychologically. Violence is against all Christian principles. If someone cannot control himself, he may have disorders which prevent him from acquiring the necessary changes required to be a fit husband. When the church councils have investigated the case thoroughly and reach the conclusion of annulment (due to personality disorders or psychological diseases that started before marriage and were not disclosed before the marriage), permission to remarry may be granted. Even when that it is the case, many victims of spousal abuse refuse to remarry, usually in fear of repetitive patterns.”

 

[Marybeloved]

This is an interesting point that requires more explanation.

A valid sacramental marriage cannot be disolved by anyone, not even the Church. It is a marriage until one of the spouses die.

However.

A valid natural marriage- that would be one in which at least one of the spouses is not a baptized Christian, can be dissolved by the Pope.under certain circumstances.

Look up Petrine Privilege

Pax Christi

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think we differ on marriages as well. We believe that marriage is forever. We offer annulments only in extreme circumstances.

HG Bishop Youssef:

“While divorce is on the rise in the world and among Christians, our Coptic Church follows the teachings of the Holy Bible considering a marriage to be everlasting “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mt 19:6). Divorce should be strictly forbidden except when adultery is proven “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt 19:9).”

“In cases where there is an abusive spouse, and the abuse is severe and prolonged despite extended separation and extensive intervention from the church, an annulment may be granted, if it is because a spouse being unfit psychologically. Violence is against all Christian principles. If someone cannot control himself, he may have disorders which prevent him from acquiring the necessary changes required to be a fit husband. When the church councils have investigated the case thoroughly and reach the conclusion of annulment (due to personality disorders or psychological diseases that started before marriage and were not disclosed before the marriage), permission to remarry may be granted. Even when that it is the case, many victims of spousal abuse refuse to remarry, usually in fear of repetitive patterns.”

I guess it’s worth pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox position is similar. Since Christ told us that adultery makes divorce allowable, we allow for it only in cases of adultery and also in special cases where one spouse is abusive or when one spouse has married the other through deceit (the last of which no Catholic should object to, since this is a valid reason for an annulment). There is no divorce for irreconcilable differences or any ridiculous process like no-fault divorce.

 

[Marybeloved]

I guess it’s worth pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox position is similar. Since Christ told us that adultery makes divorce allowable, we allow for it only in cases of adultery and also in special cases where one spouse is abusive or when one spouse has married the other through deceit (the last of which no Catholic should object to, since this is a valid reason for an annulment). There is no divorce for irreconcilable differences or any ridiculous process like no-fault divorce.

Not to drag this thread to the specifics of that argument, but what is usually popularly translated as “adultery” in St. Mathew’s Gospel is not “adultery”, what is committed after a valid marriage like a husband cheating on his wife, but something that is wrong with the union itself, like incest. And what I understand Zechariah to say is that abuse is valid for divorce but not remarriage, unless it’s reflective of the mental status of the person at the time of contracting the marriage itself. Only if the person was not in a proper state at the time of the marriage will a second marriage occur, meaning not that the first one has been dissolved- aka divorce, but rather annulled or recognized as invalid.

The issue of divorce itself (civil divorce, that is) is not the contentious issue, as it cannot in reality dissolve a valid sacramental marriage-(what God has joined) it’s merely a practical matter. The issue is remarriage during the life of the spouse from the first non-nullified marriage; Which presumes an actual dissolution of a valid sacramental marriage- something impossible. This second marriage is what is seen as adulterous and is the main bone of contention, if you will.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Mary Beloved,

I don’t know if Cavaradossi meant remarriage alone by what he termed “discretion” in his post. If so, I have to disagree with you here.

If the marriage is valid, it’s valid. No one can separate what God has put together, not even the Church- so this kind of “discretion” meaning the church sanctioning a life of grave sin (adultery) because the alternative life of chastity is a struggle for the person simply cannot happen. :shrug:The thing is, no matter how much we sympathize, a second “marriage” while a former valid marriage subsists (no death) is no marriage at all, whatever twists or impossible calculations we may employ to make it so. Its just what the Lord called it and no less- adultery.

I don’t see that we disagree. I am from Coptic Orthodoxy who translated to the Catholic Church. Brother Zekariya explained it well form the Coptic perspective. Extreme abuse can be a genuine case for annulment. We’re not talking about divorce.

When I said “I suspect and trust there is” I was speaking about the possibility of annulment, not divorce.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

I guess it’s worth pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox position is similar. Since Christ told us that adultery makes divorce allowable, we allow for it only in cases of adultery and also in special cases where one spouse is abusive or when one spouse has married the other through deceit (the last of which no Catholic should object to, since this is a valid reason for an annulment). There is no divorce for irreconcilable differences or any ridiculous process like no-fault divorce.

I disagree. There are definite differences between the Oriental and Eastern perspectives on this issue. The first and most obvious is that Eastern apologists (polemicists, really) very often disparage the practice of annulments, whereas Orientals admit the practice quite readily.

A second and perhaps more important distinction is that Eastern canonical praxis for divorce and remarriage is more lax than Oriental standards. If you have ever read the agreed statement on intermarriage between the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Alexandrian Patriarchate, you will see that the two hierarchies even recognize this disparity, It explicitly states that intermarriage is possible only without prejudice to the canonical rules of each Church. Why do you suppose the agreed statement had to insert that important clause? It is for the plain fact that Easterns will allow for divorce and remarriage in circumstances that Oriental Copts do not accept. The Coptic Church will not allow a second marriage in the Coptic Church if the EO spouse was divorced for a reason that is not acceptable to the Coptic Church.

I’m not saying these are irreconcilable differences. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for certain EO to blithely overlook these differences with an eye towards some idyllic pan-Orthodox unity, while these same EO seem utterly incapable of giving the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt for the same reasons.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dan,

This is an interesting point that requires more explanation.

A valid sacramental marriage cannot be disolved by anyone, not even the Church. It is a marriage until one of the spouses die.

However.

A valid natural marriage- that would be one in which at least one of the spouses is not a baptized Christian, can be dissolved by the Pope.under certain circumstances.

Look up Petrine Privilege

Also, don’t forget the Pauline privilege.

The difference between the Pauline privilege and the Petrine privilege is that the Pauline privilege only grants permission for the Christian party to remarry.

In the Petrine privilege, EITHER the non-baptized OR the baptized party can get permission to remarry either a Catholic, or be remarried upon conversion to the Catholic Faith.

The Petrine privilege is really in a very theoretical stage of development. Some Canonists theorize that its application comes quite close to the Orthodox concept of divorce and remarriage, as one of the conditions for the Petrine privilege (in favor of the Catholic faith) to be applied is that the prior marriage is basically “dead.” I have hope that there will come a meeting of the minds between Catholics and Orthodox on the matter (this may be my own Oriental bias speaking, but I suspect rapprochement on the matter will be easier between the OOC and the CC, given the stricter standards for divorce and remarriage in the OOC’s)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Newsy]

Let us consider now, however, a woman whose husband has attempted to kill her, and has been imprisoned for his crime. Should she be given the same treatment as the man in the scenario above and be forced to endanger her life in order to reconcile with her husband after he has been released from prison? Surely not! She cannot be expected to live with him after he has attempted to take her life. That then only leaves us with two options: she can either remain celibate or the church might grant her a remarriage. Let us say that through his interactions with her, the priest determines that because of her spiritual weakness, the celibate life would likely cause her great spiritual harm (as any monastic will attest, not all are called to celibacy). Which is the least evil then, that she be allowed to remarry or that she be forced into a life of celibacy for which she is not suited? If a life of celibacy would lead her into even greater sin than remarriage, would it not be better simply to allow her to remarry?

Is there no room for the use of discretion in the Latin view of things?

The Catholic Church does not encourage anyone to risk their life to save a marriage. They recognize the necessity of safety. If the spouse or children are in danger from physical harm or death, separation is paramount. I am unsure about mental abuse, but would bet it is the same in any abuse cases. The Church will and does recommend civil divorce in cases of abuse to ensure the safety of all involved. This is a separate issue than re-marriage. The Church is concerned, firstly, about the safety of those in the family. Please don’t paint the picture as if the Church wants you to stay with a spouse at the danger of losing your life, as that is not the case.

How would celibacy cause harm? Difficult, yes, but harmful?

As to your idea, “Is there no room for the use of discretion in the Latin view of things?”.
There is a fine line between using discretion and relativism. I don’t think anyone wants the relativism of our society in our Church.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Originally Posted by Jim Dandy **

The Orthodox clergy actually advise their members to live in adultery.

Oy veh!

This is calumny.

If you have a reference, you had better present it or withdraw the claim.

QUOTE
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

Orthodox canon law can permit a second and even a third marriage “in economia”, but strictly forbids a fourth. In theory divorce is only recognized in the case of adultery, but in practise is also recognised in light of other reasons. There is a list of causes of divorce acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In practise the bishops sometimes apply “economia” in a liberal way. By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness. A second or third marriage will always be a deviation from the “ideal and unique marriage”, but often a fresh opportunity[26] to correct a mistake”.[27]
END QUOTE

These remarriages are accomplished in consultation with an Orthodox spiritual father, who grants permission. Jesus taught that remarriage after divorce (in the case of a valid marriage) is adultery. These couples will live in adultery, in mortal sin, condoned by the Orthodox Church.

Why permit three marriages and not four? or more? :whacky:

As pointed out previously, contraception is also allowed in consultation with a spiritual father. In both cases, the Orthodox Church gives permission to sin.

O Lord deliver us.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

I disagree. There are definite differences between the Oriental and Eastern perspectives on this issue. The first and most obvious is that Eastern apologists (polemicists, really) very often disparage the practice of annulments, whereas Orientals admit the practice quite readily.

A second and perhaps more important distinction is that Eastern canonical praxis for divorce and remarriage is more lax than Oriental standards. If you have ever read the agreed statement on intermarriage between the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Alexandrian Patriarchate, you will see that the two hierarchies even recognize this disparity, It explicitly states that intermarriage is possible only without prejudice to the canonical rules of each Church. Why do you suppose the agreed statement had to insert that important clause? It is for the plain fact that Easterns will allow for divorce and remarriage in circumstances that Oriental Copts do not accept. The Coptic Church will not allow a second marriage in the Coptic Church if the EO spouse was divorced for a reason that is not acceptable to the Coptic Church.

I’m not saying these are irreconcilable differences. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for certain EO to blithely overlook these differences with an eye towards some idyllic pan-Orthodox unity, while these same EO seem utterly incapable of giving the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt for the same reasons.

Blessings,
Marduk

So what reason is unacceptable? Adultery, deception or abuse? Those are basically the only reasons one can obtain a divorce. Perhaps some bishops abuse the system (like the Catholic annulment system is abused), but that is a different matter all together. When I spoke of irreconcilable differences, I was saying that to mean that irreconcilable differences are not an acceptable reason for a divorce in Orthodoxy, not that thee are no irreconcilable differences between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy. There are serious issues with the Orientals and the tome of Leo which will have to be resolved before we can start seriously talking about unity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic Church does not encourage anyone to risk their life to save a marriage. They recognize the necessity of safety. If the spouse or children are in danger from physical harm or death, separation is paramount. I am unsure about mental abuse, but would bet it is the same in any abuse cases. The Church will and does recommend civil divorce in cases of abuse to ensure the safety of all involved. This is a separate issue than re-marriage. The Church is concerned, firstly, about the safety of those in the family. Please don’t paint the picture as if the Church wants you to stay with a spouse at the danger of losing your life, as that is not the case.

How would celibacy cause harm? Difficult, yes, but harmful?

As to your idea, “Is there no room for the use of discretion in the Latin view of things?”.
There is a fine line between using discretion and relativism. I don’t think anyone wants the relativism of our society in our Church.

It can be harmful. Not all are called to such a life. The same is true of being a cenobitic monk or an eremitic monk. At Orthodox monasteries, for example, novices are very often expelled because they do not possess the strength for monastic life. Nobody wants relativism, but on the other side of the coin is total objectivism which is just as great an evil. This ties into a discussion of the truth which is probably beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to say that neither absolute objectivism nor absolute relativism is preferable.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jim Dandy,

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

Orthodox canon law can permit a second and even a third marriage “in economia”, but strictly forbids a fourth. In theory divorce is only recognized in the case of adultery, but in practise is also recognised in light of other reasons. There is a list of causes of divorce acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In practise the bishops sometimes apply “economia” in a liberal way. By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness. A second or third marriage will always be a deviation from the “ideal and unique marriage”, but often a fresh opportunity[26] to correct a mistake”.[27]
END QUOTE

These remarriages are accomplished in consultation with an Orthodox spiritual father, who grants permission. Jesus taught that remarriage after divorce (in the case of a valid marriage) is adultery. These couples will live in adultery, in mortal sin, condoned by the Orthodox Church.

Why permit three marriages and not four? or more? :whacky:

As pointed out previously, contraception is also allowed in consultation with a spiritual father. In both cases, the Orthodox Church gives permission to sin.

That is not true at all. As the quote you gave specifically states that divorce and remarriage occur in the context of oikonomia, it would seem contingent upon you to first explain what you understand by oikonomia. If you knew what it meant, I guarantee you will not think that it is “permission to sin.”

GRANTED - there are many Orthodox out there, and I have met not a few of them, who do not have a proper understanding of oikonomia, and indeed present that concept in a way that can very easily be viewed as “permission to sin.” These folks are in the same boat as Absolutist Petrine advocates, as far as I’m concerned. Both groups have a twisted understanding of Church teaching and try to present their twisted understanding as the teaching of the Church herself.

But let’s get back to basics. What do you think oikonomia is?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

So what reason is unacceptable? Adultery, deception or abuse? Those are basically the only reasons one can obtain a divorce. Perhaps some bishops abuse the system (like the Catholic annulment system is abused), but that is a different matter all together. When I spoke of irreconcilable differences, I was saying that to mean that irreconcilable differences are not an acceptable reason for a divorce in Orthodoxy, not that thee are no irreconcilable differences between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy. There are serious issues with the Orientals and the tome of Leo which will have to be resolved before we can start seriously talking about unity.

Deception and abuse are not grounds for divorce in the Coptic Orthodox Church. They are grounds for annulment. EO often mock the distinction between divorce and annulment, but Orientals (and Catholics, for that matter) take it very seriously. I also know that other Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions allow such things as imprisonment of a spouse or mental disability as reasons for divorce. Not so in the Coptic Orthodox Church, nor in general among the Oriental Orthodox Churches (though one may find certain local churches to be more permissive).

Here are two articles from which one can infer about how powerfully the Coptic Orthodox Church adheres to the ancient Tradition of the Church. almasryalyoum.com/en/node/497016

lacopts.org/news/his-holiness-defends-coptic-position-divorce-remarriage

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Thought to be Valid” being the objective term. Being mostly seperated implys many things.

I know, its tough to judge. But marriage is presented to a tribunal as if a criminal case presented to a judge. The judge can only make a judgement according to the facts presented, and there are lawyers who help maneuver what is being said and presented. I can’t make a substantiated claim that people manipulate the system, but it definitely is very possible given how its conducted.

Was there something missing right from the start, something radically wrong from day one? Before the wedding, were there warning signals, red flags which you may have dismissed simply as the cold-feet anxieties rather common for couples prior to a nuptial service? Did they suffer deep difficulties early in the marital life and worry about them, but, never having been married before, judged they were merely the expected burdensome part of marriage? Now, perhaps years later, they view them as symptomatic of a much more serious problem, a radical malfunctioning in the relationship, Which can conclude that the relationship was nothing more than an ill conceived vain idea of who knows what, probly some physical attraction, instead of a deeper involvement which was looking into the future, thus commitment. perhaps she was pregnant when she was married, pehaps they entertained a sexual relationship before marrige and felt some half-hearted commitment. Perhaps they never really wanted to be married but were talked into it through peer pressure?

Not sure I wasn’t there. But there’s a better understanding of the questions which would arrise.

Peace

That is what troubles me. I can’t say I was mature when I got married not too long ago. I love my wife and I want to be with her for the rest of our lives, but what if we didn’t satisfy the prerequisites for a valid Sacramental marriage? Its like some random layman that put on vestments and conducted a Mass. He has no power to consecrate bread and wine, you thought you had the Eucharist. You didn’t sin because you are an unwilling victim, but you also didn’t receive the graces from God because what you had is a little snack of bread and wine instead of the Life-giving Mysteries of our Lord. I’m not worried about sinning, but I can’t help but worry sometimes if our marriage is Sacramental or not.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Dear brother Jim Dandy,

That is not true at all. As the quote you gave specifically states that divorce and remarriage occur in the context of oikonomia, it would seem contingent upon you to first explain what you understand by oikonomia. If you knew what it meant, I guarantee you will not think that it is “permission to sin.”

GRANTED - there are many Orthodox out there, and I have met not a few of them, who do not have a proper understanding of oikonomia, and indeed present that concept in a way that can very easily be viewed as “permission to sin.” These folks are in the same boat as Absolutist Petrine advocates, as far as I’m concerned. Both groups have a twisted understanding of Church teaching and try to present their twisted understanding as the teaching of the Church herself.

But let’s get back to basics. What do you think oikonomia is?

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ll take the Institute’s word for it. As I quoted, “By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness.”

Jesus said remarriage after a valid marriage recognized by God, i.e., a sacramental marriage, which I presume all Orthodox marriages to be, is adultery. Mt 5:32 NAB - 'But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Some other translations (including the Orthodox Study Bible) say the exception is granted for “adultery,” but, as Marybeloved pointed out, the Greek word used here (porneia) does not mean being sexually unfaithful to one’s spouse. Not that I read Greek, but this is explained in the NAB footnote, which I’ll be glad to post if anyone wishes. Other NT Scriptures regarding divorce and remarriage do not mention this “exceptive clause.”

I fail to see how “pastoral care” or “weakness” justify Orthodox spiritual fathers giving permission for couples to live in adultery.

Blessings to you as well!

Jim Dandy

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’ll take the Institute’s word for it. As I quoted, “By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness.”

Jesus said remarriage after a valid marriage recognized by God, i.e., a sacramental marriage, which I presume all Orthodox marriages to be, is adultery. Mt 5:32 NAB - 'But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Some other translations (including the Orthodox Study Bible) say the exception is granted for “adultery,” but, as Marybeloved pointed out, the Greek word used here (porneia) does not mean being sexually unfaithful to one’s spouse. Not that I read Greek, but this is explained in the NAB footnote, which I’ll be glad to post if anyone wishes. Other NT Scriptures regarding divorce and remarriage do not mention this “exceptive clause.”

I fail to see how “pastoral care” or “weakness” justify Orthodox spiritual fathers giving permission for couples to live in adultery.

Blessings to you as well!

Jim Dandy

Indeed, porneia is far broader, encompassing anything which is considered to be sexually perverse. Porneia, for example is the word used in James’ judgment in Acts 15 for what is commonly translated as ‘fornication.’

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

That is what troubles me. I can’t say I was mature when I got married not too long ago. I love my wife and I want to be with her for the rest of our lives, but what if we didn’t satisfy the prerequisites for a valid Sacramental marriage? Its like some random layman that put on vestments and conducted a Mass. He has no power to consecrate bread and wine, you thought you had the Eucharist. You didn’t sin because you are an unwilling victim, but you also didn’t receive the graces from God because what you had is a little snack of bread and wine instead of the Life-giving Mysteries of our Lord. I’m not worried about sinning, but I can’t help but worry sometimes if our marriage is Sacramental or not.

What do you mean by “maturity?” Whether you understood what marriage means according to the Church has no bearing on the Sacrament. It is whether or not you intended to love your wife as Christ loves His Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jim Dandy,

I’ll take the Institute’s word for it. As I quoted, “By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness.”

Thank you for your honesty. I’m afraid that quick quip from the Institute does not in the least fully explain what oikonomia is. “Pastoral care” and “understanding for weakness” are indeed foundational premises for the concept of oikonomia, but that is not the full story. The missing part is in the practical application of those premises - i.e., how is this pastoral care effected? How does understanding for weakness influence the Church’s actions towards the sinner?

Here is how (by way of example):
As you know, stealing is a mortal sin. Suppose a man steals food to feed his hungry family. The man is caught. But when the the judge hears about the extenuating circumstances of the man, the judge cancels the punishment normally due for the sin of stealing, and lets the man go, being sure to reinforce in the man that it is wrong to steal.

THAT is what happens when oikonomia is used in the Orthodox Churches. It is not permission to violate the divine law, nor a relaxation of the divine law. Ask any well-educated Orthodox Christian, and you will discover they will all admit that, in relation to this discussion, contraception and divorce/remarriage is not the norm of the Orthodox Churches, but falls short of the mark. No Orthodox priest is saying “it is OK for you to sin.” What the priest is saying is "I understand the extenuating circumstances you are in, and will therefore forego the punishment normally associated with your sin.

GRANTED, you will find uneducated Orthodox Christians who will claim that contraception or divorce/remarriage is a norm in the Orthodox Churches, but they do not represent the true teaching of Orthodoxy on the matter.

Jesus said remarriage after a valid marriage recognized by God, i.e., a sacramental marriage, which I presume all Orthodox marriages to be, is adultery. Mt 5:32 NAB - 'But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Some other translations (including the Orthodox Study Bible) say the exception is granted for “adultery,” but, as Marybeloved pointed out, the Greek word used here (porneia) does not mean being sexually unfaithful to one’s spouse. Not that I read Greek, but this is explained in the NAB footnote, which I’ll be glad to post if anyone wishes. Other NT Scriptures regarding divorce and remarriage do not mention this “exceptive clause.”

As explained above, oikonomia does not violate the divine law because oikonomia is not attempting to change the divine law by making it more permissive. Rather, it is simply a mitigation of the normal punishment attached to a violation of the divine law because of the extenuating circumstances of the one who commits the violation.

I fail to see how “pastoral care” or “weakness” justify Orthodox spiritual fathers giving permission for couples to live in adultery.

That sounds like the calumny used by certain Protestants that the Sacrament of Confession gives one permission to sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

What do you mean by “maturity?” Whether you understood what marriage means according to the Church has no bearing on the Sacrament. It is whether or not you intended to love your wife as Christ loves His Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Isn’t how defective marriages are judged based on one’s intention at the time of marriage?