M
mardukm
Guest
I think I see what you are saying? When you say “intention,” do you mean “as the Church intends” or do you mean “what I intended in relation to my wife?”
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status
Blessings,
Marduk
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Brother Marduk,
I too pray fervently for full reunion between the Orthodox and Holy Mother Church. I am curious about the similarity you say some theorize on between the Petrine privilege and divorce allowed by Orthodox. The Petrine privilige only applies to a valid natural marriage. A valid sacramental marriage is truly indissoluable until a spouse dies. Do the Orthodox permit divorce and remarriage in the case of two baptized Christians (a sacramental marriage)?
Pax Christi
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Gentle Marduk,Dear brother Jim Dandy,
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.
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.
That sounds like the calumny used by certain Protestants that the Sacrament of Confession gives one permission to sin.
Blessings,
Marduk
Those who know the teaching of the Catholic Church know that Confession is not permission to sin. I’m just not sure the same can be said of the Eastern Orthodox teaching on remarriage after divorce and contraception. But I’m willing to learn.
Thank you very much for this explanation. However, in the case of the man in your illustration, the judge was not giving him permission to continue stealing for the rest of his life. He said to the man, in effect, “Go, and sin no more.” That is not my perception of the Orthodox spiritual fathers and the matter of divorce and remarriage (putting contraception aside for the moment).
Jesus said remarriage following divorce, when the marriage is “in the Lord,” i.e., sacramental, is adultery. And He said adultery is a mortal sin.
You say that Orthodox spiritual fathers, out of compassion, have the power and ability to “mitigate the normal punishment attached to a violation of the divine law because of the extenuating circumstances of the parties involved.” Those extenuating circumstances may be weakness.
I ask, who but God can mitigate the punishment due to a violation of a divine law?
“Thou shall not commit adultery” Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18; Mt 5:27, 19:18; Rom 13:9.
“What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” Mt 19:6.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, not robbers will inherit the kingdom of God?” 1 Cor 6:9-10.
“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” 1 Cor 7:39.
Does God suspend His law and the couples are free to divorce, remarry, and live together without fear of the eternal consequences – because there are no consequences? Are the Scriptures wrong? Then other Scriptures are wrong as well, and Christianity is a fraud.
Other couples in the same circumstances are committing serial adultery and will forfeit heaven unless they cease and repent, but for those who have the permission of their Orthodox spiritual father, there are no consequences?
I’m trying to understand, but I can’t get my head around that.
Scriptures are from the RSV.
Peace be with you, Jim Dandy
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dan,
Thank you for the question.
The basis for divorce in sacramental marriages in Oriental Orthodoxy comes not from the situation that might merit divorce. Rather, it comes from the spiritually ontological nature of the persons in the marriage. Like the Latins, Orientals understand that the willful consent of both parties is a necessary (though not only) element for the Sacramental efficacy of a marriage. So the persons themselves have a role in the Sacrament. But what if something about one or both of the spouses has become spiritually incapable of sustaining the supernatural bond? There are only two reasons that this can occur in the Oriental Orthodox perspective - adultery or apostasy. There is a popular perspective in Oriental Orthodoxy that adultery and apostasy are really the same thing - apostasy is the leaving of the spouse Christ, and since marriage sacramentally represents the bond between Christ and his bride, adultery amounts to very much the same thing. Adultery and/or apostasy (sans confession) leaves one or both spouses incapable of sustaining the mystical marriage bond. In that case, the marriage is effectively dead, and a new marriage might be permitted. And it is within the power of the keys of the Church to allow this second marriage.
This is different from the EO concept, AFAIK. In the Oriental Orthodox perspetive, the power of the keys allows the Church to grant a second marriage after a marriage bond "dies’ as a result of adultery/apostasy. In distinction, AFAIK, Easterns understand that the power of the keys allows the Church to actually dissolve the marriage bond. I hope you can see why I think that the OO’s would have a better chance at rapprochement with the CC on the issue of divorce/remarriage than the EO’s.
(NOTE: The Latin Church’s criteria for a “dead marriage” as far as the Petrine privilege is concerned is the fact that the spouses will never again consummate the marriage).
The Oriental position (as in other things) is somewhat of a half-way perspective between the Latin position (making the consent of the spouses the primary effective cause of the Sacrament) and the Eastern position (making the blessing of the priest the effective cause of the Sacrament). In the Oriental perspective, the consent and the priestly blessing are both effective causes of the Sacrament.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for the question.
I cannot speak for Eastern Orthodox. I will tell you what I know from the Oriental Orthodox perspective.
The basis for divorce in sacramental marriages in Oriental Orthodoxy comes not from the situation that might merit divorce. Rather, it comes from the spiritually ontological nature of the persons in the marriage. Like the Latins, Orientals understand that the willful consent of both parties is a necessary (though not only) element for the Sacramental efficacy of a marriage. So the persons themselves have a role in the Sacrament. But what if something about one or both of the spouses has become spiritually incapable of sustaining the supernatural bond? There are only two reasons that this can occur in the Oriental Orthodox perspective - adultery or apostasy. There is a popular perspective in Oriental Orthodoxy that adultery and apostasy are really the same thing - apostasy is the leaving of the spouse Christ, and since marriage sacramentally represents the bond between Christ and his bride, adultery amounts to very much the same thing. Adultery and/or apostasy (sans confession) leaves one or both spouses incapable of sustaining the mystical marriage bond. In that case, the marriage is effectively dead, and a new marriage might be permitted. And it is within the power of the keys of the Church to allow this second marriage.
This is different from the EO concept, AFAIK. In the Oriental Orthodox perspetive, the power of the keys allows the Church to grant a second marriage after a marriage bond "dies’ as a result of adultery/apostasy. In distinction, AFAIK, Easterns understand that the power of the keys allows the Church to actually dissolve the marriage bond. I hope you can see why I think that the OO’s would have a better chance at rapprochement with the CC on the issue of divorce/remarriage than the EO’s.
(NOTE: The Latin Church’s criteria for a “dead marriage” as far as the Petrine privilege is concerned is the fact that the spouses will never again consummate the marriage).
The Oriental position (as in other things) is somewhat of a half-way perspective between the Latin position (making the consent of the spouses the primary effective cause of the Sacrament) and the Eastern position (making the blessing of the priest the effective cause of the Sacrament). In the Oriental perspective, the consent and the priestly blessing are both effective causes of the Sacrament.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Brother Marduk, thank you for the thoughtful and detailed reply. How is this position of the Oriental Orthodox reconciled with Our Lord’s teaching in Luke 16:18?
Pax Christi
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jim,
NOTE: You will read OO manuals use the expression “the Church dissolves a marriage.” But that is just ecclesiastical jargon that means that the Church CANONICALLY RECOGNIZES that the marriage does not or no longer exists. The OO don’t actually claim that it is the Church that dissolves the marriage. As proof, consider the fact that the OO use the same language (i.e., “dissolving a marriage”) when it comes to annulments, and we know that annulments are granted only when there was no marriage at all to begin with (so nothing is really “dissolved”). The OO very much believes in the indissolubility of marriage. AFAIK, that is different from the EO concept that the Church has the power to dissolve a marriage.
Blessings,
Marduk
See my final comment below.
I really do appreciate that.
This might be relevant when addressing EO, but not OO. As explained to brother Dan, OO’s permit remarriage only after a marriage is considered spiritually dead. So there is no adultery involved. I propose the OO concept does not oppose in the least the Catholic teaching “what God has joined, let no man tear asunder.”
NOTE: You will read OO manuals use the expression “the Church dissolves a marriage.” But that is just ecclesiastical jargon that means that the Church CANONICALLY RECOGNIZES that the marriage does not or no longer exists. The OO don’t actually claim that it is the Church that dissolves the marriage. As proof, consider the fact that the OO use the same language (i.e., “dissolving a marriage”) when it comes to annulments, and we know that annulments are granted only when there was no marriage at all to begin with (so nothing is really “dissolved”). The OO very much believes in the indissolubility of marriage. AFAIK, that is different from the EO concept that the Church has the power to dissolve a marriage.
The power of the keys certainly does not permit the Church to change the divine law, but it it is very much within the power of the keys of the Church to mitigate the punishment due to a violation of the divine law. Latin Catholics explicitly admit this in its teaching on indulgences and the merits of Christ, does it not?
As explained, the law is not suspended in the application of oikonomia, but only the punishment normally attached to a violation of that law.
That’s an unmerited comment as far as this discussion is concerned.
As I said, I don’t believe that to be the case as far as OO are concerned. I would like to, but I can’t feel confident it is the same with the EO given their distinct understanding of the matter.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Brother Marduk,
I believe there is an inconsistency in your argument. You say the Church recognizes that the marriage does not or “no longer exists”. To no longer exist, would mean that it did exist at one time. If a sacremental marriage existed, and then no longer exists, that means it dissolved. Yet, at the same time you assert that the OO believe in the indissolubility of marriage. No human person has the power to “kill” a sacramental marriage, not even the spouses. Once a marriage is validly contracted it cannot be “dead” unless one of the spouses is physically dead as well.
Pax
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Regarding adultery and apostasy in marriage, I would like to recall Israel’s case in the OT. To paraphrase, God tells Israel words to the effect that “you have cheated on me, you have put your legs apart for others, worshipping other gods”. Then, despite of that, God only divorces Israel for a time, but does not finally abandon her. God eventually reconciles Israel to himself, instead of finding another “chosen nation” as a replacement for Israel.
So, I wonder, shouldn’t we take this as a clue that nothing, not even adultery and apostasy, gives the wronged spouse the right to marry another while his/her cheating/apostate spouse is still alive?
P.S. The more I think about the risks and perils of marriage, the happier I am to stay single.
So, I wonder, shouldn’t we take this as a clue that nothing, not even adultery and apostasy, gives the wronged spouse the right to marry another while his/her cheating/apostate spouse is still alive?
P.S. The more I think about the risks and perils of marriage, the happier I am to stay single.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dan,
What I am saying is that it is inconsisent to claim that physical death can bring about an end to the bond, and spiritual death does not.
Blessings,
Marduk
I would propose that your own argument is inconsistent. If the person cannot “kill” a sacramental marriage, how is it his physical death somehow ends the bond? The OO assert that the spiritual death of one of the spouses is tantamount to physical death. In fact, should not the spiritual death (brought about by adultery/apostasy) be a greater consideration than merely physical death, according to the spiritual law of Christ?
What I am saying is that it is inconsisent to claim that physical death can bring about an end to the bond, and spiritual death does not.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
There is no inconsistency, in physical death ending a marriage, because that is part of the terms of the marriage contract “till death do us part”. Our Lord also makes it clear that marriage ends when a spouse dies, in Matthew 22:23-33.
The idea that “spiritual death” is equivalent to physical death is an interesting one, but not one that I think is compatible with the Christian faith, at least not in the way I understand you.
If someone is physically dead- they are dead. Their soul has seperated from their body. “Spiritual Death” being some kind of irreversible condition that a living person can have…hmmmm. What about the sacrament of Penance? If the person is spiritually dead? Do they have a soul? Can they still go to heaven?
Pax Christi
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Dear Brother Marduk, forgive me for interjecting myself in your interesting discussion with another member, but may I propose this: that we can’t really say for sure whether a living spouse (physically alive spouse) is spiritually dead. A cheating or apostate spouse still has the opportunity of repenting as long as he is physically alive. According to this view, the wronged spouse would be bound to stay single (no remarriage allowed) and pray for the repentance/return of his cheating/apostate spouse. Now, if the spouse physically dies in a state of unrepentant cheating/apostasy, that’s another matter - the spouse is spiritually dead and condemned to hell.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
You echo the Disciples’ reply exactly!
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
St. Matthew, 19:10-12
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
In general, on a wide variety of topics, my impression has been that the Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodoxy seem to have more in common on a lot of issues than Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy.
R
rinnie
Guest
If they are in communion with Rome that means they accept the same teachings. SO how could they be in communion with Rome and then reject the teaching of the Roman Church???
M
Marybeloved
Guest
If I may say myself, (not that I agree with him, please note) I think he means that the spiritual death of the spouse kills the marriage when it occurs, not that the spouse remains spiritually dead for good. So that even if the spouse is resurrected later on, the marriage will not.
What I find problematic about this is that there’s lots of ways of dying spiritually, beyond adultery. If that was all that was required, then the marriage would die for many more reasons than adultery.
Perhaps he means that a mortal sin that directly contravenes the marriage vow is what makes the marriage itself die. But I again, would wonder about spouses that do not choose to split after adultery- Is their marriage dead upon adultery? Do they live in a non-marital status if they forgive each other and continue on in their normal relations without conducting a fresh marriage?Mardukm, allow me to interject. I see two reasons why only physical death can end a sacramental marriage (therefore no inconsistency in Dan’s statements).
- Physical death is God’s business. When you die, it’s only because God has decreed that your time on Earth is up. Hence, no man (either the dying or living spouse, or indeed even a murderer of someone’s spouse) is putting asunder what God has joined. Only God himself. Remember Job? The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
- Secondly, marriage is special in that it’s the mutual physical as well as spiritual self-exchange (forgive my inadequate language) between two people that is most fundamental on Earth. A “whole person” affair. This is why it’s the metaphor for God and Israel in the OT and Christ and his Church in the NT. The very moment that permanent physical end/destruction of the body occurs, that death of the body exchanged in marriage so fundamentally (or rights over it) happens, then the mutual exchange/giving of each others’ bodies die along with it. No marriage can exist after that.
R
rinnie
Guest
How do you figure that. When Jesus himself says there is no marriage in heaven? The CC saying that until physical death occurs seems to be in direct line with the word of Christ.
And how does a person who is called home by Christ being guilty of killing a Sacramental marriage. God called that person home. The Sacramental bond says until death do us Part. If it was not only a physical bond and were also a spiritual bond in death they would not part.
R
rinnie
Guest
Also if I may add, I don’t beleive any of the Sacraments are needed in heaven. Sacraments are an outward sign instituted by Christ to give us Grace.
Once we enter heaven we are made perfect in Christ by his grace, so we would become full of Grace.
Think about it, sacraments, what are they? Example penance, we would not longer need to confess our sins because we would no longer have them, and would no longer sin.
Confirmation, we are now completely confirmed in Christ. Etc.!!
So Sacraments are no longer needed in heaven.
Once we enter heaven we are made perfect in Christ by his grace, so we would become full of Grace.
Think about it, sacraments, what are they? Example penance, we would not longer need to confess our sins because we would no longer have them, and would no longer sin.
Confirmation, we are now completely confirmed in Christ. Etc.!!
So Sacraments are no longer needed in heaven.
M
manualman
Guest
Good criticism, really. But how do you find that worse than the EO decision to apparently simply disregard the words of Christ and allow divorce and remarriage? At least the western understanding that it is possible for people to attempt marriage, but fail to fulfill its requirements is both logically consistent and doesn’t ignore Christ’s teachings. As a catholic, if I start to worry about the legitimacy of my marriage, all I need to do is investigate my concern and see if it meets the definition of the impediments. If not, no worries. The shame is that there isn’t more done UP FRONT to weed out people with impediments. The tribunals ought to do double duty as marriage prep counselors, IMO. I’ve done that homework and am morally certain that my marriage is valid.
Are you saying that for the EO, the priest is seen as the one who confects the sacrament? So if I kidnap a woman, brainwash her and we get married by an EO priest that is a valid marriage? Say no, please.
Btw, people here could benefit from a good definition of oikonomia. As I understand it, it isn’t much different than Benedict’s recent explanation of how a gay prostitute that starts using a condom out of recognition of the harm his behavior causes could be said to have taken the “first step” towards a healthy morality. Don’t the EO see couples contraception sometimes in a similar way? That the practice itself IS inherently sinful and harmful, but that some people need to learn other lessons first before being ready to repent on that one and that attempting to confront them with this issue first merely impedes their overall progress? Or do I have it wrong?
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
This is a very interesting accusation, Dear Dandy Jim
If you are correct, and I’d be happy to say that you are, then the Catholic Church also give permission to sin in the case of artificial birth control.
There are many, and I’d say egregious, permissions to sin recommended for pastoral practice in the following:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html
M
manualman
Guest
OK, I speed read it, which sometimes makes me miss things. But I didn’t see any “permissions to sin” listed therein. Could you be more specific?
Thanks.
- Status