Orthodox and divorce

[Monica4316]

Could anyone please help me to understand the differences in theology between the Catholic and the Orthodox teaching on this?

I am aware (and I agree with) the Catholic teaching that marriage is until death. Annulment means that there was never a valid marriage to begin with.

Does anyone understand the Orthodox view and could explain it? In this article it talks about “religious” death of a marriage not just a physical death of a spouse. stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/divorce/divorce-in-the-orthodox-church Would the Church disagree with this and how could the disagreement be explained theologically? It also talks about an exception with adultery, but in my understanding, the verse about adultery is talking about a marriage being invalid to begin with, - if we look at the original words before they were translated. I think there’s an article from CAF about this.

I am having trouble understanding what the Orthodox are saying. Do they believe that a valid marriage can be dissolved, or are they saying that an “ecclesiastical divorce” is only given if the marriage was NOT valid to begin with, like an annulment? If they believe that a VALID marriage can be dissolved, what would the Catholic response be? they do see divorce as a sin but I’m confused about why remarriage is allowed, if marriage is seen as indissoluble, (because then the people would be living in sin in a “second marriage…”) yet if they believe it’s dissoluble, in ways other than physical death, how would the Catholic Church answer this in a particular theological way? (I’m referring to the actual arguments that would be used, not simply “the Church teaches against this”, because I know the Church teaching is that marriage is dissoluble).

Hope this question makes sense…

Thank you!

 

[NeedImprovement]

I would need to read a lot more before commenting any further, but I find this to be a most awkward clause :

The church gives one marriage, but will make the exception and tolerate up to a third marriage for any Orthodox Christian.

. . . as if all the reasoning presented and applied to justify the first three, suddenly becomes null solely based on quantity : :dts:

. . . very sticky language.

 

[Augustine]

Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage in Orthodoxy

 

[Vico]

Could anyone please help me to understand the differences in theology between the Catholic and the Orthodox teaching on this?

I am aware (and I agree with) the Catholic teaching that marriage is until death. Annulment means that there was never a valid marriage to begin with.

Does anyone understand the Orthodox view and could explain it? In this article it talks about “religious” death of a marriage not just a physical death of a spouse. stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/divorce/divorce-in-the-orthodox-church Would the Church disagree with this and how could the disagreement be explained theologically? It also talks about an exception with adultery, but in my understanding, the verse about adultery is talking about a marriage being invalid to begin with, - if we look at the original words before they were translated. I think there’s an article from CAF about this.

I am having trouble understanding what the Orthodox are saying. Do they believe that a valid marriage can be dissolved, or are they saying that an “ecclesiastical divorce” is only given if the marriage was NOT valid to begin with, like an annulment? If they believe that a VALID marriage can be dissolved, what would the Catholic response be? they do see divorce as a sin but I’m confused about why remarriage is allowed, if marriage is seen as indissoluble, (because then the people would be living in sin in a “second marriage…”) yet if they believe it’s dissoluble, in ways other than physical death, how would the Catholic Church answer this in a particular theological way? (I’m referring to the actual arguments that would be used, not simply “the Church teaches against this”, because I know the Church teaching is that marriage is dissoluble).

Hope this question makes sense…

Thank you!

Penitential marriages are possible.

stnoufer.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/marriage-from-an-orthodox-perspective-john-meyendorff.pdf

 

[pacloc]

Could anyone please help me to understand the differences in theology between the Catholic and the Orthodox teaching on this?

I am aware (and I agree with) the Catholic teaching that marriage is until death. Annulment means that there was never a valid marriage to begin with.

Does anyone understand the Orthodox view and could explain it? In this article it talks about “religious” death of a marriage not just a physical death of a spouse. stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/divorce/divorce-in-the-orthodox-church Would the Church disagree with this and how could the disagreement be explained theologically? It also talks about an exception with adultery, but in my understanding, the verse about adultery is talking about a marriage being invalid to begin with, - if we look at the original words before they were translated. I think there’s an article from CAF about this.

I am having trouble understanding what the Orthodox are saying. Do they believe that a valid marriage can be dissolved, or are they saying that an “ecclesiastical divorce” is only given if the marriage was NOT valid to begin with, like an annulment? If they believe that a VALID marriage can be dissolved, what would the Catholic response be? they do see divorce as a sin but I’m confused about why remarriage is allowed, if marriage is seen as indissoluble, (because then the people would be living in sin in a “second marriage…”) yet if they believe it’s dissoluble, in ways other than physical death, how would the Catholic Church answer this in a particular theological way? (I’m referring to the actual arguments that would be used, not simply “the Church teaches against this”, because I know the Church teaching is that marriage is dissoluble).

Hope this question makes sense…

Thank you!

The link that Augustine shared is pretty good, a bit lengthy, but good. I was Catholic before becoming Orthodox, and this idea of null marriages always bothered me as a Catholic. A priest, whether right or wrong, told me that a marriage wasn’t null unless it had been declared null from a tribune or whatever it is called. And that a marriage that would have been considered null because it was missing one of the “key requirements” necessary for a valid marriage, could become valid over time if the problem is fixed in the marriage. All of this legal nonsense made me embarrassed to even speak of the subject as anything important to “strong” Catholics, but is made for the “weak” Catholics that may or may not even believe anything that the RCC taught.

Similarly, this whole divorce and remarriage in the Orthodox Church seems to have very little importance to “strong Orthodox” and is made for the “weak” Orthodox that may or may not believe in what the Orthodox Church teaches.

The difference is that the Orthodox teaching is more in line with tradition, seeing that the scriptures and the early Church clearly teach that adultery destroys the marriage bond. Now remarriage after I could see as a development for the weaker faith of many Christians, but at least no innovation of declaring marriages null is needed to achieve the same result. If anything the RCC in making marriages null, allows the next marriages to take place exactly as the previous conveniently “non-existent” marriage, not even expressing any remorse in having to try again in a married life.

 

[Augustine3]

adultery destroys the marriage bond.

I’m confused.

I understand the Orthodox teach marriage is a Sacrament. How can any human act destroy a divinely infused bond?

How is this any different from “destroying” our baptismal bond every time we commit a mortal sin?

 

[pacloc]

I’m confused.

I understand the Orthodox teach marriage is a Sacrament. How can any human act destroy a divinely infused bond?

How is this any different from “destroying” our baptismal bond every time we commit a mortal sin?

Sacraments are not all exactly the same. And as marriage is a consolation that will not exist in heaven, it is not really fair to compare it to baptism. And in a sense we do destroy our baptismal bond every time we commit grave sin. It is only the rebaptism of tears and confession that can restore the bond, but we have been instructed not to re-baptize in the manner of our original baptism by Christ.

 

[pacloc]

here are a few quotes from St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 19 on First Corinthians:

“while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out…the marriage has already been dissolved”

“Again in that case, after the fornication the husband is not a husband”

newadvent.org/fathers/220119.htm

 

[Augustine3]

here are a few quotes from St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 19 on First Corinthians:

“while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out…the marriage has already been dissolved”

“Again in that case, after the fornication the husband is not a husband”

newadvent.org/fathers/220119.htm

Does St John preach in his homily divorce and re-marriage is permitted? I didn’t find that anywhere.

“Marriage has been dissolved” similar to when a person commits mortal sin that damages the relationship between Christ the bridegroom and a member of the Church His bride. Has Christ ever divorced and remarried? Isn’t our earthly marriage a model and prefigurement of Christ and His bride the Church?

 

[Augustine3]

Sacraments are not all exactly the same. And as marriage is a consolation that will not exist in heaven, it is not really fair to compare it to baptism. And in a sense we do destroy our baptismal bond every time we commit grave sin. It is only the rebaptism of tears and confession that can restore the bond, but we have been instructed not to re-baptize in the manner of our original baptism by Christ.

I don’t want to get side tracked here but just wanted to make a point. The sacrament of baptism stamps an indelible mark on the soul. A baptismal bond cannot be destroyed. A person is always the son of God once he is baptized, even if he is burning in hell. Once a person commits a mortal sin, he damages the relationship with God, but his filial baptismal bond into God’s family always remains intact.

 

[prodromos]

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History

For those who may not have been involved in earlier threads.

 

[Peter_J]

Are you considering becoming Orthodox?

 

[Moses613]

What’s the problem?

Deut. 24:1

When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house

Why don’t Catholics allow it, is my question.

P.S. I am aware that the original question was directed at Orthodox Christians

 

[Monica4316]

Are you considering becoming Orthodox?

I believe in the Catholic teachings… I’m trying to figure things out

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks to everyone who responded…

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History

For those who may not have been involved in earlier threads.

I wanted to respond to this link in more detail… I have been doing some research since I read it a while ago tonight. I’ll keep researching of course… I am trying to figure this out, not just to debate. I’ll present some other points for consideration… what do you all think of this?

1. the Penitentiaries quoted are described by Catholic Encyclopedia as not being official and actually were suppressed later on:

“It is true that several of the Penitential Books composed about this time in the Frankish regions contain the cases mentioned by these two synods and add others in which the real dissolution of the marriage bond and a new marriage with another wife might be allowed. The following cases are mentioned in several of these Penitential Books: adultery, slavery as punishment for crime, imprisonment in war, wilful desertion without hope of reunion, etc. (Schmitz, “Bussbücher”, II, 129 sqq.). These Penitential Books had indeed no official character, but they influenced for a time the ecclesiastical practice in these countries. However, their influence did not last long. In the first decades of the ninth century, the church began to proceed energetically against them (cf. the Synod of Châlons, in the year 813, canon xxxviii; Labbe, IX, 367). They were not completely suppressed at once, especially as a general decay of Christian morality took place in the tenth and early part of the eleventh century. Towards the end of the eleventh century, however, every concession to the laxer practice as regards divorce had been corrected. The complete indissolubility of Christian marriage had become so firmly fixed in the juridical conscience that the authentic collections of church laws the Decretals of the twelfth century, do not even see the necessity of expressly declaring it, but simply suppose it, in other juridical decisions, as a matter of course and beyond discussion. This is shown in the entire series of cases in IV Decretal., xix. In all cases, whether the cause be criminal plotting, adultery, loss of faith, or anything else, the bond of marriage is regarded as absolutely indissoluble and entrance upon a second marriage as impossible.”

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

 

[Monica4316]

1. the Synods were local synods that were at times Frankish Synods that were influenced by the secular government… Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of this too. My point is that they were local synods in the West but not necessary Synods where the Pope was even present. Thus they might not truly show the Catholic view, as the Catholic view needs to be developed together with the Pope, even if in a council. The same can be applied to the penitentiary books.

"Whilst the popes constantly rejected absolute divorce in all cases, we find some of the Frankish synods of the eighth century which allowed it in certain acute cases. In this regard the Council of Verberie (752) and Compiègne (757) erred especially. Canon ix of the first council is undoubtedly erroneous (Labbe, VIII, 407). In this canon it is laid down that if a man must go abroad, and his wife, out of attachment to home and relatives, will not go with him, she must remain unmarried so long as the husband is alive whom she refused to follow; on the other hand, in contrast to the blameworthy woman, a second marriage is allowed to the husband: “If he has no hope of returning to his own country, if he cannot abstain, he can receive another wife with a penance.” So deeply was the pre-Christian custom of the people engraven in their hearts that is was believed allowance should be made for it to some degree. Canon v seems also to grant the unauthorized permission for a second marriage. It treats of the case in which the wife, with the help of other men, seeks to murder her husband, and he escapes from the plot by killing her accomplices in self-defence. Such a husband is allowed to take another wife: “That husband can put away that wife, and, if he will, let him take another. But let that woman who made the plot undergo a penance and remain without hope of marriage.” Some explain this canon to mean that the husband might marry again after the death of his first wife, but that the criminal wife was forbidden forever to marry. This last is in agreement with the penitential discipline of the age, because the crime in question was punished by life-long canonical penance, and hence by permanent exclusion from married life.
In its thirteenth canon (according to Labbe, VIII, 452; others call it the sixteenth), the Council of Compiègne gives a somewhat ambiguous decision and may seem to allow absolute divorce. It says that a man who has dismissed his wife in order that she might choose the religious life, or take the veil, can marry a second wife when the first has carried out the resolution. Nevertheless, the intended choice of the state of Christian perfection seems to imply that this canon must be limited to a marriage that has not been consummated. Hence it gives the correct Catholic doctrine, of which we shall speak below. This must also be the meaning of canon xvi (Labbe, VIII, 453; others, canon xix), which allows the dissolution of a marriage between a leper and a healthy woman, so that the woman is authorized to enter upon a new marriage, unless we suppose that here there is a question of the diriment impediment of impotence. If these canons were really intended in any other sense, then they are contrary to the general doctrine of the Church. Other canons, in which separation and second marriage are allowed, refer undoubtedly to the diriment impediments of affinity and spiritual relationship, or to a marriage contracted in error by persons one of whom is free and the other not free. Hence they have no reference to actual divorce, and cannot be interpreted as a lax concession to popular morals or to passion. "

link: newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frankish_synods

 

[Monica4316]

1. There are other Church Fathers and Synods who spoke against the same idea…

catholic.com/tract/the-permanence-of-matrimony

Some prominent ones especially dealing with adultery:

Council of Elvira:

"Likewise, a woman of the faith * who has left an **adulterous *husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not receive Communion—unless he that she has left has since departed from this world" (Canon 9).

St Jerome

“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another” (Letters55:3 [A.D. 396]).

St Augustine seems to have the Catholic view:

“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery” (Adulterous Marriages1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).

“A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication” (ibid., 2:4:4).*

“Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever” (Marriage and Concupiscence1:10:11 [A.D. 419]).

“In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously” (ibid., 1:17:19).**

 

[Monica4316]

1. It seems there are other Synods that had a different view about adultery, and Catholic Encyclopedia gives a different interpretation of the Synod of Arles…

The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, “They are forbidden to marry” (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

 

[Monica4316]

1. There is another quote from VERY early on in Church history, only 80 AD, that says that it’s permissible to separate because of adultery but it prohibits remarriage. This means that the first bond is still valid… ?

“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery” (The Shepherd4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).catholic.com/tract/the-permanence-of-matrimony

A possible question might be: isn’t the Church against divorce at all? why does it mention divorce? This first paragraph of the article from Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that separation is an option:

The term divorce (divortium, from divertere, divortere, “to separate”) was employed in pagan Rome for the mutual separation of married people. Etymologically the word does not indicate whether this mutual separation included the dissolution of the marriage bond, and in fact the word is used in the Church and in ecclesiastical law in this neutral signification. Hence we distinguish between divortium plenum or perfectum (absolute divorce), which implies the dissolution of the marriage bond, and divortium imperfectum (limited divorce), which leaves the marriage bond intact and implies only the cessation of common life (separation from bed and board, or in addition separation of dwelling-place). In civil law divorce means the dissolution of the marriage bond; divortium imperfectum is called separation (séparation de corps).

Therefore in the documents that talk about divorce, for all we know it might be talking about it in the second sense, separation…

 

[Monica4316]

I do have two questions though. One is about the Synod of Rome, AD 826, which did have a Pope presiding over it… it said

Concerning those men, who have divorced [their]*married wives and marry another. Let no one, except for the cause of fornication, divorce their married wife and then marry another. Otherwise, it is suitable for the transgressor to be married to the former spouse. If however a man and wife consent to divorce between themselves for the sake of a monastic life, in no way shall it be so without the joint knowledge of the bishop, so that they may be stationed by him in a single prepared location. For [if] due to an unwilling wife or her husband, let it not be dissolved for the sake of the marriage.

The first Synod also is unclear if there was a Pope there… however it doesn’t seem to support the practice and there is that phrase about them being forbidden to marry… which seems to indicate at the general practice

Concerning these [men]who find their wivesin adultery – and [who] are young Christian men, and [who] are forbidden to marry – it has been decided that, aslong as possible, eveniftheir adulterous wifeis living, counsel is to be given to them not to marry another woman.