Orthodox and remarriage

[Cavaradossi]

The canon 102 of Trullo of the Council of Trullo is not an Ecumenical Council, if what was clarified in the other thread is true. It is not in the OC list of ecumenical Council and of course not in the CC’s list.

I also never claimed that Trullo was an ecumenical council. I’m not sure where you’re getting all of this, to be honest.

I understand that you said the Eastern Bishop have the authority to bind and to loose. In this case it is to allow divorce and remarrying of a married person. This is a big thing if we consider that when two persons are validly married they are married under the Sacrament of Matrimony, where the two shall become one flesh and what God has joint together let no man separates.

However, if it does happen that the two separate, and the relationship cannot be repaired, what then? If one is incapable of living a life of celibacy should the burden of celibacy be placed on this person, or should he be permitted to remarry and penanced as a digamist, as those who remarry after the death of their first spouse? If it prevents him from falling into complete perdition, it is perhaps better to let him live in a state which is merely only compromised. That is what economy is all about.

To loose this sacrament and to bind divorce and remarrying would be really something big; it is not where a local bishop could make that ruling. But let’s say it is, who would confer this authority to the bishop?

That is not what is being loosed. What is being loosed is the canonical penalty due for fornication.

In the Gospel, the authority to bind and to loose was only specifically conferred to the Apostle Peter, “Thou art Peter, …” (Mt 16). Yes, the other apostles were breathed the Holy Spirit to forgive sin, but the authority to bind and to loose was to Peter specifically.

I think you ought to go read your Gospel again. Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, when he said, «Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ.»

A point to consider here is when a priest absolves sin it is always on the understanding that the penitent is not to commit that sin again. If he does, it will be a sin which he has to confess again. It is more of, “Your sin is forgiven, go and sin more,” and not “your sin is forgiven, and now, you can go and commit adultery for the rest of your life.”

The canonical custom of the fathers does not support this absolutist understanding of penance, as is evident with the canons concerning digamy. He who committed digamy by contracting a second marriage after the death of his first wife, was not to be withheld from the Eucharist until he put his second wife away, but rather was to be readmitted to the Eucharist after fulfilling a penance without the requirement that he dissolve this second marriage. Similarly, St. Basil’s Canon IX also allows for a man to cohabit with another woman, should his wife abandon him unjustly. And yet again, the canonical tradition allows for one to be pardoned for Trigamy without putting his third wife away, after fulfilling a certain penance.

I understand that the Orthodox Church has apostolic succession, in fact you can trace your church to any one of the apostles. I am wondering if any of the Orthodox Churches can trace its root to St. Peter traditionally.

Both Antioch and Alexandria, the former being from St. Peter himself, and the latter through St. Mark, who was sent by St. Peter.

 

[Reuben_J]

In Matthew 18, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of his Apostles.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Also sounds like Jesus approving the conciliarity of the Church.

Noted. Thanks for pointing that out. It must have escaped my mind then.

I just thought an issue as big as breaking a Sacrament should come from something higher, perhaps, like an ecumenical council.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Noted. Thanks for pointing that out. It must have escaped my mind then.

I just thought an issue as big as breaking a Sacrament should come from something higher, perhaps, like an ecumenical council.

Well, it is not something that is a matter of doctrine or dogma, but a matter or mercy.

Also, the issue of deciding what is a Sacrament or what is not as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church with Annulments, is a similar exercise of authority.

 

[Reuben_J]

I also never claimed that Trullo was an ecumenical council. I’m not sure where you’re getting all of this, to be honest.

I must be getting mix up as I discussed with Constantine.

However, if it does happen that the two separate, and the relationship cannot be repaired, what then? If one is incapable of living a life of celibacy should the burden of celibacy be placed on this person, or should he be permitted to remarry and penanced as a digamist, as those who remarry after the death of their first spouse? If it prevents him from falling into complete perdition, it is perhaps better to let him live in a state which is merely only compromised. That is what economy is all about.

I will hold to the command of God that “where the two shall become one flesh and what God has joint together let no man separates” much higher than any mitigation that calls for anything less especially since it is a sacrament.

Divorce and adultery do not come to play if the married couples live true to the Sacrament that they were married on. The grace of the sacrament ensures that. Even if the marriage is in trouble they can always come back to God, seek God and find out where they got it wrong in marriage. Their relationship can be repaired if they come back to God, surrender their marriage to him and repent.

Should they have to separate due to irreconcilable difference, then there is no choice but to live a life of celibacy. And by the grace of God it can be done. The point is, God should be the focus and allows him to give strength to our weaknesses.

The marriage is dissolved by default if one of the spouses dies whereby the living spouse is free to remarry. There is no husband and wife in heaven.

A person who deserts the Lord to go his sinful way is of his own accord after knowing what God wants of him. There are many who are lost like that and even Jesus cannot do anything when the rich young man decides he cannot carry that cross.

That is not what is being loosed. What is being loosed is the canonical penalty due for fornication.

I do not quite understand that but to my mind there is no different in adultery and fornication, both are sins.

I think you ought to go read your Gospel again. Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, when he said, «Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν• ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ.»

Ok noted. I missed out on the Mt 18.

Except the case of allowing adultery and divorce is not something trivial that can be arbitrarily decided by the bishop. As I mentioned earlier, this is a misused of the authority to bind and to loose. It perhaps needs to be decided at a higher level, perhaps something like the Ecumenical Council.

The canonical custom of the fathers does not support this absolutist understanding of penance, as is evident with the canons concerning digamy. He who committed digamy by contracting a second marriage after the death of his first wife, was not to be withheld from the Eucharist until he put his second wife away, but rather was to be readmitted to the Eucharist after fulfilling a penance without the requirement that he dissolve this second marriage. Similarly, St. Basil’s Canon IX also allows for a man to cohabit with another woman, should his wife abandon him unjustly. And yet again, the canonical tradition allows for one to be pardoned for Trigamy without putting his third wife away, after fulfilling a certain penance.

I would question why a man is still in a state of being married after the death of his spouse. This is wrong. After the death of a spouse, the other alive is free to marry again. There should not be any impediment.

Jesus mentions about the woman who marries her husband’ brothers and whose wife is she in heaven. Did not he say that there is no husband and wife in the next life?

Both Antioch and Alexandria, the former being from St. Peter himself, and the latter through St. Mark, who was sent by St. Peter.

I understand St Peter set up a church in Antioch, probably not so much in Alexandria but his ‘seat’ obviously is in Rome. Thanks for the information on the apostolic succession of the Orthodox Church:thumbsup:.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, it is not something that is a matter of doctrine or dogma, but a matter or mercy.

Also, the issue of deciding what is a Sacrament or what is not as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church with Annulments, is a similar exercise of authority.

Mercy. What mercy? Mercy is on the forgiveness of sin committed but not approving carte blanche on committing it again.

You are wrong about Catholic’s annulment of marriage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mercy. What mercy? Mercy is on the forgiveness of sin committed but not approving carte blanche on committing it again.

Mercy in understanding that it isn’t easy to ask any human being to refrain and restrain from sex. As Jesus said about celibacy, those who can should do it. And those who can’t, should not and there is nothing bad about that. Obviously one who has married is one who cannot be celibate. So why ask that person to become a celibate when he/she has demonstrated that they cannot? And again, this is not a blanket permission. Not every divorcee gets allowed to remarry.

You are wrong about Catholic’s annulment of marriage.

I am absolutely 100% correct about Catholic annulment. Unless you can cite Scriptural Passage or Patristic teaching that supports the Roman Catholic’s legalistic understanding of marriage and conditions for annulments.

Wait, let me save you the time. There are none.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I will hold to the command of God that “where the two shall become one flesh and what God has joint together let no man separates” much higher than any mitigation that calls for anything less especially since it is a sacrament.

Yet even Christ allows for a man to put his wife away, should she commit fornication. The whole of God’s revelation to us cannot be quite so easily grasped in absolutes like that.

Divorce and adultery do not come to play if the married couples live true to the Sacrament that they were married on. The grace of the sacrament ensures that.

This is a no true Scotsman argument. There are definitely some who validly receive the sacrament of marriage who nevertheless will fall into adultery or fornication.

Even if the marriage is in trouble they can always come back to God, seek God and find out where they got it wrong in marriage. Their relationship can be repaired if they come back to God, surrender their marriage to him and repent.

This is not always possible. Suppose if the husband tries to kill his wife. Do you truly think it would be better for the wife to return to the husband?

Should they have to separate due to irreconcilable difference

So-called irreconcilable differences (the mention of which is nothing more than code word for no-fault divorce) are not at all permissible grounds for a divorce. The reasons for which divorce is permitted include only serious matters, like infidelity (one which the Savior himself mentions), attempted murder of the other spouse, abuse, insanity, etc.

This even out of economy cannot be granted., then there is no choice but to live a life of celibacy. And by the grace of God it can be done. The point is, God should be the focus and allows him to give strength to our weaknesses.

That is an unjustifiable statement in light of canon law, which allows for trigamy (after an appropriate penance), even though trigamy according to St. Basil is a defilement which nonetheless he calls tolerable, only because it is better than unrestrained fornication. This is the principle of economy at work. If the weakness of the person in question is too great for a life of celibacy (and most are too weak to live such a life without falling into sin), it is better to allow for him to marry again than to let him fall into unrestrained fornication.

The marriage is dissolved by default if one of the spouses dies whereby the living spouse is free to remarry. There is no husband and wife in heaven.

Only widows under a certain age are canonically free to marry, and even then, they are told that it would be better that they “remain as they are” by St. Paul. Widowers are canonically bound not to remarry, and are penanced as digamists if they do.

 

[Cavaradossi]

A person who deserts the Lord to go his sinful way is of his own accord after knowing what God wants of him. There are many who are lost like that and even Jesus cannot do anything when the rich young man decides he cannot carry that cross.

That is foreign to the mindset of the fathers.

I do not quite understand that but to my mind there is no different in adultery and fornication, both are sins.

As St. Basil says in his fiftieth canon, third marriages are unlawful. One who cohabits with a woman unlawfully is, of course, guilty of fornication, but as St. Basil explains, those who contract an unlawful third marriage are not to be condemned publicly, because it is at least better than unrestrained fornication. In using pastoral prudence, it is at least possible to prevent those who have fallen from falling further, and perhaps even to turn them back on a path towards God. To cut off all of those who are “lost” as you suggested above would be a disastrous lack of pastoral prudence, which would wind up damning many souls who otherwise could have been saved had a different approach been taken. That is not to say that there is no time when applying the full force of the canons would be prudent—there certainly are such times—but there are many cases when it would be completely inappropriate to do so.

Except the case of allowing adultery and divorce is not something trivial that can be arbitrarily decided by the bishop. As I mentioned earlier, this is a misused of the authority to bind and to loose. It perhaps needs to be decided at a higher level, perhaps something like the Ecumenical Council.

Again, this argument does not hold, because the canonical custom already speaks against this mentality. Both St. Basil’s ninth and fiftieth canon allow for what most would call fornication (a man cohabiting with a new woman, after his wife abandons him without just cause, and trigamy).

I would question why a man is still in a state of being married after the death of his spouse.

He may not be still married, but the fathers clearly held to the standard that one should take only one spouse in one lifetime. A second spouse is allowed for the weakness of mankind (this much we know from St. Paul), and a third is allowed out of economy, even though, as St. Basil confesses, these marriages are technically unlawful (but fourth marriages are absolutely forbidden by canon law).

This is wrong.

Tell that to St. Basil the Great, and the numerous fathers who approved his canons to be part of the canonical tradition of the Church.

After the death of a spouse, the other alive is free to marry again. There should not be any impediment.

From the Scriptures, we only obtain that this is true of widows. For widowers, no such conclusion can be drawn from the Scriptures, as is evidenced by the Sacred Canons.

Jesus mentions about the woman who marries her husband’ brothers and whose wife is she in heaven. Did not he say that there is no husband in wife in the next life?

The disapproval in the canonical tradition expressed towards remarriage may not exist because marriage was believed to be eternal. But orthopraxis is orthodoxy, and the right faith is as much to be found in the canons (which are part of the Tradition of the Church) as it is in the scriptures, the liturgy, and the writings of the saints. The Scriptures cannot simply be pitted against the canonical tradition in an attempt to invalidate certain canons, because it must be understood that they are complimentary in nature.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yet even Christ allows for a man to put his wife away, should she commit fornication. The whole of God’s revelation to us cannot be quite so easily grasped in absolutes like that.

That was Moses did not Jesus. He was alluding to what Moses did and then said it was not like that in the beginning. He cannot contradict himself.

This is a no true Scotsman argument. There are definitely some who validly receive the sacrament of marriage who nevertheless will fall into adultery or fornication.

Then they should go for confession not divorce, my goodness. That is what the Sacrament of Penance is for and by its grace we may stop doing it again and thankful for the forgiveness of God.

This is not always possible. Suppose if the husband tries to kill his wife. Do you truly think it would be better for the wife to return to the husband?

I never say it is better for her to do that. You must misunderstand me. The world solution is divorce for such marriage but not the Lord’s. The Church is the sanctuary for the helpless and trust in God to give comfort and turn the marriage around. I have seen even such marriage can be saved by God’s grace. If the husband wants to kill her, he probably can do so even after the divorce.

You probably think that it is impossible or such unlikely thing for marriage to be saved under God’s guidance and grace.

So-called irreconcilable differences (the mention of which is nothing more than code word for no-fault divorce) are not at all permissible grounds for a divorce. The reasons for which divorce is permitted include only serious matters, like infidelity (one which the Savior himself mentions), attempted murder of the other spouse, abuse, insanity, etc.

My reply would be the same as above. All of this can be resolved by confession and turn a new life.

Insanity is to be pitied and our compassion be upon that person not abandonment. This is when the test of ‘in good and bad health would we go through our marriage together’. Love is about giving and devotion for the other partner no matter what the condition is.

That is an unjustifiable statement in light of canon law, which allows for trigamy (after an appropriate penance), even though trigamy according to St. Basil is a defilement which nonetheless he calls tolerable, only because it is better than unrestrained fornication. This is the principle of economy at work. If the weakness of the person in question is too great for a life of celibacy (and most are too weak to live such a life without falling into sin), it is better to allow for him to marry again than to let him fall into unrestrained fornication.

Ah, St. Basil. I have no comment on this if the Orthodox wants to follow the personal directive of St. Basil.

Only widows under a certain age are canonically free to marry, and even then, they are told that it would be better that they “remain as they are” by St. Paul. Widowers are canonically bound not to remarry, and are penanced as digamists if they do.

It would be better, yes. But if they are not in a state of marriage, they are free to remarry. Why put unnecessary burden on them when they are not anymore under the marriage contract of the Sacrament of matrimony?

That is foreign to the mindset of the fathers.

As I said, the bind and the loose concept are misplaced here in allowing divorce and remarrying. It is not something that the people cannot do like being faithful to their marriage covenant but if they decide not then there is nothing the Church can do. Sin is not to be condoned.

 

[Reuben_J]

As St. Basil says in his fiftieth canon, third marriages are unlawful. One who cohabits with a woman unlawfully is, of course, guilty of fornication, but as St. Basil explains, those who contract an unlawful third marriage are not to be condemned publicly, because it is at least better than unrestrained fornication. In using pastoral prudence, it is at least possible to prevent those who have fallen from falling further, and perhaps even to turn them back on a path towards God. To cut off all of those who are “lost” as you suggested above would be a disastrous lack of pastoral prudence, which would wind up damning many souls who otherwise could have been saved had a different approach been taken. That is not to say that there is no time when applying the full force of the canons would be prudent—there certainly are such times—but there are many cases when it would be completely inappropriate to do so.

No comment on the personal thought of St. Basil, a great saint he was. The law of the Church is more than just about one saint. We can learn from the saint and follow their example when applies but they are not the law. There is other mechanism for that. I am more convinced when you mention Trullo but alas that council is not universally accepted. Again no complain there, it is Orthodox thing.

Again, this argument does not hold, because the canonical custom already speaks against this mentality. Both St. Basil’s ninth and fiftieth canon allow for what most would call fornication (a man cohabiting with a new woman, after his wife abandons him without just cause, and trigamy).

Nothing justified divorce. We as man cannot undo what God has done. God would not let us go through the impossible. If he commands it, his power will allow us to go through. I want to repeat what I said before in an earlier post, it is man who fails, not Jesus. We must have faith in Jesus the redeemer and he will save us, even our marriage.
This kind of attitude in allowing divorce borders on being faithless on the saving power of Jesus. Just because divorce is so prevalent does not mean that Christian marriage does not work. The Orthodox concept of one marriage in a lifetime is good but her decision to allow divorce and remarrying seems bizarre to this concept.

He may not be still married, but the fathers clearly held to the standard that one should take only one spouse in one lifetime. A second spouse is allowed for the weakness of mankind (this much we know from St. Paul), and a third is allowed out of economy, even though, as St. Basil confesses, these marriages are technically unlawful (but fourth marriages are absolutely forbidden by canon law).

Can you show anywhere me that one should take only one spouse in one lifetime? As I said, the Orthodox practice of allowing divorce and for a man to take another wife or a wife another husband seems to contradict this standard.

Tell that to St. Basil the Great, and the numerous fathers who approved his canons to be part of the canonical tradition of the Church.

I might. It is not right, St. Basil, that we should separate what God has joint together in one flesh! God says we should not do that.

From the Scriptures, we only obtain that this is true of widows. For widowers, no such conclusion can be drawn from the Scriptures, as is evidenced by the Sacred Canons.

It is better not to marry but it does not mean they cannot marry. After all they are single!

The disapproval in the canonical tradition expressed towards remarriage may not exist because marriage was believed to be eternal. But orthopraxis is orthodoxy, and the right faith is as much to be found in the canons (which are part of the Tradition of the Church) as it is in the scriptures, the liturgy, and the writings of the saints. The Scriptures cannot simply be pitted against the canonical tradition in an attempt to invalidate certain canons, because it must be understood that they are complimentary in nature.

Thank you. Please go back to God and solve the marriage problem. He will not abandon us. We must have faith in that. We must not go against his word.

 

[Reuben_J]

Mercy in understanding that it isn’t easy to ask any human being to refrain and restrain from sex. As Jesus said about celibacy, those who can should do it. And those who can’t, should not and there is nothing bad about that. Obviously one who has married is one who cannot be celibate. So why ask that person to become a celibate when he/she has demonstrated that they cannot? And again, this is not a blanket permission. Not every divorcee gets allowed to remarry.

Celibate is about faithfulness to the Sacrament.

I am absolutely 100% correct about Catholic annulment. Unless you can cite Scriptural Passage or Patristic teaching that supports the Roman Catholic’s legalistic understanding of marriage and conditions for annulments.

Wait, let me save you the time. There are none.

Marriage happens only on the free will of the couples concerned and when there is no impediment.

You cannot force people to get married or under condition when they do not understand what they are up to.

There certainly may be abuse but it does not nullify anything.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yet even Christ allows for a man to put his wife away, should she commit fornication. The whole of God’s revelation to us cannot be quite so easily grasped in absolutes like that.

The Biblical passage of Mt19 on marriage should be read in totality and in context of the Bible and not to isolate each verse remembering that Jesus is still speaking on the same topic.

The exception of divorce in marriage is a later addition in Moses administration - part of the law for his people.

It is uncharacteristic for Jesus to come up with exception in God’s original plan. In fact Jesus mission is to bring us back to the original plan of God, to make us right with God. In the original plan, divorce is strictly prohibited because the action to marry is by God and God alone. No man thus is allowed to break it, to separate what has become one flesh.

To allow for divorce is to admit that God had made a mistake.

**Jesus in fact redefines the commandment and moral law: **

He said it is not enough just not to kill but even contemplating murder is a sin. When a person wrongs you, it is not enough to forgive him but to offer another cheek.

It is not enough not to commit adultery but it is adultery even when we have lust.

He has never compromised with sin. He cannot be so blunt when he said, it is better to take your eyes our or to cut our hands if they bring us to sin. Probably he would even say to cut that thing off if it brings us to adultery. That’s the extent of Jesus opposition to sin.

It is therefore unthinkable that he would allow divorce and condone adultery. Most of the old law of Moses he has abolished and replaces them with his grace of his salvation.

Sacraments are the outward signs of that grace. Thus they do bring salvation, even the salvation of our marriage. There is no reason to divorce at all in the new Covenant. Divorce was of the old law not the new.

 

[Reuben_J]

Tell that to St. Basil the Great, and the numerous fathers who approved his canons to be part of the canonical tradition of the Church.

If I am taking it up with St Basil for allowing divorce and remarrying for couples in a valid sacramental marriage, I would petition the following:

First of all, St Basil, do you know what it entails for a Christian husband and a Christian wife when they decide to voluntarily get married in the Sacrament of Matrimony?

**A Christian husband **must love his wife as Jesus loves the Church. Do you know how Jesus loves the Church? He lays his life for them. He save them from sin and his relationship with his Church is eternal, never to be broken. That’s how a husband should love his wife. He would wash her with words of scripture as her cleansing so that she be presented radiant without blemishes but holy and blameless. He would even consider his wife body as his own.

Do you know the attitude of the Christian wife to her husband? She must be submissive to him but actually that submission is mutual - They submit to each other out of reverence for Christ.

If the requirement of the relationship of the Christian husband and Christian wife is as such, how could they even think of divorce? Ignorance is not an excuse; your Church has the responsibility to impart this knowledge to them.

How could you then break the marriage covenant which should never be broken as it is God who joins the husband and wife together and God has explicitly prohibited any human to separate them? It is a shame. Probably you should get married yourself and learn how to truly love your wife as how God wants you to. The wife is not a toy to be discarded whenever you are not happy with her for whatever reason.

**Secondly, do you not believe that the grace of the Sacrament is sufficient to save the marriage itself? **

Grace is always about salvation. Sacrament is a grace, a tool for Christians in Christian living as a way to achieve righteousness so that they can ultimately receive salvation. In marriage the Sacrament is a power, a bulwark against the Evil One that strives to break marriages through all kinds of temptation and lies.

The grace of the Sacrament saves marriage if the couples obey it faithfully. God does not allow us to go through testing that we cannot endure. He will save us from our problem. All we need to do is to come back to him. Even in marriage. Yes, most of all, even in marriage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Remember that remarriage is not about the Law but about Mercy. Of course we don’t want to break the law, but what if it does. It happens all the time. I guess I started to appreciate and understand this point of view because of my work in IT. When something is broken, we fix it. We find the cause and then address the cause, not just merely get something back up and running again. Like one time we were having frequent Windows crashes with some users. To me I used to just reformat the hard drive and reinstall (home solution). But I learned that is just a band-aid fix. So we invested a lot of time trying to figure out why certain computers are crashing (not all comptuers, just some) so that we can address the root cause.

Jesus gave a commandment, let no man take apart what God has joined together. And we should do everything in our power, within ourselves, within our family, within our community, to follow that commandment. But because we live in a fallen world, bad things happen. And when they do, we can’t just stick to the original commandment and say, “sorry, rules are rules”. First we need to understand, why the marriage ended. And what can be done for the entire wellbeing of the person. If there is greater spiritual advantages for the person to remarry than to let them stay single, then by mercy they are allowed remarriage. “Better to marry than to burn with passion”. And remember, from the Orthodox point-of-view, marriage is more than just sex or having children, the Sacramental union is about bringing the family to the Kingdom of God. All Sacraments are about bringing people to the Kingdom. So if having a second spouse can help achieve that goal better than letting the person stay single, why not allow it?

 

[Reuben_J]

Remember that remarriage is not about the Law but about Mercy. Of course we don’t want to break the law, but what if it does. It happens all the time. I guess I started to appreciate and understand this point of view because of my work in IT. When something is broken, we fix it. We find the cause and then address the cause, not just merely get something back up and running again. Like one time we were having frequent Windows crashes with some users. To me I used to just reformat the hard drive and reinstall (home solution). But I learned that is just a band-aid fix. So we invested a lot of time trying to figure out why certain computers are crashing (not all comptuers, just some) so that we can address the root cause.

Jesus gave a commandment, let no man take apart what God has joined together. And we should do everything in our power, within ourselves, within our family, within our community, to follow that commandment. But because we live in a fallen world, bad things happen. And when they do, we can’t just stick to the original commandment and say, “sorry, rules are rules”. First we need to understand, why the marriage ended. And what can be done for the entire wellbeing of the person. If there is greater spiritual advantages for the person to remarry than to let them stay single, then by mercy they are allowed remarriage. “Better to marry than to burn with passion”. And remember, from the Orthodox point-of-view, marriage is more than just sex or having children, the Sacramental union is about bringing the family to the Kingdom of God. All Sacraments are about bringing people to the Kingdom. So if having a second spouse can help achieve that goal better than letting the person stay single, why not allow it?

Thanks for the great post. It was carefully worded but I like the personal touch in the explanation. I guess that would summarize the Orthodox’s position about the ekonomia of remarriage. The concept of mercy there is in harmony with my own so I do not have problem in appreciating it per se.

But you have a stubborn listener here. While understanding the concept of mercy stated, from my Catholic upbringing, I do not see marriage should be broken. I guess that is the impasse here. The solution to broken marriage is not divorce because the separated spouses could still be filial to the Church and to God and could still be good and pious Christians. Celibacy should be seen as a gift especially if it is undertaken for the purpose of glorifying God (in faithfulness to God’s commandment).

Being single, unable to marry and to celibate is not easy but here is the thing – the strength to do them comes from the grace of God. If God wants it that way, he will give us the strength to carry it out. And faithfulness to God will always be blessed and always come with a reward now and hereafter, one of which perhaps is an increase in faith for the person to know that what he does is right.

You can say I am also defending the Catholic’s position on marriage. I hope there is not so much of an objection to bringing up another concept of marriage here (Catholic marriage) because in order to discuss this subject more effectively, one cannot avoid the comparison as a sort of bench marking.

Let’s say no one is right or wrong at this point, for if the respective church wants to take their respective position on marriage, who are we then to argue about it? Thus this discussion can be purely bordered on the academic.

God bless.

 

[Rawb]

(The only defense I can give for jumping back into a discussion I said I was leaving is that I think the topic has changed. Judge me if you want )

Reuben I think the difference here might come from a different approach to celibacy as well. Roman Catholics, I think, have a greater expectation that anybody can be celibate with a little help from God.

Orthodoxy wouldn’t quite look at it that way. While yes, if God wants someone to be celibate He will give them the grace to do so, for us celibacy is a major spiritual ascetic feat. It is perhaps what we would call ‘podvig’. Podvig is spiritual struggle that, by definition, goes above and beyond the normal Christian ascetic practices. So while we expect almost everyone to be able to fast to some significant degree, we don’t expect everyone to be able to endure celibacy.

Now, in some cases it can be spiritually dangerous for someone to attempt podvig without careful, patient, properly guided spiritual advising. Thus asking a generic individual who’s gotten a divorce to commit to celibacy is equivalent to asking a generic individual to start an immediate strict fast of only bread and water twice a day for the rest of their life, or expecting them to be able to pray for ten hours straight and keep perfectly focused. It’s unreasonable. They’ll get frustrated and stop fasting altogether, or stop praying altogether, or lash out at others in anger, or commit any other of numerous sins. Thus the extension of eikonomia. The Church exists to help sinners along the path to Salvation, not to condemn. That’s above our pay grade. So where we can we are going to bend the rules to save souls at all costs.

 

[newlywed8]

(The only defense I can give for jumping back into a discussion I said I was leaving is that I think the topic has changed. Judge me if you want )

Reuben I think the difference here might come from a different approach to celibacy as well. Roman Catholics, I think, have a greater expectation that anybody can be celibate with a little help from God.

Orthodoxy wouldn’t quite look at it that way. While yes, if God wants someone to be celibate He will give them the grace to do so, for us celibacy is a major spiritual ascetic feat. It is perhaps what we would call ‘podvig’. Podvig is spiritual struggle that, by definition, goes above and beyond the normal Christian ascetic practices. So while we expect almost everyone to be able to fast to some significant degree, we don’t expect everyone to be able to endure celibacy.

Now, in some cases it can be spiritually dangerous for someone to attempt podvig without careful, patient, properly guided spiritual advising. Thus asking a generic individual who’s gotten a divorce to commit to celibacy is equivalent to asking a generic individual to start an immediate strict fast of only bread and water twice a day for the rest of their life, or expecting them to be able to pray for ten hours straight and keep perfectly focused. It’s unreasonable. They’ll get frustrated and stop fasting altogether, or stop praying altogether, or lash out at others in anger, or commit any other of numerous sins. Thus the extension of eikonomia. The Church exists to help sinners along the path to Salvation, not to condemn. That’s above our pay grade. So where we can we are going to bend the rules to save souls at all costs.

That is perhaps the best explanation I have ever heard articulated! (well, written)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks for the great post. It was carefully worded but I like the personal touch in the explanation. I guess that would summarize the Orthodox’s position about the ekonomia of remarriage. The concept of mercy there is in harmony with my own so I do not have problem in appreciating it per se.

But you have a stubborn listener here. While understanding the concept of mercy stated, from my Catholic upbringing, I do not see marriage should be broken. I guess that is the impasse here. The solution to broken marriage is not divorce because the separated spouses could still be filial to the Church and to God and could still be good and pious Christians. Celibacy should be seen as a gift especially if it is undertaken for the purpose of glorifying God (in faithfulness to God’s commandment).

Being single, unable to marry and to celibate is not easy but here is the thing – the strength to do them comes from the grace of God. If God wants it that way, he will give us the strength to carry it out. And faithfulness to God will always be blessed and always come with a reward now and hereafter, one of which perhaps is an increase in faith for the person to know that what he does is right.

You can say I am also defending the Catholic’s position on marriage. I hope there is not so much of an objection to bringing up another concept of marriage here (Catholic marriage) because in order to discuss this subject more effectively, one cannot avoid the comparison as a sort of bench marking.

Let’s say no one is right or wrong at this point, for if the respective church wants to take their respective position on marriage, who are we then to argue about it? Thus this discussion can be purely bordered on the academic.

God bless.

I guess the other difference is how East and West views Grace and Sin. We know that sin can block the light of Christ from shining in our hearts. Divorce is a sin, and thus with that sin we block the light of Christ shining in our hearts. Do we completely lose the grace that came with the Sacrament of marriage? We can’t conclusively know for sure, but given that the marriage itself failed then it is telling that one or both in the marriage has denied the grace that God has offered them.

I guess there is this fundamental difference in the view of Sacraments between East and West. It is the same with the priesthood. The Catholic Church teaches that an excommunicated priest can still perform valid Sacraments, the Orthodox Church doesn’t. The priestly ministry is attached to the Church, not the person. So if a priest is detached from the Church, he doesn’t take the priesthood which belongs solely to Christ, with him. The Church is the body of Christ and Christ is the sole priest of the Church. So for a priest to be detached from the Church, it doesn’t make sense that he can still act as a priest.

The same with Chrismation. Catholics believe that Confirmation is permanent. The Orthodox believe that heretics returning to the Church must be Chrismated again. To be a heretic is to reject the truth given by the Holy Spirit, so again sin has darkened one’s heart and denied God’s grace.

So the same approach is taken with marriage. You don’t just reinstate a clergyman who schism. You don’t just admit to communion one who professed heresy. You don’t just allow someone to remarry. Of the three, the readmission to Communion is the most ordinary to happen, but if you look at the history of the Church it wasn’t always like that. In the First Council of Nicaea, they declared those who abandoned the faith through their own choice and not because they were coerced by persecution are to be as listeners (same as catechumens but they do not get blessed as catechumens. They get dismissed at the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word) for 11 years. 11 years!!! Before they are Chrismated and readmitted to Communion. But there is more certainty to this. A schismatic clergyman may be readmitted as a laymany but no guarantees they will be reinstated as a cleric. Same with those who divorce and want to remarry, no guarantees of remarriage. Again, it is something granted out of mercy and spiritual need of the person.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The same with Chrismation. Catholics believe that Confirmation is permanent. The Orthodox believe that heretics returning to the Church must be Chrismated again. To be a heretic is to reject the truth given by the Holy Spirit, so again sin has darkened one’s heart and denied God’s grace.

That is not necessarily true. As Nicolas Cabasilas writes in the Life in Christ, repentant apostates are chrismated again, but this does not “add” anything as far as grace is concerned. In other words, the form is repeated, but it is non-sacramental in nature. Chrismation, like baptism, is only conferred sacramentally once.

So the same approach is taken with marriage. You don’t just reinstate a clergyman who schism. You don’t just admit to communion one who professed heresy. You don’t just allow someone to remarry. Of the three, the readmission to Communion is the most ordinary to happen, but if you look at the history of the Church it wasn’t always like that. In the First Council of Nicaea, they declared those who abandoned the faith through their own choice and not because they were coerced by persecution are to be as listeners (same as catechumens but they do not get blessed as catechumens. They get dismissed at the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word) for 11 years. 11 years!!! Before they are Chrismated and readmitted to Communion. But there is more certainty to this. A schismatic clergyman may be readmitted as a laymany but no guarantees they will be reinstated as a cleric. Same with those who divorce and want to remarry, no guarantees of remarriage. Again, it is something granted out of mercy and spiritual need of the person.

Yes, the old penances are extreme, and that is where economy comes in, so that they may be tailored to fit the needs of the flock. The only comment I have is that the clergy are held to a higher standard than the rest. Clergy who remarry or who go into schism (that is, non-administrative schism) are rarely if every allowed to remain clergy. The canons concerning clergy are enforced strictly.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is not necessarily true. As Nicolas Cabasilas writes in the Life in Christ, repentant apostates are chrismated again, but this does not “add” anything as far as grace is concerned. In other words, the form is repeated, but it is non-sacramental in nature. Chrismation, like baptism, is only conferred sacramentally once.

I see. Thanks! I thought that because of their own hardness of heart with the sin of heresy and/or apostasy which is denial of truth which is denial of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) would “break” the seal of Chrismation.

Yes, the old penances are extreme, and that is where economy comes in, so that they may be tailored to fit the needs of the flock. The only comment I have is that the clergy are held to a higher standard than the rest. Clergy who remarry or who go into schism (that is, non-administrative schism) are rarely if every allowed to remain clergy. The canons concerning clergy are enforced strictly.

I’ve seen cases (based on internet report) where a remarried clergy was allowed to serve. But it was indeed an extreme case. I think it was a remote town or something and they really only have one priest. I wonder, could he still be deposed later on when a suitable replacement is found?