Orthodox and remarriage

[newlywed8]

I never understood the “death doesn’t end marriage” aspect - as Jesus clearly says that at the resurrection we will be like the “angels in heaven” who are “not given into marriage”. When the Saducees ask him whose wife the woman who was married to seven men (all of whom died) will be - the clear answer He gives is “none of them”.

All three synoptic Gospels (Matt 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-37) report Jesus’ attitude toward the “levirate”. It is important to notice that the question is related to Christ’s teaching on resurrection and immortality, which cancels worries about survival through posterity. When the Sadducees (“which say there is no resurrection”) asked who, among the seven brothers who successively married the same woman, will have her to wife 'in the resurrection", Jesus answers that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”.

This text is often understood to imply that marriage is only an earthly institution and that its reality is dissolved by death. Such an understanding prevailed in the Western Church, which never discouraged remarriage of widowers and never limited the number of remarriages permitted to Christians. However, if this were the right understanding of Jesus’ words, they would be in direct contradiction of the words of Saint Paul, and to the very consistent canonical practice of the Orthodox Church throughout the centuries. In the Christian understanding, marriage is absolutely unique and quite incompatible with the “levirate”. Never would the Christian Church encourage a man to marry his brother’s widow. In fact, as Clement of Alexandria already noted, “The Lord is not rejecting marriage, but ridding their minds of the expectation that in the resurrection there will be carnal desire”. (1) Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees is strictly limited by the meaning of their question. They rejected the resurrection because they could not understand it otherwise than as a restoration of earthly human existence, which would include the Judaic understanding of marriage as procreation through sexual intercourse. In this, Jesus says, “they err”, because life in the Kingdom will be like that of the “angels”. Jesus’ answer is, therefore, nothing more than a denial of a naive and materialistic understanding of the resurrection, and it does not give any positive meaning to marriage. He speaks of the levirate, and not of Christian marriage, whose meaning is revealed–implicitly and explicitly–in other parts of the New Testament.

(1) Clement of Alexandria, (d. approx. 221) is one of the founders of Christian theology. The quotation is from his Miscellanies, III, 12, 87, English translation in The Library of Christian Classics, II, Philadelphia, PA, The Westminster Press, 1954, p.81.

From Meyendorff, Marriage–An Orthodox Perspective - emphasis mine

 

[Eric2718]

Originally Posted by Eric2718
Constantine, that’s the explanation I have heard from the Orthodox. It explains the motivation of why remarriage is allowed. But it does not really address the question I asked. Let me repeat what I’m trying to understand.

The O. church will marry a divorced person.
Jesus said that when divorced people remarry they commit adultery.
Adultery = sex when at least one is married to another so it seems the Lord is saying divorce did not end the marriage.

If the O. think divorce did end the marriage then help me understand why the Lord said divorced people who remarry commit adultery.

If the O. think divorce did not end the marriage then help me understand how it’s not polygamy.

I’m genuinely trying to understand. I’m Catholic and find many things about the O. church favorable but cannot get past this point.

PS: I’ll buy the book today and read it. Thank you.

It is sinful, and the marriage ceremony acknowledges the sin involved in the remarriage, but it is granted, by economy, to help prevent the person from greater sin.
There is no practical difference between this and the modern widespread use of annulments to end marriage.

The answers I’m getting aren’t really answering the questions I’m asking so I’m going to be more specific:

1. Yes or no, if a couple is divorced are they still married in the eyes God?
2. If the answer to #1 is “yes” then how is the remarriage not adultery?
3. If the answer to #1 is “no” then why does the scripture say that marrying a divorced person is adultery since adultery can only happen when someone is married?
4. “It is sinful…” Please be specific about the sin. Is it adultery or failure to limit oneself to only one marriage as is the ideal in the O. church?

Please answer the questions asked rather than provide general commentary on whether it’s sinful or not. Or please answer the questions asked then provide more material if desired. I’m not trying to be rude but the questions above are the root of what I’m asking and needing to know.

 

[Eric2718]

The canonical tradition is clear, going back to the fourth century that any remarriage after the death of a spouse is a sin. Those who committed this sin were considered guilty of bigamy, the recommended penance for which is a two year period of excommunication (this may be lightened out of economy), or with the loss of Holy Orders in the case of clergy (but without the associated two year excommunication, because the ancient canonical principle that one shall not punish twice for the same offense applies in this case; the loss of Holy Orders is punishment enough). Those who committed trigamy by contracting a third marriage were penanced heavily, being excommunicated for five years, and subsequently only being allowed to commune three times a year once being received back into communion. Those who contracted a fourth marriage were not and still are not ever received back into communion, unless they should leave the fourth marriage (there was a rare case when an emperor contracted a fourth marriage, and was received back into communion only under the condition that he outlaw all future fourth marriages; see the moechian controversy) The penance in this case, for the laity, has been reduced by economy. In the case of clergy, the canons concerning remarriage are more strictly enforced, because clergy are held to a higher standard.

But a marriage cannot happen without the priest. So the priest is complicit and marries a couple then says they have committed a sin (when he’s the one that married them) and gives them penance? Am I understanding this right?

 

[Cavaradossi]

How does this notion of no remarriage allowed after the death of the spouse square qith 1 Corinthians 7:39?

There is a canonical exception for widows who have not taken a vow not to remarry in return for financial support from the church. If the widow is under sixty years of age, she is to be removed from the Church’s support, but if the widow is over sixty years of age, she is to be excommunicated until she leaves this marriage.

For men, however, no such exception exists, and a man who remarries is penanced as a digamist, trigamist, or polygamist. See Canon IV from St. Basil’s first canonical epistle, and Canons XXIV, XLI, and LSt. Basil’s second canonical epistle

 

[newlywed8]

The answers I’m getting aren’t really answering the questions I’m asking so I’m going to be more specific:

1. Yes or no, if a couple is divorced are they still married in the eyes God?
2. If the answer to #1 is “yes” then how is the remarriage not adultery?
3. If the answer to #1 is “no” then why does the scripture say that marrying a divorced person is adultery since adultery can only happen when someone is married?
4. “It is sinful…” Please be specific about the sin. Is it adultery or failure to limit oneself to only one marriage as is the ideal in the O. church?

Please answer the questions asked rather than provide general commentary on whether it’s sinful or not. Or please answer the questions asked then provide more material if desired. I’m not trying to be rude but the questions above are the root of what I’m asking and needing to know.

Once a couple is crowned in marriage the grace they receive from the sacrament is eternal, even if one dies or one commits adultery or they ‘no-fault’ divorce. That means there is no re-sacramental marriage, ever.

Obviously people are imperfect and from the beginning there were marriages that fell apart. The Byzantine church used to never perform remarriages. If a person ‘just had’ to marry again, they would remarry civilly, then be reconciled with the church through extensive periods of penance. Eventually, there was a ceremony created, but it was not a sacramental ceremony, it was one of penance. No crowns, no cup, ect. It is an acknowledgement that what is happening should not be happening, but it is better to let this couple have a second chance to have a lifelong union than cast them out of the church or let them live with a lifetime of temptation when they are publically saying that they cannot live a celibate life. It is a mercy to give them a second chance.

Failing to limit oneself to a single marriage is a sadness, a falling short of the mark. It is a failure to continue along the path of theosis and takes work to rectify and progress again.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So when a marriage ends by death of one spouse then the one still alive is still married.
Therefore it would seem that if the marriage ends by divorce then both are still married.
If that is true then remarriage = adultery.

The Eastern Fathers basically understood remarriage after death that way. Basil, for example, calls trigamy “limited fornication” in Canon IV of His first canonical epistle, and in Canon L of his second canonical epistle, he states that there is no law of the Church concerning trigamy because it is completely unlawful. But those who contract a third marriage are not to be subject to complete condemnation (that is, a third marriage is to be tolerated), because it is better than unrestrained fornication.

 

[Eric2718]

Once a couple is crowned in marriage the grace they receive from the sacrament is eternal, even if one dies or one commits adultery or they ‘no-fault’ divorce. That means there is no re-sacramental marriage, ever.

Obviously people are imperfect and from the beginning there were marriages that fell apart. The Byzantine church used to never perform remarriages. If a person ‘just had’ to marry again, they would remarry civilly, then be reconciled with the church through extensive periods of penance. Eventually, there was a ceremony created, but it was not a sacramental ceremony, it was one of penance. No crowns, no cup, ect. It is an acknowledgement that what is happening should not be happening, but it is better to let this couple have a second chance to have a lifelong union than cast them out of the church or let them live with a lifetime of temptation when they are publically saying that they cannot live a celibate life. It is a mercy to give them a second chance.

Failing to limit oneself to a single marriage is a sadness, a falling short of the mark. It is a failure to continue along the path of theosis and takes work to rectify and progress again.

Thanks for your reply. I’m still not clear.

**Yes or no, **if a couple is divorced are they still married in the eyes God?

If so, how is remarriage not adultery?

 

[Eric2718]

The Eastern Fathers basically understood remarriage after death that way. Basil, for example, calls trigamy “limited fornication” in Canon IV of His first canonical epistle, and in Canon L of his second canonical epistle, he states that there is no law of the Church concerning trigamy because it is completely unlawful. But those who contract a third marriage are not to be subject to complete condemnation (that is, a third marriage is to be tolerated), because it is better than unrestrained fornication.

Thank you for your reply. If after death someone is still married then are they still married after divorce? If so, how is remarriage not adultery?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yes, this is another difference. You are correct – not sure about a Deacon being allowed to remarry by dispensation after death of a spouse but you are otherwise correct. .

They are, just as outlined.

 

[Eric2718]

To the Orthodox here: I’m not an adversary. I’m sympathetic to Orthodoxy and considering converting. I have repeatedly asked some simple questions and asked yes or no, true or false is this true. I’m simply trying to understand what and why you believe.

Again:

If after death someone is still married then are they still married after divorce?
I’d like a yes or no answer to this question.

If so, how is remarriage not adultery?
This is not a yes or no question – details please.

Thank you in advance for the information.

 

[Eric2718]

And to any Eastern Catholics, how do you see these things?

If after death someone is still married then are they still married after divorce? If so, how is remarriage not adultery?

 

[Taurks]

1. Yes or no, if a couple is divorced are they still married in the eyes God?
2. If the answer to #1 is “yes” then how is the remarriage not adultery?
3. If the answer to #1 is “no” then why does the scripture say that marrying a divorced person is adultery since adultery can only happen when someone is married?
4. “It is sinful…” Please be specific about the sin. Is it adultery or failure to limit oneself to only one marriage as is the ideal in the O. church?

Yes or no, if a couple is divorced are they still married in the eyes God?

I’m going to try to answer as best as I can, but I’m a fledgling Orthodox and readily submit to my elders in the faith.

When a marriage dissolves, the response of the Church is this, according to my priest: “The Church cries.” This is because all the prayers of the Church, the grace that was bestowed, etc. just didn’t take - sometimes sin happens. The couple will always remain “married” in a sense (just like baptism, which can’t be “undone” - there is no such thing as declaring a marriage nullified as in the Catholic Church).

In regards to adultery, I think Jesus is answering the people who have the idea that “I won’t sleep around, but I’ll just marry a ton of women and sleep with them all, so I can never be charged of committing adultery (i.e.extra-marital sex).” Jesus is calling a spade a spade - He’s saying, “Even if you marry someone, and then decide to divorce them so you can sleep with someone else, the fact that you married the second woman isn’t going to make it any less adulterous.” Jesus talks a lot about people who keep the word of the law (being married vs. unmarried) but disregard the spirit of the law (chastity vs. unchastity). Look at how he told the Pharisees that it was right to pick grain or perform miracles on the Sabbath, for other examples.

 

[Eric2718]

I’m going to try to answer as best as I can, but I’m a fledgling Orthodox and readily submit to my elders in the faith.

The couple will always remain “married” in a sense (just like baptism, which can’t be “undone” - there is no such thing as declaring a marriage nullified as in the Catholic Church).

QUOTE]

Then I repeat my question:

1. If the answer to #1 is “yes” then how is the remarriage not adultery?

 

[Nine_Two]

To the Orthodox here: I’m not an adversary. I’m sympathetic to Orthodoxy and considering converting. I have repeatedly asked some simple questions and asked yes or no, true or false is this true. I’m simply trying to understand what and why you believe.

Again:

If after death someone is still married then are they still married after divorce?
I’d like a yes or no answer to this question.

If so, how is remarriage not adultery?
This is not a yes or no question – details please.

Thank you in advance for the information.

In the context of the Commandment “Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery”, rather than any modern legal definition. No one has put it down to a few letters, but the common theme seems to be yes, serial monogamy is morally the same thing as adultery.

However when the person is unable to live without that companionship, allowing it is a superior solution than forsaking them from Christ and having them have multiple partners.

 

[babochka]

The couple will always remain “married” in a sense (just like baptism, which can’t be “undone” - there is no such thing as declaring a marriage nullified as in the Catholic Church).

How would the Orthodox deal with a case of overt fraud, such as bigamy? I suppose since 2nd and 3rd marriages are allowed, it has never really been necessary for the Orthodox churches to delve into situations in which a marriage might have been invalid from the beginning. The Catholic church, on the other hand, has really needed to deal with the reality of divorce.

Does the Coptic church, which only allows divorce in the case of adultery, have any form of annulment?

 

[Cavaradossi]

How would the Orthodox deal with a case of overt fraud, such as bigamy? I suppose since 2nd and 3rd marriages are allowed, it has never really been necessary for the Orthodox churches to delve into situations in which a marriage might have been invalid from the beginning. The Catholic church, on the other hand, has really needed to deal with the reality of divorce.

Does the Coptic church, which only allows divorce in the case of adultery, have any form of annulment?

I think in the case of deception, it is as if the marriage never happened, like an annulment, since one person was ineligible to be sacramentally married. One would have to look to the canonical tradition.

 

[dzheremi]

Does the Coptic church, which only allows divorce in the case of adultery, have any form of annulment?

HG Bishop Youssef seems to answer that we do, but it must be exceedingly rare (thank God). Divorce itself is incredibly rare in the Church (or at least incredibly rare relative to other churches), given the very narrow parameters within which it is granted. This and related matters cause a lot of trouble from the Church in Egypt when the state steps in and messes with its right to rule on divorce and remarriage (which is generally not allowed), as here (note that this was before the revolution; it has not gotten better, as you can imagine).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then I repeat my question:

1. If the answer to #1 is “yes” then how is the remarriage not adultery?

#1 is “no”. St. Gregory of Nazianzus said that if a marriage foundered publicly and permanently, the Church should not close its eyes pretending that it is not. That is, we shouldn’t pretend that two people are married when clearly they are not. When they no longer live together, no longer love one another, that is not marriage.

So #2, it is not adultery because it is granted out of the mercy of God through the Church. But the Church makes it clear that it is “you’re only getting this because…,” rather than, “yeah, go ahead, it’s cool.”

 

[Eric2718]

#1 is “no”. St. Gregory of Nazianzus said that if a marriage foundered publicly and permanently, the Church should not close its eyes pretending that it is not. That is, we shouldn’t pretend that two people are married when clearly they are not. When they no longer live together, no longer love one another, that is not marriage.

So #2, it is not adultery because it is granted out of the mercy of God through the Church. But the Church makes it clear that it is “you’re only getting this because…,” rather than, “yeah, go ahead, it’s cool.”

Awesome. Thank you for that yes or no answer — it helped. And this seems to agree with what the local O. priest has been telling me. I feel like I’m getting somewhere here.

Now if divorce ends the marriage (that’s why remarriage is not adultery) then why did the Lord indicate in Mt 19:9 that in some cases divorce ends the marriage (in the case of adultery) but otherwise if you marry the divorced person you commit adultery? How can it be adultery unless they are still married? From reading the scripture it seems clear that committing adultery ends the marriage otherwise you’re still married even if divorce happens.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

I never understood the “death doesn’t end marriage” aspect - as Jesus clearly says that at the resurrection we will be like the “angels in heaven” who are “not given into marriage”. When the Saducees ask him whose wife the woman who was married to seven men (all of whom died) will be - the clear answer He gives is “none of them”.

I’d like a clarification on the “death ends marriage” concept in the Latin Church. Latin sacramental theology states that Marriage is a Sacrament and a contract. The article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia on Marriage indicates that what is dissolved upon death is the contract. Does this necessarily mean that the Grace of the Sacrament is also dissolved so as to render impossible the idea that two souls cleaved by God in the Sacrament of Marriage are still so bound despite physical death?

Blessings,
Marduk