M
mardukm
Guest
I’d agree with most of what you write here, except the idea that annulment ends marriage. Rather, an annulment recognizes that a marriage never began.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s not true. The ancient canons do not recognize marriages to have ever existed when they were unlawfully contracted. Cases such as bigamous marriages, marriage of a cleric after orders has been received, cases of consanguinity, cases of forced marriages, etc. - all these are reasons for an annulment that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have recognized throughout the centuries.
Blessings,
Marduk
E
Eric2718
Guest
I have to side with Tyler. Scripture clearly indicates that if I’m married and my wife dies that in heaven she is not my wife nor am I her husband. But here on earth I am her husband? How can a marriage exist where only one of the two is married?
E
Eric2718
Guest
Constantine, my apologies. I don’t think I read your post well enough before replying. I’ve re-read it and am posting a revised reply:
At the time that Jesus gave this teaching marriages were only ended by adultery. The Orthodox Study Bible notes confirms that in the beginning this was the deal. Over time eventually the Orthodox Church allowed remarriage for other reasons. Today a 2nd marriage will be granted when the couple divorced for “irreconcilable differences” but then it would not.
When you say “by the authority of the Church” it seems you are saying that the Church has changed things and that now divorce for many (almost any in my opinion) reason actually ends the marriage (that’s why remarriage is allowed and is not adultery) but in the Lord’s teaching it was not so – only divorce ended the marriage thus remarriage in that situation not being adultery.
Q: So you are saying that the Orthodox Church views itself as having the authority to alter the original teaching by expanding the number of reasons that a marriage is ended by divorce and thus remarriage is allowed and is not adultery?
It seems logically this is the grounds this is being done on. I’m not being critical here – the Catholic Church has done similar things but just in totally different areas which would be another thread.
And as a comment this seems odd. In the gospels the Lord says that in the beginning divorce was not allowed but later God allowed it on the authority of Moses because of the hardness of people’s hearts. And He (the Lord) is tightening things up again to the original. Only for the O. Church a couple of centuries later to go back to allowing divorce for reasons other than those the Lord gave.
But most of all what would help me is if you would reply to the question in bold type. Other info is helpful, too, but I especially want to know that.
T
twf
Guest
Logically it makes sense to me that there would be some sort of unique spiritual bond between two souls who were sacramentally married in this life - but I know of no Western tradition that speaks to this. (Could be out there though).
An Eastern Catholic pointed out on this thread that early Byzantine remarriage were strictly civil affairs. How is the idea of second or third sacramental Church weddings justified? Seems like a novelty - something some Eastern Christians are quick to accuse the West of. (I say this tongue in cheek as some Eastern polemicists like to hit you over the head with the phrase “Latin novelties”).
M
Milliardo
Guest
I think Eric’s question can best be answered by looking instead on what is the Orthodox Church is saying when it allows for remarriage to divorced people. As pointed out earlier, the Orthodox Church does this so as to lead divorced people out of a more sinful path, either by cohabitation or else turning away from Orthodoxy into congregations that might be more sympathetic to them–and hence, by turning away from Orthodoxy, they turn away from the true faith.
So, has the Orthodox Church changed anything from what Jesus has said? It has not, actually; it agrees with Him that remarriage after divorce is still adultery. However, the Orthodox Church shows the love of Christ towards those who want to marry after divorce by pointing them to a path that would lead them away from sin, which would be either living together or else turning away from the Church to different other sects.
In a sense then, if I may, and I ask forgiveness from those who might know Orthodoxy better than I, since I am but a convert into it, the Orthodox Church is showing Jesus’ love by taking part of that blame of adultery, as our Lord has said (about marriage after divorce), into herself, just as our Lord in His love for us took our sins and became sin itself, as St. Paul writes, when He was on the Cross. In doing so then, the Orthodox Church deflects that blame from those doing it, so as to save them from an even greater sin.
Forgive me if that might have made things more confusing, and if there is any Orthodox who might have better insight into it, then I would gladly stand corrected.
So, has the Orthodox Church changed anything from what Jesus has said? It has not, actually; it agrees with Him that remarriage after divorce is still adultery. However, the Orthodox Church shows the love of Christ towards those who want to marry after divorce by pointing them to a path that would lead them away from sin, which would be either living together or else turning away from the Church to different other sects.
In a sense then, if I may, and I ask forgiveness from those who might know Orthodoxy better than I, since I am but a convert into it, the Orthodox Church is showing Jesus’ love by taking part of that blame of adultery, as our Lord has said (about marriage after divorce), into herself, just as our Lord in His love for us took our sins and became sin itself, as St. Paul writes, when He was on the Cross. In doing so then, the Orthodox Church deflects that blame from those doing it, so as to save them from an even greater sin.
Forgive me if that might have made things more confusing, and if there is any Orthodox who might have better insight into it, then I would gladly stand corrected.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
The history of this was explained to me as Jesus addressing the habit of Jewish men to just throw away their wives when they got old, or displeasing in some way. They threw them away for their own convenience. If the woman didn’t have a very kind set of relations to take her in, she was relegated to two forms of life: begging or prostitution.
Jesus was telling them that it is they who are the sinners in these cases unless the woman is guilty of a mortal sin against the marriage: adultery.
In this Scripture, Jesus is not making rules for the whole world, He is relating something about the nature of love, as He always did.
B
babochka
Guest
This sounds very much like the no-fault divorce that our society has embraced.
E
Eric2718
Guest
I wonder if how the Orthodox see divorce and remarriage is this:
In the beginning divorce was not God’s plan. Later ecclesiastical authority (Moses) allowed it and because he did then when people divorced and remarried it was not adultery. Later God again tightens things up and says that divorce is not allowed. And just like before ecclesiastical authority (the Orthodox Church) allowed divorce. And once again if one divorces and remarries it is not adultery.
It was done before by “church” authority and allowed by God so why can it not be done again? It seems the O. church has said that on her authority God allows this. It’s scriptural.
I’m looking for commentary by Eastern Orthodox.
In the beginning divorce was not God’s plan. Later ecclesiastical authority (Moses) allowed it and because he did then when people divorced and remarried it was not adultery. Later God again tightens things up and says that divorce is not allowed. And just like before ecclesiastical authority (the Orthodox Church) allowed divorce. And once again if one divorces and remarries it is not adultery.
It was done before by “church” authority and allowed by God so why can it not be done again? It seems the O. church has said that on her authority God allows this. It’s scriptural.
I’m looking for commentary by Eastern Orthodox.
T
Taurks
Guest
I stand corrected
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Eric,
That’s why I asked my question to brother Tyler. If the Latin Catholic Church teaches that it is the contract (the legal and moral bond), as distinct from the Sacramental Grace of marriage, that is dissolved, does it not make the Eastern concept of “marriage in heaven” possible, and even acceptable as a theologoumenon in a reunited Church?
Blessings,
Marduk
This was already answered. The Scripture indicates that there will be no marriage at the Resurrection. It does not say that the marriage bond does not still exist after death before the Resurrection.
That’s why I asked my question to brother Tyler. If the Latin Catholic Church teaches that it is the contract (the legal and moral bond), as distinct from the Sacramental Grace of marriage, that is dissolved, does it not make the Eastern concept of “marriage in heaven” possible, and even acceptable as a theologoumenon in a reunited Church?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
I’m not an Eastern Orthodox. I come from an Oriental Orthodox background, but my understanding of the matter is that the Church has not changed the divine law on divorce. Oikonomia is not a changing of the law, but merely a mitigation of the usual penalty for the transgression of the law. Do you see the difference?
For example, suppose a person steals food. It is a sin to steal. Let’s say the penalty is to have the hand cut off. So the person gets caught. But the judge discovers that the reason the person stole the food was to feed his starving mother. Thus, the judge decides to forego the penalty and lets the man go with an admonition of the sinfulness of stealing.
The same happens in oikonomia. It only appears Orthodox are changing the divine law, but they are not. Orthodox priests and hierarchs are merely considering the entire situation and deciding if the normal penalty should be mitigated. As the Orthodox here have affirmed, divorce and remarriage is still considered a sin, so it cannot be claimed that the Orthodox Churches are changing divine law.
I hope that helps, in consideration of this issue, and in other issues where the Orthodox apply oikonomia (especially in other moral matters).
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Adultery is considered not on merely physical grounds, but primarily on spiritual grounds. Since Scripture likens marriage unto the mystical union between Christ and his Church, adultery likewise extends its appalling effect into that mystical union. As the grounds are primarily spiritual, and the spiritual effect of adultery is identical to the spiritual effect of apostasy, then apostasy is also considered a valid grounds for divorce.
So to be perfectly concise, the one basis for divorce in the Coptic Church is SPIRITUAL adultery, which includes both physical adultery and apostasy.
NOTE: apostasy is here meant leaving traditional Christianity altogether, not leaving the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Tyler,
Blessings,
Marduk
I’ve had this discussion with other Oriental and Eastern Orthodox in real life when I was not yet in the Catholic communion. The general consensus seems to be (though there are of course those who disagree) that the second and third marriages are not considered a Sacrament.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Interesting, I was thinking that when I wrote it.
E
Eric2718
Guest
If what you say is true then the divorced person is still married in the eyes of God. When remarriage happens the priest is marrying a married person (since the divine law did not change then he is still married after divorce) to someone else. Now the divorced person has 2 spouses. From what you are saying the priest is performing a polygamous marriage. And the whole thing is a sin but not for the priest (who is the one doing the marrying) but only for the people getting married.
I’ve tried to be faithful to what you said. The above are the logical conclusions from what you said about the divine law not being changed. If I have misunderstood you then please let me know where and how.
PS: The local Orthodox priest tells me that in the view of the Orthodox church when a divorce happens then the marriage has ended. Which as I mentioned before is what Moses did – he allowed divorce and it ended the marriage as those who remarried were not committing adultery.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Eric,
I can only explain it from the perspective of the Coptic Orthodox Tradition, not from the Eastern Orthodox Tradition.
First, in the Coptic Tradition, the spiritual adultery/apostasy is what breaks the bond. It is not the ecclesiastical divorce. From my understanding, the ecclesiastical divorce is an ecclesiastical confirmation of sorts that the bond has been broken, not that the ecclesiastical divorce is what breaks the bond.
Second, the marriage bond is considered to be broken either by spiritual adultery/apostasy or physical death. So the innocent party in a divorce or a widow/widower is not going to be guilty of having two spouses.
Third, the rite utilized for a second (or third) marriage (whether of a divorced person or a widow/widower), has a character to it that is absent from the first marriage - i.e., it is penitential. Also, there is no crowning ceremny. There are those who do not consider it a Sacrament.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
I was only explaining that oikonomia is not a changing of the divine law, and don’t draw any conclusions from it. But I will attempt to answer your question.
I can only explain it from the perspective of the Coptic Orthodox Tradition, not from the Eastern Orthodox Tradition.
First, in the Coptic Tradition, the spiritual adultery/apostasy is what breaks the bond. It is not the ecclesiastical divorce. From my understanding, the ecclesiastical divorce is an ecclesiastical confirmation of sorts that the bond has been broken, not that the ecclesiastical divorce is what breaks the bond.
Second, the marriage bond is considered to be broken either by spiritual adultery/apostasy or physical death. So the innocent party in a divorce or a widow/widower is not going to be guilty of having two spouses.
Third, the rite utilized for a second (or third) marriage (whether of a divorced person or a widow/widower), has a character to it that is absent from the first marriage - i.e., it is penitential. Also, there is no crowning ceremny. There are those who do not consider it a Sacrament.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Plus, there is also precedent for repeating sacramental forms without them being held to be sacramental, as is with the case of repentant apostates who are canonically to be received by an anointing with Chrism, which is held to be non-sacramental. So it is not without merit to regard second and third marriages as non-sacramental.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Why don’t you go buy the book from Fr. John Meyendorff? I’m pretty sure you will have most of your questions answered by that book. I don’t think anyone here can compare to the theological expertise of Fr. John M.
E
Eric2718
Guest
Fair enough. I’ll buy the book and re-post if I have further questions.
- Status