Orthodox and remarriage

[suissemissed]

Roman Catholics keep telling me that Orthodoxy needs the pope to make clear what is actual Orthodox teaching, be an obvious source of unity, show which councils are Ecumenical, etc. etc.

Maybe it’s just me, but Orthodoxy seems to be doing all those things without His Holiness of Rome.

I don’t think it does… at present there are three main Apostolic Churches not in union with the Bishop of Rome: The Chalcedonian Church (EO), the pre-Chalcedonian Church (OO), and the pre-Ephesian Church (Assyrian). Two of these Churches use the very word “Orthodox” in their name, calling themselves the one and only true “Orthodox Church.”

The EO say that the pre-Chalcedonian Church is not the real “Orthodox Church” because it doesn’t accept the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. They in turn respond that they are the real “Orthodox Church”, and that Chalcedon wasn’t Ecumenical because it didn’t have the acceptance of the whole Church.

Dzheremi, a pre-Chalcedonian, would get on here and agree that Chalcedon wasn’t Ecumenical and say his Church is the Orthodox one. Cavaradossi, a Chalcedonian, would disagree entirely and insist on the ecumenicity of Chalcedon, declaring his Church to be Orthodox one. Neither can give me a clear answer as to why the other is wrong. This is why I believe Christ divinely established the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter and the rock of unity for the Church, so that the Church can be easily recognized

I would also like to point out to the OP that the Chalcedonians participated in two Catholic Ecumenical Councils, agreeing with their decisions, but then abandoned them afterward. The last Council, Florence, had every mark of ecumenicity imaginable: (1) Acceptance by the majority of bishops present (I believe only two didn’t sign, Mark of Ephesus and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who died while the Council was in-progress), (3) acceptance and ratification by the Pope, and (3) acceptance by the Byzantine Emperor. The Council was only abandoned (a) when it met opposition by the laity of the East, and (b) when the Turks, who had just captured Constantinople, inserted an anti-Latin into the vacant Patriarchal see.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think it does… at present there are three main Apostolic Churches not in union with the Bishop of Rome: The Chalcedonian Church (EO), the pre-Chalcedonian Church (OO), and the pre-Ephesian Church (Assyrian). Two of these Churches use the very word “Orthodox” in their name, calling themselves the one and only true “Orthodox Church.”

The EO say that the pre-Chalcedonian Church is not the real “Orthodox Church” because it doesn’t accept the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. They in turn respond that they are the real “Orthodox Church”, and that Chalcedon wasn’t Ecumenical because it didn’t have the acceptance of the whole Church.

Dzheremi, a pre-Chalcedonian, would get on here and agree that Chalcedon wasn’t Ecumenical and say his Church is the Orthodox one. Cavaradossi, a Chalcedonian, would disagree entirely and insist on the ecumenicity of Chalcedon, declaring his Church to be Orthodox one. Neither can give me a clear answer as to why the other is wrong. This is why I believe Christ divinely established the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter and the rock of unity for the Church, so that the Church can be easily recognized

I would also like to point out to the OP that the Chalcedonians participated in two Catholic Ecumenical Councils, agreeing with their decisions, but then abandoned them afterward. The last Council, Florence, had every mark of ecumenicity imaginable: (1) Acceptance by the majority of bishops present (I believe only two didn’t sign, Mark of Ephesus and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who died while the Council was in-progress), (3) acceptance and ratification by the Pope, and (3) acceptance by the Byzantine Emperor. The Council was only abandoned (a) when it met opposition by the laity of the East, and (b) when the Turks, who had just captured Constantinople, inserted an anti-Latin into the vacant Patriarchal see.

What they call themselves have nothing to do with unity. Do you know how many “churches” today call themselves Catholic while not being in communion with the Pope? I don’t see how the Pope will solve the issues of Churches calling themselves “Orthodox” when they are not in union with one another when there are Catholic Churches not in communion with the Pope himself. Let me start with three, Polish National, Chinese, and Old. All three call themselves Catholic and are not in communion with the Pope.

 

[Rawb]

I don’t think it does… at present there are three main Apostolic Churches not in union with the Bishop of Rome: The Chalcedonian Church (EO), the pre-Chalcedonian Church (OO), and the pre-Ephesian Church (Assyrian). Two of these Churches use the very word “Orthodox” in their name, calling themselves the one and only true “Orthodox Church.”

The EO say that the pre-Chalcedonian Church is not the real “Orthodox Church” because it doesn’t accept the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon…

And from our perspective there are lots of churches also claiming to be the OHCandA Church: Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Roman Catholic, Anglicans, and Confessional Lutherans. Their existence doesn’t make the true OHCandA Church any more difficult to find for an Orthodox than their existence makes it difficult for a Roman Catholic to p(name removed by moderator)oint which is the Roman Catholic Church, or for either to claim their church is One.

If you want to get specifically into names, how can I claim to know which is the true Roman Catholic Church? After all, there’re the Old Catholics, the Polish Catholic Church, the Anglo-Catholics, and numerous Sedevacantists. There are numerous Popes alive in the world today, which one should we say is the true one?

…or would you say it’s the one recognized by The Church’s consensus, and that those who don’t recognize your pope as the real pope aren’t inside The Church anyway?

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t think it does… at present there are three main Apostolic Churches not in union with the Bishop of Rome: The Chalcedonian Church (EO), the pre-Chalcedonian Church (OO), and the pre-Ephesian Church (Assyrian). Two of these Churches use the very word “Orthodox” in their name, calling themselves the one and only true “Orthodox Church.”

The EO say that the pre-Chalcedonian Church is not the real “Orthodox Church” because it doesn’t accept the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. They in turn respond that they are the real “Orthodox Church”, and that Chalcedon wasn’t Ecumenical because it didn’t have the acceptance of the whole Church.

Dzheremi, a pre-Chalcedonian, would get on here and agree that Chalcedon wasn’t Ecumenical and say his Church is the Orthodox one.

I am sorry in advance if this comes across as harsh, but since I have been brought up here by name I do feel the need to respond with what I hope will be taken as the definitive word of what I would say (because it’s what I’m actually saying): I would never, and will never, use the sad reality of the division between the non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonians as a point in favor of Roman Catholic arguments/the Roman understanding of the Papacy. This is not out of any hatred of Rome, but purely because I do not believe in those arguments and ideas in the first place. If the OO are right and the EO not, then the Romans are still wrong about the Papacy. If the EO are right and the OO not, then the Romans are still wrong about the Papacy. The division has nothing to do with the Roman Papacy (save for the fact that your Pope Leo, who is also recognized as a saint in the EO communion, wrote the Tome that those who accepted Chalcedon believe is Orthodox), and cannot be used to bolster modern Roman Catholic claims. That is highly inappropriate and anachronistic.

Cavaradossi, a Chalcedonian, would disagree entirely and insist on the ecumenicity of Chalcedon, declaring his Church to be Orthodox one. Neither can give me a clear answer as to why the other is wrong.

This is not true. While I am absolutely not going to get into a discussion of this issue in this thread (because, as I just wrote, it does not help your case either way), there are very clear reasons on the OO side (and I know also on the EO side, even though I do not agree with them in this instance) for the stance of the communion re: Chalcedon. This is really not the place to discuss them, but they do exist and can be found without much trouble by reading apologetic and historical sources from both sides.

 

[Eric2718]

Whether a divorced person is still married or not is a pretty basic question. It’s hugely important if one does not want to commit adultery. And I now get it: the Orthodox Church is not going to give a definitive answer on this. It’s a very basic question. It does not depend on someone’s circumstances. Divorce either does or does not end a marriage in God’s eyes. And the Orthodox Church cannot answer this question definitively so cannot definitively tell someone in such a situation (such as myself) that they are not committing adultery.

Thanks to all who participated in this thread.

 

[suissemissed]

Brothers Rawb and CTG,

I realize that the true Church isn’t determined by the various names other communions use, and I also realize that there are Churches who use the name “Catholic” (like the Old Catholics, Polish National, sedevacantists, etc.). But the difference is, Catholics have a very definite, set standard for recognizing the True Church. The True Church is found wherever there is communion with the chief bishop, the Pope, as defined by the Councils of Florence and Vatican I. And the pope himself is simply the man who was validly elected by the cardinals in accordance with Church law. There has only been one time in history that I can think of where it may have been difficult to tell who was validly elected, and that was the Western Schism. But even then, it seems like a lot of modern Catholic historians agree on who were the valid popes during that period. And certainly in modern times, there is no serious question about who the Bishop of Rome is. Small groups here and there have either repudiated past Councils and Church law, or maintain that the Chair of Peter is vacant, or even have their own pope, but I can’t see too many serious inquirers siding with “Pope Michael” over Benedict XVI

Ecumenical Councils are called to refute heresies, define Articles of Faith, and solve internal Church problems. So my question remains: Was Chalcedon Ecumenical, or not, and what is the standard to tell? What good is a Council if there is no standard for Ecumenicity?

I hope I have not offended you, Dzheremi, by bringing your name into the discussion. I simply wanted to demonstrate to Rawb that, from an outsider’s view (I used to be a non-denom, not an Apostolic Christian), Orthodoxy isn’t as self-maintaining as it seems. But perhaps I overstepped my bounds, and so I apologize if that’s the case. I also don’t want to derail this thread by going to far into Ecumenical Councils, when the real topic was on re-marriage from an Orthodox standpoint. Still, I hope the OP takes the issue into account.

 

[Rawb]

Ecumenical Councils are called to refute heresies, define Articles of Faith, and solve internal Church problems. So my question remains: Was Chalcedon Ecumenical, or not, and what is the standard to tell? What good is a Council if there is no standard for Ecumenicity?

The historical reality of the Ecumenical councils would suggest that Rome claiming the Pope’s single ratification marks a council as Ecumenical would be rather revisionist.

…from an outsider’s view (I used to be a non-denom, not an Apostolic Christian), Orthodoxy isn’t as self-maintaining as it seems.

Honestly, from an insider point of view (I used to be Roman Catholic) neither is Roman Catholicism.

But perhaps I overstepped my bounds, and so I apologize if that’s the case. I also don’t want to derail this thread by going to far into Ecumenical Councils, when the real topic was on re-marriage from an Orthodox standpoint. Still, I hope the OP takes the issue into account.

As far as I’m concerned I’ve not been offended. It’s been refreshing to debate with a Roman Catholic who isn’t trying to pretend we’re saying the same thing and really are already in Communion. So honest.

 

[dzheremi]

I hope I have not offended you, Dzheremi, by bringing your name into the discussion. I simply wanted to demonstrate to Rawb that, from an outsider’s view (I used to be a non-denom, not an Apostolic Christian), Orthodoxy isn’t as self-maintaining as it seems. But perhaps I overstepped my bounds, and so I apologize if that’s the case. I also don’t want to derail this thread by going to far into Ecumenical Councils, when the real topic was on re-marriage from an Orthodox standpoint. Still, I hope the OP takes the issue into account.

I’m not offended at all, and I thank you for the wisely-chosen words of your reply. I hope I did not come across as upset or anything like that (that’s why I tried to preface my statement, and make it clear that I am not writing these things just to be contrary or nasty to Roman Catholics). But I have been around here for a while, and I have seen the non-Chalcedonian communion brought up more than once in an attempt to make things seem just as shaky in Orthodoxy as the Orthodox see Roman Catholicism (and, for the record, I, like Rawb, also used to be RC, so it’s not a world I am completely unfamiliar with). I do not believe that this fair or helpful to anyone, so I wanted to make sure that my feelings were known, if I was going to be used as an example of why Orthodoxy is not preferable to Roman Catholicism. I do not believe that the Chalcedonian schism has any bearing on discussions between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. If your communions have issues to settle (and it certainly seems that you do), that can be done without dragging us into it, that’s all. And as you have rightly surmised, this thread is not about the Oriental Orthodox, so…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Whether a divorced person is still married or not is a pretty basic question. It’s hugely important if one does not want to commit adultery. And I now get it: the Orthodox Church is not going to give a definitive answer on this. It’s a very basic question. It does not depend on someone’s circumstances. Divorce either does or does not end a marriage in God’s eyes. And the Orthodox Church cannot answer this question definitively so cannot definitively tell someone in such a situation (such as myself) that they are not committing adultery.

Thanks to all who participated in this thread.

The answer was laid out several times here. A divorce is essentially fornication which is tolerated out of oikonomia, as are remarriages after the death of a spouse.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Brothers Rawb and CTG,

I realize that the true Church isn’t determined by the various names other communions use, and I also realize that there are Churches who use the name “Catholic” (like the Old Catholics, Polish National, sedevacantists, etc.). But the difference is, Catholics have a very definite, set standard for recognizing the True Church. The True Church is found wherever there is communion with the chief bishop, the Pope, as defined by the Councils of Florence and Vatican I. And the pope himself is simply the man who was validly elected by the cardinals in accordance with Church law. There has only been one time in history that I can think of where it may have been difficult to tell who was validly elected, and that was the Western Schism. But even then, it seems like a lot of modern Catholic historians agree on who were the valid popes during that period. And certainly in modern times, there is no serious question about who the Bishop of Rome is. Small groups here and there have either repudiated past Councils and Church law, or maintain that the Chair of Peter is vacant, or even have their own pope, but I can’t see too many serious inquirers siding with “Pope Michael” over Benedict XVI

Orthodoxy also has a set standards, it is called Orthodoxy. That is, the Orthodox Faith, the true faith as taught by the Apostles, passed on and taught by the Fathers, and passed on and taught today. The Church isn’t centered on one man, it is centered on Christ, built by the believers who profess the true faith, from the bishop down to the newly baptized, newly initiated. Anyone who does not profess the Orthodox faith is not Orthodox. No ifs, no buts.

Ecumenical Councils are called to refute heresies, define Articles of Faith, and solve internal Church problems. So my question remains: Was Chalcedon Ecumenical, or not, and what is the standard to tell? What good is a Council if there is no standard for Ecumenicity?

Ecumenical Councils are never called, at least by First Millennium standard. Councils are called and then if the decision is accepted by all canonical bishops, then it becomes Ecumenical. This is historical fact. Whether a council is Ecumenical or not depends from the perspective of a Church or communion of Churches. Was Chalcedon Ecumenical? The obvious answer is “yes” for the Chalcedonian Churches including the Church of Rome. Was Florence Ecumenical? Not from the Orthodox point of view. So what standard are you talking about? I think it is more foolish to claim that a council can be called Ecumenical because someone, like the Pope, says it is Ecumenical, even when there are still questions or outright rejections of a council from canonical Bishops. For example, Vatican I is Ecumenical. Yet the Melkites, who are canonical Catholics, do not agree with the Pope’s authority and jurisdiction that is defined by that council. Vatican II is Ecumenical, yet the Traditionalists reject it outright, including the Bishops of the SSPX who at this point is not in formal schism, so they are still canonical bishops of the Catholic Church. So how is that Ecumenical?

 

[Eric2718]

The answer was laid out several times here. A divorce is essentially fornication which is tolerated out of oikonomia, as are remarriages after the death of a spouse.

Respectfully, I’m not sure I saw that answer. If it’s in the thread above it’s certainly the minority view. Most of the posters have said that Orthodoxy says the first marriage is eternal and does not end at divorce so any “remarriage” is adultery.

I did listen – I honestly did. The answers are contradictory. I’m not looking for perfection as the RC church certainly isn’t. I’m not looking to find fault – heck, if anything it was the opposite. I WANT to convert. But the Orthodox church apparently can’t say for definitively that remarriage is not adultery. Some like yourself say it’s fornication (meaning the 1st marriage did end because in fornication neither partner is married). Most of the others here (and apparently St. Basil the Great as well) have said the 1st marriage did not end at divorce thus it is adultery.

If the Orthodox Church is clear about this point then why the confusion among the answers? I give everyone here credit for being reasonably informed. Even the local parish priest’s answer contradict’s St. Basils.

I don’t mean to offend – I’m not trying to be critical. I simply want the definitive answer – your answer (for example) contradicts others given here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Respectfully, I’m not sure I saw that answer. If it’s in the thread above it’s certainly the minority view. Most of the posters have said that Orthodoxy says the first marriage is eternal and does not end at divorce so any “remarriage” is adultery.

I did listen – I honestly did. The answers are contradictory. I’m not looking for perfection as the RC church certainly isn’t. I’m not looking to find fault – heck, if anything it was the opposite. I WANT to convert. But the Orthodox church apparently can’t say for definitively that remarriage is not adultery. Some like yourself say it’s fornication (meaning the 1st marriage did end because in fornication neither partner is married). Most of the others here (and apparently St. Basil the Great as well) have said the 1st marriage did not end at divorce thus it is adultery.

If the Orthodox Church is clear about this point then why the confusion among the answers? I give everyone here credit for being reasonably informed. Even the local parish priest’s answer contradict’s St. Basils.

I don’t mean to offend – I’m not trying to be critical. I simply want the definitive answer – your answer (for example) contradicts others given here.

Why are you concerned with this? I am married (once) and for me it is enough that I know that my marriage is eternal.

 

[Rawb]

Respectfully, I’m not sure I saw that answer. If it’s in the thread above it’s certainly the minority view. Most of the posters have said that Orthodoxy says the first marriage is eternal and does not end at divorce so any “remarriage” is adultery.

I did listen – I honestly did. The answers are contradictory. I’m not looking for perfection as the RC church certainly isn’t. I’m not looking to find fault – heck, if anything it was the opposite. I WANT to convert. But the Orthodox church apparently can’t say for definitively that remarriage is not adultery. Some like yourself say it’s fornication (meaning the 1st marriage did end because in fornication neither partner is married). Most of the others here (and apparently St. Basil the Great as well) have said the 1st marriage did not end at divorce thus it is adultery.

If the Orthodox Church is clear about this point then why the confusion among the answers? I give everyone here credit for being reasonably informed. Even the local parish priest’s answer contradict’s St. Basils.

I don’t mean to offend – I’m not trying to be critical. I simply want the definitive answer – your answer (for example) contradicts others given here.

On many things Orthodoxy is very much against a “One size fits all” answer. That’s why the most common answer to these types of questions is “ask your priest.” His word on the matter is final, and you’re only held accountable for your obedience. Just like Roman Catholics say they have to have marriage tribunals examine how a marriage was contracted to determine if an annulment can take place, Orthodox feel we must look at the situation surrounding a divorce to determine the allowability of those who are divorcing to remarry.

Fasting issues, remarriage issues, moral questions, how often one should receive Communion, go to Confession, and to Liturgy if it is difficult, such things are all answered by “ask your priest” because he is your spiritual father who knows you, knows your situation, and is best to guide you.

A doctor may recommend a change in diet for one patient, and recommend medication for another, though both have the same condition. Treatment corresponds to many factors in a patient’s life.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Respectfully, I’m not sure I saw that answer. If it’s in the thread above it’s certainly the minority view. Most of the posters have said that Orthodoxy says the first marriage is eternal and does not end at divorce so any “remarriage” is adultery.

I did listen – I honestly did. The answers are contradictory. I’m not looking for perfection as the RC church certainly isn’t. I’m not looking to find fault – heck, if anything it was the opposite. I WANT to convert. But the Orthodox church apparently can’t say for definitively that remarriage is not adultery. Some like yourself say it’s fornication (meaning the 1st marriage did end because in fornication neither partner is married). Most of the others here (and apparently St. Basil the Great as well) have said the 1st marriage did not end at divorce thus it is adultery.

Canonically the difference between fornication and adultery is actually much stricter. Adultery involves the pollution of a married woman, fornication does not. If a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, by the old canonical standard, this is fornication, not adultery. If an unmarried man sleeps with a married woman, both are adulterers. The reason why Jesus said for a man not to put his wife away, except for fornication, as interpreted by the Eastern Fathers is that in doing so, the man would cause the woman to go to another man and be an adulterer, and so he too would share in the blame. For St. Basil, a man remarrying after the death of his spouse is akin to fornication and not adultery, not because the previous marriage was dissolved, but because he is not polluting a married woman. Widowed women under the age of 60 were permitted to remarry without consequence, as is evidenced both in the Scriptures and in the canons. That being said, there is no either in the Canons or in the Scriptures that the first marriage had been dissolved, only that the widow was to be accounted blameless for living with a second husband.

What needs to be stressed here is that this is all permissible because of the patristic concept of economy. Canon 102 of Trullo explains economy quite well:It behooves those who have received from God the power to loose and bind, to consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion, and to apply medicine suitable for the disease, lest if he is injudicious in each of these respects he should fail in regard to the healing of the sick man. For the disease of sin is not simple, but various and multiform, and it germinates many mischievous offshoots, from which much evil is diffused, and it proceeds further until it is checked by the power of the physician. Wherefore he who professes the science of spiritual medicine ought first of all to consider the disposition of him who has sinned, and to see whether he tends to health or (on the contrary) provokes to himself disease by his own behaviour, and to look how he can care for his manner of life during the interval. And if he does not resist the physician, and if the ulcer of the soul is increased by the application of the imposed medicaments, then let him mete out mercy to him according as he is worthy of it. For the whole account is between God and him to whom the pastoral rule has been delivered, to lead back the wandering sheep and to cure that which is wounded by the serpent; and that he may neither cast them down into the precipices of despair, nor loosen the bridle towards dissolution or contempt of life; but in some way or other, either by means of sternness and astringency, or by greater softness and mild medicines, to resist this sickness and exert himself for the healing of the ulcer, now examining the fruits of his repentance and wisely managing the man who is called to higher illumination. For we ought to know two things, to wit, the things which belong to strictness and those which belong to custom, and to follow the traditional form in the case of those who are not fitted for the highest things, as holy Basil teaches us.The pastor must manage (economy literally means something along the lines of ‘the management of the house’) the affairs of his flock with prudence and is given the power to do so with the power to bind and loose. While it is true that all who have contracted unlawful marriages (this would be any marriage after a second marriage), procured divorces, etc., ought to be excommunicated until they desist from their sin, for the sake of their salvation, it is possible to tolerate these sins (as St. Basil does with third marriages) so as to prevent them from falling further into sin. Furthermore, it is possible to adjust penances as appropriate. Take for example the sin of fornication: the canonical penance of 7 years of excommunication might be appropriate for a married man or one who is spiritually advanced, but the same penance would be rather inappropriate for a youth, who comes to church once every two months or so because his parents have failed to bring him up in the faith. In this case, the confessor could apply the canonical penance strictly in the first case, but with less force in the second, hoping not to drive the spiritually inexperienced into despair with too strong of a sentence. So back to divorce/remarriage after death, has the first marriage ended? The fathers would definitely say that it has not. But out of economy, it can be recognized that the situation cannot be remedied on account of the spiritual weakness of the people involved, and that it is better to tolerate a remarriage than to drive them further into sin.

 

[Reuben_J]

Canonically the difference between fornication and adultery is actually much stricter. Adultery involves the pollution of a married woman, fornication does not. If a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, by the old canonical standard, this is fornication, not adultery. If an unmarried man sleeps with a married woman, both are adulterers. The reason why Jesus said for a man not to put his wife away, except for fornication, as interpreted by the Eastern Fathers is that in doing so, the man would cause the woman to go to another man and be an adulterer, and so he too would share in the blame. For St. Basil, a man remarrying after the death of his spouse is akin to fornication and not adultery, not because the previous marriage was dissolved, but because he is not polluting a married woman. Widowed women under the age of 60 were permitted to remarry without consequence, as is evidenced both in the Scriptures and in the canons. That being said, there is no either in the Canons or in the Scriptures that the first marriage had been dissolved, only that the widow was to be accounted blameless for living with a second husband.

Semantic. That’s what it sounds to me. More like lawyers’ talk. Adultery, fornication; Sex outside marriage is wrong, there is no justification for it.

 

[Rawb]

Semantic. That’s what it sounds to me. More like lawyers’ talk.

Holy Orthodoxy thanks you for your…opinion.

 

[Reuben_J]

Holy Orthodoxy thanks you for your…opinion.

You are welcome. I appreciate the charity and the openness with a person who disagrees with you. Probably at this stage, it is both disagreement and unable to really understand the Orthodox concept of marriage.

After hearing all the explanation, in my simple mind, it is all just semantic. Perhaps that is because of my background as Catholic. I understand the Orthodox holds that marriage does not end on earth, and I think that is good albeit rather strict. However, sex outside marriage with another married person is still adultery, and if it is with unmarried person, it is fornication. They are both sins, there is no way going over it.

 

[RyanBlack]

Semantic. That’s what it sounds to me. More like lawyers’ talk. Adultery, fornication; Sex outside marriage is wrong, there is no justification for it.

Catholics have precious little room to criticize others on this issue. There is no justification for the mockery of marriage that exists with the obvious abuse of the annulment process that currently exists, at least in the United States, and the arguments that get used to justify this sound a whole lot like semantic lawyers’ talk seeking to justify adultery.

 

[Reuben_J]

Catholics have precious little room to criticize others on this issue. There is no justification for the mockery of marriage that exists with the obvious abuse of the annulment process that currently exists, at least in the United States, and the arguments that get used to justify this sound a whole lot like semantic lawyers’ talk seeking to justify adultery.

How is that Catholic marriage become an issue here? I said it is semantic to me and I give my reason for saying so. Probably I don’t understand it but the OP also wants a definitive answer to the question posed, and there is none. If the marriage is not dissolved upon death, how is that it is not adultery if there is a remarriage? That part is quite clear to me but perhaps that is because I am Catholic and it is difficult for me to understand. I am sorry if it hurts you because I don’t mean it to be so. It is just how I see it after all the explanation.

 

[Reuben_J]

Canonically the difference between fornication and adultery is actually much stricter. Adultery involves the pollution of a married woman, fornication does not. If a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, by the old canonical standard, this is fornication, not adultery. If an unmarried man sleeps with a married woman, both are adulterers. The reason why Jesus said for a man not to put his wife away, except for fornication, as interpreted by the Eastern Fathers is that in doing so, the man would cause the woman to go to another man and be an adulterer, and so he too would share in the blame. For St. Basil, a man remarrying after the death of his spouse is akin to fornication and not adultery, not because the previous marriage was dissolved, but because he is not polluting a married woman. Widowed women under the age of 60 were permitted to remarry without consequence, as is evidenced both in the Scriptures and in the canons. That being said, there is no either in the Canons or in the Scriptures that the first marriage had been dissolved, only that the widow was to be accounted blameless for living with a second husband.

I was saying adultery and fornication are sins. Both are sex outside of marriage. They are sin despite the definition so what difference does it make, after all both are sins? What is the difference between a married woman, a married man, a single woman and a single man? If they have sex outside of marriage then to me it is a sin. Probably I should not say semantic or lawyers’ talk but that’s because for lack of word.