Orthodox and remarriage

[ConstantineTG]

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.

No one is pretending that they are not sins. Remarriage in Orthodoxy is a result of mercy, not privilege. And it is not something readily offered to all. Only if there is greater danger for the person falling out of the faith or falling into a greater sin.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Firstly, this is all taken from canons which were written by the Fathers, saints we share in common like St. Basil. So if you have issues with “semantics” go take it up with the saints. Secondly, did you read anything about economy or canon 102 of Trullo? The point being made here is that certain things which are unlawful, like a widower contracting a third marriage, were tolerated by the Fathers out of economy, determining with prudence that it was better to allow for such a thing than to use the full force of the power to bind and loose given to pastors in the Church to cut such people off from the flock. Nobody is arguing that these things are not sinful, but once a divorce has been procured, and the situation is clearly irreversible, there are pastoral considerations which must be made out of economy, for the benefit of the salvation of those involved.

 

[Reuben_J]

No one is pretending that they are not sins. Remarriage in Orthodoxy is a result of mercy, not privilege. And it is not something readily offered to all. Only if there is greater danger for the person falling out of the faith or falling into a greater sin.

Thanks, Constantine, for being objective about this. As I said, I would admire the Orthodox for being serious about marriage that is undissolved even in death. As a Catholic this is truly something new for me but then I practically have no idea about Orthodoxy. So you can imagine my surprise and how ‘ridiculous’ this is all to me. I guess that means there is no ‘till death do we part’ in the matrimonial vow.

Basically to me the Orthodox discourages remarrying. This is all good except perhaps realistically too strict, but then one cannot change the ‘law of God’.

I accept that this is Orthodox marriage, my disagreeing with it is just mine. Again a personal thought, while appreciating the mercy stated, it does not change the fact that it would be sex outside marriage, unless the Orthodox believes in polygamy, and therefore it is sin as acknowledged.

The basis for my thought is one, I mean God, cannot compromise on sin. He is merciful in that he forgives sin but he would not make it legal to commit it.

Ultimately it would be a matter of theological correctness. I don’t agree with the remarrying in the Orthodox context because it rules that marriage does not end in death. Either it says marriage ended in death like the Catholic does, for the remarry to be valid. As long as an Orthodox does not marry after the death of a spouse, then everything would be alright. If he/she does, then it is sin (the Orthodox says otherwise) because it would be sex outside marriage. Both adultery and fornication basically is sex outside marriage, which is sin.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Firstly, this is all taken from canons which were written by the Fathers, saints we share in common like St. Basil. So if you have issues with “semantics” go take it up with the saints. Secondly, did you read anything about economy or canon 102 of Trullo? The point being made here is that certain things which are unlawful, like a widower contracting a third marriage, were tolerated by the Fathers out of economy, determining with prudence that it was better to allow for such a thing than to use the full force of the power to bind and loose given to pastors in the Church to cut such people off from the flock. Nobody is arguing that these things are not sinful, but once a divorce has been procured, and the situation is clearly irreversible, there are pastoral considerations which must be made out of economy, for the benefit of the salvation of those involved.

I have not figured how I can reconcile with this yet and for the time being, I do not understand the rationale for this. Please give me the benefit of my very different background especially in term of marriage concept.

God bless.

 

[Rawb]

I guess that means there is no ‘till death do we part’ in the matrimonial vow.

There isn’t, but there’s also no vows at all. The only thing the couple says during the entire ceremony is “Yes, reverend Father,” and “No, Reverend Father” (and it’s important to not mix them up!) in response to “Do you come here of your own free will?” and “have you promised yourself to any other?” They’re united by prayers, united by God. What are the vows and promises of sinners? We break them all the time.

The basis for my thought is one, I mean God, cannot compromise on sin. He is merciful in that he forgives sin but he would not make it legal to commit it.

And what about Moses permitting divorce, though God didn’t? That’s a straight form Scripture example of eikonomia. It’s in Matthew 19:3-9

 

[Reuben_J]

edit

 

[Reuben_J]

There isn’t, but there’s also no vows at all. The only thing the couple says during the entire ceremony is “Yes, reverend Father,” and “No, Reverend Father” (and it’s important to not mix them up!) in response to “Do you come here of your own free will?” and “have you promised yourself to any other?” They’re united by prayers, united by God. What are the vows and promises of sinners? We break them all the time.

Hi. I know. I said it with a wink. The main thing is, matrimony is a sacrament but there will always be some minor variations in the dialogue during the vow during the matrimonial mass. One cannot break the Sacrament of Matrimony, thus there is no divorce, but as for the vow, it depends on the variation and it is part of the mass itself which is subjected to vary slightly.

Actually we can also see it as an advice for the marriage couples, ‘I will love you in good health and bad, in riches and poverty, and till death do we part.’

And what about Moses permitting divorce, though God didn’t? That’s a straight form Scripture example of eikonomia. It’s in Matthew 19:3-9

This is also the position that the Protestants take with regards to divorce. Scriptural wise they make good point there. I have apologized for the Catholic’s position regarding no divorce in marriage but both scripture verses in the OT and NT with regard to divorce in the exception of adultery is compelling. I still reserve my judgment on that but I won’t come down on you and say it is totally wrong. And of course that does not mean I am less Catholic (for my fellow Catholic audience).

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

And what about Moses permitting divorce, though God didn’t? That’s a straight form Scripture example of eikonomia. It’s in Matthew 19:3-9

Just for information, we look at it from this context:

Mt 19:8-9 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

And the verses before that,
Mt 19:4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore** what God has joined together, let no one separate**.”

 

[dzheremi]

Of course Orthodox agree with these passages, Reuben J, but what does “because your hearts were hard, but it was not this way from the beginning” mean, but an admission of the weakness of the people, and an appropriate loosening of the rule for their sake? This is why it is economia in the first place: They are not able, due to their own weakness, to endure as they should, so God has allowed what is otherwise disallowed.

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course Orthodox agree with these passages, Reuben J, but what does “because your hearts were hard, but it was not this way from the beginning” mean, but an admission of the weakness of the people, and an appropriate loosening of the rule for their sake? This is why it is economia in the first place: They are not able, due to their own weakness, to endure as they should, so God has allowed what is otherwise disallowed.

Moses’ ruling on divorce is seen as a governmental law, remembering that he governed them. It is not faith and moral law, so to speak.

In Mt 19, Jesus frowns at divorce and he references to Moses’ discretion in granting them. It is not Jesus’ idea that there should be divorce regardless of what is the situation; it was Moses’.

Looking at the purity and sacredness of the Sacrament and the principle it is based on, we feel that there should be no divorce.

Probably now the idea of economia is clearer to me. But aren’t we talking about remarrying in the Orthodox when the person is still in a state of being married? That adultery is not the issue?

Just for info, I will be away for the weekend for a retreat and may not log in to the Forum.

God bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Moses’ ruling on divorce is seen as a governmental law, remembering that he governed them. It is not faith and moral law, so to speak.

In Mt 19, Jesus frowns at divorce and he references to Moses’ discretion in granting them. It is not Jesus’ idea that there should be divorce regardless of what is the situation; it was Moses’.

Looking at the purity and sacredness of the Sacrament and the principle it is based on, we feel that there should be no divorce.

Probably now the idea of economia is clearer to me. But aren’t we talking about remarrying in the Orthodox when the person is still in a state of being married? That adultery is not the issue?

Just for info, I will be away for the weekend for a retreat and may not log in to the Forum.

God bless.

And the Orthodox Church frowns on divorce as well. I think the problem here is the insistence that divorce in the Orthodox Church is seen in the same light as divorce in the secular world. They are not even close. Divorce is a sin no matter what. If you have a good priest then you will be required to do the penance for the sin. Remarriage is a result of mercy. I mean, would you rather have the situation in the Catholic Church where people fall out of the faith because they want to remarry and they can’t? So they rather go somewhere else? Or that someone who has been remarried wants to come back to the Church but can’t because they are being told they have to separate with their current legal spouse? Isn’t that a greater sin? Especially if they already have a family.

 

[Ion]

When you do not respect a sacrament, you are out of faith.
When you want to reconcile, how much of penance is one willing to do?
Unfortunately there are some who take and calculate the whole thing, like " idivorce then i make the penance then everything is ok"

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

You should note, that in the Roman Catholic Church, those married priests may not remarry after the death of their wives. Deacons can with permission, but priests, no. The Catholic Church seems to understand it as a married man can be ordained, but an ordained man cannot be married. I don’t know the biblical/traditional reason for this.

Here’s another difference, and correct me if I am wrong here.

In Roman Catholicism, one can remarry multiple times if the spouse dies, and still receive Ordination. So if a man has been so unfortunate, say he married at 21. Spouse died when he was 25. Got married again at 30. Spouse died again when he was 35. And then remarried at 40, then not soon after he gets ordained a deacon.

In the Orthodox Church, that is not acceptable. A death of a spouse will count as a remarriage. The man then will not be accepted into ordination if he gets married a second time. even if the first wife has passed.

Also in the Catholic Church, a deacon may be granted dispensation to remarry if his spouse died and he petitions the Vatican. Usually in cases where there are small children who would benefit from the care of a mother. In the Orthodox Church, a priest or deacon who remarries after the wife dies for whatever reason is defrocked. So if they think their children will benefit from the care of a mother, then they would have to give up their ministry.

 

[Ion]

When you do not respect a sacrament, you are out of faith.
When you want to reconcile, how much of penance is one willing to do?
Unfortunately there are some who take and calculate the whole thing, like " idivorce then i make the penance then everything is ok"

To finish my post, I think “orthodox and remarriage” is a lost battle by the EO, because it is obvious that was not the church who push it this way…

 

[ConstantineTG]

You should note, that in the Roman Catholic Church, those married priests may not remarry after the death of their wives. Deacons can with permission, but priests, no. The Catholic Church seems to understand it as a married man can be ordained, but an ordained man cannot be married. I don’t know the biblical/traditional reason for this.

I was talking about marriages before ordination. I can’t find anything in Canon Law that conclusively says that someone who has remarried after the death of a wife can still be ordained. Because in the Orthodox Church, the theology on Marriage is different, and a marriage after the death of a wife is still considered a second marriage or a remarriage akin to remarrying after a divorce. In the Catholic Church, marriages are okay after the death of a spouse so I wonder if a man has a wife who died, then later on he got married again, can he still be ordained after the second marriage?

 

[ConstantineTG]

When you do not respect a sacrament, you are out of faith.
When you want to reconcile, how much of penance is one willing to do?
Unfortunately there are some who take and calculate the whole thing, like " idivorce then i make the penance then everything is ok"

Also, divorce and remarriage are two different things. Once one makes penance on divorce (because a divorce is a sin), that doesn’t mean one can instantly get a remarriage.

 

[Rawb]

Moses’ ruling on divorce is seen as a governmental law, remembering that he governed them. It is not faith and moral law, so to speak.

Seen by who? At any rate, this is a moral law, insofar as it’s a “law” which is meant to keep us oriented towards God, which is the truest sense of morality. The Church is God’s kingdom, and we are governed by her much more than by any secular authority. Were I in danger of divorce (God forbid!) it would be my priest I would be going to first - not the government. All Orthodox should react the same way. The Church ‘law’ supersedes any human law. This, of course, is not foreign to any Roman Catholic. Orthodox have one foot in each world, but it is no question which world has greater authority. Each Orthodox almost lives in a theocracy without national borders, sort of like the Jews of Moses’ time.

What I’m trying to say (and doing so badly, I think) is that nothing to do with the Holy Mystery of Marriage is going to be seen by Orthodox as in the realm of the secular or, as you put it, “governmental law”. It’s going to fall under faith and grace. Since fidelity in marriage is a law in the Kingdom of God, it must be upheld. Since it is a law in the Kingdom of God, it can (must!) be overwhelmed with mercy, forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation. We cannot deny that divorce is wrong. What we can do is work within God’s Will to allow for all penitential souls to come back to God where they are and work ever more on their salvation. The solidarity and unforgiving nature of “law” must be met with an overabundance of grace and forgiveness. We’re all just trying the best we can with what God has given us, and we trust Him to sort it all out.

In Mt 19, Jesus frowns at divorce and he references to Moses’ discretion in granting them. It is not Jesus’ idea that there should be divorce regardless of what is the situation; it was Moses’.

Even taking your interpretation: God permitted it. He may not be happy with it, but He allowed it.

Looking at the purity and sacredness of the Sacrament and the principle it is based on, we feel that there should be no divorce.

And we 100% agree. We hold that up as the ideal, and if people fall we stoop down and reach out to them, and try to help raise them again. We are, after all, supposed to be mimicking Christ.

Probably now the idea of economia is clearer to me. But aren’t we talking about remarrying in the Orthodox when the person is still in a state of being married? That adultery is not the issue?

I’m not sure I, for one, understand what you’re saying.

 

[Reuben_J]

And the Orthodox Church frowns on divorce as well. I think the problem here is the insistence that divorce in the Orthodox Church is seen in the same light as divorce in the secular world. They are not even close. Divorce is a sin no matter what. If you have a good priest then you will be required to do the penance for the sin. Remarriage is a result of mercy. I mean, would you rather have the situation in the Catholic Church where people fall out of the faith because they want to remarry and they can’t? So they rather go somewhere else? Or that someone who has been remarried wants to come back to the Church but can’t because they are being told they have to separate with their current legal spouse? Isn’t that a greater sin? Especially if they already have a family.

I hope I did not consign Orthodox marriage and divorce to the level of the secular world. Obviously the Orthodox is church.

I think you all have done a good job in explaining the economia. However, I cannot see it is as theologically right.

Here is my reason. Economia, as I see it, is basically about mercy – to prevent a person from greater sin. But its usage is so very wrong. Mercy is about forgiveness of sin committed but never thereafter to justify a person from committing it again. “Your sin is forgiven.” “Go and sin no more,” so says Jesus.

I am afraid you have wrongly given example the reason for remarriage. But if this is the Orthodox Church’s stance, it is with her that I disagree with. Marriage, most of all, is a Sacrament. One cannot ‘undo’ a Sacrament. One cannot undo Baptism and assign to a person a lesser form of Baptism, for example. Similarly for the Sacrament of Marriage (Matrimony).

So to say it is so that a person will not lose the faith does not apply here. If we believe marriage being a Sacrament is a grace, then surely God, is present there and he is the Lord of the marriage. When we believe and offer our marriage to God because it is his gift, everything will fall into place. Marriage couples have to be obedient to God and not to find solution outside of God.

People who fall out of faith because their marriage has broken down shouldn’t blame God for it but rather to look at themselves for the reason. It may be hard, but God says unequivocally that marriage couples have become ‘one flesh’ and ‘no man must put it apart’. Thus divorce is not allowed. In any case, there are many Catholics for reasons they cannot help, separated from their spouses and yet faithfully remain Catholics. Yes, the road is narrow.

…. Also, death of a spouse does not end the marriage of the one on earth. If they marry again, that is still a remarriage.

I do agree with this approach. How many Catholics divorce and end up leaving the Church? Better to find a way to get them to stay within the guidance of the Church and work on their weaknesses and get them back on the path. I also agree that this is a case-to-case basis, not a general rule, which is what the Orthodox Church do.

I have referred to earlier post (post #3) for reference. There is a disconnect here. A person is free to marry at the death of a spouse for marriage is only binding while they are still alive. There is no impediment for a living spouse to marry.

Yes, there may be Catholics who leave the church after divorce but there are also who stay. But this is not the reason to water down the Sacrament of Marriage. With God’s help through her people in the church, many broken marriages have been saved. And this is truly by the grace of God. Those who leave therefore must be accountable to their own action.

The bottom line is, if one is still in a state of being married, to remarry must be equivalent to commit adultery. Scripture is unambiguous on this. And adultery is a sin, an abomination.

 

[Reuben_J]

Seen by who?

Jesus.

Even taking your interpretation: God permitted it. He may not be happy with it, but He allowed it.

I disagree. It was Moses who did and thus alters the original (in the beginning) plan of God that “the two will become one flesh”. Jesus mission is to make right that original plan as is everything that is in his purpose and mission.

 

[Rawb]

Jesus.

I disagree. It was Moses who did and thus alters the original (in the beginning) plan of God that “the two will become one flesh”. Jesus mission is to make right that original plan as is everything that is in his purpose and mission.

Moses did not alter God’s plan, and you still seem to be asserting that God is not witnessing any divorce. He obviously, factually, historically, has. We may say He doesn’t approve, we may say He merely tolerates it, but God tolerates quite a lot for His children.

At any rate I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this discussion, so I’m bowing out.