Orthodox and remarriage

[ConstantineTG]

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.

You are absolutely right. But don’t forget that mercy isn’t only just about forgiveness but also understanding. You understand the person’s situation and try to help that person grow from there. The fact is, there are people out there who has good, loving and honest second marriages. Sometimes the first marriage was something done in jest, because of emotions that weren’t mature enough or just something not really thought out of. That is why this is something that is a case-to-case basis. Some people just can’t live without a partner. That is true, I know someone like that.

And yes, the goal is to “sin no more”. But you can’t just make people do something cold turkey. More often than not it does not work. For those who can, then they won’t be granted remarriage. I know this is easier said than done, but being easier said than done works both ways. It’s not easy to tell someone just to remain single the rest of their lives, as it is not easy to say this rule is never abused.

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).

Well, according to the Catholic Church, the Sacrament is undone at death. And by the way, and some people do disagree on this part, but Chrismation is redone if one leaves the Church. The early councils decided as such on how to treat those who left the Church and decided they want to come back. Since Sacraments are graces perhaps it is possible for someone to sin so much that they have rejected all the grace of that sacrament. Curious though that said heretics need not be re-ordained.

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.

I agree with this 100%. But again, ekonomia is about meeting the reality of a fallen world. How we wish that every marriage turns out well.

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.

That is why we meet them with love rather that judgement. God judges, we are asked to love. Also, there is a precedent, which is that Moses allowed divorces. That is why this is the most I would agree with, that it be taken on a case-by-case basis and evaluate on the needs of a person. We always say that the law is blind, but our lawgiver is a King who has eyes of compassion. Sometimes some people need a second chance. I have known people who do have successful second marriages, and they remain faithful and loving to their second marriage. So why would we not let them have that marriage in the Church?

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.

Yes, some stay and remain single. And for the same reason, those people who can stay single should. Those who can’t, would we rather lose them than have them stay? The Church after all is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

God is merciful and is forgiving. In the discussion here and which I pointed out, that mercy and forgiveness are being used in the wrong place. Is it for convenient, I don’t know. But one thing for sure, God does not compromise on sin. Jesus mission is to put us right with God but it does not mean he will approve sin. There is grace in marriage. People tend to be very secular now, that fidelity seems to be a foreign word. People divorce all the time. People leave the church all the time. Is God’s mercy therefore is to say that sin now is not a sin anymore? No. God’s mercy is to forgive sin and helps us to overcome future one.

The reason for failure in marriage and leaving the church is because people do not turn to God. When there is problem in their marriage, they look for an easy solution. If the Church does not agree, they will leave the church. Marriage couples should turn to God when there is problem in their marriage. They have to trust God that God will make it alright. And He always does! Divorce is not the solution.

 

[ConstantineTG]

God is merciful and is forgiving. In the discussion here and which I pointed out, that mercy and forgiveness are being used in the wrong place. Is it for convenient, I don’t know. But one thing for sure, God does not compromise on sin. Jesus mission is to put us right with God but it does not mean he will approve sin. There is grace in marriage. People tend to be very secular now, that fidelity seems to be a foreign word. People divorce all the time. People leave the church all the time. Is God’s mercy therefore is to say that sin now is not a sin anymore? No. God’s mercy is to forgive sin and helps us to overcome future one.

The reason for failure in marriage and leaving the church is because people do not turn to God. When there is problem in their marriage, they look for an easy solution. If the Church does not agree, they will leave the church. Marriage couples should turn to God when there is problem in their marriage. They have to trust God that God will make it alright. And He always does! Divorce is not the solution.

Nothing you said here disagrees with any Orthodox theology on marriage that I have read so far. Of course the goal always is to save a marriage, and it is expected for the Orthodox man or woman to bring this to their priest or spiritual parent if other than the priest (may be a monk or nun). Of course the first goal is always to save the marriage. But even to the best of our abilities, that doesn’t always go right. Sometimes divorce becomes inevitable. So the next course of action is to repent from the disolution of marriage and spiritual guidance moving forward. Only as a last recourse is the remarriage. Don’t get ahead of the process here, it is not like the priest or spiritual parent will just let this happen. And maybe it is the person who keeps this from their spiritual parent. Then that is also another big issue.

 

[Reuben_J]

Jesus brings salvation to save us from sins so that we can have eternal life. This salvation is a grace. In the Church this grace can be translated outwardly, that is the sacrament.

Christian marriage is a Sacrament. It is therefore an outward sign of grace. When we marry, we receive the grace of God. It is a fruit of salvation that is brought by Jesus, so to speak.

We cannot therefore, tinkle with Sacraments. They are not ours but God’s. Being from God as instrument of salvation, Sacraments therefore have power. The difficulty for people is that they cannot comply with the requirement of the Sacraments. But who to say that living the sacramental life is easy? It is not. But there is grace in there that the difficulties can be overcome and thus can be lived out.

Sacrament is a way of salvation. When marriage couples accept this gift in matrimony, they are accepting the grace of God. This is what Jesus comes in for! Sometimes we overlook the practicality of our daily lives and forget that the grace and salvation of Jesus are all in there.

Marriage, once and for all, take a new dimension with the salvation grace of Jesus. That we have become a new people and live totally by his grace. This is what Jesus is all about – to bring new lives to us. **Marriage is made new in Jesus and not of the old. Forget about what Moses did because they were hard of hearts. Jesus’ grace allow us to overcome so that we can experience marriage for what it is as desired by God from the very beginning.
**
Marriage is to bring two person to become one flesh and there is truly blessing in it; and no man shall put it asunder. Jesus has made Christian marriage possible.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Jesus brings salvation to save us from sins so that we can have eternal life. This salvation is a grace. In the Church this grace can be translated outwardly, that is the sacrament.

Christian marriage is a Sacrament. It is therefore an outward sign of grace. When we marry, we receive the grace of God. It is a fruit of salvation that is brought by Jesus, so to speak.

We cannot therefore, tinkle with Sacraments. They are not ours but God’s. Being from God as instrument of salvation, Sacraments therefore have power. The difficulty for people is that they cannot comply with the requirement of the Sacraments. But who to say that living the sacramental life is easy? It is not. But there is grace in there that the difficulties can be overcome and thus can be lived out.

Sacrament is a way of salvation. When marriage couples accept this gift in matrimony, they are accepting the grace of God. This is what Jesus comes in for! Sometimes we overlook the practicality of our daily lives and forget that the grace and salvation of Jesus are all in there.

Marriage, once and for all, take a new dimension with the salvation grace of Jesus. That we have become a new people and live totally by his grace. This is what Jesus is all about – to bring new lives to us. **Marriage is made new in Jesus and not of the old. Forget about what Moses did because they were hard of hearts. Jesus’ grace allow us to overcome so that we can experience marriage for what it is as desired by God from the very beginning.
**
Marriage is to bring two person to become one flesh and there is truly blessing in it; and no man shall put it asunder. Jesus has made Christian marriage possible.

Well, we’ve already tinkered with Sacraments a lot. For one thing, aren’t you wondering why East and West have different theology on Marriage? Even within the Cathoilc Church! Eastern Catholics cannot be married by a Deacon, Latin Catholics can. Plus the separation of the Eucharist and Confirmation from Baptism, and then the separation of the Sacred Species of the Eucharist as a norm.

I agree with everything you said here again. But again, ekonomia is about dealing with the reality, not about trying to hold such high standards for people who cannot meet them. Jesus met us at our low standards by taking on our nature and uniting with his. It is really the pattern of Christian life, not a legalistic sense of the commandments.

 

[Reuben_J]

Nothing you said here disagrees with any Orthodox theology on marriage that I have read so far. Of course the goal always is to save a marriage, and it is expected for the Orthodox man or woman to bring this to their priest or spiritual parent if other than the priest (may be a monk or nun). Of course the first goal is always to save the marriage. But even to the best of our abilities, that doesn’t always go right. Sometimes divorce becomes inevitable. So the next course of action is to repent from the disolution of marriage and spiritual guidance moving forward. Only as a last recourse is the remarriage. Don’t get ahead of the process here, it is not like the priest or spiritual parent will just let this happen. And maybe it is the person who keeps this from their spiritual parent. Then that is also another big issue.

Hi. I really appreciate your patience with me. I really do.

Of course there are differences. If only the Orthodox does not approve the remarriage for a person who is in a state of already being married, then all their explanation makes sense. But one cannot reinvent the definition of marriage - if one is married and to remarry is to commit adultery. So no adultery, not even in special circumstances! But also there is no reason for divorce knowing that it is a grace of the Sacrament. To say it is a failure, is to say Jesus fails. The understanding of a Sacrament … . I guess this is what the disagreement is all about.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, we’ve already tinkered with Sacraments a lot. For one thing, aren’t you wondering why East and West have different theology on Marriage? Even within the Cathoilc Church! Eastern Catholics cannot be married by a Deacon, Latin Catholics can. Plus the separation of the Eucharist and Confirmation from Baptism, and then the separation of the Sacred Species of the Eucharist as a norm.

I would concede that but for the record, who marries who is less of importance but that once it is performed, then the Sacrament is irreversible.

I agree with everything you said here again. But again, ekonomia is about dealing with the reality, not about trying to hold such high standards for people who cannot meet them. Jesus met us at our low standards by taking on our nature and uniting with his. It is really the pattern of Christian life, not a legalistic sense of the commandments.

Is this your own opinion or is it the official version of the Orthodox Church? I would admire your effort in trying to justify that but it does not help the Orthodox case at all in the bigger picture of thing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would concede that but for the record, who marries who is less of importance but that once it is performed, then the Sacrament is irreversible.

Is this your own opinion or is it the official version of the Orthodox Church? I would admire your effort in trying to justify that but it does not help the Orthodox case at all in the bigger picture of thing.

It is how it is presented in the book I am reading discussing Orthodox theology. It states that it is important not only to understand the law, but also the spirit of the law and also the spirit of the lawgiver, that is Jesus Christ who is merciful.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But also there is no reason for divorce knowing that it is a grace of the Sacrament. To say it is a failure, is to say Jesus fails. The understanding of a Sacrament … . I guess this is what the disagreement is all about.

Apparently so, because it seems that you believe that sacraments override free will. Just because a marriage has failed, it does not mean that Christ is the one who failed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is how it is presented in the book I am reading discussing Orthodox theology. It states that it is important not only to understand the law, but also the spirit of the law and also the spirit of the lawgiver, that is Jesus Christ who is merciful.

Not only this, but the principle of economia was added to Eastern canon law by Trullo. Westerners can have whatever opinion they want about the Council of Trullo, but it does provide witness that the principle of economia is a patristic principle.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is how it is presented in the book I am reading discussing Orthodox theology. It states that it is important not only to understand the law, but also the spirit of the law and also the spirit of the lawgiver, that is Jesus Christ who is merciful.

Fair enough. My comment is as a person who is not Orthodox and in consideration to the topic of the thread. Obviously I have my disagreement.

Like I said, the mercy, and in quoting you, the spirit of the law from the Giver of the law, is misplaced here. Jesus comes to conquer sin, not to accommodate it. In all the objective of his mission, it is to put us right with God by saving us from sin through his own suffering and death. As far as sin is concerned, there is no compromise because that is the very reason of his purpose - to conquer it.

Thus in a valid marriage, there is no divorce granted because it is a Sacrament. Just because the problem of marriage and divorce seem to be insurmountable, in principle it is not so. The problem is us, not God’s Sacrament of Matrimony (marriage).

We are living in a society where marriage seems to make no difference. Unmarried couples live together and are more often than not, sexually active. The examples we see from today heroes and their value, very often demonstrated on the movie screens, do not help either.

Sometimes marriage is just a piece of paper. In other word, most couples who embarked into marriage do not fully comprehend what it entails. As a result, divorces are often taken casually because they do not understand what Christian marriage is all about. How many couples really have tried to understand marriage; how many have gone deeply into its implication and how many have truly tried to understand it through the teaching of the Church? Not many.

Properly prepared couples for marriage who understand its implication do not divorce simply because God would intervene and always save the marriage. When a couple gets married, they are to incorporate into the life of the Church. There should be support there. When God is so close in their life, how could their marriage go wrong?

Even if the marriage does not work, a truly man and woman of God would still be in fidelity to God’s law. Many such people live very obedient and holy life and still part of the Church at large. Only when sin enslaves them and the temptation of the Evil One defeats them, such people would leave the Church in resentment and find no meaning there. How could that be so? There is always meaning in the Church of God; there is always life there.

The Orthodox law of allowing remarrying of a person, who is in a state of being married, seems to accommodate the weakness of man. While this is admirable, this is not the way of God in so far as sin is concerned. There is no need for this as the grace of the Sacrament is sufficient to save our marriages. Besides there is always life for people outside of marriage, remembering that we always consecrate ourselves to the love of God. One does not need to be married to find contentment and peace in life.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Reuben_J]

"Reuben J:

But also there is no reason for divorce knowing that it is a grace of the Sacrament. To say it is a failure, is to say Jesus fails. The understanding of a Sacrament … . I guess this is what the disagreement is all about.

Apparently so, because it seems that you believe that sacraments override free will. Just because a marriage has failed, it does not mean that Christ is the one who failed.

Free will or change of mind? Couples who receive the Sacrament of Matrimony do so on their free will after knowing what the Sacrament entails. They are expected to understand it, agree to it and be faithful to it. Should they change their mind later and decide that their marriage does not work after all and want to divorce, then obviously the Sacrament, an outward sign of God’s grace fails them.

Not only this, but the principle of economia was added to Eastern canon law by Trullo. Westerners can have whatever opinion they want about the Council of Trullo, but it does provide witness that the principle of economia is a patristic principle.

Obviously patristic principle of Eastern fathers. Surprising that this council should be quoted especially since the Orthodox holds ecumenical councils as inclusive for them to be acceptable.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Free will or change of mind? Couples who receive the Sacrament of Matrimony do so on their free will after knowing what the Sacrament entails. They are expected to understand it, agree to it and be faithful to it. Should they change their mind later and decide that their marriage does not work after all and want to divorce, then obviously the Sacrament, an outward sign of God’s grace fails them.

Again, sacraments do not rob people of their free will. God does not fail when a man abandons his wife any more than when a baptized Christian goes into apostacy. Man is the one who fails, not God.

Obviously patristic principle of Eastern fathers. Surprising that this council should be quoted especially since the Orthodox holds ecumenical councils as inclusive for them to be acceptable.

No, the Orthodox do not have such a reductionistic view of faith so as to deny the authority of local synods. Trullo is invested with great authority, both as a synod and also by the first canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which we understand as referring to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, of Trullo and of other local synods approved by the Council of Trullo.

 

[Reuben_J]

Again, sacraments do not rob people of their free will. God does not fail when a man abandons his wife any more than when a baptized Christian goes into apostacy. Man is the one who fails, not God.

Exactly what I was saying. You are agreeing to my contention.

Therefore the choice is man’s. The Church does not water down the Sacrament of Baptism just because man’s apostatize. Similarly the Sacrament of Matrimony. What God has joined together, let no one separate.

Just as Baptism washes away our sin so would Matrimony, a grace of God that sees our marriage through. What to do if man decides not to harness what God has given for the strength of his marriage and instead goes his own way and sin? The Church knows that she cannot compromise on sin.

No, the Orthodox do not have such a reductionistic view of faith so as to deny the authority of local synods. Trullo is invested with great authority, both as a synod and also by the first canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which we understand as referring to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, of Trullo and of other local synods approved by the Council of Trullo.

Council of Trullo a.k.a. council of Constantinople, held in 692 under Justinian II. It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and “every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned” (Fortescue).

It is the Orthodox Church every right to determine which Council she wants to adopt, even a local one. But to use it as a canon law for something as important as allowing sin of adultery perhaps she has to be more discerning to follow a canon that is bigger and inclusive. But then the Orthodox is the Orthodox, she does not have to follow the opinion of the bishops from the west. Only that in the discussion about Ecumenical councils in the other thread, Orthodox posters insisted that such council must be inclusive and approved by all.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Exactly what I was saying. You are agreeing to my contention.

Therefore the choice is man’s. The Church does not water down the Sacrament of Baptism just because man’s apostatize. Similarly the Sacrament of Matrimony. What God has joined together, let no one separate.

Neither does the Church water down marriage. The ancient canons concerning marriage are still enforced.

Just as Baptism washes away our sin so would Matrimony, a grace of God that sees our marriage through. What to do if man decides not to harness what God has given for the strength of his marriage and instead goes his own way and sin? The Church knows that she cannot compromise on sin.

It is not compromising. The Church has not changed her teaching on whether people should contract second or third marriages, or whether remarriage after divorce is sinful. Furthermore, the Church is completely free to refuse (and often does refuse) to allow for remarriages. Remarriage is not a right in the Orthodox Church, it is an exception made for those involved for the sake of their salvation.

Council of Trullo a.k.a. council of Constantinople, held in 692 under Justinian II. It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and “every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned” (Fortescue).

It is the Orthodox Church every right to determine which Council she wants to adopt, even a local one. But to use it as a canon law for something as important as allowing sin of adultery perhaps she has to be more discerning to follow a canon that is bigger and inclusive. But then the Orthodox is the Orthodox, she does not have to follow the opinion of the bishops from the west. Only that in the discussion about Ecumenical councils in the other thread, Orthodox posters insisted that such council must be inclusive and approved by all.

Trullo was not just some small local council. It was a large gathering, with more bishops than were present at the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils, and nearly tying with the representation present at the Third Ecumenical Council. It has always been widely accepted an authoritative source in Eastern Canon Law, and we accept its recommendations concerning certain topics, like pastoral economy, not because we think Trullo made up or decreed the concept of pastoral economy, or because we think that the council had the authority to add to the faith (something which no council has the authority to do), but because we believe that the council witnesses to the ancient pastoral practice of economy, which can be found in the decrees of other synods and councils, and in the writings of the fathers.

 

[Reuben_J]

Neither does the Church water down marriage. The ancient canons concerning marriage are still enforced.

It is not compromising. The Church has not changed her teaching on whether people should contract second or third marriages, or whether remarriage after divorce is sinful. Furthermore, the Church is completely free to refuse (and often does refuse) to allow for remarriages. Remarriage is not a right in the Orthodox Church, it is an exception made for those involved for the sake of their salvation.

While I am trying to understand the rationale therein, it looks like a fine way of tip-toeing around the issue of remarriages which I have problem with. No matter what it is called, divorce and remarrying of people who are still in a state of being married is wrong – it is adultery and it is sin.

Trullo was not just some small local council. It was a large gathering, with more bishops than were present at the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils, and nearly tying with the representation present at the Third Ecumenical Council. It has always been widely accepted an authoritative source in Eastern Canon Law, and we accept its recommendations concerning certain topics, like pastoral economy, not because we think Trullo made up or decreed the concept of pastoral economy, or because we think that the council had the authority to add to the faith (something which no council has the authority to do), but because we believe that the council witnesses to the ancient pastoral practice of economy, which can be found in the decrees of other synods and councils, and in the writings of the fathers.

As been said, this council which was attended exclusively by Eastern bishops is not accepted by the Western Church. Perhaps this is a good example that number alone does not justify that it is being universally recognized. It is reactionary and hostile to the churches that were not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople. It is worthwhile noted that it ‘anathematized Western Church customs and condemned their every little detail of difference’.

It is hardly enforcing ancient canon because the Western Church did not allow remarrying and divorce. The canons of the Council of Trullo being Eastern in composition and nature, spite the Western Church in order to be different from them. Thus until it is shown otherwise, the idea of economy (in marriage) is basically Eastern.

 

[Cavaradossi]

While I am trying to understand the rationale therein, it looks like a fine way of tip-toeing around the issue of remarriages which I have problem with. No matter what it is called, divorce and remarrying of people who are still in a state of being married is wrong – it is adultery and it is sin.

Nobody denies that it is wrong. But economy allows for the lessening of the canonical burden upon sinners, at the discretion of the bishop who has the ability to implement the canons in differing fashions, stemming from his power to bind and loose, as canon 102 of Trullo explains.

As been said, this council which was attended exclusively by Eastern bishops is not accepted by the Western Church.

So? The Second Ecumenical Council similarly had only Eastern bishops present, and was regarded only as being a local council until the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

Perhaps this is a good example that number alone does not justify that it is being universally recognized.

That is a self-defeating argument, since it invalidates the non-universally accepted Roman Catholic Eighth Ecumenical Council, as well as all post schism councils which the Roman Catholics call ecumenical.

It is reactionary and hostile to the churches that were not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople.

That was Adrian Fortescue’s spin on the council, but Adrian Fortescue is far from being an infallible or neutral source on Church History. With all due respect to his scholarship, it is completely outdated, and the study of Eastern Christian history has become significantly less biased than it was in his day. Were the Council of Trullo as hostile towards the West as Fortescue claims, it would not have approved the multiple councils of Carthage, and the canons of St. Cyprian. Furthermore, Fortescue’s claim that the Council was somehow uniquely anti-Western falls apart upon examining its canons, because many of the problems the Council addresses were only problems in the East. The Council, for example, forbids “who was crucified for us” to be interpolated in the Trisagion, a problem that was rampant in the East because of the non-Chalcedonians, but not in the West. The Council was simply dealing with problems without prejudice as to from where they were originating.

It is worthwhile noted that it ‘anathematized Western Church customs and condemned their every little detail of difference’.

These things were not always merely little differences, nor did the Council anathematize customs just for the sake of anathematizing them, but it did so for specific reasons. For example, the Council prohibits people from deposing clergy who remain married and cohabiting with their wives after ordination. This was basically a defensive move, protecting the status of married clergy, in response to the appearance of mandatory clerical celibacy in the Roman Church (something which was not universally enforced even in the West until well after the schism).

It is hardly enforcing ancient canon because the Western Church did not allow remarrying and divorce. The canons of the Council of Trullo being Eastern in composition and nature, spite the Western Church in order to be different from them.

Have you read the canons of Trullo, or perhaps read anything about the Council written by a modern historian? It seems to me that your understanding of Trullo is largely influenced by Fortescue and nobody else.

Thus until it is shown otherwise, the idea of economy (in marriage) is basically Eastern.

This is grasping at straws. The principle of economy applies in all matters which are pastoral.

 

[Reuben_J]

Nobody denies that it is wrong. But economy allows for the lessening of the canonical burden upon sinners, at the discretion of the bishop who has the ability to implement the canons in differing fashions, stemming from his power to bind and loose, as canon 102 of Trullo explains.

So? The Second Ecumenical Council similarly had only Eastern bishops present, and was regarded only as being a local council until the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

That is a self-defeating argument, since it invalidates the non-universally accepted Roman Catholic Eighth Ecumenical Council, as well as all post schism councils which the Roman Catholics call ecumenical.

I am told by Orthodox posters that an Ecumenical council must be inclusive and approved by all parties for it to be ecumenical. Trullo was rejected by the Western Church. Who has the power to loose and to bind? If a Council is not attended by the Bishop of Rome, who does not assent to it, how can you claim that council has the authority to loose and to bind?

A Council can have a million bishops attending it, but without the Chair of St. Peter, it cannot be considered ecumenical. This is a reason why the Orthodox has not convened any ecumenical council since the schism, so at least the Orthodox Church admits as much. So I cannot see it as self defeating argument, but factual truth about the nature of ecumenical council.

I do not know much about the content of various councils and am not pretending that I am an expert at them except for the general outline. I have mentioned this before in my earlier post. I was mentioning Fortescue for reference but it is a fact that this Council is controversial and is not accepted by the Western Church. Since the canon on the economy of marriage is to be found in the Council of Trullo, then it is not accepted universally but by the Orthodox Church only. Trullo’s canon therefore is unilateral. That’s why I mention it is for the Orthodox Church which I have no problem with.

By the way, can you refer to me the canon before that that speaks unequivocally that remarrying and divorce are allowed which the Council of Trullo explains.

 

[Reuben_J]

Nobody denies that it is wrong. But economy allows for the lessening of the canonical burden upon sinners, at the discretion of the bishop who has the ability to implement the canons in differing fashions, stemming from his power to bind and loose, as canon 102 of Trullo explains.

I did a cursory reading of the canon of Trullo, maybe I missed it but could not find where it explains the economy of marriage. Only this:

CANON XCIII.
IF the wife of a man who has gone away and does not appear, cohabit with another before she is assured of the death of the first, she is an adulteress. The wives of soldiers who have married husbands who do not appear are in the same case; as are also they who on account of the wanderings of their husbands do not wait for their return. But the circumstance here has some excuse, in that the suspicion of his death becomes very great. But she who in ignorance has married a man who at the time was deserted by his wife, and then is dismissed because his first wife returns to him, has indeed committed fornication, but through ignorance; therefore she is not prevented from marrying, but it is better if she remain as she is. If a soldier shall return after a long time, and find his wife on account of his long absence has been united to another man, if he so wishes, he may receive his own wife [back again], pardon being extended in consideration of their ignorance both to her and to the man who took her home in second marriage.

CANON XCIII, from how understand it, does not speak of divorce and remarrying but rather, by implication, of marrying after the death of the husband. Since marriage ends with death, then this canon is perfectly true as a spouse can marry after that. In this canon, she is considered an adulteress because she marries before the death of her husband is being ascertained.

If this is not the canon that the Orthodox refers to in its practices of remarrying and divorce, then probably it is from somewhere else or later addition of the Orthodox Church.

So? The Second Ecumenical Council similarly had only Eastern bishops present, and was regarded only as being a local council until the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

Fair enough. But that is because the Pope agreed to it and accepted it.

That is a self-defeating argument, since it invalidates the non-universally accepted Roman Catholic Eighth Ecumenical Council, as well as all post schism councils which the Roman Catholics call ecumenical.

I am not sure but can it be true that a later council overrides or clarifies a previous one that the Church considers inadequate?

That was Adrian Fortescue’s spin on the council, but Adrian Fortescue is far from being an infallible or neutral source on Church History. With all due respect to his scholarship, it is completely outdated, and the study of Eastern Christian history has become significantly less biased than it was in his day. Were the Council of Trullo as hostile towards the West as Fortescue claims, it would not have approved the multiple councils of Carthage, and the canons of St. Cyprian. Furthermore, Fortescue’s claim that the Council was somehow uniquely anti-Western falls apart upon examining its canons, because many of the problems the Council addresses were only problems in the East. The Council, for example, forbids “who was crucified for us” to be interpolated in the Trisagion, a problem that was rampant in the East because of the non-Chalcedonians, but not in the West. The Council was simply dealing with problems without prejudice as to from where they were originating.

Okay, fine. On the other hand, after reading the canon of Trullo, there are some changes to the Western Church’s practice that from my view does not improve anything other than merely for the sake of changing it – thus the usage of the word ‘anathematized’ to describe the hostility of this canon.

These things were not always merely little differences, nor did the Council anathematize customs just for the sake of anathematizing them, but it did so for specific reasons. For example, the Council prohibits people from deposing clergy who remain married and cohabiting with their wives after ordination. This was basically a defensive move, protecting the status of married clergy, in response to the appearance of mandatory clerical celibacy in the Roman Church (something which was not universally enforced even in the West until well after the schism).

Of course, definitely not all the canons are bad but there are some that obliterate the customs that were already in practice.

 

[Reuben_J]

Have you read the canons of Trullo, or perhaps read anything about the Council written by a modern historian? It seems to me that your understanding of Trullo is largely influenced by Fortescue and nobody else.

Not much. Canons of the early Councils are not my forte but marriage is, so to speak.

I have some experience in marriage ministries and have been working in helping married couple overcoming their marriage problem from a Christian and Church perspective. Ultimately from my experience, Jesus heals marriages because that flows from the graces of the Sacrament of Matrimony. I take the sacrament seriously, and I will not lose ground in defending it. Not merely because of personal conviction that it is true but because I have seen many, I mean really many, that the causes of broken marriages are because the couples are not faithful to God’s way and that when marriages are healed and saved, are when they return to God. There were some inexplicable miracles that turn the hearts of such couples to reconcile when they decided to surrender their marriages to God- the one who gave them in the first place.

I guess the topic of this thread is about remarrying and divorce in the Orthodox marriage, not so much about early Church Councils. My disagreement with Trullo if anything, is because this Council justifies remarrying of a married person and divorce, not so much about Fortescue.

In any case, Pope Sergius rejected the Council of Trullo even under the might of the army of Emperor Justinian II who wanted him to agree with it. An implied force had been used to enforce this Council, so it is not just about Fortescue.

This is grasping at straws. The principle of economy applies in all matters which are pastoral.

I know. When it applies to the economy as practiced by the Orthodox Church in divorce and remarrying, I feel it is being misplaced for reason I have been saying. In other word, it does not apply as one cannot compromise with sin.