When did Eastern bishops start allowing for remarriages?

[JohnVIII]

DVDJS - thanks…this is exactly what I was looking for. Earlier in the thread I maintained that ecclesiastical second marriages were a novelty, and that the modern EO idea (at least in some circles) that the second marriage, after a divorce, is fully sacramental is even more of a departure from tradition. It is sometimes frustrating when certain EO and EC Christians insist that the East has never changed anything significant from the time of the Apostles while the Western Church never ceases to introduce novelty after novelty…it is refreshing to see Eastern Christians acknowleding that there has been significant development in practice and theology in the East as well as in the West.

So how do you see it? “a departure from tradition” & “significant development in practice and theology” are two different things. Comparing this to the role of the papacy, clearly the role of the pope was much less in the early Church then it is today; would you see this as “a departure from tradition” or as “significant development in practice”? Of course your answer may vary from others because it all depends on you point of view.

The fact is that divorce and remarriage “happened” in both East and West. It “developed” in the East only in the since that the Church developed services and practices that more fully expressed the believes that the East believed the Church always held. This “developed” expression continued with the full knowledge of the Roman Church and without its objection for at least 400 years, and much longer if you count time past the “split” between East & West.

The mention in the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325) of a prohibition against refusing to commune with those who were “twice-married” was never understood by the Eastern Fathers to be exclusive to those who were married after the death of the first. So, as you may have guessed, I don’t see it as a departure at all.

But, like so many other threads, it somehow seems to always brings the papacy in to the equation. Sacramental Church marriage in the West was not universal understood in sacramental terms (even the first marriage) during the times that East & West were one. So the question becomes “can the pope change an established practice (in the East) simply by establishing uniformity (contrary to the East) only in the Latin Church?”. One might also ask, “if East & West never broke communion, would the East change it’s practices after Rome established contrary uniformity in the West?” I will conclude with a comment to this last question.

The Eastern Churches have always been self-ruled, so they would not consider it necessary to conform to Roman practice, but they would at least consider the issue. The Russian Church made some reforms during the time of Patriarch Nikon that were designed to make the Russian Church somewhat more like other Orthodox Churches, but in retrospect many consider these reforms to have been a mistake as it resulted in a large and long last schism in the Russian Church. So the end of Second marriages would probably been considered, but for the sake of continuing within the established tradition of the Church and not provoking schism, they would not conform to the Roman example. And who knows, perhaps Rome may have reconsidered the matter and reformed into something closer to the East for the sake of universal harmony.

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII,

Are you referring to Jewish folklore about Adam having a first wife named Lilith, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam in the creation account of Genesis Chapter 1?

Peace,
Anna

Yes!

This lady?

http://images.zap2it.com/images/tv-EP00000882/cheers-bebe-neuwirth-1.jpg

Lilith? What’s in a name? But consider this: Before you are too quick to make fun of the idea that Adam could have been married twice, and that there could have been another woman like Lilith as Adam’s first wife, ask yourself first if you believe that Adam & Eve were real people that actually existed, or were they only a part of a story that was written to teach certain principals? I’ve heard many times that most Catholics do not believe that the story of Adam & Eve were about real people that actually lived! I’ve even heard claims that the papacy has said as much (but I do not know this for sure). But my first point is that if you only see Genesis as a story to teach us something but Adam & Eve were not real people, then you can’t, from that perspective, reject “Lilith” on the basis that she was not a real person, can you? Especially if “Story of Lilith” teaches something, just as the “Story of Adam & Eve” likewise teaches something!

Furthermore, admit that it had to at least make you think when I pointed out the fact that Adam was married in chapter one of Genesis, but was single in the first part of Chapter two!

Consider some more things that may make you think: The idea that through Adams second wife came all of mankind is an idea that has been echoed several times by the patriarchs. Abram’s name was changed by God to Abraham, meaning that he was the father of many nations, because Abraham was married twice! (Actually three times, but who’s counting.) One wife was free and the other was a slave and this St Paul explained taught us about the Old & the New covenant! Jacob was forced to take two wives in order to be able to be married to his second wife (the chose one was his second wife!) and through his second wife came God’s chosen Joseph! Moses, who personified as a prophet Christ Himself, was married twice as well.

Now if Moses personified Christ, was Christ (who was also called the “second-Adam“) likewise married twice? That which came before was a shadow of that which was real in Christ. Just as the book of “To the Hebrews” said that the earthly temple was a shadow of the real Temple in the Heavens, the marriage of Christ was the real marriage and this marriage was to the Church. And the Church was Christ’s second wife; His first being that of Israel!

Am I making you think about this a little? The strongest point I wish to make is that since a second marriage in the Eastern Church is “a marriage of repentance”, this actually makes it superior to the first, when you understand that repentance is the real “original plan” (if you want to call it that) of the Father for our eternal salvation! Eve was superior to the “Lilith”, Rachel was superior to Leah (and Joseph was superior to Ruben and Ruben‘s birthright was transferred to Joseph), the Church is superior to Israel, the Resurrection superior to the Garden of Eden, the second Adam (Jesus) is superior to the first Adam, and a second marriage in the Church superior to the to the first. How can anyone say that it is not a true Sacrament!

To go on talking about “Lilith” would be a tangent. The only thing more I wish to say about this matter is that in Chapter One “the Man and the Woman” were equal and the name of “the Woman” was not given. Those who are in Christ are spiritually equal. And when Christ spoke about divorce not being so in the beginning He said that God made them “Male & Female”, but once again their names were not given. The idea that Adam was married twice cannot be disproved from Scripture. I personally believe that Adam & Eve were real people. I also believe that Adam was first created in two parts before Eve was created, one Male and the other Female. The Female part left the Male part and joined the rakes of the demons. After this is when it was said by God that “it is not good that Man be alone”, so God created Eve from Adam and they were one flesh.

 

[twf]

So how do you see it? “a departure from tradition” & “significant development in practice and theology” are two different things. Comparing this to the role of the papacy, clearly the role of the pope was much less in the early Church then it is today; would you see this as “a departure from tradition” or as “significant development in practice”? Of course your answer may vary from others because it all depends on you point of view.

The fact is that divorce and remarriage “happened” in both East and West. It “developed” in the East only in the since that the Church developed services and practices that more fully expressed the believes that the East believed the Church always held. This “developed” expression continued with the full knowledge of the Roman Church and without its objection for at least 400 years, and much longer if you count time past the “split” between East & West.

The mention in the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325) of a prohibition against refusing to commune with those who were “twice-married” was never understood by the Eastern Fathers to be exclusive to those who were married after the death of the first. So, as you may have guessed, I don’t see it as a departure at all.

But, like so many other threads, it somehow seems to always brings the papacy in to the equation. Sacramental Church marriage in the West was not universal understood in sacramental terms (even the first marriage) during the times that East & West were one. So the question becomes “can the pope change an established practice (in the East) simply by establishing uniformity (contrary to the East) only in the Latin Church?”. One might also ask, “if East & West never broke communion, would the East change it’s practices after Rome established contrary uniformity in the West?” I will conclude with a comment to this last question.

The Eastern Churches have always been self-ruled, so they would not consider it necessary to conform to Roman practice, but they would at least consider the issue. The Russian Church made some reforms during the time of Patriarch Nikon that were designed to make the Russian Church somewhat more like other Orthodox Churches, but in retrospect many consider these reforms to have been a mistake as it resulted in a large and long last schism in the Russian Church. So the end of Second marriages would probably been considered, but for the sake of continuing within the established tradition of the Church and not provoking schism, they would not conform to the Roman example. And who knows, perhaps Rome may have reconsidered the matter and reformed into something closer to the East for the sake of universal harmony.

Fair enough. That being said, the lack of formal ecclesiastical ceremonies or lack of uniformity in the early Church is, in my opinion, less of an issue for modern Latin theology than it is for Orthodox theology. If the Orthodox Church believes that the priest is absolutely essential to the sacrament/mystery, how could the lack of an ecclesiastical ceremony for second marriages in the early Byzantine Church be understood? The formal allowance of divorce and remarriage could be understood as a development, as opposed to a departure, as you say, but the shift from civil second marriage to ecclesiastical second marriages in the East, corresponding to a new understanding that the second marriage can also be sacramental, seems like more than a mere ‘development’ considering the Byzantine understanding of marriage. Given the modern Byzantine understanding, the ancient second marriages could not have been sacramental. The sacramental understanding of marriage may not have been fully articulated universally in the West in the past, but Latin theology, as it has developed, has no problem whatsoever in understanding that civil marriages between baptized persons could still carry a sacramental character. The Church requires that a priest bless the wedding, but this is simply a canonical discipline in the West, not a theological requirement.

 

[cooterhein]

I did some poking around in other parts of the Interwebs and got a reference to the work of Fr. John Meyendorff, from Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975).

"In the Christian Empire under Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and others, laws defined the various legal grounds and conditions on which divorce and remarriage were permissible. It is sufficient to say that they were relatively lenient. However, no Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) says, “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).

"However, the Church always remained faithful to the New Testament ideal. Only the first and unique marriage was blessed in Church during the Eucharist. As seen above, second and third marriages, after widowhood, were concluded at a civil ceremony only, and implied a penance of one to five years of excommunication. After this period of penance, the couple was again considered as full members of the Church. A more prolonged penance was required for married divorcees (see canon 87 of Sixth Ecum. Council). The classification of the marrying divorcees among the adulterers—in strict conformity with the Gospel text—implied that they spent sufficient time standing in Church not among the faithful, but at the doorway, with the “weepers,” the “hearers” (i.e., those who listened to Scripture, but were not admitted to the sacraments), and the “prostrators” (i.e., those who held, during certain parts of the service, a prostrated position, instead of sitting or standing).

“The Church, therefore, neither “recongized” divorce, nor “gave” it. Divorce was considered as a grave sin; but the Church never failed in giving to sinners a “new chance,” and was ready to readmit them if they repented. Only after the tenth century, when it received from the emperors the legal monopoly of registering and validating all marriages, was the Church obliged to “issue divorces.” It did it generally in conformity with civil legislation of the Roman Empire, and later with that of the various countries in which it developed. But this new situation greatly obliterated in the consciousness of the marriage. Both the Church marriage and the “Church divorce” appeared as a mere formality giving external legality to acts which were generally quite illegitimate from the Christian point of view.”

The only part I’m a little unclear on it the part where it says “this new situation greatly obliterated in the consciousness of the marriage.” I haven’t looked at a physical copy of the book yet, but it seems to be phrased this way wherever it’s referenced. I’m not super clear on exactly what he’s trying to say.

At any rate, the reason I wanted to look at the issue in this way is because Catholics and Orthodox both say they’re “the originals” and that “the originals” continue to uphold the ancient traditions of Christianity while the “other guys” do not. For example, I called up EWTN a few weeks back during an open Q&A and the apologist said the Orthodox had departed from genuine Church teaching and gone astray on these matters. So I asked when that was, and he referenced the Schism, and I said No, I actually meant when did they begin the practice of economy/economia/oikonomia under these circumstances and he said he has no clue.

I’ve done this with a few other things where the East and West differ, just so I can look at first-millennium Christianity and see who’s really looking more similar to that. (It tends to be the East, in my experience). So this is just another one of those exercises. It’s something that you really have to deal with from a historical perspective, too. There are a lot of things that have always been done the way they’re done, not because of a decree or regulation or bull, but because that’s how they’ve always been done – without formal definition. The principle of economy is one of those things- to this day, there’s no formal definition, but it seems that it’s been used in various ways (including but not limited to issues of remarriage) since…well, at least the 4th century, if Epiphanius is anything to go by.

Anywho, this is an issue for the historians (particularly those who focus on the Byzantine empire’s legal system) as opposed to Church-related writings. I’ve obtained one reference that is from an Orthodox perspective; can anyone suggest a source from a Catholic perspective?

Do you suppose any Catholic sources exist which claim that the modern Catholic practice was in fact the true practice of all Christians in the first millennium and that the Eastern bishops have grievously departed in ways that now permit adultery? Or is that just something that you’ll occasionally hear from non-experts who don’t know what they’re talking about?

 

[shaky]

I did some poking around in other parts of the Interwebs and got a reference to the work of Fr. John Meyendorff, from Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975).

"In the Christian Empire under Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and others, laws defined the various legal grounds and conditions on which divorce and remarriage were permissible. It is sufficient to say that they were relatively lenient. However, no Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) says, “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).

"However, the Church always remained faithful to the New Testament ideal. Only the first and unique marriage was blessed in Church during the Eucharist. As seen above, second and third marriages, after widowhood, were concluded at a civil ceremony only, and implied a penance of one to five years of excommunication. After this period of penance, the couple was again considered as full members of the Church. A more prolonged penance was required for married divorcees (see canon 87 of Sixth Ecum. Council). The classification of the marrying divorcees among the adulterers—in strict conformity with the Gospel text—implied that they spent sufficient time standing in Church not among the faithful, but at the doorway, with the “weepers,” the “hearers” (i.e., those who listened to Scripture, but were not admitted to the sacraments), and the “prostrators” (i.e., those who held, during certain parts of the service, a prostrated position, instead of sitting or standing).

“The Church, therefore, neither “recongized” divorce, nor “gave” it. Divorce was considered as a grave sin; but the Church never failed in giving to sinners a “new chance,” and was ready to readmit them if they repented. Only after the tenth century, when it received from the emperors the legal monopoly of registering and validating all marriages, was the Church obliged to “issue divorces.” It did it generally in conformity with civil legislation of the Roman Empire, and later with that of the various countries in which it developed. But this new situation greatly obliterated in the consciousness of the marriage. Both the Church marriage and the “Church divorce” appeared as a mere formality giving external legality to acts which were generally quite illegitimate from the Christian point of view.”

The only part I’m a little unclear on it the part where it says “this new situation greatly obliterated in the consciousness of the marriage.” I haven’t looked at a physical copy of the book yet, but it seems to be phrased this way wherever it’s referenced. I’m not super clear on exactly what he’s trying to say.

At any rate, the reason I wanted to look at the issue in this way is because Catholics and Orthodox both say they’re “the originals” and that “the originals” continue to uphold the ancient traditions of Christianity while the “other guys” do not. For example, I called up EWTN a few weeks back during an open Q&A and the apologist said the Orthodox had departed from genuine Church teaching and gone astray on these matters. So I asked when that was, and he referenced the Schism, and I said No, I actually meant when did they begin the practice of economy/economia/oikonomia under these circumstances and he said he has no clue.

I’ve done this with a few other things where the East and West differ, just so I can look at first-millennium Christianity and see who’s really looking more similar to that. (It tends to be the East, in my experience). So this is just another one of those exercises. It’s something that you really have to deal with from a historical perspective, too. There are a lot of things that have always been done the way they’re done, not because of a decree or regulation or bull, but because that’s how they’ve always been done – without formal definition. The principle of economy is one of those things- to this day, there’s no formal definition, but it seems that it’s been used in various ways (including but not limited to issues of remarriage) since…well, at least the 4th century, if Epiphanius is anything to go by.

Anywho, this is an issue for the historians (particularly those who focus on the Byzantine empire’s legal system) as opposed to Church-related writings. I’ve obtained one reference that is from an Orthodox perspective; can anyone suggest a source from a Catholic perspective?

Do you suppose any Catholic sources exist which claim that the modern Catholic practice was in fact the true practice of all Christians in the first millennium and that the Eastern bishops have grievously departed in ways that now permit adultery? Or is that just something that you’ll occasionally hear from non-experts who don’t know what they’re talking about?

The Question i ask is that the Roman church has Gone Back to Pre-nicene practise of no divorce and Remarriage but use Annulments for various reasons even if your partner has not cheated.
Was the Practise of Annulments Pre Nicene?

 

[Harpazo]

“If there were two Christs, there would be two husbands, or two wives; since Christ is one–the one head of the Church–there is one flesh also; the second should be rejected. And if you forbid a second marriage, would you allow a third? The first is legal, the second is condoned, the third is illegitimate, and that which is beyond is swine-like . . .” St Gregory the Theologian, Or. 37.8

“The rule establishes one year of excommunication for those who marry a second time. Other authorities even require two years. Those who marry a third time are often excommunicated for three or four years. And such a union is not called marriage, but polygamy, or punishable fornication.” St Basil’s 4th Canonical Epistle

Obviously, in these two Saints days (4th century?) it was already an established, accepted thing (though obviously not encouraged). They knew how to deal with it then and it’s handled exactly the same way today.

In Christ,
Andrew