When did Eastern bishops start allowing for remarriages?

[twf]

Formosus:

Marriage in the west was initially a civil service as well to my understanding.

Yes, I beleve that you are correct - but this is not at all a problem in Latin theology as we see the bride and groom as the ministers of the sacrament. Current canon law requires a priest or deacon to witness and bless the marriage, but theologically this isn’t strictly required. My point was that I have read that early Byzantine ‘remarriages’ were strictly civil affairs even when the first marriage was ecclesiastical. As the Byzantine understanding sees the priest as absolutely essential for a sacramental marriage, it would suggest that the idea of a second sacrament/ecclesiastical marriage was a later addition.

ciero: What was practiced and what the Church taught at the highest levels was not, sadly, always consistent. Would you suggest that the Church once condoned the practice of priests taking concubines into their homes? Obviously Christian theology would never have allowed such a practice, but this too was common place throughout much of Europe for centuries…and as far as the average Joe Christian was concerned, there was nothing wrong with a priest living with his concubine. Can you provide evidence from popes or doctors of the Church that divorce and remarriage was considered a valid ecclesiastical/sacramental option?

"Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.”

Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, 24:32 (A.D. 401).

 

[valentino]

ciero:They excommunicated people during the Middle Ages.Are you saying they knew Joe left Alice married Mary and were still in good standin g with the Church?They werent excommunicated or still were able to receive the sacraments?

 

[Formosus]

The second marriage , in a strict understanding, is not sacramental anyways. It is an allowance made out of the hardness of our hearts. So even of it was performed civilly early on or by the church it is all the same. Only some modern EO seem to think its a sacrament. As far as civil law goes, I am fairly certain justinian’s code forbids a fourth marriage just like eastern canons on marriage but I could be wrong. Rome and Italy were under these same laws yet I have not read a single church father from the west condemning this practice at the time. Nor were our marriage laws on the bull of excommunication despite that it had all kinds of outlandish accusations.

Edit.

Didn’t see the Augustine quote. I’ll say that Augustine was in some ways isolated from the wider church by his lack of understanding of Greek. It would be fairly convincing though if you could find Greek fathers who were against divorce.

 

[ciero]

ciero:They excommunicated people during the Middle Ages.Are you saying they knew Joe left Alice married Mary and were still in good standin g with the Church?They werent excommunicated or still were able to receive the sacraments?

Yes Valentino, the church had a much different view on marriage at the time. As I stated earlier the practice of annulments and remarriage in the church as we know them today are fairly modern.

 

[valentino]

ciero:im not disagreeing with what you are saying since you seem fairly knowledgable in this area.Then at the time they werenT keeping with Christ’s teaching on marriage becaus eHe said"…but because of the hardness…Moses permitted it"And the woman at the well “your right you’ve had 5 husband’s and the one your married to now is not your husband”.Why did the early church overlook Christ’s teaching on marriage?

 

[ciero]

ciero:im not disagreeing with what you are saying since you seem fairly knowledgable in this area.Then at the time they werenT keeping with Christ’s teaching on marriage becaus eHe said"…but because of the hardness…Moses permitted it"And the woman at the well “your right you’ve had 5 husband’s and the one your married to now is not your husband”.Why did the early church overlook Christ’s teaching on marriage?

Where does Christ teach one needs an annulment for remarriage?

 

[NFrancis]

catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp

This link has the views of the early Church Fathers

This is what Basil the Great said, he was an eastern bishop of the fourth century:
“A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless” (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).

Also, this is what scripture says:
“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

I believe that it is the Eastern Church that changed their practice on remarriage.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Could maybe someone provide some links for the OP and help him with the research on this question? I’d like to know myself. Surely there are some learned Orthodox Christians in here who can try to explain this. I’d love to know when this became acceptable and the usual practice to permit these?

 

[Formosus]

catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp

This link has the views of the early Church Fathers

This is what Basil the Great said, he was an eastern bishop of the fourth century:
“A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless” (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).

…

I believe that it is the Eastern Church that changed their practice on remarriage.

In the st. Basil quote, it is not at all clear that the man was actually married to the first woman or that the woman wasn’t just cheating on her husband. I’ll read the entire letter tomorrow to get the exact context.

 

[twf]

Formosus:
I will see if I can find a Greek father to support the testimony of Blessed Augustine…a bit short on time at the moment. That being said, I think we can both agree that the idea of a second sacramental marriage is a novelty and a departure from Tradition? I’ve come across a number of EO priests who strongly maintain that the idea of a second sacramental marriage has always been the tradition of the Church, but the fact that second marriages were originally civil, from a Byzantine theological perspective, by itself seems to refute this claim.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The OP’s premise is flawed. Read the title of the thread…When did the Eastern bishops? The Eastern bishops did nothing…it was the West that changed their discipline. If the OP cares to do some research then come back to discuss then we can dialog…when folks have a flawed understanding about what it is they are talking about…it really is hard to dialog. So once again I ask…when did the Western church change their discipline about remarriage?

I’m really uncomfortable with your extremely unhelpful attitude.

I’m always learning more about Christian history, and the different traditions of the churches of the east. I am quite open to discovering that things I totally erroneously thought of as “Catholic” are really just “Latin,” as I have had to learn that about many things in the past. The filioque, for example. I now understand why the eastern Catholic churches rightfully do not use the filioque. I didn’t before, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t open to obtaining better understanding before. I was, and am.

Now, take the OP’s question. I had no idea that in some contexts the churches of the east allow remarriage after divorce. And I am not assuming that they are “wrong” and that the Latin Church is “right”; in fact, I resent the implication that that is what we are all doing. I genuinely want to learn more.

Won’t you help me? I don’t know the history on this matter. Because of Christ’s words about divorce in the Gospels, I assumed that the Orthodox Church and the eastern Catholic churches would generally be as strict about it as the Latin Church. That does NOT mean that upon discovering otherwise, I have assumed that the East is “wrong.” I make no such assumption, as I have often been wrong in the past.

Won’t you help me learn more? Our questions do not constitute attacks or accusations. If we’re making theologically invalid assumptions about the nature of Sacramental Matrimony, please help correct us. I’m well aware that I could be quite mistaken, as I have often been wrong about East/West theological stuff in the past.

You are not under attack. Some of us genuinely want to know more. Will you help us? Or will you simply keep on cynically insinuating that we think you’re “wrong”? I for one think no such thing. If anyone here is wrong, it’s probably me and my assumptions. Please help me learn.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’ve started to look up more information myself, but I do not know how to interpret what I’m finding without the intellectual guidance of a practicing Orthodox Christian.

It seems that the Orthodox Church does in some cases grant annulments too, but that - as has been pointed out in this thread - they sometimes allow a second or third as part of the “economy of salvation” even if the first is still held to be valid.

I truly would like more information on this. I’ve never heard of it and want to learn more.

 

[malphono]

I’ve started to look up more information myself, but I do not know how to interpret what I’m finding without the intellectual guidance of a practicing Orthodox Christian.

It seems that the Orthodox Church does in some cases grant annulments too, but that - as has been pointed out in this thread - they sometimes allow a second or third as part of the “economy of salvation” even if the first is still held to be valid.

I truly would like more information on this. I’ve never heard of it and want to learn more.

There have been several threads in this forum that have dealt with this matter. If you haven’t already done, have a hook [thread=409823]here[/thread] and [thread=447823]here[/thread] for a couple of examples.

 

[ciero]

Formosus:
I will see if I can find a Greek father to support the testimony of Blessed Augustine…a bit short on time at the moment. That being said, I think we can both agree that the idea of a second sacramental marriage is a novelty and a departure from Tradition? I’ve come across a number of EO priests who strongly maintain that the idea of a second sacramental marriage has always been the tradition of the Church, but the fact that second marriages were originally civil, from a Byzantine theological perspective, by itself seems to refute this claim.

Augustine and other Fathers East and West had differing views marriage. Compare what Tertullian said about marriage to Basil’s quote.

In the West marriage wasn’t universally seen as a sacrament until AFTER the reformation, and until that time the church did NOT get into the marriage business. There is no record of Christian marriage ceremonies in the West until the 9th century. And even then it wasn’t mandatory to have your marriage preformed by the church or even blessed by the church.

Until fairly recent times the church just did not “value” marriage as we do today.

I did a class a number of years ago as part of some canon law studies that discussed this in detail…I’ll try and dig out the textbook and notes this weekend to provide some more info and references.

As I say often on here…just because we see something in the church today…dosent mean that it was always so.

 

[valentino]

catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp

This link has the views of the early Church Fathers

This is what Basil the Great said, he was an eastern bishop of the fourth century:
“A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless” (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).

Also, this is what scripture says:
“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

I believe that it is the Eastern Church that changed their practice on remarriage.

Firstly your quoting Basil but he’s of the eastern church not latin church.Right.That’s not a contrary statement to the eastern or latin church because asit says he wasnt married to the first wife he was living in adultery.His next marriage was legal because it was his first.and the second quote affirms what i said you cant marrry and then remarry.

 

[valentino]

I’m talking in the Middle Ages!

Marriage was ONLY done in the church.

Annulments were only for Royalty…as a way to allow Kings who needed to produce an heir, out of a marriage that was “unproductive” (think Henry VIII).

A regular Joe who didn’t want to be married to Mary anymore…just left and married Alice. The church did not stop this, it was accepted custom throughout Europe.

Right no problem.marriage was only done in the church.an annulment is a certificate nullifing a previous.I know you said do your homework but can you give me one case or scripture passage where a person was a catholic and he divorced his wife and the church let him remarry?I know things were different.Alot of the popes were married.Some even had concubines and mistresses.THeir were homosexual popes.But i never read where the church allowed divorced couples to remarry without an annulment.

 

[valentino]

josephDaniel29: Im not the brightest man onthe block but tell me what that Bologna means.If you say Im full of it I’ll understand.

 

[valentino]

josephDaniel29: Im not the sharpest knife in the drawer but tell me what that Bologna means.If your saying im full of it I’ll understand.

 

[Formosus]

@twf

Yes I think we can both agree that the second marriage is not a sacrament. I think its a novelty and a departure from tradition to suggest otherwise.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There have been several threads in this forum that have dealt with this matter. If you haven’t already done, have a hook [thread=409823]here[/thread] and [thread=447823]here[/thread] for a couple of examples.

Thank you very much. I’m definitely going to read those threads.

Augustine and other Fathers East and West had differing views marriage. Compare what Tertullian said about marriage to Basil’s quote.

In the West marriage wasn’t universally seen as a sacrament until AFTER the reformation, and until that time the church did NOT get into the marriage business. There is no record of Christian marriage ceremonies in the West until the 9th century. And even then it wasn’t mandatory to have your marriage preformed by the church or even blessed by the church.

Until fairly recent times the church just did not “value” marriage as we do today.

I did a class a number of years ago as part of some canon law studies that discussed this in detail…I’ll try and dig out the textbook and notes this weekend to provide some more info and references.

As I say often on here…just because we see something in the church today…dosent mean that it was always so.

Thank you for the overview, ciero. I appreciate it and look forward to reading more about this myself. As you say, we can’t assume that things are done today the way they always were in the Church.