Divorce In The Church

[Aloysius]

Just to clarify on translations: the translation which says "unlawful" does indeed mean infidelity:

[quote]ΠΟΡΝΕΙΑ,n {por-ni'-ah}
1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2) metaph. the worship of idols 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols[/quote]

Christ gives an exception to separate for infidelity; but not to remarry. Only if the marriage was never really a sacramental marriage can the sacrament ever be contracted with another. This is the most biblical way of viewing things; in keeping with Apostolic Tradition from the earliest times. In the Didache, it says "God hates divorce"; Christ himself says "What God has put together, let no man tear asunder"

If God has indeed joined two people together (ie it is a sacramental marriage) then no one, not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church or any human power, can bring it apart. It is impossible; Christ, God, makes it so. However, if the people were solely brought together by their own power, by human power, but it was never actually joined together by God; then and only then may it be dissolved. That is where our understanding of the permanence of a God-joined marriage comes from: the lips of the Saviour Himself.

[Era Might]

[quote][code]As I'd mentioned, Saints aren't perfect! I definately wouldn't call it "universal" amongst all of the Early Church Fathers, that would be a gross over exaggeration.[/code][/quote]Your interpretation of Our Lord's words is completely foreign to the universal understanding of the Fathers. I have cited four witnesses from the early Church. I would ask that you make an argument from the Fathers that the Sacrament is not permanent.

You cited divorce in the Old Testament, but marriage was not a Sacrament in the Old Testament. This is why Christian marriage is so unique, because it is a supernatural bond, and was instituted (or elevated) to the grace of a Sacrament, which cannot be broken except by death.

St. John Chrysostom confirms the permanence of Christian marriage in commenting on the Gospel of St. Matthew:

[quote]What God has joined together, let not many put asunder (Mt. 9:6). See a teacher's wisdom. I mean, that being asked, "Is it lawful?" he did not at once say, "It is not lawful," lest they should be disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument He rendered this manifest, showing that it is itself too the commandment of His Father, and that not in opposition to Moses did he enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him. ...[b]But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her.[/b][/quote]
You say that I am following Roman Catholic doctrine, and you are following Jesus Christ, but your interpretation is contradicted by the universal witness of the early Church. We believe that the Fathers are infallible when they speak in unison. The only argument you have made is an interpretation foreign to the ancient understanding of the Church. Our Lord never says that remarriage is lawful (he specifically says that it is not), he only says that divorce is lawful in grave circumstances. The reason is because the Sacrament is imperishable, and the two cannot truly divorce (that is, break the Sacrament), they can only separate.

[quote][code]I'd encourage you to see out the scriptures of 1 Tim 5:14 [in which St. Paul encourages and councils young widows to remarry]. This is an example that remarriage is permittable. Thou being a widow and being divorced are different, it still goes against what you're saying, which is that no remarrying is permissible period.[/code][/quote]
The Sacramental bond ends in death, which is why widows are free to marry again. So long as either spouse is alive, however, the Sacramental bond remains, and cannot be broken. Remarriage while the spouse is alive is adultery, because they remain in a covenant relationship throughout life.

[RezaMikhaeil]

It seems that you're ignoring the clear definition of the term "divorce".

[Era Might]

The dictionary is not a theology manual. It has no concept of marriage as a Sacrament, it speaks only of divorce in a human sense. You have not appealed to any authority except your own interpretation, which is contradicted by the Fathers of the Church. Maybe we have different beliefs on the nature and role of Tradition. We believe that the Fathers and the early Church are the witnesses to Tradition, and that Scripture is not understood except in light of the Fathers and the ancient practice of the Church. You said that I was wrong about the Fathers and how they understood the Sacrament as a permanent institution. If I am wrong, then I must ask for evidence from the Fathers themselves, which I provided.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1262047' date='May 1 2007, 06:12 PM']The dictionary is not a theology manual. It has no concept of marriage as a Sacrament, it speaks only of divorce in a human sense.

[code]However it does properly define words, as they are in the language of beings. Jesus wouldn't have said "divorce" if he didn't mean it.[/code]

You have not appealed to any authority except your own interpretation, which is contradicted by the Fathers of the Church.

[code]No rather, you've elevated particular Church father's that go along with your theology, but not taken their teachings as a whole. As I'd mentioned if you believe that St. Clement of Alexandria is this infallible source, then you should follow his full teachings, not just elements that apply to that which you believe...[/code]

Maybe we have different beliefs on the nature and role of Tradition. We believe that the Fathers and the early Church are the witnesses to Tradition, and that Scripture is not understood except in light of the Fathers and the ancient practice of the Church.

[code]It's a shame that the Early Church Fathers disagreed on a variety of issues, and didn't have a universal agreement on a variety of topics. There were a great amount that believed even widows weren't allowed to remarry, while others believed that widows could, but again to each their own opinion. In the east, we don't hold the Early Church Fathers to such high regard as being infallible in everything they wrote, it mattered what they wrote that should be seen in the proper light.[/code]


You said that I was wrong about the Fathers and how they understood the Sacrament as a permanent institution. If I am wrong, then I must ask for evidence from the Fathers themselves, which I provided.

[code]No what I said is that the Early Church Fathers weren't universal in their theology. That just because several spoke about it, doesn't make it unfallible.[/code][/quote]

[CatholicCid]

Sorry to butt in, but I was following along and this just has been bothering me:

[quote]32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.[/quote]

Now, from Reza has been saying, it seems the Orthodox position is that you cannot 'divorce' your spouse EXCEPT for marital unfaithfulness. Now, what about the unfaithful spouse?
The rest says that anyone who marries the 'divorced' spouse, the unfaithful spouse, they commit adultery. But how is this so if the person is no longer married? Or is this second part not counting the 'except for marital unfaithfulness' part?

Just another question, could linguistics (sp?) come into play here, for the 'except for marital unfaithfulness' part? As in, if you divorce your spouse, except for X, you cause them to become Y. However, if they commit X, they are already Y, so divorcing them wouldn't cause them to be Y since they already are Y. If you can understand that.

One final edit, I promise. How would divorcing one's wife make them an adulteress? Would this be because they are giving the woman false impressions that she may go out and date again, commiting adultery if she would still be in a marriage?

Sorry for just popping in, but didn't really know where else to ask

Edited May 2, 2007 by CatholicCid

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1262242' date='May 1 2007, 10:44 PM']Sorry to butt in, but I was following along and this just has been bothering me:
Now, from Reza has been saying, it seems the Orthodox position is that you cannot 'divorce' your spouse EXCEPT for marital unfaithfulness. Now, what about the unfaithful spouse?

[code]Good question, from what I know [and I only asked a Priest once] the unfaithful spouse, doesn't have the right to remarry EVER![/code]

The rest says that anyone who marries the 'divorced' spouse, the unfaithful spouse, they commit adultery. But how is this so if the person is no longer married? Or is this second part not counting the 'except for marital unfaithfulness' part?

[code]Great question, let's check the full context:

32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Notice that it says whoever divorces his wife, unless she was unfaithful causes her to be an adultress and then it goes on to say that if anyone marries the woman, who got divorced despite not having been unfaithful to her husband [getting a wrong divorce] committs adultry. Therefore if a woman gets a divorce, even thou her and her husband were faithful to each other [just kinda calls it quits] and a man marries her, he commits adultry. That's the full context

Note: I'd thought that a priest that I'd talken to about this said that Copts allowed divorces [only for the faithful spouse that was cheated upon] but someone else [a layperson] that I know just told me that Copts don't allow divorces, so I'm going to have to find out further.[/code][/quote]

[CatholicCid]

Thanks for the speedy reply.

[quote]Good question, from what I know [and I only asked a Priest once]the unfaithful spouse, doesn't have the right to remarry EVER![/quote]

Why do you think this would be though? If the divorce is allowable, then this would just to seem to be a punishment. If the person marries again though, that can't be adultery, can it?

For the second line, yeah, after reading it over a few more times, it began to make more sense.
One of your comments had me wondering again though. More so how you worded it.
[quote]Copts allowed divorces [only for the faithful spouse that was cheated upon][/quote]

The []'s text had me somewhat confused. Did you mean just that the faithful spouse could request the divorce?
Or are you seperating the couple somewhat. As in, the wife cheated, so they 'divorced' the husband from the marriage so he could marry again, but not the wife? I suppose this goes back to my above question.

Thanks again for the responses.

Sorry for butting in again, but honestly, on this subject I don't really know where else to turn. And since you guys are debating it, figured I could toss in a few ?s. If you'd like it to be kept btwn you two, just let me know and I'll stop posting.

Edited May 2, 2007 by CatholicCid

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1262253' date='May 1 2007, 11:08 PM']Thanks for the speedy reply.
Why do you think this would be though? If the divorce is allowable, then this would just to seem to be a punishment. If the person marries again though, that can't be adultery, can it?

For the second line, yeah, after reading it over a few more times, it began to make more sense.
One of your comments had me wondering again though. More so how you worded it.
The []'s text had me somewhat confused. Did you mean just that the faithful spouse could request the divorce?
Or are you seperating the couple somewhat. As in, the wife cheated, so they 'divorced' the husband from the marriage so he could marry again, but not the wife? I suppose this goes back to my above question.

Thanks again for the responses.

Sorry for butting in again, but honestly, on this subject I don't really know where else to turn. And since you guys are debating it, figured I could toss in a few ?s. If you'd like it to be kept btwn you two, just let me know and I'll stop posting.[/quote]

Oh don't worry, you're not butting in... this is an open discussion.

What I meant was that the faithful spouse can remarry, not the adulterer [the person that was unfaithful]. As I'd mentioned previously thou, someone else told me that Copts don't allow remarriage, so I'm going to have to check more into it, maybe I misinterpreted my father of confession.

[RezaMikhaeil]

K... so I checked into it and Copts have the same tradition as Roman Catholics. Even in the case of infidelity/unchastity neither are allowed to remarry, after being married, victim or not, so apparently I'd been arguing for those Orthodox Churches [maybe Eastern Orthodox? Dunno] that do allow multiple marriages.

Reza

[Era Might]

[quote][code]No rather, you've elevated particular Church father's that go along with your theology, but not taken their teachings as a whole. As I'd mentioned if you believe that St. Clement of Alexandria is this infallible source, then you should follow his full teachings, not just elements that apply to that which you believe...[/code]

[code]It's a shame that the Early Church Fathers disagreed on a variety of issues, and didn't have a universal agreement on a variety of topics. There were a great amount that believed even widows weren't allowed to remarry, while others believed that widows could, but again to each their own opinion. In the east, we don't hold the Early Church Fathers to such high regard as being infallible in everything they wrote, it mattered what they wrote that should be seen in the proper light.[/code]

[code]No what I said is that the Early Church Fathers weren't universal in their theology. That just because several spoke about it, doesn't make it unfallible.[/code][/quote]
If you are going to argue that the Fathers believed the Sacrament is not permanent, that it could be broken and allow for remarriage, then you need to defend your position with evidence from the Fathers themselves. You have not given a defense of your own belief, except for appealing to an interpretation of Our Lord's words which has been contradicted by multiple Fathers of the Church.

We do not believe that individual Fathers are infallible either, but that they are infallible when they speak with unanimous consent. This does not mean that there are not one or two fathers who held a different opinion, but that most of the Fathers agree overwhelmingly. The doctrine that marriage is indissoluble and permanent, and that remarriage is never permissable for a divorced Christian, is one such doctrine where the Fathers agree universally. This was not a point of culture, but was a doctrine received from Christ himself through Revelation.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1262361' date='May 2 2007, 06:13 AM']If you are going to argue that the Fathers believed the Sacrament is not permanent, that it could be broken and allow for remarriage, then you need to defend your position with evidence from the Fathers themselves. You have not given a defense of your own belief, except for appealing to an interpretation of Our Lord's words which has been contradicted by multiple Fathers of the Church.

[code]No I don't because that isn't the major argument, the major argument is that the fathers that you quoted, said alot of different traditions that you [and most people] don't hold, which is what I'd proven. Just as these people were not infallible... I'm also using Jesus's Words themselves, and Jesus himself used the word "divorce" not "seperation", which were quite different. What do you think the Early Church Fathers did? They didn't just speak about tradition [if that was the case they wouldn't disagree on various issues] but rather it was their own exaggis also regarding the scriptures.[/code]

We do not believe that individual Fathers are infallible either, but that they are infallible when they speak with unanimous consent.

[code]Not every early church father spoke about this issue, so they didn't speak unanimously. St. Cyril of Alexandria said, "“It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour” giving evidence to marriage often dissolving because we're falling creatures", St John Chrysostom said, "better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul". The Holy St. Basil the Great, wrote in regards to a man who had been cheated by his wife, that the man is "pardonable" [to be excused] should he remarry, so as you can see... it wasn't "universal" amongst the early church, as you've suggested.[/code]

This does not mean that there are not one or two fathers who held a different opinion, but that most of the Fathers agree overwhelmingly.

[code]As I'd pointed out above, everyone of the early church fathers didn't overwhelmingly agree as you've suggested.[/code]

The doctrine that marriage is indissoluble and permanent, and that remarriage is never permissable for a divorced Christian, is one such doctrine where the Fathers agree universally.

[code]If you don't count St. Cyril, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, among others right?[/code]

This was not a point of culture, but was a doctrine received from Christ himself through Revelation.

[code]St. Clement had alot of "differing" theology that wasn't rooted in "culture". Read his triology and you'll see that his extreme views on modesty, poverty, etc. were not rooted in culture but the spiritual realm. St. John Chrysostom also wrote that women should cover their heads, where ever the angels are present, but I know few and far between people that adhere to those particular words of his, even thou they weren't rooted in culture but the scriptures. Jesus Christ himself wrote that a spouse has the right to divorce [dissolving the marriage] if the man/woman cheats [which was also repeated by St. John Chrysostom and others].[/code][/quote]

[Era Might]

Can I please have full references so that I can check the the quotes you gave and their context.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1261612' date='May 1 2007, 09:26 AM']You cited divorce in the Old Testament, but marriage was not a Sacrament in the Old Testament. This is why Christian marriage is so unique, because it is a supernatural bond, and was instituted (or elevated) to the grace of a Sacrament, which cannot be broken except by death.[/quote]
Can you reconcile Pope John Paul II's characterization of marriage as [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb96.htm"]"primordial sacrament"[/url] with your statement here? Just curious.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1262585' date='May 2 2007, 03:03 PM']Can you reconcile Pope John Paul II's characterization of marriage as [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb96.htm"]"primordial sacrament"[/url] with your statement here? Just curious.[/quote]
He isn't saying that marriage itself was a Sacrament in the Old Covenant, as we understand a Sacrament, but that the Sacrament is primordial because it is based on a natural institution that goes back to the beginning. The Council of Trent is very clear on this point:

[quote]If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.

--Session VII, Canon II[/quote]
The difference between marriage before the coming of Christ, and marriage after, is that it is now a Sacrament of the New Covenant. It communicates supernatural grace, and establishes a supernatural bond between the spouses that is broken only in death. Even today, marriages which are not Sacramental can be dissolved under certain circumstances, the so-called Pauline and Petrine privileges. The reason is because these are natural marriages, as they were before Christ.