Divorce In The Church

[Sojourner]

interesting, thanks for the clarification.


I hope you are planning to get a degree in theology at some point, btw.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1262585' date='May 2 2007, 04:03 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]My own take on this term differs from Era Mights, based on briefly reviewing your link. It seems like the term "primordial sacrament" may also be linking marriage to its purpose: having children. In this way, we actually participate in the act of a new creation (i.e. a baby), linking us back to the original act of Creation at the beginning of time.

Just a thought.

[Era Might]

Good point, and I agree. The dictionary defines primordial as "constituting a beginning; giving origin to something derived or developed; original; elementary." The Sacrament is primordial in both senses, it is bound up in the creating power of God, but also in terms of being a Sacrament, it is derived from the natural marriage which preceded it. The elevation of the Sacrament is an important distinction, because the seven Sacraments are unique to the New Covenant; marriage in particular has undergone a decisive alteration, it is elevated from what it was before. It is now ordered in a special way toward grace, and not only toward nature. This is why divorce and remarriage is impossible for Christian spouses.

John Paul says that "according to these words, marriage is a sacrament inasmuch as it is an integral part and, I would say, the central point of 'the sacrament of creation.' In this sense it is the primordial sacrament." This is interesting because in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" he talks about man as a Priest of all creation, and here he refers to marriage in a certain sense as a natural Sacrament. It is a visible sign of the communication of life, and in its elevation to a Christian Sacrament, grace builds upon nature and brings the bond of marriage to its perfection. In the beginning Adam and Eve knew nothing of divorce and remarriage. The elevation of marriage to a Sacrament restores this imperishable bond between man and woman, which had been lost through sin. Moses permitted divorce for the hardness of their hearts, but Christ came to restore us to the beginning (the central theme of John Paul's theology).

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1262580' date='May 2 2007, 12:54 PM']Can I please have full references so that I can check the the quotes you gave and their context.[/quote]

No I can't, as I just did a quick google search for various quotes from orthodox websites, in order to prove the point. Go to google and do your own searches and maybe you'll find them. Here's a link to an orthodox article written by a bishop that goes over some points: [url="http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm"]http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/a..._remarriage.htm[/url]

Reza

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1262671' date='May 2 2007, 03:38 PM']My own take on this term differs from Era Mights, based on briefly reviewing your link. It seems like the term "primordial sacrament" may also be linking marriage to its purpose: having children. In this way, we actually participate in the act of a new creation (i.e. a baby), linking us back to the original act of Creation at the beginning of time.

Just a thought.[/quote]
Good thought! Thanks.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1262863' date='May 2 2007, 07:13 PM']Good point, and I agree. The dictionary defines primordial as "constituting a beginning; giving origin to something derived or developed; original; elementary." The Sacrament is primordial in both senses, it is bound up in the creating power of God, but also in terms of being a Sacrament, it is derived from the natural marriage which preceded it. The elevation of the Sacrament is an important distinction, because the seven Sacraments are unique to the New Covenant; marriage in particular has undergone a decisive alteration, it is elevated from what it was before. It is now ordered in a special way toward grace, and not only toward nature. This is why divorce and remarriage is impossible for Christian spouses.

John Paul says that "according to these words, marriage is a sacrament inasmuch as it is an integral part and, I would say, the central point of 'the sacrament of creation.' In this sense it is the primordial sacrament." This is interesting because in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" he talks about man as a Priest of all creation, and here he refers to marriage in a certain sense as a natural Sacrament. It is a visible sign of the communication of life, and in its elevation to a Christian Sacrament, grace builds upon nature and brings the bond of marriage to its perfection. In the beginning Adam and Eve knew nothing of divorce and remarriage. The elevation of marriage to a Sacrament restores this imperishable bond between man and woman, which had been lost through sin. Moses permitted divorce for the hardness of their hearts, but Christ came to restore us to the beginning (the central theme of John Paul's theology).[/quote]
Thanks so much for your further thoughts ... that totally makes sense that the nature of marriage would have changed as a result of the fall, but with the coming of Christ it was restored to its original state.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1262871' date='May 2 2007, 09:30 PM']No I can't, as I just did a quick google search for various quotes from orthodox websites, in order to prove the point. Go to google and do your own searches and maybe you'll find them. Here's a link to an orthodox article written by a bishop that goes over some points: [url="http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm"]http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/a..._remarriage.htm[/url][/quote]Just FYI, it is not terribly convincing to make claims which you cannot back up with support such as a direct. The burden of proof is not on Era Might. The weakness of your unsubstantiated claim reflects poorly on your argument, not his.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1263000' date='May 2 2007, 09:26 PM']Just FYI, it is not terribly convincing to make claims which you cannot back up with support such as a direct. The burden of proof is not on Era Might. The weakness of your unsubstantiated claim reflects poorly on your argument, not his.[/quote]

I gave quotes that he said didn't exist. I even gave a link to an orthodox bishop [thou eastern orthodox I think] that also gave quotes and a commentary. The burden is on him, because he made outrageous claims that the early church fathers agreed unanimously on this issue, in which they don't. As I'd mentioned, Jesus Christ's own words is what should be examined, and his words are very clear that if a spouse is unfaithful then divorce is allowed.

Reza

Edited May 3, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[RezaMikhaeil]

If you want something closer, then let me give you more information

[code]St. John Chrysostom emphisizes, a second marriage is not in itself forbidden, "for it is not the union that is objectionable, but the multitude of cares that attend it." [Homily VII Timothy iii.1-7, NPNFI, Vol 13, p. 503][/code]

[Era Might]

The quotes you gave me are one sentence, with no context provided whatsoever; by the way, I haven't been writing out my citations either, to save time, but if you need them I can provide them, and I linked to one source below. I believe I have provided sufficient context, however, in each citation. The website you linked does not give provide any context either, and the footnotes do not point to original sources, but (apparantly) to Orthodox books of theology. The context you are trying to impose on at least one of your quotes is mitigated by a fuller citation I gave from St. John Chrysostom earlier:

[quote]How then does He answer them? "Have ye not read, that He which made them atthe beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall beone flesh? So that they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

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.

But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many women.

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.

And see how He says, "He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female," that is, from one root they sprung, and into one body came they together, "for the twain shall be one flesh."

After this, to make it a fearful thing to find fault with this lawgiving, and to confirm the law, He said not, "Sever not therefore, nor put asunder," but, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200162.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200162.htm[/url][/quote]
We will have to agree to disagree.

[RezaMikhaeil]

yeah I didn't see the St. John Chrysostom quote that I'd posted in:

[code]How then does He answer them? "Have ye not read, that He which made them atthe beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall beone flesh? So that they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

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.

But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many women.

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.

And see how He says, "He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female," that is, from one root they sprung, and into one body came they together, "for the twain shall be one flesh."

After this, to make it a fearful thing to find fault with this lawgiving, and to confirm the law, He said not, "Sever not therefore, nor put asunder," but, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder."[/code]

but it's all good.

[Era Might]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1263037' date='May 3 2007, 12:16 AM']If you want something closer, then let me give you more information

[code]St. John Chrysostom emphisizes, a second marriage is not in itself forbidden, "for it is not the union that is objectionable, but the multitude of cares that attend it." [Homily VII Timothy iii.1-7, NPNFI, Vol 13, p. 503][/code][/quote]
Thank you for the citation. I found it online, and here is the fuller context:

[quote]For “she that liveth in pleasure is dead whilst she liveth.” (1 Tim. v. 6.) If remaining a widow, thou wouldest have the same pomp, the same show, the same attire, as thou hadst while thy husband was living, it were better for thee to marry. For it is not the union that is objectionable, but the multitude of cares that attend it. But that which is not wrong, thou dost not: but that which is not indifferent, which is liable to blame, in that thou involvest thyself. On this account “some have turned aside after Satan,” because they have not been able to live properly as widows.[/quote]
Here St. John Chrysostom is speaking of widows, who are allowed to remarry in the Catholic Church, because the Sacramental bond ends in death. This is why context and citations are so important, this passage has nothing to do with divorce and remarriage, but with widowers.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1263059' date='May 2 2007, 10:42 PM']Thank you for the citation. I found it online, and here is the fuller context:
Here St. John Chrysostom is speaking of widows, who are allowed to remarry in the Catholic Church, because the Sacramental bond ends in death. This is why context and citations are so important, this passage has nothing to do with divorce and remarriage, but with widowers.[/quote]

What about the other quote: As I'd mentioned, I wasn't using this to justify the proper interpretation of Jesus's words, but to prove that the early church fathers didn't agree in unison [as my other quotes you're also welcome to analyize].

but on a short angle... you probably got me in a hole [as I was morely playing the devil's advocate]. Dang it...

Note: I'm pretty sure that the Oriental Orthodox as a whole don't allow remarriage and practice the same as the Roman Catholic Church

reza

Edited May 3, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Era Might]

I wasn't trying to just throw quote for quote. I realize that books could be written about this topic. But, I think the overwhelming witness of the early Church shows that marriage was considered a permanent institution throughout life, and that Our Lord's words permitted separation only, not remarriage. For us, this is important, because the Fathers are the chief guardians of the faith. Pope Leo XIII explains how Catholics understand the role of the Fathers:

[quote]His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its "mind" to be this - that "in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers." By this most wise decree the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress.

...

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith - what they are unanimous in.

--Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus Deus"[/quote]
The Fathers did sometimes hold opinions which were later corrected by the Church. However, what we believe is that the Fathers cannot err when they agree overwhelmingly and firmly on a point of faith and morals. This is why the Fathers are so important to the Catholic understanding of marriage, because they illuminate our interpretation of Scripture. The words of Our Lord speak only of divorce for grave reasons, not remarriage, and this interpretation is validated by the Fathers.

I think the best thing we can take from this discussion is to look to the Fathers for ourselves. We may not resolve our disagreement, but hopefully we can study further to test which understanding of marriage is more true to the early Church and the text of Scripture itself.

Peace.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1263106' date='May 3 2007, 05:09 AM']I wasn't trying to just throw quote for quote. I realize that books could be written about this topic. But, I think the overwhelming witness of the early Church shows that marriage was considered a permanent institution throughout life, and that Our Lord's words permitted separation only, not remarriage. For us, this is important, because the Fathers are the chief guardians of the faith. Pope Leo XIII explains how Catholics understand the role of the Fathers:
The Fathers did sometimes hold opinions which were later corrected by the Church. However, what we believe is that the Fathers cannot err when they agree overwhelmingly and firmly on a point of faith and morals. This is why the Fathers are so important to the Catholic understanding of marriage, because they illuminate our interpretation of Scripture. The words of Our Lord speak only of divorce for grave reasons, not remarriage, and this interpretation is validated by the Fathers.

I think the best thing we can take from this discussion is to look to the Fathers for ourselves. We may not resolve our disagreement, but hopefully we can study further to test which understanding of marriage is more true to the early Church and the text of Scripture itself.

Peace.[/quote]

Naw I'm wit ya man, I was really just being antagonistic, play devil's advocate, that kinda thang. As I mentioned, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on this issue [as re-marriage isn't allowed in our churches either]. I actually should be thanking you, cause I'd previously thought that we did allow divorce, and this got me to review what our church holds to be true. As I'd mentioned, I never had to deal with divorce issues, so I'm not very familiar with it, but this is got me thinking. Normally I go wit what the church fathers wrote also [as it's what led me to Coptic Orthodoxy], but for the sake of discussion, I decided to push the envelope and in your case, it's good that you know your stuff, cause you cornered me multiple times, but for the sake of trying to push the envelope for a hopefully good discussion, I avoided it to try and get the other side, in which apparently it didn't work well for me.

Reza

Edited May 3, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1263109' date='May 3 2007, 08:19 AM']As I mentioned, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on this issue [as re-marriage isn't allowed in our churches either]. I actually should be thanking you, cause I'd previously thought that we did allow divorce, and this got me to review what our church holds to be true.[/quote]Now, I'm utterly confused.