Before A Reunion Happens Between East And West

[Dave]

Of course, the Catholic Church doesn't permit divorce and remarriage. However, the Eastern Orthodox do -- they allow divorced people to remarry no more than twice. And while they consider the remarriages valid, they don't consider them sacramental.

My question is, how big an obstacle would that be to a reunion with Rome? I don't think the East is going to change its marriage laws just like that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I've wondered this myself Dave. I look forward to hearing what people have to say.

[God Conquers]

hmmm, I didn't know about this.

Would those marriages become invalid upon reunion? If so, that would pose a major problem.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I would guess that those marriages would be made a "special exception" and the practice discontinued. I dunno, though.

[PhatPhred]

Given that the Eastern Orthodox practice was already long established by 400 A.D., I don't see why it would be more of a problem if and when East and West reunite than it was before they split in 1054 A.D.

Edited February 20, 2004 by PhatPhred

[Aloysius]

ich... but God hates divorce, or so says the early Church. unless they conform to only practicing annulments showing the first marriage wasn't a valid marriage, i cannot see reunion. we cannot have special exceptions "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder, except if they're Eastern Orthodox"

[Laudate_Dominum]

Given that the Eastern Orthodox practice was already long established by 400 A.D., I don't see why it would be more of a problem if and when East and West reunite than it was before they split in 1054 A.D.

Are you sure it goes back that far? Do you have any documentation by chance? That would be interesting.

I know an Eastern Orthodox guy who divorced and remarried and it was a hassle for him, and his second marriage ceremony was a penitential service, it's not a joyful service like his first wedding. So I don't think its taken lightly.

And if only the first marriage is considered Sacramental, that kind of implies that the the divorce isn't really effective. I wish there were Orthodox PM members who could explain their perspective.

[PhatPhred]

The Canons of St. Basil from 370 A.D. (this is an HTML link!!!) is the source referenced in the book Byzantine Theology by John Meyendorff. I've read a lot of conflicting things about if these canons have the authority of the Catholic Church or not, but it is clear that they represent the historical practice of the East, and are followed in the Orthodox Church even today.

[Aloysius]

i still think that we'd havta require the annulment process, it's too vital a part of marital theology... joined till death parts, and only death, no man has the authority to break it apart. it doesn't really matter if it goes back that far, the East/West division in the 11th century had deep roots.

[IcePrincessKRS]

You're prolly right, Al.

[PhatPhred]

joined till death parts, and only death, no man has the authority to break it apart.  it doesn't really matter if it goes back that far, the East/West division in the 11th century had deep roots.

This is another difference between East and West. From Meyendorff:

The Byzantine theological, liturgical, and canonical tradition unanimously stresses the absolute uniqueness of Christian marriage, and bases this emphasis upon the teaching of Ephesians 5.  As a sacrament, or mysterion, marriage reflects the union between Christ and the Church, between Yahweh and Israel, and as such can be only one -- an eternal bond, which death itself does not destroy.  In its sacramental nature, marriage transfigures and transcends both fleshly union and contractual legal association: human love is being projected into the eternal Kingdom of God.

...

It maintained, however, at least in principle, an essential distinction between the first and the following marriages: a special service was introduced for the latter, dissociated from the Eucharist and penitential in character.  It was understood, therefore, that second and third marriages were not the norm, and as such were deficient sacramentally.  The most striking difference between the Byzantine theology of marriage and its medieval Latin counterpart is that the Byzantines strongly emphasized the unicity of Christian marriage and the eternity of the marriage bond; they never considered that Christian marriage was a legal contract, automatically dissolved by the death of one of the partners.  Remarriage of the widowed was only tolerated by them, as was the remarriage of the divorced.  But this "toleration" did not mean approval.  It implied repentance, and remarriage was allowed only to those men or women whose previous marriages could be considered as non-existent in practice (the various imperial codes lists the cases).  Meanwhile, the Latin West became legally intolerant toward divorce, while admitting, without limitation, any number of remarriages after widowhood.  Guided in its practice by the legal notion of contract, indissoluble as long as both parties were alive, the West seemed to ignore the idea that marriage, if it is a sacrament, has to be projected as an eternal bond into the Kingdom of God; that like all sacraments marriage requires a free response and implies the possibility of human rejection and human mistake; and that after such a sinful rejection or human mistake, repentance always allows a new beginning.  This is the theological basis for the toleration of divorce in the early Christian Church, as well as in Byzantium.

This difference in approach to marriage was the cause of the Tetragamy Affair in 905 A.D., where Pope Sergius III allowed the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI over the objection of the Patriarch of Constantinople. (Emperor Leo VI had been widowed three times before age 35, without producing a male heir, and the Patriarch had banned Leo from the church after he conducted a fourth marriage with his mistress who had given him a son.)

i still think that we'd havta require the annulment process, it's too vital a part of marital theology...

At least as long as we have our current Pope. At the Sixth Synod of Bishops (1980, Synod on the Family), there was a strong demand to study the practice of the Orthodox Church as regards the toleration of remarriage after divorce and reception of the Eucharist. However, in a striking blow to the collegiality described by the Vatican II Council, Pope John Paul II refused to let the bishops even study the Orthodox practice.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I have a good friend who is Orthodox, he's actually one of the most learned people I know, and he once told me something that I think is cool, especially coming from someone in the East. He said that he considers things like the celibate clergy and no divorce in the Roman Church to be a blessing. He says he thinks its part of the special charism of Rome since it is the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. I thought that was a beautiful thing for an Orthodox to say.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The Canons of St. Basil from 370 A.D. (this is an HTML link!!!) is the source referenced in the book Byzantine Theology by John Meyendorff. I've read a lot of conflicting things about if these canons have the authority of the Catholic Church or not, but it is clear that they represent the historical practice of the East, and are followed in the Orthodox Church even today.

Man, those canons are intense!!

CANON VII.

They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion.

CANON VIII.

He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of wilful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and undesignedly kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defence, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it die upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees.

"brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters", those must have been interesting times.