Divorce In The Church

[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.

[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.