Something I'm curious about

[Spinnaker]

I read that the Eastern Orthodox Church will marry a person up to three times, but after that it's generally suggested they remain single. My question is, what if a person has been married three times or more prior to converting to Orthodoxy? Would the church recognize the person's current marriage if it was maybe their 4th or 5th?

This doesn't really apply to me in any way, I was just kind of curious about it.

 

[Knee V]

Nothing "counts" prior to converting. Nothing one may have done prior to becoming Orthodox will affect anything. However, if a person was married numerous times before becoming Orthodox, it is possible that their priest may have them approach marriage differently than someone who has never been married, since they've experienced a lot of hurt from those marriages and may need to heal from them in some way.

 

[Knee V]

Another similar example is someone who converted after being a celibate deacon in another church (either Eastern Catholic or non-Chalcedonian, I think). After converting he held no ordained office, as ordinations don't carry over with us upon conversion. He wanted to marry and then become a deacon. His bishop wouldn't allow that. His reason was that he wouldn't let his conversion to Orthodoxy simply be a way of escaping a difficult vow that he had made previously. So he let him either marry and not be ordained, or be ordained a deacon and remain celibate.

 

[buzuxi02]

To add to Knee-V post. Its up to the bishop to determine what these previous marriages before conversion constituted. Determining this can have an impact, not necessarily in cases where the new convert gets married a first time in an Orthodox Church, but instead if that marriage fails as well and the individual seeks to remarry again..

Even in Orthodoxy a third marriage can be declined (even a second). In actuality the Church can turn down any marriage request. In Orthodoxy, marriage is a sacrament in which you request the Church to marry you. The Church will (usually) grant this request but not always.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Just to clarify, after a third marriage it's not "generally suggested" one remains single, but (and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong) but one will not remain Orthodox and get married a 4th time. You may be married up to three times, but you will not be married more than that in The Church (and, of course, to get married outside The Church is to excommunicate oneself).

 

[buzuxi02]

Joseph that may be be the case depending on what you mean "not generally suggested one remain single". After ones child bearing years come to an end and was a widow it was suggested by Paul and the early church in Her practice for caring for widows over 40, that it was suggested one should remain single


After baptism it is sanctioned up to three marriages, but even a third marriage is considered something less. Third marriages are readily declined by the Church, but not first nor even second. The modern concept of 'serial monogamy' would have been unthinkable, as the conversation Christ had with the Samaritan women demonstrates:

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.” John 4.15-18

 

[Sayre]

Joseph that may be be the case depending on what you mean "not generally suggested one remain single". After ones child bearing years come to an end and was a widow it was suggested by Paul and the early church in Her practice for caring for widows over 40, that it was suggested one should remain single


After baptism it is sanctioned up to three marriages, but even a third marriage is considered something less. Third marriages are readily declined by the Church, but not first nor even second. The modern concept of 'serial monogamy' would have been unthinkable, as the conversation Christ had with the Samaritan women demonstrates:

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.” John 4.15-18

Interesting. Does the EO not teach that divorce is a sin?

 

[Shiranui117]

Interesting. Does the EO not teach that divorce is a sin?

As far as I know (already-Orthodox, please correct me if I'm wrong), divorce is still seen as a sin--it's just that it can be better for the spiritual health of one or both spouses if the marriage is ended and they're not forced to live together in a failed, fruitless, and potentially harmful and damaging relationship. A huge point of marriage is for husband and wife to help each other in their walk with Christ, and if their marriage turns sour and begins to actually hamper each others' walk in Christ, it'd be better to live with the sin of divorce than to be in a relationship where the spiritual/emotional/mental/physical health of one or both spouses is endangered.

 

[buzuxi02]

Divorce is a tragedy, the sin is when you remarry while your first spouse still lives. In the early Church a divorced couple was expected to remain single- that is celibate for as long as the spouse is alive, contracting a second marriage while your first spouse still lived would have been considered adultery as per Christ's teaching. Most of the Father's teachings on divorce did not center on the sinfulness of seperation, but on the sinfullness of remarriage when your original spouse is still alive.

Athenagoras of Athens in 177ad puts it this way:

"Jesus says, for whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery. He does not permit a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again.. For in the beginning God made one man and one woman.


This was because there was always a chance for reconcilliation, remarriage would end any hope for reconcilliation and go against the teaching that the man leaves his mother and father and is joined to his wife and the two become one. Thus second marriages were reserved for those widowed.
(There were always exceptions to the rule of course. The Novatian schismatics for example were condemned for being too strict, that is they shunned all association with any christian twice married regardless of circumstances).

Methodius writing in 290 a.d. explains remarriage for those widowed young:

..."On the other hand...on account of the strength of animal passion, Paul allows 'by permission' one who is in such a condition to contract a second marriage.. He allows a second marriage to those who are burdened with the disease of the passions, lest they be wholly defiled by fornication".

The Apostolic Constitutions compiled in 390 AD makes clear that remarriage is not the norm but for the laity up to three marriages are allowed:

Let not the younger widows be placed in the order of widows, lest... they come to a second marriageand become subject to sin...For you should know this marrying once according to the Law is righteousness, as being according to the will of God. But second marriages, made after the promise are wicked, not because of the marriage itself but because of the falsehood. Third marriages are indications of incontinency. But any marriages beyond the third are manifest fornication. But to the younger women, let a second marriage be allowed after the death of their first husband (see 1Tim 5.9).

For clergy the rule was more strict because of the command found in 1Tim 3.2-12, 5.9

He who has been twice married after baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot be made bishop, presbyter, or deacon or indeed any of the priestly category.

 

[buzuxi02]

As far as I know (already-Orthodox, please correct me if I'm wrong), divorce is still seen as a sin--it's just that it can be better for the spiritual health of one or both spouses if the marriage is ended and they're not forced to live together in a failed, fruitless, and potentially harmful and damaging relationship. A huge point of marriage is for husband and wife to help each other in their walk with Christ, and if their marriage turns sour and begins to actually hamper each others' walk in Christ, it'd be better to live with the sin of divorce than to be in a relationship where the spiritual/emotional/mental/physical health of one or both spouses is endangered.

This would be correct as the Church views certain categories of harmful practises in a relationship as being within the realm of adultery, which is the only allowance for divorce. That is adultery is a betrayal and/or abandonment of your spouse.

When the Church saw that in many cases the hope for reconcilliation was completely lost and the relationship damaged beyond repair remarriage was permitted.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Coming from Catholicism I found the Orthodox position on divorce and remarriage a tough obstacle, and I still find it to be an issue with which I struggle as I share Rusmeister's disdain for divorce. Chesterton was right on the issue. I think Our Lord makes it quite clear that divorce, except for issues of inappropriate contenteia is not ok. He makes it clear that it was a concession Moses gave that was unacceptable. He points out to us the Genesis unity of man and woman and the sublime nature of matrimony that cannot be undone. Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12, etc. is pretty clear. When I read the Fathers on the issue, it always seemed the consensus that remarriage except under a few circumstances was not allowed. Yet I also know there were divorces permitted in the Roman Empire back in the days of Constantine, Justinian, and the gang? I can't help but feel these allowances given are not something the Church should really allow based on Scripture, the Fathers, and the obvious words of Our Lord, but for now I just accept it and scratch my head....

 

[ArmyMatt]

Interesting. Does the EO not teach that divorce is a sin?

depends on why someone is getting a divorce. if one spouse is abusive, cheats, etc, then yes, one can. even the Gospels permit divorce under such circumstances. but it is never seen as good, although permissable some times due to man's fallenness.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Lord cites inappropriate contenteia as the only real reason for divorce, and even then things sound shakey and unlikely to be worthy of divorce. I still think the Church needs to nail down this doctrine better.

depends on why someone is getting a divorce. if one spouse is abusive, cheats, etc, then yes, one can. even the Gospels permit divorce under such circumstances. but it is never seen as good, although permissable some times due to man's fallenness.

 

[Kristos]

I've been married 3 times - but all to the same girl

 

[buzuxi02]

The Lord cites inappropriate contenteia as the only real reason for divorce, and even then things sound shakey and unlikely to be worthy of divorce. I still think the Church needs to nail down this doctrine better.

The early church allowed for divorce but not remarriage while the first spouse was still alive. The Shepherd of Hermas written in 140 AD that if a wife is sent away because of adultery its encouraged to reconciliate but only if she truly repents. One is discouraged to reconcilliate of it involved serial adultery because it's akin to recrucifying Christ over and over.

In the case of widows it was better to remain single but it is not a sin if the widow remarried. Hermas is also the same document that explains that divorce and remarriage is only forbidden because it puts an end to any hope of reconciliation with the spouse of ones Youth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Lord cites inappropriate contenteia as the only real reason for divorce, and even then things sound shakey and unlikely to be worthy of divorce. I still think the Church needs to nail down this doctrine better.

yeah it's dicey, but I know the Church has reasons she allows for such flexibility. but I also think that folks take too much advantage of the flexibility that is allowed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For sure

yeah it's dicey, but I know the Church has reasons she allows for such flexibility. but I also think that folks take too much advantage of the flexibility that is allowed.

 

[buzuxi02]

yeah it's dicey, but I know the Church has reasons she allows for such flexibility. but I also think that folks take too much advantage of the flexibility that is allowed.

I agree. And this flexibility is not new just more prevalent. Origen clearly stated that the bishops in his age allowed remarriage after divorce but that in past ages it was even more rare .

Hippolytus found many faults with Pope Callistus , one of these faults which is why Hippolytus set himself up as antipope , was that pope Callistus was ordaining not only twice married but also thrice married men into the clergy. Which indeed was and is quite the novelty.

This means that up to three marriages were sanctioned for the laity only, and that too was a rarity.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And this flexibility is not new just more prevalent.

yeah, it seems that just because folks CAN do something, that they SHOULD do it, which is not always the case.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well St. John Chrysostom said the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. It reminds us of how their overuse of leniency as well as their laxity can bring on not only sin into the lives of parishioners, but into their own salvation equation as well! Divorce and birth control seem to be a de facto rubber-stamped ok thing to do these days.