Orthodox View on Divorce?

ArmyMatt · Jun 6, 2019

actually, Christ says you may get divorced IF adultery has been committed.

rusmeister · Jun 6, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
actually, Christ says you may get divorced IF adultery has been committed.

I know what Christ said. But if you think that means that Christ was giving license, I think that you’re mistaken. He puts up with a lot of cr*p out of the hardness of our hearts, and all of the polygamy in the OT is of the same fabric, but that’s NOT the ideal we are called to.

The story of Hosea being told to marry the prostitute and remain faithful to her in spite of her continuing her trade means something, and is a type of Christ.
Again, would Christ divorce His Church, which is unfaithful again and again?

(Again, I’m saying this ONLY to professing Christians, who claim to believe in taking up one’s cross and loving their enemies.)

truefiction1 · Jun 6, 2019

Does anyone know the reason why Saint David IV, the godly king of Georgia, divorced his first wife, Rusudan, princess of Armenia, in the year 1107 AD, and then married Gurandukht, daughter of a Kipchak chieftain?

truefiction1 · Jun 6, 2019

rusmeister said:
I know what Christ said. But if you think that means that Christ was giving license, I think that you’re mistaken. He puts up with a lot of cr*p out of the hardness of our hearts, and all of the polygamy in the OT is of the same fabric, but that’s NOT the ideal we are called to.

The story of Hosea being told to marry the prostitute and remain faithful to her in spite of her continuing her trade means something, and is a type of Christ.
Again, would Christ divorce His Church, which is unfaithful again and again?

(Again, I’m saying this ONLY to professing Christians, who claim to believe in taking up one’s cross and loving their enemies.)

Virginity (celibacy) is the ideal put forth by Christ (Matthew 19:10-11), but not everyone can accept it, but only those to whom it is given. The ideal of the eternal marriage (largely unaccepted/denied outside of the Orthodox Church) of one man with one woman is yet another ideal, but here also, it is given only to some, and not to everyone. For those whose first marriages were dissolved either by the death of one spouse, or by sin, there is mercy bestowed upon those not able to receive this. This mercy often takes the form of bishops permitting the remarriage of both widows and divorcees to other spouses. Are there many abuses? Yes. But the abuses do nothing to thwart the truth of the holiness of virginity or of unbroken, eternal marriage bonds. It's a very sinful and evil world we live in, with many a hard heart, abounding everywhere, and not getting less sinful or evil.

I fully agree with you that we (Orthodox Christians) must do more to treat, both in word and in deeds, Orthodox Christian marriage with the utmost regard, and I join you in your lament for the pervasive contempt that many of our people have grown to have for the Lord's teaching about Holy Marriage. I too was guilty of this spiritual ignorance at a much earlier time, but by the grace of God I now understand better about how He sees marriage, having attained more of the mind of Christ. Divorce is indeed a grave tragedy. Lord have mercy on us.

rusmeister · Jun 7, 2019

I actually mostly agree. The only thing I don’t agree on is talking about the ideal being given to some, and not others. The ideal is what we are called to. To say the ideal is not given to even some of us is to deny the necessity of becoming like Christ for theosis. The ideal is given to all. Yes, we may fall. But we must not say that it is OK to fall, and that falling is perfectly acceptable. Some gifts, yes, are given to some and not others, but that is not in reference to the ideal of holiness, which regarding marriage consists in being faithful in marriage for your entire life, regardless of what one’s spouse does.

In the fallen world, yes, that means that some of us are in second marriages, or if we are luckier, have been forgiven and had our first restored. But the whole question for the Christian is, how do I hold marriage NOW? And the answer MUST mean the adoption of that ideal. That ideal is not optional for some. If you claim to be a Christian, from henceforth that means living it out. If you’re in a second marriage, remain faithful in it. Go and sin no more. But we must dismiss the idea that if “it doesn’t work, I can use the escape hatch of divorce”. Indeed, the secret of hope of any real happiness in marriage includes throwing away the escape hatch. The past is the past, and we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. But we are still called to that glory, as close as we can come, and that means fulfilling the ideal in continual repentance, and that includes repentance/metanoia about our very attitudes toward marriage that mirror those of the world, and not of the Church.

(Anything I say MAY be refuted, if it can be shown that Scripture and the fathers (etc.) say otherwise. Any attitude that is NOT open to correction from Holy Tradition is not Orthodox.)

truefiction1 · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
I actually mostly agree. The only thing I don’t agree on is talking about the ideal being given to some, and not others. The ideal is what we are called to. To say the ideal is not given to even some of us is to deny the necessity of becoming like Christ for theosis. The ideal is given to all. Yes, we may fall. But we must not say that it is OK to fall, and that falling is perfectly acceptable. Some gifts, yes, are given to some and not others, but that is not in reference to the ideal of holiness, which regarding marriage consists in being faithful in marriage for your entire life, regardless of what one’s spouse does.

If the ultimate ideal is complete celibacy (which it is) then it, according to Scripture and its interpretation by the fathers, is an ideal that is given to some, and not to others. And the reality is... a marriage that is not destroyed by sin and thus, endures for eternity in the Kingdom which is to come, is given to some, but not to others. Otherwise, nobody would ever be, or have been, remarried to someone else after the death of their first spouse, or after being divorced from their first spouse. To say that the one eternal marriage ideal is not given to some, is merely a statement of observable fact.

ArmyMatt · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
I know what Christ said. But if you think that means that Christ was giving license, I think that you’re mistaken. He puts up with a lot of cr*p out of the hardness of our hearts, and all of the polygamy in the OT is of the same fabric, but that’s NOT the ideal we are called to.

The story of Hosea being told to marry the prostitute and remain faithful to her in spite of her continuing her trade means something, and is a type of Christ.
Again, would Christ divorce His Church, which is unfaithful again and again?

(Again, I’m saying this ONLY to professing Christians, who claim to believe in taking up one’s cross and loving their enemies.)

no, that wasn't Him giving a liscence, and yes, the ideal would be to remain faithful. but to say it's never in our tradition is false. the way divorce is viewed today is certainly not within our tradition to be sure, but divorce itself IS.

rusmeister · Jun 7, 2019

I don’t deny that divorce with an unbeliever - initiated by the unbeliever - is in Tradition. But I would deny that divorce between two practicing Orthodox Christians is. Please correct me on that one.

rusmeister · Jun 7, 2019

truefiction1 said:
If the ultimate ideal is complete celibacy (which it is) then it, according to Scripture and its interpretation by the fathers, is an ideal that is given to some, and not to others. And the reality is... a marriage that is not destroyed by sin and thus, endures for eternity in the Kingdom which is to come, is given to some, but not to others. Otherwise, nobody would ever be, or have been, remarried to someone else after the death of their first spouse, or after being divorced from their first spouse. To say that the one eternal marriage ideal is not given to some, is merely a statement of observable fact.

Complete celibacy, yes. But marriage has also always been a blessed part of our Tradition. I’m saying that divorce is not so blessed. So there IS a marriage ideal that is not celibacy. But there is no ideal of divorce.

truefiction1 · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
Complete celibacy, yes. But marriage has also always been a blessed part of our Tradition. I’m saying that divorce is not so blessed. So there IS a marriage ideal that is not celibacy. But there is no ideal of divorce.

I agree, but there is no ideal of any second marriage (2nd Church marriage, that is) - ever. Not even in the event of the death of one of the spouses, as is taught in most heterodox circles. This is why I've said that the ideal of one eternal marriage is given to some to realize, but not to all who've been married.

truefiction1 · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
I don’t deny that divorce with an unbeliever - initiated by the unbeliever - is in Tradition. But I would deny that divorce between two practicing Orthodox Christians is. Please correct me on that one.

Divorce of two Orthodox Christians can never be blessed, but only its occurrence recognized by the Church when it does happen.

ArmyMatt · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
I don’t deny that divorce with an unbeliever - initiated by the unbeliever - is in Tradition. But I would deny that divorce between two practicing Orthodox Christians is. Please correct me on that one.

Christ doesn't qualify it like that, He says adultery. He doesn't say adultery only with an unbeliever.

rusmeister · Jun 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
Christ doesn't qualify it like that, He says adultery. He doesn't say adultery only with an unbeliever.

Yes. Well, I did say “practicing”. And there are multiple issues. But I’m asking what Tradition points the betrayed and innocent believer towards, and from what I see, it isn't toward divorce. I don’t see any qualifiers on what we are excused from forgiving. There is no mandate to divorce.

If “no fault divorce” had not become a reality, we would not be having this conversation. The number of divorces in the Church would be close to what it was historically in Christendom - existent, but not in large numbers as we actually see happening in our time. And people do commit adultery; maybe they repent with bitter tears, maybe they don’t. But a great many cases in the Church are not due to adultery, yet still happen, with priests blessing second and third marriages. We have definitely given in on the ancient standard, let alone the ideal.

Both clergy and laity have come to see divorce as license, Fr Matt. And I grant that external society has played a role in that. But it should have been countered by voices calling more strongly against the tide of the world, and while I don’t see and hear everything, judging from what looks like a divorce rate pretty much equal to that of the world, I think I can safely say that not too many voices are speaking out strongly in the parishes urging faithfulness and discouraging the idea of divorce. The battle was lost in the world almost a century ago, but it ought to be ongoing in the Church. What I see is surrender to the world on the topic, and hardly any reminders that lifelong faithfulness is not optional.

It’s not about Catholic legalism. It’s about seeing that the key to love and happiness as feelings is learning to love as an action when its hard, that when there is no love it needs to be made, like in a factory. You need to turn on the machines and produce it, through hard work, and THAT makes restoration of the feelings possible - not guaranteed, but very possible.

That’s how I see the Gospel enacted in marriage. It was never about what we get out of it, but what we learn to give through sacrifice in order to make something lasting. Divorce undoes that, and we have minimized the evil of that denial and death of love, precisely when it is most needed, not only for a couple, or even their children, or their in-laws, neighbors and friends, but for all of us. Your divorce does affect me and vice-versa. The butterfly wing does result in a tsunami. It’s not a private affair, and we have bought into the world’s idea that it is.

ArmyMatt · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
Yes. Well, I did say “practicing”. And there are multiple issues. But I’m asking what Tradition points the betrayed and innocent believer towards, and from what I see, it isn't toward divorce. I don’t see any qualifiers on what we are excused from forgiving. There is no mandate to divorce.

If “no fault divorce” had not become a reality, we would not be having this conversation. The number of divorces in the Church would be close to what it was historically in Christendom - existent, but not in large numbers as we actually see happening in our time. And people do commit adultery; maybe they repent with bitter tears, maybe they don’t. But a great many cases in the Church are not due to adultery, yet still happen, with priests blessing second and third marriages. We have definitely given in on the ancient standard, let alone the ideal.

Both clergy and laity have come to see divorce as license, Fr Matt. And I grant that external society has played a role in that. But it should have been countered by voices calling more strongly against the tide of the world, and while I don’t see and hear everything, judging from what looks like a divorce rate pretty much equal to that of the world, I think I can safely say that not too many voices are speaking out strongly in the parishes urging faithfulness and discouraging the idea of divorce. The battle was lost in the world almost a century ago, but it ought to be ongoing in the Church. What I see is surrender to the world on the topic, and hardly any reminders that lifelong faithfulness is not optional.

It’s not about Catholic legalism. It’s about seeing that the key to love and happiness as feelings is learning to love as an action when its hard, that when there is no love it needs to be made, like in a factory. You need to turn on the machines and produce it, through hard work, and THAT makes restoration of the feelings possible - not guaranteed, but very possible.

That’s how I see the Gospel enacted in marriage. It was never about what we get out of it, but what we learn to give through sacrifice in order to make something lasting. Divorce undoes that, and we have minimized the evil of that denial and death of love, precisely when it is most needed, not only for a couple, or even their children, or their in-laws, neighbors and friends, but for all of us. Your divorce does affect me and vice-versa. The butterfly wing does result in a tsunami. It’s not a private affair, and we have bought into the world’s idea that it is.

but again, just because the modern world is too liberal with divorce (and it is), that doesn't mean it's completely outside of our tradition. Canon IX of St Basil permits it under adultery. Apostolic Canon XVII forbids ordination for someone who was married twice after baptism, which means it was permissible under certain conditions.

just because something is permitted, that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. so should divorce be encouraged even in cases of adultery? absolutely not. but it should still be permitted depending on the individual circumstances.

truefiction1 · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
Yes. Well, I did say “practicing”. And there are multiple issues. But I’m asking what Tradition points the betrayed and innocent believer towards, and from what I see, it isn't toward divorce. I don’t see any qualifiers on what we are excused from forgiving. There is no mandate to divorce.

If “no fault divorce” had not become a reality, we would not be having this conversation. The number of divorces in the Church would be close to what it was historically in Christendom - existent, but not in large numbers as we actually see happening in our time. And people do commit adultery; maybe they repent with bitter tears, maybe they don’t. But a great many cases in the Church are not due to adultery, yet still happen, with priests blessing second and third marriages. We have definitely given in on the ancient standard, let alone the ideal.

Both clergy and laity have come to see divorce as license, Fr Matt. And I grant that external society has played a role in that. But it should have been countered by voices calling more strongly against the tide of the world, and while I don’t see and hear everything, judging from what looks like a divorce rate pretty much equal to that of the world, I think I can safely say that not too many voices are speaking out strongly in the parishes urging faithfulness and discouraging the idea of divorce. The battle was lost in the world almost a century ago, but it ought to be ongoing in the Church. What I see is surrender to the world on the topic, and hardly any reminders that lifelong faithfulness is not optional.

It’s not about Catholic legalism. It’s about seeing that the key to love and happiness as feelings is learning to love as an action when its hard, that when there is no love it needs to be made, like in a factory. You need to turn on the machines and produce it, through hard work, and THAT makes restoration of the feelings possible - not guaranteed, but very possible.

That’s how I see the Gospel enacted in marriage. It was never about what we get out of it, but what we learn to give through sacrifice in order to make something lasting. Divorce undoes that, and we have minimized the evil of that denial and death of love, precisely when it is most needed, not only for a couple, or even their children, or their in-laws, neighbors and friends, but for all of us. Your divorce does affect me and vice-versa. The butterfly wing does result in a tsunami. It’s not a private affair, and we have bought into the world’s idea that it is.

Glad to see you write that it's not about Roman legalism, because, rather observably, that doesn't work. Their constituents commit adultery and engage in divorce, even when adultery isn't among the motives, at a rate about equal with the world as well. As far as the Gospel is concerned, it doesn't work when being used as a system of moral rules (a legal code) to control the behavior of a people, even the people of the Church. That isn't what the Gospel is. The Gospel must be preached in such a way as to have impact: impact that works to transform people from the inside out, by grace through faith.

Are we preaching the Gospel as we ought (i.e. are we believing it and living it ourselves)? I would have to say, given what I can observe in our people (at least in the regions that I'm familiar with), NO.

rusmeister · Jun 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
but again, just because the modern world is too liberal with divorce (and it is), that doesn't mean it's completely outside of our tradition. Canon IX of St Basil permits it under adultery. Apostolic Canon XVII forbids ordination for someone who was married twice after baptism, which means it was permissible under certain conditions.

just because something is permitted, that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. so should divorce be encouraged even in cases of adultery? absolutely not. but it should still be permitted depending on the individual circumstances.

Yes, but what I’m complaining about is the silence over the distinction between what is “permitted” because of the hardness of our hearts, and what we OUGHT to to and how we OUGHT to be. We are supposed to encourage each other toward the latter, and away from the former, but we don’t. We have made “the permissible” an acceptable and even positive norm. Trying to encourage each other toward what we are called to encounters stiff resistance within the Church among the very people who ought to affirm that calling, and the result in my parish alone has been nearly a forty percent divorce rate, and my perception is that the figure is not much lower in most parishes as an overall rate.

ArmyMatt · Jun 7, 2019

rusmeister said:
Yes, but what I’m complaining about is the silence over the distinction between what is “permitted” because of the hardness of our hearts, and what we OUGHT to to and how we OUGHT to be. We are supposed to encourage each other toward the latter, and away from the former, but we don’t. We have made “the permissible” an acceptable and even positive norm. Trying to encourage each other toward what we are called to encounters stiff resistance within the Church among the very people who ought to affirm that calling, and the result in my parish alone has been nearly a forty percent divorce rate, and my perception is that the figure is not much lower in most parishes as an overall rate.

I don't disagree, but that wasn't what you initially said. you said nowhere does our tradition say, "You may get divorced if..." that's not true.

rusmeister · Jun 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
I don't disagree, but that wasn't what you initially said. you said nowhere does our tradition say, "You may get divorced if..." that's not true.

Granted. But “may” is treated as “should”. And again, I’m talking about a mass of divorces where there is no adultery, and our pastors are silent.

ArmyMatt · Jun 8, 2019

rusmeister said:
Granted. But “may” is treated as “should”. And again, I’m talking about a mass of divorces where there is no adultery, and our pastors are silent.

well, if it's the liberality of divorce, I am with you. but I am just saying its permissibility is in our tradition, tragic as it is.

rusmeister · Jun 8, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
well, if it's the liberality of divorce, I am with you. but I am just saying its permissibility is in our tradition, tragic as it is.

All along I meant (and expressed badly) that I know it is permissible, but we are not called to what is permitted, and yes, people are now using that permission in light of the legalization of no-fault divorce in the 20th century to go far beyond what was permitted, and now the pastors are permitting such "no fault" (ie, no adultery, just "I feel unhappy with him/her") divorces on a large scale. That's what I'm kicking against, and I add for those that claim to be willing to really try to take up their crosses that for THEM, divorce should be impermissible to them not in the sense of being denied permission by others, but that they will not permit it to themselves, that they will cling to the insistence of self-sacrificial love without resentment or grudge.

Does that clarify my meaning a little?

Orthodox View on Divorce?

Regular Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Fool

Fool

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Fool

Regular Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Fool

Fool

Regular Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Regular Member

Fool

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Regular Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Regular Member

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian

Similar threads