AFR podcast divorce

[rusmeister]

Coping with Divorce | Ancient Faith Ministries

I finally got to listen to the entire podcast.
I don’t think the issue here is my personal opinions, but what is objective Church teaching in the sum of Holy Tradition and the consensus of the fathers and saints on that teaching throughout Church history. Also, I have not been divorced, but once upon a time, I came to the very edge. As a person who has maintained a difficult international marriage, and learned to love when the going gets super-tough, I know from nearly 32 years of direct experience how acrimonious, how blindly furious, how much sadness and a heart dulled by depression, the plates, pots and pans, thrown both figuratively and literally, and in general how hard the experience can be, and what is required to hold it together. People who think one must be divorced in order to understand those sad and horrible situations simply don’t know what even a successful marriage may require.

Before I fire any broadsides, I think I should make every effort to stress what these people get right. People - all of whom except for one recorded voice were women - are in pain. They suffer, and at times experience desires no one can approve of, right up to thoughts of murder and suicide. This pain requires compassion, and I give the Louhs and their guest speakers full marks for compassion. I would not criticize compassion in the least. Truth needs to be spoken in love, and without love, is just a bull in a china shop.

That said, I encountered the same general problem as in Met. Anthony Bloom’s book on marriage. When divorce becomes the topic, there was absolutely no reference to Tradition and Church teaching. It might as well have been a program run by heterodox, Hindus, or atheists. Sure, the name of Christ is occasionally mentioned, but His words? Not one. Spiritual fathers are referenced a couple of times. But nothing from Scripture, or the Church fathers. The assumptions were entirely those of the modern world. Granted that this was a podcast talking about coping with a divorce that had already happened, though they did touch on “being on the way to divorce”. Plenty of talk about self-care, worrying about yourself, everything the world teaches us, and which we walk into the Church already believing and thinking. And of course the Christian ideal never came up even once. The assumption is that it is unthinkable. Options like separating but remaining married and celibate - the one option that would leave open the possibility of restoring a marriage later when the spouses come to repentance - are simply not on the table. I’m not saying it’s desirable, but then, neither is martyrdom from our perspective, though some saints did desire it.

Real giveaways that there is no support for their views in Church Tradition come after the forty-minute mark. At 41 minutes, one of the speakers remarks that while we have public funeral services to grieve for lost loved ones, there is no practice or rite of open grieving in the Church for divorce. The reason why, again, never seems to occur to them, or even that there could be a reason. They assume that it’s a ball that the Church somehow “dropped” over its 2,000-year history. At about the 44-minute mark, the speaker talks about needing to go outside of the Church to find support for what she had chosen, and urges listeners to find “like-minded people” for support in the Church.

This sort of podcast matters, because to people looking for guidance and teaching and help in their own struggle, under the aegis of a priest, AND on AFR, it appears to be Church teaching, even though none of it, except for the compassion part, I suppose, comes from our Tradition. I didn’t find anything identifiably Orthodox in the program at all.

I think this is a fairly good example of (unconscious/unintentional) neo-gnosticism in the Church. Like the character of “Rey” in the Disney Star Wars abominations, people have nothing to learn from Tradition, they already “have what they need inside of them”.

 

[truefiction1]

Sometimes a divorce happens because of things that nullify the marriage, like sexual immorality or some devastating addiction to substances or gambling. So at least some amount of divorces will be inevitable, or in the very least there will be separations, even among those who were married in the Church. There are even priests whose wives have left them, either through divorce or separation, and not much is ever revealed about the reasons when this happens which leaves parishioners guessing as to the reasons that their rector's wife is no longer with him. I've even heard rumors about a pastor having an affair with his choir director as being a reason for the wife of one priest leaving him. But I don't know what the truth about this case is. I've always wondered, in particular, why this priest was still a priest to this day if the rumor were actually true.

It's not surprising to me that Orthodox couples get divorces. It's the "hardness of your hearts" (Matthew 19:8) inclining you to do that. Even though we have had the Holy Spirit poured out on us, many of us can't receive or retain that grace because we choose to give ourselves as slaves to our sins, and so with hardened hearts we seek to be granted divorces. It' sad but true.

 

[Dogheaded]

Coping with Divorce | Ancient Faith Ministries

I finally got to listen to the entire podcast.
I don’t think the issue here is my personal opinions, but what is objective Church teaching in the sum of Holy Tradition and the consensus of the fathers and saints on that teaching throughout Church history. Also, I have not been divorced, but once upon a time, I came to the very edge. As a person who has maintained a difficult international marriage, and learned to love when the going gets super-tough, I know from nearly 32 years of direct experience how acrimonious, how blindly furious, how much sadness and a heart dulled by depression, the plates, pots and pans, thrown both figuratively and literally, and in general how hard the experience can be, and what is required to hold it together. People who think one must be divorced in order to understand those sad and horrible situations simply don’t know what even a successful marriage may require.

Before I fire any broadsides, I think I should make every effort to stress what these people get right. People - all of whom except for one recorded voice were women - are in pain. They suffer, and at times experience desires no one can approve of, right up to thoughts of murder and suicide. This pain requires compassion, and I give the Louhs and their guest speakers full marks for compassion. I would not criticize compassion in the least. Truth needs to be spoken in love, and without love, is just a bull in a china shop.

That said, I encountered the same general problem as in Met. Anthony Bloom’s book on marriage. When divorce becomes the topic, there was absolutely no reference to Tradition and Church teaching. It might as well have been a program run by heterodox, Hindus, or atheists. Sure, the name of Christ is occasionally mentioned, but His words? Not one. Spiritual fathers are referenced a couple of times. But nothing from Scripture, or the Church fathers. The assumptions were entirely those of the modern world. Granted that this was a podcast talking about coping with a divorce that had already happened, though they did touch on “being on the way to divorce”. Plenty of talk about self-care, worrying about yourself, everything the world teaches us, and which we walk into the Church already believing and thinking. And of course the Christian ideal never came up even once. The assumption is that it is unthinkable. Options like separating but remaining married and celibate - the one option that would leave open the possibility of restoring a marriage later when the spouses come to repentance - are simply not on the table. I’m not saying it’s desirable, but then, neither is martyrdom from our perspective, though some saints did desire it.

Real giveaways that there is no support for their views in Church Tradition come after the forty-minute mark. At 41 minutes, one of the speakers remarks that while we have public funeral services to grieve for lost loved ones, there is no practice or rite of open grieving in the Church for divorce. The reason why, again, never seems to occur to them, or even that there could be a reason. They assume that it’s a ball that the Church somehow “dropped” over its 2,000-year history. At about the 44-minute mark, the speaker talks about needing to go outside of the Church to find support for what she had chosen, and urges listeners to find “like-minded people” for support in the Church.

This sort of podcast matters, because to people looking for guidance and teaching and help in their own struggle, under the aegis of a priest, AND on AFR, it appears to be Church teaching, even though none of it, except for the compassion part, I suppose, comes from our Tradition. I didn’t find anything identifiably Orthodox in the program at all.

I think this is a fairly good example of (unconscious/unintentional) neo-gnosticism in the Church. Like the character of “Rey” in the Disney Star Wars abominations, people have nothing to learn from Tradition, they already “have what they need inside of them”.

This is par for the course for AFR.

It's the same as when they only let the most singular and idiotic stance for COVID, such as with Fr. John Parker doing a double episode with a know-nothing bio-ethicist. Of course, Pfizer people are on the AFR board, lol.

On the other hand, considering OCAMPR's insulting stupid COVID conference, where deaconesses and female priests were called for and where 'vaccine hesitancy' was pathologized in the same manner as the Gegentype, but no one who didn't tow for the Reich or Orthodox tradition was apparently allowed to speak.

So, I mean, why would anyone expect 'orthodoxy' from these corrupt miscreants. They literally don't care. They don't care about tradition. They don't care about integrity.

 

[rusmeister]

Sometimes a divorce happens because of things that nullify the marriage, like sexual immorality or some devastating addiction to substances or gambling. So at least some amount of divorces will be inevitable, or in the very least there will be separations, even among those who were married in the Church. There are even priests whose wives have left them, either through divorce or separation, and not much is ever revealed about the reasons when this happens which leaves parishioners guessing as to the reasons that their rector's wife is no longer with him. I've even heard rumors about a pastor having an affair with his choir director as being a reason for the wife of one priest leaving him. But I don't know what the truth about this case is. I've always wondered, in particular, why this priest was still a priest to this day if the rumor were actually true.

It's not surprising to me that Orthodox couples get divorces. It's the "hardness of your hearts" (Matthew 19:8) inclining you to do that. Even though we have had the Holy Spirit poured out on us, many of us can't receive or retain that grace because we choose to give ourselves as slaves to our sins, and so with hardened hearts we seek to be granted divorces. It' sad but true.

Thanks for replying!
I would ask you, what does Scripture say? What do the fathers say? It is good that you cited a Scripture verse, and I think it quite true in reference to the subject. But Scripture says a lot more about marriage and divorce, specifically, in our prime authority - the words of Christ and the Apostles. I certainly agree that there is Scriptural support for divorce because of adultery. But what did Christ have to say about it? Specifically, I’m interested in where you get the idea that addiction is a justification for divorce from Holy Tradition. Is there Scriptural or patristic support for that, and do the fathers generally agree on it?

And why do you think a number of divorces must be inevitable? Do you think it impossible for a person committed to becoming like Christ may not reject divorce, choosing instead to hold oneself married, even if one must withdraw from an insane, axe-wielding spouse, and lead a celibate life, hoping for the cure or repentance of the spouse? Is that not an option in our Tradition? While a spouse may legitimately file for divorce after adultery, does he or she not have that option of celibacy while not violating him or herself the sacrament?

A tragedy is tragic precisely because it could have been prevented. And here is the rub. We CAN prevent it. We can repent. The hardness of our hearts is a refusal to repent. What justification would you offer for that refusal? I understand many things And there is scriptural teaching for those married to an unbeliever. But one thing I do not understand is two churched Orthodox Christians divorcing and both remaining into the church, ostensibly repenting - and I have seen this. If they are both repenting, then why do they refuse to forgive and love one another?

The only responses I think valid are those grounded in and referencing our Tradition and Church teaching. And what I suspect is that many of us do not especially like the implications of that teaching and what it calls us to do.

 

[truefiction1]

Thanks for replying!
I would ask you, what does Scripture say? What do the fathers say? It is good that you cited a Scripture verse, and I think it quite true in reference to the subject. But Scripture says a lot more about marriage and divorce, specifically, in our prime authority - the words of Christ and the Apostles. I certainly agree that there is Scriptural support for divorce because of adultery. But what did Christ have to say about it? Specifically, I’m interested in where you get the idea that addiction is a justification for divorce from Holy Tradition. Is there Scriptural or patristic support for that, and do the fathers generally agree on it?

And why do you think a number of divorces must be inevitable? Do you think it impossible for a person committed to becoming like Christ may not reject divorce, choosing instead to hold oneself married, even if one must withdraw from an insane, axe-wielding spouse, and lead a celibate life, hoping for the cure or repentance of the spouse? Is that not an option in our Tradition? While a spouse may legitimately file for divorce after adultery, does he or she not have that option of celibacy while not violating him or herself the sacrament?

A tragedy is tragic precisely because it could have been prevented. And here is the rub. We CAN prevent it. We can repent. The hardness of our hearts is a refusal to repent. What justification would you offer for that refusal? I understand many things And there is scriptural teaching for those married to an unbeliever. But one thing I do not understand is two churched Orthodox Christians divorcing and both remaining into the church, ostensibly repenting - and I have seen this. If they are both repenting, then why do they refuse to forgive and love one another?

The only responses I think valid are those grounded in and referencing our Tradition and Church teaching. And what I suspect is that many of us do not especially like the implications of that teaching and what it calls us to do.

Well, addiction, while not specifically mentioned by Christ, just as in the case of sexual immorality, can and often does, in severe cases, destroy the marriage. How? Usually because the addiction causes a man or woman to do violence to their spouse, either physically or spiritually, but oftentimes both. In such a case (you would realize it eventually if you were a victim of it) the perpetrator of the violence to the marriage has clearly chosen not to be married to their victim, but rather they have chosen to be in a committed, mostly assuredly permanent relationship (marriage) with the object(s) of their addiction. They have already initiated and chosen to be unmarried to their spouse. It may be chosen by a woman, however, and for example, to remain in such a marriage even though her husband may end up killing her in some way, either directly or indirectly (and we have a saint to whom this actually happened). But, if the woman has children to care for, then her martyria ought probably not be accepted by her for the sake of her children. So divorce, in this case, might be found more acceptable to a bishop, because it's reasonable for us to accept that no mother would be willing to risk allowing a violent and irresponsible man to destroy her children, after destroying her so that she will no longer be around to protect them.

A bishop will probably tell us that Holy Matrimony is Sacramental, because it has a "salvific" grace. They will probably also tell us, however, that sometimes addiction to sin destroys the marriage so that it can no longer be salvific, or henceforth made to be salvific, and for that reason the salvific union has ceased to be, and can never afterwards be salvific: the Sacrament is no longer nor ever will be present because not only have the two who were joined become too broken through sins to be fixed, but the marital union itself is even more hopelessly broken than the two sinners combined. So, if no longer salvific, then there's no longer an imperative to keep the failed union in tact. Bishops of the antiquated Byzantium Church, I've been informed, were conducting divorces of Orthodox people basically throughout its history, and we don't know all the details leading to all such divorces, we would have to ask them what led them to their decision to permit these divorces, but there were probably other reasons besides adultery. Repenting, with forgiving and loving is one thing. Continuing to share a house or a life with a person whose sins have destroyed the sacramental union beyond repair (and this is the basis upon which bishops grant divorces) is quite another. If someone wants to remain married to such a person while living separately in celibacy then whose to stop them? Nobody. My mother-in-law kicked her husband out decades ago because of his hopeless addiction to alcohol. They never divorced and she will never remarry, even though her husband died decades ago. But they were older and the kids were all grown at that point. Some people, for all I know, may have gone on to join monastic communities without ever divorcing. I don't know. I think it would be good for any of us who find ourselves unmarried, and not otherwise committed or relied upon for supporting other people or kids in essential ways, to enter into the monastic life as soon as we are able, so long as we are found to be fit for that way of life. But Pardon my digression.

I once read an account of the life of a spiritual father who was Ethiopian, or Egyptian, who is also a saint, who had left his wife to live the solitary life. The wife was not complicit with his leaving her, and tried in every way, through argument and persuasion related to household duties, and then through other compelling social pressures to prevent him from walking away from their marriage to become a monastic, but he would not be deterred. If this life of the saint is true, then perhaps some may conclude that salvation, what should be our greatest concern, is always at stake, and if a marriage is as such that it will most assuredly lead to damnation rather than salvation, then a separation or a divorce could very well be the better choice. I think that's why a bishop will sometimes recognize a basis for a divorce. Are there abuses? I'm sure there are, just as you know that there are based on what you've witnessed. It's a slippery slope that's been created for sure, but slippery slopes have always been par for this course, especially as of late. They will ultimately lead us down so low in the pit that it will permit Antichrist to rise above us, which as we know is a prophecy of Scripture so it must be fulfilled.

With regards to the insistence on relying solely upon Scripture and evidence found in the writings of the Church fathers, I think it might be important to be aware that, to begin with, there isn't a whole lot of Scriptural or patristic support for the Orthodox view of Holy Matrimony vs the heterodox views. In the Orthodox view, death does not end Holy Matrimony, which endures eternally in the Kingdom of God. Christ's own words about marriage are usually interpreted to mean that there will be no such thing as the union of Holy Matrimony in the Kingdom of God. There doesn't seem to be, to my knowledge, a strong patristic consensus supporting the Orthodox view either. St. John Chrysostom is the strongest proponent of the belief in the eternal union of a husband and wife. He wrote his famous letter to a widow, insisting that she not remarry, but remain faithful to the union of Holy Matrimony that she had with her deceased husband, so that they could remain forever as husband and wife in the Kingdom of God. Remarrying, according to St. John, would be the only thing that would prevent the eternal continuation of her first marriage. Other than this, I don't think there is much patristic support for Orthodox belief. If you know of any, please share. But regardless, it's our Holy Tradition to idealize Holy Matrimony to the extent that we give it a place in God's Kingdom. This great reverence of Matrimony is shown by our canons that do not allow the clergy to remarry if they are widowed, because to do so would be to bring the Matrimony to an end, and the only worse thing that could happen to a married couple in Christ, we might suppose, is for them to lose their salvation. Salvation (Christ) is first. After that, marriage.

Just to mention, I haven't listened to any of the AFR podcast, so I don't have any opinion about it. For all I know it's garbage. But Christ did not say that there wouldn't be divorces. He merely reminds us that "in the beginning it was not so". It was not meant to be, and therefore divorce, like murder, is not according to the will of God. In paradise, there was no death. Adam and Eve are regarded by Christ as husband and wife. If they had not fallen and died, would they be husband and wife eternally? Or was that union only ever meant to be temporary? Will the Kingdom of God dissolve the union of husbands and wives at the time of the last judgement? Is it dissolved by death of one or another of the married couple as taught in heterodoxy? God does not will for divorces to happen. But God doesn't will for anything evil to happen, yet it happens just the same. Even people who should be Orthodox Christians in practice commit murder and all sorts of other crimes. So while we may insist that divorce not be allowed, just as Christ insisted that it not be practiced, it's being practiced nonetheless, and there isn't a whole lot that anyone will be able to do anything to stop. The best we could do is to remind people that divorce is not God's will. They'll probably get divorced anyway, and if the Church tolerates it not, then they will also divorce themselves from Church membership altogether. So the Church tolerates divorcees. It's not a perfect world here in the Orthodox Church. Every once and a while, grace abounds and some who have been joined in the Mystery of Holy Matrimony, by the grace of God, remain married forever. It might be a good idea to rejoice in this good and beautiful thing and to celebrate it vigorously and joyously when it happens, so that those considering divorce may be given ample reasons and opportunities to consider otherwise.

 

[truefiction1]

This is par for the course for AFR.

It's the same as when they only let the most singular and idiotic stance for COVID, such as with Fr. John Parker doing a double episode with a know-nothing bio-ethicist. Of course, Pfizer people are on the AFR board, lol.

On the other hand, considering OCAMPR's insulting stupid COVID conference, where deaconesses and female priests were called for and where 'vaccine hesitancy' was pathologized in the same manner as the Gegentype, but no one who didn't tow for the Reich or Orthodox tradition was apparently allowed to speak.

So, I mean, why would anyone expect 'orthodoxy' from these corrupt miscreants. They literally don't care. They don't care about tradition. They don't care about integrity.

There were some good podcasts available on AFR. I liked listening to Fr. Josiah and Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon. I don't go on AFR anymore though. I had decided that it was unacceptable for me to receive the available Covid vaccines (from J&J, Pfizer, and Moderna) because of their reliance upon immortal (aborted fetal) cell line testing, which I believe the Church has formerly taught that we must not accept any benefit from. But the former teaching was never brought to the fore by any vaccine proponents in the Orthodox world. In other words, historical Church pronouncements were ignored: left to be swept under a rug. Anymore, this seems par for the course in so-called Orthodoxy.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, addiction, while not specifically mentioned by Christ, just as in the case of sexual immorality, can and often does, in severe cases, destroy the marriage. How? Usually because the addiction causes a man or woman to do violence to their spouse, either physically or spiritually, but oftentimes both. In such a case (you would realize it eventually if you were a victim of it) the perpetrator of the violence to the marriage has clearly chosen not to be married to their victim, but rather they have chosen to be in a committed, mostly assuredly permanent relationship (marriage) with the object(s) of their addiction. They have already initiated and chosen to be unmarried to their spouse. It may be chosen by a woman, however, and for example, to remain in such a marriage even though her husband may end up killing her in some way, either directly or indirectly (and we have a saint to whom this actually happened). But, if the woman has children to care for, then her martyria ought probably not be accepted by her for the sake of her children. So divorce, in this case, might be found more acceptable to a bishop, because it's reasonable for us to accept that no mother would be willing to risk allowing a violent and irresponsible man to destroy her children, after destroying her so that she will no longer be around to protect them.

A bishop will probably tell us that Holy Matrimony is Sacramental, because it has a "salvific" grace. They will probably also tell us, however, that sometimes addiction to sin destroys the marriage so that it can no longer be salvific, or henceforth made to be salvific, and for that reason the salvific union has ceased to be, and can never afterwards be salvific: the Sacrament is no longer nor ever will be present because not only have the two who were joined become too broken through sins to be fixed, but the marital union itself is even more hopelessly broken than the two sinners combined. So, if no longer salvific, then there's no longer an imperative to keep the failed union in tact. Bishops of the antiquated Byzantium Church, I've been informed, were conducting divorces of Orthodox people basically throughout its history, and we don't know all the details leading to all such divorces, we would have to ask them what led them to their decision to permit these divorces, but there were probably other reasons besides adultery. Repenting, with forgiving and loving is one thing. Continuing to share a house or a life with a person whose sins have destroyed the sacramental union beyond repair (and this is the basis upon which bishops grant divorces) is quite another. If someone wants to remain married to such a person while living separately in celibacy then whose to stop them? Nobody. My mother-in-law kicked her husband out decades ago because of his hopeless addiction to alcohol. They never divorced and she will never remarry, even though her husband died decades ago. But they were older and the kids were all grown at that point. Some people, for all I know, may have gone on to join monastic communities without ever divorcing. I don't know. I think it would be good for any of us who find ourselves unmarried, and not otherwise committed or relied upon for supporting other people or kids in essential ways, to enter into the monastic life as soon as we are able, so long as we are found to be fit for that way of life. But Pardon my digression.

I once read an account of the life of a spiritual father who was Ethiopian, or Egyptian, who is also a saint, who had left his wife to live the solitary life. The wife was not complicit with his leaving her, and tried in every way, through argument and persuasion related to household duties, and then through other compelling social pressures to prevent him from walking away from their marriage to become a monastic, but he would not be deterred. If this life of the saint is true, then perhaps some may conclude that salvation, what should be our greatest concern, is always at stake, and if a marriage is as such that it will most assuredly lead to damnation rather than salvation, then a separation or a divorce could very well be the better choice. I think that's why a bishop will sometimes recognize a basis for a divorce. Are there abuses? I'm sure there are, just as you know that there are based on what you've witnessed. It's a slippery slope that's been created for sure, but slippery slopes have always been par for this course, especially as of late. They will ultimately lead us down so low in the pit that it will permit Antichrist to rise above us, which as we know is a prophecy of Scripture so it must be fulfilled.

With regards to the insistence on relying solely upon Scripture and evidence found in the writings of the Church fathers, I think it might be important to be aware that, to begin with, there isn't a whole lot of Scriptural or patristic support for the Orthodox view of Holy Matrimony vs the heterodox views. In the Orthodox view, death does not end Holy Matrimony, which endures eternally in the Kingdom of God. Christ's own words about marriage are usually interpreted to mean that there will be no such thing as the union of Holy Matrimony in the Kingdom of God. There doesn't seem to be, to my knowledge, a strong patristic consensus supporting the Orthodox view either. St. John Chrysostom is the strongest proponent of the belief in the eternal union of a husband and wife. He wrote his famous letter to a widow, insisting that she not remarry, but remain faithful to the union of Holy Matrimony that she had with her deceased husband, so that they could remain forever as husband and wife in the Kingdom of God. Remarrying, according to St. John, would be the only thing that would prevent the eternal continuation of her first marriage. Other than this, I don't think there is much patristic support for Orthodox belief. If you know of any, please share. But regardless, it's our Holy Tradition to idealize Holy Matrimony to the extent that we give it a place in God's Kingdom. This great reverence of Matrimony is shown by our canons that do not allow the clergy to remarry if they are widowed, because to do so would be to bring the Matrimony to an end, and the only worse thing that could happen to a married couple in Christ, we might suppose, is for them to lose their salvation. Salvation (Christ) is first. After that, marriage.

Just to mention, I haven't listened to any of the AFR podcast, so I don't have any opinion about it. For all I know it's garbage. But Christ did not say that there wouldn't be divorces. He merely reminds us that "in the beginning it was not so". It was not meant to be, and therefore divorce, like murder, is not according to the will of God. In paradise, there was no death. Adam and Eve are regarded by Christ as husband and wife. If they had not fallen and died, would they be husband and wife eternally? Or was that union only ever meant to be temporary? Will the Kingdom of God dissolve the union of husbands and wives at the time of the last judgement? Is it dissolved by death of one or another of the married couple as taught in heterodoxy? God does not will for divorces to happen. But God doesn't will for anything evil to happen, yet it happens just the same. Even people who should be Orthodox Christians in practice commit murder and all sorts of other crimes. So while we may insist that divorce not be allowed, just as Christ insisted that it not be practiced, it's being practiced nonetheless, and there isn't a whole lot that anyone will be able to do anything to stop. The best we could do is to remind people that divorce is not God's will. They'll probably get divorced anyway, and if the Church tolerates it not, then they will also divorce themselves from Church membership altogether. So the Church tolerates divorcees. It's not a perfect world here in the Orthodox Church. Every once and a while, grace abounds and some who have been joined in the Mystery of Holy Matrimony, by the grace of God, remain married forever. It might be a good idea to rejoice in this good and beautiful thing and to celebrate it vigorously and joyously when it happens, so that those considering divorce may be given ample reasons and opportunities to consider otherwise.

You’re making my point. And you are right in saying that there isn’t a whole lot of Scriptural or patristic support for the view of marriage that you describe, and for good reason. What you describe is a modern, pseudo-Orthodox understanding. Do you think there was no addiction 2,000 years ago? The idea that a spouse’s addiction is justification for divorce is simply not Orthodox. That’s why you don’t find support for it.

In the cases you mention that don’t involve adultery, we actually have the option to remove ourselves and not divorce. You say, “Nobody’s stopping them”, and I’m not saying anyone is. I’m saying that no one wants to do it, even though that IS what we ought to do if there is strong reason to separate. We live in a time when what was always supposed to be economia, an extreme and rare response, has become standard practice despite Church teaching to the contrary. It’s a little like when the defenders of abortion cried, “Safe, legal, and rare”, and the “rare exception” soon became the rule.

And yes, you absolutely need Scriptural and patristic support. They are central in the totality of our Tradition, and when you embrace ideas outside of that, and furthermore, even contradict the actual consensus, then you are at that moment departing from Church teaching. Without that support anyone can imagine almost any idea to be Orthodox, and if you don’t accept that authority, then you have no basis to refute any idea that you imagine contradicts Orthodox teaching. Anything goes, because you have pulled the rug out from under yourself.

There is only one legitimate excuse to divorce, and Christ named it; moreover, He Himself said it was the only one. And patristic consensus upholds that. It’s not that “I’m right”, it’s that THEY are right, and we both need to change our opinions to align with what they tell us. See my signature. I am not the authority here, and neither are you. We both need to bow our heads and accept correction.

We don’t live up to Church teaching, we sin and fall away. But the real sin is when we pretend that we are justified, that something is “not really sin”. And none of us can change our past. All we can do now is accept the ideal that we should have accepted in the first place. We can’t force others to live by it. But we should admit that it is what we are all called to, and strive to live by it ourselves, and if anyone says we are not called to it, then there is word for that.

 

[truefiction1]

You’re making my point. And you are right in saying that there isn’t a whole lot of Scriptural or patristic support for the view of marriage that you describe, and for good reason. What you describe is a modern, pseudo-Orthodox understanding. Do you think there was no addiction 2,000 years ago? The idea that a spouse’s addiction is justification for divorce is simply not Orthodox. That’s why you don’t find support for it.

In the cases you mention that don’t involve adultery, we actually have the option to remove ourselves and not divorce. You say, “Nobody’s stopping them”, and I’m not saying anyone is. I’m saying that no one wants to do it, even though that IS what we ought to do if there is strong reason to separate. We live in a time when what was always supposed to be economia, an extreme and rare response, has become standard practice despite Church teaching to the contrary. It’s a little like when the defenders of abortion cried, “Safe, legal, and rare”, and the “rare exception” soon became the rule.

And yes, you absolutely need Scriptural and patristic support. They are central in the totality of our Tradition, and when you embrace ideas outside of that, and furthermore, even contradict the actual consensus, then you are at that moment departing from Church teaching. Without that support anyone can imagine almost any idea to be Orthodox, and if you don’t accept that authority, then you have no basis to refute any idea that you imagine contradicts Orthodox teaching. Anything goes, because you have pulled the rug out from under yourself.

There is only one legitimate excuse to divorce, and Christ named it; moreover, He Himself said it was the only one. And patristic consensus upholds that. It’s not that “I’m right”, it’s that THEY are right, and we both need to change our opinions to align with what they tell us. See my signature. I am not the authority here, and neither are you. We both need to bow our heads and accept correction.

We don’t live up to Church teaching, we sin and fall away. But the real sin is when we pretend that we are justified, that something is “not really sin”. And none of us can change our past. All we can do now is accept the ideal that we should have accepted in the first place. We can’t force others to live by it. But we should admit that it is what we are all called to, and strive to live by it ourselves, and if anyone says we are not called to it, then there is word for that.

I think that if the bishops have historically allowed it, that there is patristic support for it, even if it's not found in the writings of ancient Church Fathers. That's my current position. And I agree that we have the option to remove ourselves and not divorce. It just doesn't seem to me that it's ever been a requirement levied by any Church authority for a person to do that, since Christ Himself said that sexual immorality is grounds for divorce. So while a person may choose not to divorce if their wife or husband has sex with another, it's not expected.

You’re making my point. And you are right in saying that there isn’t a whole lot of Scriptural or patristic support for the view of marriage that you describe, and for good reason. What you describe is a modern, pseudo-Orthodox understanding. Do you think there was no addiction 2,000 years ago? The idea that a spouse’s addiction is justification for divorce is simply not Orthodox. That’s why you don’t find support for it.

The idea that addiction can be a reason for divorce comes from the fact that it does cause people to become divorced (civilly), and so Orthodox episcopal synods have added addiction to a list of other reasons that ecclesiastical recognition of the divorce can be granted, so that the divorcees may once again be permitted to commune in the Church at some point. They call this "oikonomia". People do, it seems, find "oikonomia" to be highly problematic: objectionable even. I think this is because the existence and exercise of it leads to what is perceived as an unacceptable lack of consistency. I mean that they tell themselves that "Christ gave us a rule and that is that". But I doubt that anyone would argue against the Christ given rule. Oikonomia is merely the primary tool that the Church authorities use for the purpose of managing the household when things fail to go as God would have things go. In other words, it falls under the category of certain things that bishops have to do in the event that there are failures on the part of people to keep Christ's sayings. Beyond this, I don't think I can comment, as I'm still studying and contemplating these things myself.

 

[truefiction1]

And you are right in saying that there isn’t a whole lot of Scriptural or patristic support for the view of marriage that you describe, and for good reason. What you describe is a modern, pseudo-Orthodox understanding.

It's virtually impossible to deny that this "modern, pseudo-Orthodox understanding" had been St. John Chrysostom's understanding, at least at that time in which he was writing a certain letter to a certain young widow. So just how modern and pseudo-Orthodox do you believe this understanding is?

 

[rusmeister]

Hi, TF,

Sorry for the delay. My life has not been going well.

I think I have failed to make something clear, and so it’s my fault.

What I have meant, and tried to communicate, is NOT what is practiced in the Church (about which you are generally right, certainly regarding the present time), but rather how we OUGHT to see marriage in the Church. I know that people have done all kinds of things, gotten economia, had second and third marriages - though I would challenge claims that divorce for reasons other than adultery, which is decisively what was most commonly meant by sexual immorality as you understand it in English, was a common thing in the past.

(I see no authority of bishops or even synods to declare addiction as legitimate grounds for divorce. It’s opposed to Scripture, the fathers, and the words of Christ. Maybe some have done it; they exceeded their authority in so doing. That’s my opinion, and you may correct me from the consensus of the fathers.)

What I have been trying to say, in brief, and evidently failed to say well, is that we have completely lost the ideal, even the idea of the ideal, which is the whole idea of being holy, being Christ-like, etc, when it comes to marriage. I’m saying we have a major malfunction in the Church in regard to this. This podcast, which you should listen to, is absolutely symptomatic of that. I see actual argument against the Christ-given rule. It is argued against in this podcast.

Speaking of economia (sorry, I ain’t gonna spell it your way ) misses the point, or rather, we have an economia run amok. It is not a far step to imagine” economia being used to allow sexual immorality that I think you would admit to be immoral.

“And I agree that we have the option to remove ourselves and not divorce. It just doesn't seem to me that it's ever been a requirement levied by any Church authority for a person to do that, since Christ Himself said that sexual immorality is grounds for divorce. So while a person may choose not to divorce if their wife or husband has sex with another, it's not expected.”


I had already said that it’s not about the Church “requiring” faithfulness in extreme circumstances, but rather, that people don’t WANT to be faithful no matter what. We all want a “Get out of jail free card”. The one Person Who refused that card and set the example for us is Christ. I could ask whether Christ would divorce us. THAT is the ideal that we are called to, which I experience frantic denial of at every turn. People will admit that we are supposed to be holy, we are supposed to forgive, we are supposed to love our neighbor and our enemy, and yet, when talking about our spouses, in practice, we can make them an exception, even though our spouse can be both our neighbor and our enemy; those “supposed to’s” become nice ideas that aren't really meant for us to fulfill.

I’m not sure how to make it clearer than that. Maybe you think everyone agrees with me, or that divorce in the Church, especially between two churched Orthodox Christians who both express intent to continue living the life of the Church, is rare. I see it all around me. I see the abandonment of the idea, what we are called to. Scripture tells us how we ought to see marriage, the fathers tell us, but when push comes to shove, few really take it seriously. That “Get out of jail free” card is too sweet.

I hope I’m not coming across as contentious. This is something I feel called to speak out on, that’s all. I see a huge and unnecessary epidemic of divorce, destroying families, community and fellowship, and the issue is not that we sin or are fallen but that we want to make this particular issue out to be not a problem at all.

 

[abacabb3]

I'm going to put this simply. If one divorces, they should be in trepidation like those who murder or stick up convenience stores. It's a heinous sin. The Church makes allowance for repentance and remarriage, but we also make allowance for murderers to repent.

So I don't understand why 1. people are scandalized by the "allowance" and 2. people think the "allowance" means its okay.

There will be unrepentant divorced people in Hell.

 

[truefiction1]

Hi, TF,

Sorry for the delay. My life has not been going well.

I think I have failed to make something clear, and so it’s my fault.

What I have meant, and tried to communicate, is NOT what is practiced in the Church (about which you are generally right, certainly regarding the present time), but rather how we OUGHT to see marriage in the Church. I know that people have done all kinds of things, gotten economia, had second and third marriages - though I would challenge claims that divorce for reasons other than adultery, which is decisively what was most commonly meant by sexual immorality as you understand it in English, was a common thing in the past.

(I see no authority of bishops or even synods to declare addiction as legitimate grounds for divorce. It’s opposed to Scripture, the fathers, and the words of Christ. Maybe some have done it; they exceeded their authority in so doing. That’s my opinion, and you may correct me from the consensus of the fathers.)

What I have been trying to say, in brief, and evidently failed to say well, is that we have completely lost the ideal, even the idea of the ideal, which is the whole idea of being holy, being Christ-like, etc, when it comes to marriage. I’m saying we have a major malfunction in the Church in regard to this. This podcast, which you should listen to, is absolutely symptomatic of that. I see actual argument against the Christ-given rule. It is argued against in this podcast.

Speaking of economia (sorry, I ain’t gonna spell it your way ) misses the point, or rather, we have an economia run amok. It is not a far step to imagine” economia being used to allow sexual immorality that I think you would admit to be immoral.

“And I agree that we have the option to remove ourselves and not divorce. It just doesn't seem to me that it's ever been a requirement levied by any Church authority for a person to do that, since Christ Himself said that sexual immorality is grounds for divorce. So while a person may choose not to divorce if their wife or husband has sex with another, it's not expected.”


I had already said that it’s not about the Church “requiring” faithfulness in extreme circumstances, but rather, that people don’t WANT to be faithful no matter what. We all want a “Get out of jail free card”. The one Person Who refused that card and set the example for us is Christ. I could ask whether Christ would divorce us. THAT is the ideal that we are called to, which I experience frantic denial of at every turn. People will admit that we are supposed to be holy, we are supposed to forgive, we are supposed to love our neighbor and our enemy, and yet, when talking about our spouses, in practice, we can make them an exception, even though our spouse can be both our neighbor and our enemy; those “supposed to’s” become nice ideas that aren't really meant for us to fulfill.

I’m not sure how to make it clearer than that. Maybe you think everyone agrees with me, or that divorce in the Church, especially between two churched Orthodox Christians who both express intent to continue living the life of the Church, is rare. I see it all around me. I see the abandonment of the idea, what we are called to. Scripture tells us how we ought to see marriage, the fathers tell us, but when push comes to shove, few really take it seriously. That “Get out of jail free” card is too sweet.

I hope I’m not coming across as contentious. This is something I feel called to speak out on, that’s all. I see a huge and unnecessary epidemic of divorce, destroying families, community and fellowship, and the issue is not that we sin or are fallen but that we want to make this particular issue out to be not a problem at all.

A lot of divorcees who were once Church attendees no longer are, in my experience. If so, then usually only one of them will continue being members. This begs the question, how devout are the majority of Orthodox Christians? If we are honest in our assessments, I think the answer is obvious.

 

[truefiction1]

I see a huge and unnecessary epidemic of divorce, destroying families, community and fellowship, and the issue is not that we sin or are fallen but that we want to make this particular issue out to be not a problem at all.

I know, and I agree that it's epidemic. The matter of divorce, unfortunately, is one that has hit me very close to home, and even within the very home that I was raised in. I know just how tragic a thing it is.

Before I listen to that podcast I would prefer to do more research and reflection on marriage in the Orthodox view. There is something that is not clear to me at this time, and I'd rather not have my view shaped by philosophical meanderings which might be built upon foundational error. I've ordered a book on Orthodox canon law to see if the canons can be of any help in my study of Orthodox marriage. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[rusmeister]

I know, and I agree that it's epidemic. The matter of divorce, unfortunately, is one that has hit me very close to home, and even within the very home that I was raised in. I know just how tragic a thing it is.

Before I listen to that podcast I would prefer to do more research and reflection on marriage in the Orthodox view. There is something that is not clear to me at this time, and I'd rather not have my view shaped by philosophical meanderings which might be built upon foundational error. I've ordered a book on Orthodox canon law to see if the canons can be of any help in my study of Orthodox marriage. Thanks for the discussion.

I think you’ll find allowances in the canons that deal with the “real”. I’d just encourage you to look at, not so much what one MAY do as what one OUGHT to do. I think we find that “ought to” most of all in Scripture, and also in patristic commentary, and it is the “ought to” that is most widely dismissed and/or rejected as “imposssible”. Our view should decidedly not be limited to the canons (not that you are suggesting that).

 

[truefiction1]

I think you’ll find allowances in the canons that deal with the “real”. I’d just encourage you to look at, not so much what one MAY do as what one OUGHT to do. I think we find that “ought to” most of all in Scripture, and also in patristic commentary, and it is the “ought to” that is most widely dismissed and/or rejected as “imposssible”. Our view should decidedly not be limited to the canons (not that you are suggesting that).

In articles discussing patristic comments I'm finding a range of different beliefs offered by different Ancient Church fathers, even changes in the beliefs of certain fathers over time, such as, for instance, in Augustine's own corrections of beliefs he'd penned early on. I intend to closely examine patristic sources. In the case of Scripture, Orthodox Christians are advised to consider how the Church father's interpreted the Scriptures rather than relying on their own individual interpretations, so I would begin there, with the fathers. Also, in the matter of patristic consensus, it's the bishops, or episcopal synods that we are supposedly to rely upon to define or voice what that consensus is, in any matter of Orthodox belief and practice. I think this is why a careful examination of Church canons is warranted.

 

[rusmeister]

In articles discussing patristic comments I'm finding a range of different beliefs offered by different Ancient Church fathers, even changes in the beliefs of certain fathers over time, such as, for instance, in Augustine's own corrections of beliefs he'd penned early on. I intend to closely examine patristic sources. In the case of Scripture, Orthodox Christians are advised to consider how the Church father's interpreted the Scriptures rather than relying on their own individual interpretations, so I would begin there, with the fathers. Also, in the matter of patristic consensus, it's the bishops, or episcopal synods that we are supposedly to rely upon to define or voice what that consensus is, in any matter of Orthodox belief and practice. I think this is why a careful examination of Church canons is warranted.

On the range of beliefs:
We know that there was a range in general. Consensus is about what a clear majority agreed upon most of the time, and allows for the minority that expressed other views. To me it is plain as a matter of historical record, that the consensus of the fathers, backed by the common view of, not only Orthodox, but shared across all of Christendom for all of Christian history, was one that highly disapproved of divorce. Whatever was granted by bishops to kings, emperors, and powerful men, the rule, both of patristic opinion and of the common people everywhere, stigmatized divorce. I think you have to grasp at desperate straws of exceptions, but you cannot make a rule even of a lack of consensus that agreed that people in the Church should stay married for life. So, yes, you will certainly find those bishops that granted rulers divorces wnd remarriages multiple times. You aren't going to find the same frequency among what was granted to the common people. That is upheld by all classic literature and history, but for the sake of what has authority to correct us, you’re not liable to convince me that the fathers generally disagreed on how we should see marriage. You’d have to drag in a pretty large number of fathers who really thought divorce was acceptable in circumstances other than adultery, and frankly, I don’t think you’ll find more than a few who might have expressed such opinions.

 

[truefiction1]

On the range of beliefs:
We know that there was a range in general. Consensus is about what a clear majority agreed upon most of the time, and allows for the minority that expressed other views. To me it is plain as a matter of historical record, that the consensus of the fathers, backed by the common view of, not only Orthodox, but shared across all of Christendom for all of Christian history, was one that highly disapproved of divorce. Whatever was granted by bishops to kings, emperors, and powerful men, the rule, both of patristic opinion and of the common people everywhere, stigmatized divorce. I think you have to grasp at desperate straws of exceptions, but you cannot make a rule even of a lack of consensus that agreed that people in the Church should stay married for life. So, yes, you will certainly find those bishops that granted rulers divorces wnd remarriages multiple times. You aren't going to find the same frequency among what was granted to the common people. That is upheld by all classic literature and history, but for the sake of what has authority to correct us, you’re not liable to convince me that the fathers generally disagreed on how we should see marriage. You’d have to drag in a pretty large number of fathers who really thought divorce was acceptable in circumstances other than adultery, and frankly, I don’t think you’ll find more than a few who might have expressed such opinions.

On the range of beliefs, I think it's important to have a clear picture of that range, as well as understanding why it exists, because if such differences in interpretation can cause the whole of Roman Catholicism to understand Christ's use of the word "πορνεία" as the only exception to the divorce rule to mean that "only those couples who were never really married to begin with and were therefor living in a state of fornication, not marriage" can be divorced, then there is at least a possibility that it's not been perfectly clear from the fathers what Christ meant, and "πορνεία" could mean adultery, or it could mean fornication (which is why annulments are given in the RC) or it could mean anything considered sexually immoral under Jewish rule. So it's important to look carefully at patristic commentaries on the Scripture, and to also consider how bishops and how synods have ruled in order to gain insight into what they saw as being the consensus of the fathers. Frankly, my goal is not to defend divorce. I'm really more interested in knowing how it is I should view Holy Matrimony itself, as an Orthodox Christian. Meyendorf, quoting St. John Chrysostom and others, implied that the Orthodox view is that marriage is not dissolved by the death of one or another of the spouses. Rather, a first marriage (or at least the relationship), if not ruined by divorce or brought to an end by remarrying in one's widowhood, endures indefinitely, though in a more perfect form. I have believed this to be the truth about perfect monogamy from my youth, and so I'm very interested in knowing the truth of this matter. Seeing how the relationship between the Lord and the Theotokos persists in paradise, as evidenced from our own prayers and hymns, it seems plausible to me that our own relationships with one another will also persist, though they will take on a currently unimaginable and perfect form. I think I'd just like to get closer to being able to articulate this idea in a way that agrees with the consensus of the Church, and in a way that idealizes strict monogamy, as it seems the Church has always done.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, I think you’re on the right path. I’ve already arrived regarding that question. It’s no good my trying to tell you. Search the gospels and the epistles, and the fathers, and see if that faithful monogamy no matter what is what we are called to. You’ll eventually become sure that it is.