Topic: Where does the Orthodox Church stand on divorce and remarriage?

[orthonorm]

Isa,

The bolded part, I am little confused on:

As I understand it, if you were not married within the OC, then any prior marriage are not recognized, how could they be?

Does this mean that the RC sacrament of Marriage is upheld in the OC.

Or that people are preemptively choosing the OC before marriage because of the stance the OC has on it?

Or something else entirely?

As I understand it, the RC sacrament of marriage is upheld by the OC, as my wife and I were originally married RC, but recognized as such by the OC. We did have a wedding ceremony in the OC, later, and the explanation was essentially that, like certain other sacraments performed by heterodox, the sacrament of marriage had been performed on us in a valid, but not complete way, and that our ceremony in the OC blessed our union within the OC, and made it complete.

I believe that the emboldened bit is alluding to folks who have been married in the RC church, then divorced, and become Orthodox in order to get remarried. A very stubborn RC friend of mine bombarded me with tales of such cases when trying to dissuade me from conversion.

This seems to make sense within the context. I wonder how far the OC in America, especially the OCA recognizes previous marriages in other Christian faiths, or however you wish to word it.

I would imagine they would not recognize a merely civil contractual marriage at all.

Thanks for the answer.

Now time for honesty:

Did you feel foolish wearing that crown and if, how much? //:=)

I simply can't imagine doing it.

[katherineofdixie]

FWIW:
According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.[1] (See Chart 1.)
Some of this difference in poverty is due to the fact that single parents tend to have less education than married couples, but even when married couples are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the married poverty rate will still be more than 75 percent lower. Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. In fact, being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.[2]
When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school.[19] Many of these negative outcomes are associated with the higher poverty rates of single mothers. In many cases, however, the improvements in child well-being that are associated with marriage persist even after adjusting for differences in family income. This indicates that the father brings more to his home than just a paycheck.
The effect of married fathers on child outcomes can be quite pronounced. For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are:
•   More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime;[20]
•   Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems;[21]
•   Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school;[22] and
•   A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.[23]
The effects of being raised in a single-parent home continue into adulthood. Comparing families of the same race and similar incomes, children from broken and single-parent homes are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact married families. [24] Compared to girls raised in similar married families, girls from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to have a child without being married, thereby repeating the negative cycle for another generation

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Marriage-America-s-Greatest-Weapon-Against-Child-Poverty

[katherineofdixie]

Isa,

The bolded part, I am little confused on:

As I understand it, if you were not married within the OC, then any prior marriage are not recognized, how could they be?

Does this mean that the RC sacrament of Marriage is upheld in the OC.

Or that people are preemptively choosing the OC before marriage because of the stance the OC has on it?

Or something else entirely?

As I understand it, the RC sacrament of marriage is upheld by the OC, as my wife and I were originally married RC, but recognized as such by the OC. We did have a wedding ceremony in the OC, later, and the explanation was essentially that, like certain other sacraments performed by heterodox, the sacrament of marriage had been performed on us in a valid, but not complete way, and that our ceremony in the OC blessed our union within the OC, and made it complete.

I believe that the emboldened bit is alluding to folks who have been married in the RC church, then divorced, and become Orthodox in order to get remarried. A very stubborn RC friend of mine bombarded me with tales of such cases when trying to dissuade me from conversion.

This seems to makes within the context. I wonder how far the OC in America, especially the OCA recognizes previous marriages in other Christian faiths, or however you wish to word it.

I would imagine they would not recognize a merely civil contractual marriage at all.

I only know about the OCA and GOA. The OCA recognizes religious marriages then blesses them. GOA has an Orthodox wedding.

[JimCBrooklyn]

Isa,

The bolded part, I am little confused on:

As I understand it, if you were not married within the OC, then any prior marriage are not recognized, how could they be?

Does this mean that the RC sacrament of Marriage is upheld in the OC.

Or that people are preemptively choosing the OC before marriage because of the stance the OC has on it?

Or something else entirely?

As I understand it, the RC sacrament of marriage is upheld by the OC, as my wife and I were originally married RC, but recognized as such by the OC. We did have a wedding ceremony in the OC, later, and the explanation was essentially that, like certain other sacraments performed by heterodox, the sacrament of marriage had been performed on us in a valid, but not complete way, and that our ceremony in the OC blessed our union within the OC, and made it complete.

I believe that the emboldened bit is alluding to folks who have been married in the RC church, then divorced, and become Orthodox in order to get remarried. A very stubborn RC friend of mine bombarded me with tales of such cases when trying to dissuade me from conversion.

This seems to make sense within the context. I wonder how far the OC in America, especially the OCA recognizes previous marriages in other Christian faiths, or however you wish to word it.

I would imagine they would not recognize a merely civil contractual marriage at all.

Thanks for the answer.

Now time for honesty:

Did you feel foolish wearing that crown and if, how much? //:=)

I simply can't imagine doing it.

I didn't have to actually wear the crown; it was merely held over my head, like so:

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Poppy--Pop over to Politics where I am starting a thread on the recent riots in the UK. It is still germane to this discussion but it has much too much of a political angle.

[Xenia1918]

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

But if he had been a lesser man (and thank God he wasn't) wouldn't it have been better for him to leave than to have your grandmother be cared for by someone who ultimately did not want to be there?

I'm sure in such a situation, a good priest with a pastoral relationship with both the husband and the wife would move Heaven and Earth to make sure the right thing was done for both. There would be no rubber stamping.

True...which is why the Roman Catholic Church was never really against divorce per se, but remarriage after one. After all, people can separate and live apart, even go through the legal fiction of a divorce, as long as they don't remarry.

[Punch]

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

But if he had been a lesser man (and thank God he wasn't) wouldn't it have been better for him to leave than to have your grandmother be cared for by someone who ultimately did not want to be there?

I'm sure in such a situation, a good priest with a pastoral relationship with both the husband and the wife would move Heaven and Earth to make sure the right thing was done for both. There would be no rubber stamping.

I did not realize that being a Christian was about doing what we want.  I am sure that there were many times that the Grandfather would have liked to be anywhere else than with that woman.  But that is not what the marriage vows (or Love, for that matter) are all about.  Yes, I am sure there are priests that would have "freed him from his burden", and possibly his Salvation in the process.

Have you really come across such dreadful priests that your conscience allows you to smear us in this way?!

You tell me.  You are the one who posted the grounds for divorce in the Russian Church, which includes mental illness.  Given that is a listed grounds for divorce, how would stating what I wrote be a smear?  Are you including yourself within the ranks of the priests that would grant such a divorce (by using the term "us")?  I did not include you. And really, a smear?  What about the Bishop who let a widowed priest remarry a divorced woman (whom he was counseling during the divorce)?  If this is allowed, what would not be allowed? 

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

But if he had been a lesser man (and thank God he wasn't) wouldn't it have been better for him to leave than to have your grandmother be cared for by someone who ultimately did not want to be there?

I'm sure in such a situation, a good priest with a pastoral relationship with both the husband and the wife would move Heaven and Earth to make sure the right thing was done for both. There would be no rubber stamping.

I did not realize that being a Christian was about doing what we want.  I am sure that there were many times that the Grandfather would have liked to be anywhere else than with that woman.  But that is not what the marriage vows (or Love, for that matter) are all about.  Yes, I am sure there are priests that would have "freed him from his burden", and possibly his Salvation in the process.

Have you really come across such dreadful priests that your conscience allows you to smear us in this way?!

You tell me.  You are the one who posted the grounds for divorce in the Russian Church, which includes mental illness.  Given that is a listed grounds for divorce, how would stating what I wrote be a smear?  Are you including yourself within the ranks of the priests that would grant such a divorce (by using the term "us")?  I did not include you. And really, a smear?  What about the Bishop who let a widowed priest remarry a divorced woman (whom he was counseling during the divorce)?  If this is allowed, what would not be allowed?  

Punch--Please remember that we are giving information to two posters who are interested in Orthodoxy. I fail to see how the Allen affair has any relevance to the topic at hand. It was and is an aberration, something that more than likely will not be repeated again.

[augustin717]

To answer the OP: It kinda stays out of it.

[Punch]

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

But if he had been a lesser man (and thank God he wasn't) wouldn't it have been better for him to leave than to have your grandmother be cared for by someone who ultimately did not want to be there?

I'm sure in such a situation, a good priest with a pastoral relationship with both the husband and the wife would move Heaven and Earth to make sure the right thing was done for both. There would be no rubber stamping.

True...which is why the Roman Catholic Church was never really against divorce per se, but remarriage after one. After all, people can separate and live apart, even go through the legal fiction of a divorce, as long as they don't remarry.

Exactly.  There are times when staying in a situation is worse than leaving it.  However, the circumstances for remarriage are spelled out in Scripture.  Setting someone aside for mental illness is not one of them.  If such a person, realizing that they did not have the strength to physically help such a woman, put her in the hands of others while he provided for her, and after doing so dedicated his life to celibate prayer for her, I would pray to such a man after he died - if not before.

[Punch]

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

But if he had been a lesser man (and thank God he wasn't) wouldn't it have been better for him to leave than to have your grandmother be cared for by someone who ultimately did not want to be there?

I'm sure in such a situation, a good priest with a pastoral relationship with both the husband and the wife would move Heaven and Earth to make sure the right thing was done for both. There would be no rubber stamping.

I did not realize that being a Christian was about doing what we want.  I am sure that there were many times that the Grandfather would have liked to be anywhere else than with that woman.  But that is not what the marriage vows (or Love, for that matter) are all about.  Yes, I am sure there are priests that would have "freed him from his burden", and possibly his Salvation in the process.

Have you really come across such dreadful priests that your conscience allows you to smear us in this way?!

You tell me.  You are the one who posted the grounds for divorce in the Russian Church, which includes mental illness.  Given that is a listed grounds for divorce, how would stating what I wrote be a smear?  Are you including yourself within the ranks of the priests that would grant such a divorce (by using the term "us")?  I did not include you. And really, a smear?  What about the Bishop who let a widowed priest remarry a divorced woman (whom he was counseling during the divorce)?  If this is allowed, what would not be allowed?  

Punch--Please remember that we are giving information to two posters who are interested in Orthodoxy. I fail to see how the Allen affair has any relevance to the topic at hand. It was and is an aberration, something that more than likely will not be repeated again.

You are correct in that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand; it has to do with the post that I was addressing.  Also, given that the said Bishop was not censured and that all other local Churches remain in communion with him, I don't share your view that it will not happen again.

[augustin717]

In the Romanian Church there are, if memory serves me, around 400 priests that are re-married ( some bc of divorce, some after being widowed). They were recently given a ultimatum (rather weak though, and I am sure, never completely enforced) to leave heir new spouses if they want to continue to serve as parish priests.

[Asteriktos]

In the Romanian Church there are, if memory serves me, around 400 priests that are re-married ( some bc of divorce, some after being widowed). They were recently given a ultimatum (rather weak though, and I am sure, never completely enforced) to leave heir new spouses if they want to continue to serve as parish priests.

This makes me rage. If you allowed them to remarry, then you're stuck with them. Changing policy for the future is one thing, but requiring people to leave their spouses is outright... it's... ****** * ** ** * ** ******   ...even if it's not enforced, just the audacity of saying it...

[ialmisry]

wow that list is kind of rank!! Why would you divorce someone because of mental illness??Dont religious people say until death we part???

 

Yeah, that one got to me too. Made me think of the guy in Jane Eyre, I think it was.

You know, my Italian grandparents (who were old school, from the Old Country) had an arranged marriage in 1920. They never met each other until the day they were married. I asked my grandmother in the 70s what that was like, and she said, "You learn to love each other". When my grandfather was diagnosed with diabetes in 1925, grandmom had started a rule that no one in the family would use sugar in anything, so grandpop wouldn't feel bad (and she didn't want him to know they were doing that or he would feel bad for that!) That's why my mom grew up without ever having eaten candy.

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

Are you saying that if he were not a Roman Catholic he would have abandoned her, because this is the type pf insulting inference you are making about Orthodox men.

I don't think he would have regardless, but only that in the pre-V2 days of the RCC, divorce and remarriage was a MAJOR no-no. Evidently the Orthodox Church is not as strict on that.

What I find interesting is that I have been told that a number of RCs join the Orthodox Church due to its supposed leniency on remarriage after divorce, and here I'm now hesitating because of the fact that they seem too lenient on divorce/remarriage! Different strokes, I guess.

Well, the priest at my parish and then wife's father confessor, told her not to come back after she filed for divorce (the facts of the case were, as he said, well beyond mere adultery).  Our secretary at the time, a RC, was told by her priest that he would do nothing about her husband (who was parish council president or some such thing) because "if I had to fault people for divorce and adultery there would be no parisioners left."

Btw, I have heard a lot of RCs make this claim, I've known a number of Orthodox converts who were accused of this, but I've yet to meet an Orthodox convert who actually joined the Orthodox Church due to its supposed leniency on remarriage.  On the leniency of the Vatican, just look at the corban factories a/k/a marriage tribunals on annullments.

Isa,

The bolded part, I am little confused on:

As I understand it, if you were not married within the OC, then any prior marriage are not recognized, how could they be?

Does this mean that the RC sacrament of Marriage is upheld in the OC.

Or that people are preemptively choosing the OC before marriage because of the stance the OC has on it?

Or something else entirely?

I suspect the bolded are largely the figment of Vatican polemics on the sanctimony of corban, er, annullments.  As I've said, I've never met someone who became Orthodox for that.  I do know of those communicants of the Vatican who got married in a Protestant church over the issue, rather than the trouble and EXPENSE of an annullment.

If you are married outside the Church, and come in, you bring the marriage in. I Cor. 7:24. I Cor. 7:12-5.  You are received as married.

So no, I do not think anyone is coming to the OC before marriage preemptively for divorce.  If that were the case, why not just not get married?

[ialmisry]

In the Romanian Church there are, if memory serves me, around 400 priests that are re-married ( some bc of divorce, some after being widowed). They were recently given a ultimatum (rather weak though, and I am sure, never completely enforced) to leave heir new spouses if they want to continue to serve as parish priests.

This makes me rage. If you allowed them to remarry, then you're stuck with them. Changing policy for the future is one thing, but requiring people to leave their spouses is outright... it's... ****** * ** ** * ** ******   ...even if it's not enforced, just the audacity of saying it...

Aşa că nu mai sînt doi, ci un singur trup. Deci, ce a împreunat Dumnezeu, omul să nu despartă. Mat. 19:6

[Fr. George]

In the Romanian Church there are, if memory serves me, around 400 priests that are re-married ( some bc of divorce, some after being widowed). They were recently given a ultimatum (rather weak though, and I am sure, never completely enforced) to leave heir new spouses if they want to continue to serve as parish priests.

This makes me rage. If you allowed them to remarry, then you're stuck with them. Changing policy for the future is one thing, but requiring people to leave their spouses is outright... it's... ****** * ** ** * ** ******   ...even if it's not enforced, just the audacity of saying it...

I was just speaking with someone else about this, and their impression was that these priests had their 2nd marriages performed against the wishes of the Church at large (specifically the synod) by other sympathetic priests, which is why then the synod is turning around and saying, essentially, "You shouldn't have done this, and you willfully went behind our backs; call it off or lose your priesthood."  Again, this is hearsay, but it's all I can offer.

[Asteriktos]

In the Romanian Church there are, if memory serves me, around 400 priests that are re-married ( some bc of divorce, some after being widowed). They were recently given a ultimatum (rather weak though, and I am sure, never completely enforced) to leave heir new spouses if they want to continue to serve as parish priests.

This makes me rage. If you allowed them to remarry, then you're stuck with them. Changing policy for the future is one thing, but requiring people to leave their spouses is outright... it's... ****** * ** ** * ** ******   ...even if it's not enforced, just the audacity of saying it...

I was just speaking with someone else about this, and their impression was that these priests had their 2nd marriages performed against the wishes of the Church at large (specifically the synod) by other sympathetic priests, which is why then the synod is turning around and saying, essentially, "You shouldn't have done this, and you willfully went behind our backs; call it off or lose your priesthood."  Again, this is hearsay, but it's all I can offer.

Ok, thank you. My reaction was an emotional one, and essentially worthless... I just find the concept amazing. But perhaps there is more to it... not that I think coercing people into celibacy would make things right... but again I am speculating... I apologize

[Orest]

Regarding the Romanian Orthodox Church: I believe the information is on the web/ publc knowledge.  For the sake of economia the re-married priests are allowed to continue as priests, but only in rural parishes.
And the priests were re-married in the Orthodox Church not in civil services.

[Orest]

Here is what I was looking for:

b) Divorced clerics, divorced and remarried clerics, as well as those widowed and having remarried, are not permitted to occupy the position of Parish Priest, which is a position of leadership, in parishes where there are multiple priests.  In rural parishes, in this very special case, this type of priest is kept on as Parish Priest, however he will not be promoted to superior category parishes;

http://www.roeanews.info/2010/03/15/bor-%e2%80%93-divorced-andor-remarried-priests/

[Fr. George]

Ok, thank you. My reaction was an emotional one, and essentially worthless...

I disagree with "and essentially worthless."  Your reaction is one of zealous defense of the fundamental principle of marriage (as so well quoted, in Romanian, by Isa): that God puts people together, and no human should try and separate them.  My suspicion is that the Church wouldn't ask the priests to separate from their spouses unless some sort of deception had been involved in the 2nd marriage.

I just find the concept amazing. But perhaps there is more to it... not that I think coercing people into celibacy would make things right... but again I am speculating... I apologize 

While telling someone that they cannot re-marry is difficult, it is something that is clearly indicated in our seminary training (if you're widowed or abandoned, you can only re-marry by giving up your priesthood); we know "what we're getting into" well before we're ordained.  We willingly take the step to say, "Yes, I understand," and must live with the consequences of that affirmation.

[Irish Hermit]

I believe that the emboldened bit is alluding to folks who have been married in the RC church, then divorced, and become Orthodox in order to get remarried. A very stubborn RC friend of mine bombarded me with tales of such cases when trying to dissuade me from conversion.

I have received two such Roman Catholic couples.   They were sick to death of the nasty talk among some of the Catholic parishioners that they were living in adultery.  They were upset with some priests giving them communion and some priests refusing.

Conversion to Orthodoxy brought them into a Christian community which respected their marital relationship and made it sacramental.  It gained them access to the sacraments of confession and communion.

It goes without saying that during their time of learning and meditating on their decision to convert that they accepted the orthodox faith fully.

[Irish Hermit]

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

But if he had been a lesser man (and thank God he wasn't) wouldn't it have been better for him to leave than to have your grandmother be cared for by someone who ultimately did not want to be there?

I'm sure in such a situation, a good priest with a pastoral relationship with both the husband and the wife would move Heaven and Earth to make sure the right thing was done for both. There would be no rubber stamping.

I did not realize that being a Christian was about doing what we want.  I am sure that there were many times that the Grandfather would have liked to be anywhere else than with that woman.  But that is not what the marriage vows (or Love, for that matter) are all about.  Yes, I am sure there are priests that would have "freed him from his burden", and possibly his Salvation in the process.

Have you really come across such dreadful priests that your conscience allows you to smear us in this way?!

You tell me.  You are the one who posted the grounds for divorce in the Russian Church, which includes mental illness.  Given that is a listed grounds for divorce, how would stating what I wrote be a smear?  Are you including yourself within the ranks of the priests that would grant such a divorce (by using the term "us")?  I did not include you. And really, a smear?  What about the Bishop who let a widowed priest remarry a divorced woman (whom he was counseling during the divorce)?  If this is allowed, what would not be allowed? 

I make a prostration before you and ask your forgiveness if I am wrong,

You wrote:  "I am sure there are priests that would have "freed him from his burden", and possibly his Salvation in the process."

I saw that as an allegation that priests can be so superficial in their pastoral approach to marriage and the marriage bond that they would encourage a man to give up when the going gets tough.... and worse, that they would not be concerned if this caused his damnation.

[Irish Hermit]

Exactly.  There are times when staying in a situation is worse than leaving it.  However, the circumstances for remarriage are spelled out in Scripture.  Setting someone aside for mental illness is not one of them. 

Christ gave to his apostles and their successors the bishops the power of binding and loosing and it is by His authority that our bishops make these decisions.

[deusveritasest]

It really varies according to jurisdiction.

[Punch]

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

But if he had been a lesser man (and thank God he wasn't) wouldn't it have been better for him to leave than to have your grandmother be cared for by someone who ultimately did not want to be there?

I'm sure in such a situation, a good priest with a pastoral relationship with both the husband and the wife would move Heaven and Earth to make sure the right thing was done for both. There would be no rubber stamping.

I did not realize that being a Christian was about doing what we want.  I am sure that there were many times that the Grandfather would have liked to be anywhere else than with that woman.  But that is not what the marriage vows (or Love, for that matter) are all about.  Yes, I am sure there are priests that would have "freed him from his burden", and possibly his Salvation in the process.

Have you really come across such dreadful priests that your conscience allows you to smear us in this way?!

You tell me.  You are the one who posted the grounds for divorce in the Russian Church, which includes mental illness.  Given that is a listed grounds for divorce, how would stating what I wrote be a smear?  Are you including yourself within the ranks of the priests that would grant such a divorce (by using the term "us")?  I did not include you. And really, a smear?  What about the Bishop who let a widowed priest remarry a divorced woman (whom he was counseling during the divorce)?  If this is allowed, what would not be allowed? 

I make a prostration before you and ask your forgiveness if I am wrong,

You wrote:  "I am sure there are priests that would have "freed him from his burden", and possibly his Salvation in the process."

I saw that as an allegation that priests can be so superficial in their pastoral approach to marriage and the marriage bond that they would encourage a man to give up when the going gets tough.... and worse, that they would not be concerned if this caused his damnation.

There may be such, but I am unaware of them.  What does concern me is that, given the allowance of divorce outside of the strict limitations of Scripture by our Churches, a Priest may not encourage a person to stay married hard enough, thereby allowing the person to fall into adultery.  This would not be due to superficiality or lack of concern, but by ignorance as the priest would only be acting the way he was instructed.  Whether the sin would be upon the priest or the adulterer is not for me to judge, but it causes me concern for both.

Also, please prostrate yourself before God and things that are Holy and not rough men such as me.

[Punch]

Exactly.  There are times when staying in a situation is worse than leaving it.  However, the circumstances for remarriage are spelled out in Scripture.  Setting someone aside for mental illness is not one of them. 

Christ gave to his apostles and their successors the bishops the power of binding and loosing and it is by His authority that our bishops make these decisions.

I do not believe that the Office of the Keys gave bishops or anyone else the power to counter the Law of God, only to act when the Law is unclear.  It is the abuse of this Office that will eventually lead to the Apostasy spoken of in the Scriptures, when men think that they are God and can make Laws that counter His.  What is next?  Since your theory (not just yours, but widely held) allows a bishop to sanction Adultery, why not just get rid of all of the Commandments?  One cannot sin if there is no Law.

[deusveritasest]

It really varies according to jurisdiction.

There is quite a spectrum of policies from the Coptic church only allowing divorce in the case of adultery (strictly, like not even allowing women who are being physically abused to divorce) to some Byzantine dioceses which will allow beyond 3 marriages and will allow widowed Priests to be laicized so they can remarry.

[akimori makoto]

Isa,

The bolded part, I am little confused on:

As I understand it, if you were not married within the OC, then any prior marriage are not recognized, how could they be?

Does this mean that the RC sacrament of Marriage is upheld in the OC.

Or that people are preemptively choosing the OC before marriage because of the stance the OC has on it?

Or something else entirely?

As I understand it, the RC sacrament of marriage is upheld by the OC, as my wife and I were originally married RC, but recognized as such by the OC. We did have a wedding ceremony in the OC, later, and the explanation was essentially that, like certain other sacraments performed by heterodox, the sacrament of marriage had been performed on us in a valid, but not complete way, and that our ceremony in the OC blessed our union within the OC, and made it complete.

I believe that the emboldened bit is alluding to folks who have been married in the RC church, then divorced, and become Orthodox in order to get remarried. A very stubborn RC friend of mine bombarded me with tales of such cases when trying to dissuade me from conversion.

This seems to make sense within the context. I wonder how far the OC in America, especially the OCA recognizes previous marriages in other Christian faiths, or however you wish to word it.

I would imagine they would not recognize a merely civil contractual marriage at all.

Thanks for the answer.

Now time for honesty:

Did you feel foolish wearing that crown and if, how much? //:=)

I simply can't imagine doing it.

I like the Greek wreath-crowns, myself. Classical.

[IsmiLiora]

I can't WAIT to wear the crown.

My husband said, "WHAT!" when I told him that he had to wear one too.  Oops, honey!

[Volnutt]

Exactly.  There are times when staying in a situation is worse than leaving it.  However, the circumstances for remarriage are spelled out in Scripture.  Setting someone aside for mental illness is not one of them.  

Christ gave to his apostles and their successors the bishops the power of binding and loosing and it is by His authority that our bishops make these decisions.

I do not believe that the Office of the Keys gave bishops or anyone else the power to counter the Law of God, only to act when the Law is unclear.  It is the abuse of this Office that will eventually lead to the Apostasy spoken of in the Scriptures, when men think that they are God and can make Laws that counter His.  What is next?  Since your theory (not just yours, but widely held) allows a bishop to sanction Adultery, why not just get rid of all of the Commandments?  One cannot sin if there is no Law.

So you want to be like those strict Copts who don't allow women to divorce abusive men? How about long-term abandonment? That isn't in the Letter either.

These are cases where the Commandment is unclear- and common decency demands some pastoral discretion.

[Poppy]

Exactly.  There are times when staying in a situation is worse than leaving it.  However, the circumstances for remarriage are spelled out in Scripture.  Setting someone aside for mental illness is not one of them. 

Christ gave to his apostles and their successors the bishops the power of binding and loosing and it is by His authority that our bishops make these decisions.

I do not believe that the Office of the Keys gave bishops or anyone else the power to counter the Law of God, only to act when the Law is unclear.  It is the abuse of this Office that will eventually lead to the Apostasy spoken of in the Scriptures, when men think that they are God and can make Laws that counter His.  What is next?  Since your theory (not just yours, but widely held) allows a bishop to sanction Adultery, why not just get rid of all of the Commandments?  One cannot sin if there is no Law.

So you want to be like those strict Copts who don't allow women to divorce abusive men? How about long-term abandonment? That isn't in the Letter either either.

These are cases where the Commandment is unclear- and common decency demands some pastoral discretion.

Vol people can separate from abusive partners even if they are still married to them. Just like F.George said about the priesthood in another thread, people know what there doing when they get married and what it means to be joined together by God.

[Irish Hermit]

Exactly.  There are times when staying in a situation is worse than leaving it.  However, the circumstances for remarriage are spelled out in Scripture.  Setting someone aside for mental illness is not one of them. 

Christ gave to his apostles and their successors the bishops the power of binding and loosing and it is by His authority that our bishops make these decisions.

I do not believe that the Office of the Keys gave bishops or anyone else the power to counter the Law of God, only to act when the Law is unclear.  It is the abuse of this Office that will eventually lead to the Apostasy spoken of in the Scriptures, when men think that they are God and can make Laws that counter His.  What is next?  Since your theory (not just yours, but widely held) allows a bishop to sanction Adultery, why not just get rid of all of the Commandments?  One cannot sin if there is no Law.

Your problem is with the entire millennia-long tradition of the Church which has always allowed divorce and remarriage. 

Read what Saint Basil the Great has to say on these matters, and his canons are incorporated into the canons of the Church by the Fathers of the Quinisext Council.   In fact the Fathers even approved fornication (following the canons of Saint Basil)  if the couple are passionate lovers and asking them to separate may cause something worse than leaving them as lovers.   

The bottom line is that there are times when the Church bends in the face of humanity and applies its canons as guidelines and not as immutable demands.

[Poppy]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did. And i know that youd probably appolagise so i accept before you do. I hope you dont mind me just being honest about it Liora because i HAVE to be, thas just who i am and to stop myself from being myself is like trying to swallow a really mega berp it just hurts your chest until you let it out!!! So dont let it bother you because im done now i said what i wanted and yeah we're still good.

Unless your ticked at me saying it....in which case im sure your get over that haha...

[KBN1]

wow that list is kind of rank!! Why would you divorce someone because of mental illness??Dont religious people say until death we part???

 

And when my grandmother lost her first baby in 1921 to stillbirth (fullterm), and "went crazy" over it for a while, my grandfather comforted her and stayed by her. And many years later when she developed dementia due to Alzheimers, he also took care of her. I guess the Orthodox Church would have given a lesser man a way out? Good thing for grandmom (and my grandfather's sense of principle and manhood) that they were Roman Catholics.

No.  Going "crazy" "for a while", especially after the death of a child would in no way constitute an "incurable mental disease".  Be careful not to twist the issue with emotion.  Also, Alzheimer's is not a mental disease.  A mental disease is a functional disorder.  Alzheimer's is purely medical, with demonstrated changes to the brain on the microscopic and macroscopic level.  But as far as mental illness goes, I can think of a number of possible situations where a marriage can't continue to function.  How about a wife with young children and a husband that is a catatonic schizophrenic?  How much energy should we expect from someone?  Or someone with severe bi-polar disorder that won't be medicated.  I know of several folks like that who would not take their meds.  Divorcing in those situations doesn't mean that the one suffering from mental illness isn't loved or cared for.  It is a recognition that humanity is frail and fallen.  That frailty and fallen-ness is responsible for both the mental illness and the other parties inability to be super-human.

[Asteriktos]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did.

Oh my...

[IsmiLiora]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did. And i know that youd probably appolagise so i accept before you do. I hope you dont mind me just being honest about it Liora because i HAVE to be, thas just who i am and to stop myself from being myself is like trying to swallow a really mega berp it just hurts your chest until you let it out!!! So dont let it bother you because im done now i said what i wanted and yeah we're still good.

Unless your ticked at me saying it....in which case im sure your get over that haha...

My apologies about offending you -- it wasn't my intention! I thought it was cute, not meaning anything bad at all. I will refrain in the future.

[Poppy]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did. And i know that youd probably appolagise so i accept before you do. I hope you dont mind me just being honest about it Liora because i HAVE to be, thas just who i am and to stop myself from being myself is like trying to swallow a really mega berp it just hurts your chest until you let it out!!! So dont let it bother you because im done now i said what i wanted and yeah we're still good.

Unless your ticked at me saying it....in which case im sure your get over that haha...

My apologies about offending you -- it wasn't my intention! I thought it was cute, not meaning anything bad at all. I will refrain in the future.

No worris. Don't refrain, you got a rli great sense of humour i love it.

(haha... only in your dreams asteriktos)

[vamrat]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did. And i know that youd probably appolagise so i accept before you do. I hope you dont mind me just being honest about it Liora because i HAVE to be, thas just who i am and to stop myself from being myself is like trying to swallow a really mega berp it just hurts your chest until you let it out!!! So dont let it bother you because im done now i said what i wanted and yeah we're still good.

Unless your ticked at me saying it....in which case im sure your get over that haha...

I am really glad I joined the Poppy fan club.  You are awesome and take compliments with such grace!

[Opus118]

We have had discussions on divorce before.

Does anybody remember the divorce rates for Catholic Italy and Catholic America compared to, say, Orthodox Greece.  I think that despite the availability of divorce for the Orthodox, our marriages are more stable.

Probably because Catholic countries are more secularized and individualized than Orthodox countries. As time goes on, Orthodox countries will probably follow the suit.

Not necessarily!

http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/9/44943

According to figures from the City of Athens registry service, divorces
have declined by 25 percent in recent years.

More specifically, from a total of 1,579 divorces registered in Athens
in 2006, the number started to decline in 2009 after the outbreak of
the economic crisis, falling to 1,149 in 2010

What were the marriage statistics like? That stats in Scandinavia (and the US too, but much less) show a decline in divorce, but only because people aren't bothering to get married in the first place.  To get divorced, you have to first be married (something brought home when IL OKd gay civil unions: the first ones happened on July 2 (there is a day delay after getting a license), but the first gay divorce was July 1 (they were "married" in Quebec IIRC.  The laywer said that his client wasn't allowed relief under the old IL law).  Shacking up and breaking up doesn't register.  Except in the juvenile/domsetic and criminal courts.

I provided the appropriate ratios from the marriage and divorce rate tables here:

I have compiled the divorce and marriage rates per 1000 population for European countries from the UN Statistics Division (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2008.htm):

[orthonorm]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did. And i know that youd probably appolagise so i accept before you do. I hope you dont mind me just being honest about it Liora because i HAVE to be, thas just who i am and to stop myself from being myself is like trying to swallow a really mega berp it just hurts your chest until you let it out!!! So dont let it bother you because im done now i said what i wanted and yeah we're still good.

Unless your ticked at me saying it....in which case im sure your get over that haha...

I am really glad I joined the Poppy fan club.  You are awesome and take compliments with such grace!

If poppy is a Papist sockpuppet, I will go RC and tattoo Aquinas on my face. That would be brilliance.

[vamrat]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did. And i know that youd probably appolagise so i accept before you do. I hope you dont mind me just being honest about it Liora because i HAVE to be, thas just who i am and to stop myself from being myself is like trying to swallow a really mega berp it just hurts your chest until you let it out!!! So dont let it bother you because im done now i said what i wanted and yeah we're still good.

Unless your ticked at me saying it....in which case im sure your get over that haha...

I am really glad I joined the Poppy fan club.  You are awesome and take compliments with such grace!

If poppy is a Papist sockpuppet, I will go RC and tattoo Aquinas on my face. That would be brilliance.

Probably not.  Poppy probably talks like she writes.  It has a natural flow to it.  I'm not sure Papist could write like that with any degree of verisimilitude.  Though if he could...it would be brilliance!

[orthonorm]

Poppy, I think you've got yourself quite a fanclub here...   Meow, boys!

Ok i tried to leave this comment alone and ignore it as like just a bit of fun (even though you probably meant it that way) but i cant. I freakin hate comments like this and no its not just a bit of fun because its got way too many connortations (or implications i dont know which word fits) in the whole freakin sentence, especially the last part. I know you a little bit enough to know that you never meant to affend me but you rli did. And i know that youd probably appolagise so i accept before you do. I hope you dont mind me just being honest about it Liora because i HAVE to be, thas just who i am and to stop myself from being myself is like trying to swallow a really mega berp it just hurts your chest until you let it out!!! So dont let it bother you because im done now i said what i wanted and yeah we're still good.

Unless your ticked at me saying it....in which case im sure your get over that haha...

I am really glad I joined the Poppy fan club.  You are awesome and take compliments with such grace!

If poppy is a Papist sockpuppet, I will go RC and tattoo Aquinas on my face. That would be brilliance.

Probably not.  Poppy probably talks like she writes.  It has a natural flow to it.  I'm not sure Papist could write like that with any degree of verisimilitude.  Though if he could...it would be brilliance!

That's what I am saying.

But what if Poppy is Papist.

[Volnutt]

Exactly.  There are times when staying in a situation is worse than leaving it.  However, the circumstances for remarriage are spelled out in Scripture.  Setting someone aside for mental illness is not one of them. 

Christ gave to his apostles and their successors the bishops the power of binding and loosing and it is by His authority that our bishops make these decisions.

I do not believe that the Office of the Keys gave bishops or anyone else the power to counter the Law of God, only to act when the Law is unclear.  It is the abuse of this Office that will eventually lead to the Apostasy spoken of in the Scriptures, when men think that they are God and can make Laws that counter His.  What is next?  Since your theory (not just yours, but widely held) allows a bishop to sanction Adultery, why not just get rid of all of the Commandments?  One cannot sin if there is no Law.

So you want to be like those strict Copts who don't allow women to divorce abusive men? How about long-term abandonment? That isn't in the Letter either either.

These are cases where the Commandment is unclear- and common decency demands some pastoral discretion.

Vol people can separate from abusive partners even if they are still married to them. Just like F.George said about the priesthood in another thread, people know what there doing when they get married and what it means to be joined together by God.

You make a good point, though I'd also add that in such situations reconciliation is not likely. And that's fine if the formerly abused is cut out for celibacy, but if they aren't then absolutely forcing them to never remarry is going to do harm to their soul.

[JamesRottnek]

I don't have too much to add to this thread.  However, I do want to comment on single parents.

My mother raised me and my three sisters, more or less, by herself from the time I was four (my oldest sister was 12, other older sister was 8, and younger sister was just a few months old), when my father left.  I will always have an incredible amount of respect for my mother because of that.  It is by no means an easy thing, especially when you hadn't worked for several years before your husband left you with nothing. 

That said, the fact that it is possible for a single parent to raise children does NOT mean it is something to desire.  I don't want to get into details on a public forum, especially on the most public part of a public forum, but I can assure you that I know the effects of having not had a father (even with an uncle that I respect who lived close by my entire childhood, and a group at the church I used to attend that had several male role models and was specifically for sons of single mothers) on myself, and I can see at least some of those they have had on my sisters.  A mother, for all her love and work, can never really be both father and mother to her children.  She can do her best, and she can make up for part of what is lacking without a father, but she cannot replace the father.  I love and respect my mother incredibly, especially knowing how she worked over forty hours a week at a job she hated just to be able to live paycheck to paycheck.  However, that doesn't replace the role that my father should have played in my life.

[Poppy]

I don't have too much to add to this thread.  However, I do want to comment on single parents.

My mother raised me and my three sisters, more or less, by herself from the time I was four (my oldest sister was 12, other older sister was 8, and younger sister was just a few months old), when my father left.  I will always have an incredible amount of respect for my mother because of that.  It is by no means an easy thing, especially when you hadn't worked for several years before your husband left you with nothing. 

That said, the fact that it is possible for a single parent to raise children does NOT mean it is something to desire.  I don't want to get into details on a public forum, especially on the most public part of a public forum, but I can assure you that I know the effects of having not had a father (even with an uncle that I respect who lived close by my entire childhood, and a group at the church I used to attend that had several male role models and was specifically for sons of single mothers) on myself, and I can see at least some of those they have had on my sisters.  A mother, for all her love and work, can never really be both father and mother to her children.  She can do her best, and she can make up for part of what is lacking without a father, but she cannot replace the father.  I love and respect my mother incredibly, especially knowing how she worked over forty hours a week at a job she hated just to be able to live paycheck to paycheck.  However, that doesn't replace the role that my father should have played in my life.

Im 100% with you on what you said but to add one thing to it..... its not the effects of not having a father but not having a good father. Lots of ppl have them at home and its just like they didnt or its like they wish they didnt.