Recent Meeting Could Mark Turning Point
By Robert Moynihan
WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 21, 2009 (Zenit.org)- Sometimes there are no fireworks. Turning points can pass in silence, almost unobserved.
It may be that way with the “Great Schism,” the most serious division in the history of the Church. The end of the schism may come more quickly and more unexpectedly than most imagine.
On Sept. 18, inside Castel Gandolfo, the Pope’s summer palace about 30 miles outside Rome, a Russian Orthodox Archbishop named Hilarion Alfeyev, 43 (a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy, composer and lover of music), met with Benedict XVI, 82 (also a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy and lover of music), for almost two hours, according to informed sources. (There are as yet no “official” sources about this meeting — the Holy See has still not released an official communiqué about the meeting.)
The silence suggests that what transpired was important — perhaps so important that the Holy See thinks it isn’t yet prudent to reveal publicly what was discussed.
But there are numerous “signs” that the meeting was remarkably harmonious.
If so, this Sept. 18 meeting may have marked a turning point in relations between the “Third Rome” (Moscow) and the “First Rome” (Rome) — divided since 1054.
Archbishop Hilarion was in Rome for five days last week as the representative of the new Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.
One key person Archbishop Hilarion met with was Cardinal Walter Kasper. On Sept. 17, the cardinal told Vatican Radio that he and Archbishop Hilarion had a “very calm conversation.”
Cardinal Kasper also revealed something astonishing: that he had suggested to the archbishop that the Orthodox Churches form some kind of “bishops’ conference at the European level” that would constitute a “direct partner of cooperation” in future meetings.
This would be a revolutionary step in the organization of the Orthodox Churches.
Papal-Patriarch encounter?
Cardinal Kasper said a Pope-Patriarch meeting was not on the immediate agenda, and would probably not take place in Moscow or Rome, but in some “neutral” place (Hungary, Austria and Belarus are possibilities).
Archbishop Hilarion himself revealed much about how his Rome visit was proceeding when he met on the evening of Sept. 17 (before his meeting with the Pope) with the Community of Sant’Egidio, an Italian Catholic group known for its work with the poor in Rome.
“We live in a de-Christianized world, in a time that some define — mistakenly — as post-Christian,” Archbishop Hilarion said. “Contemporary society, with its practical materialism and moral relativism, is a challenge to us all. The future of humanity depends on our response… More than ever before, we Christians must stand together.”
A report from Interfax, the news service of the Moscow Patriarchate, on Sept. 18 revealed that Archbishop Hilarion spoke to the Pope about “cooperation between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches in the area of moral values and of culture” — in particular during the “Days of Russian Spiritual Culture,” a type of exhibit with lectures scheduled for spring 2010 in Rome. (One might imagine that the Pope himself could attend such an exhibition).
In memory of the visit, Archbishop Hilarion gave the Pope a pectoral cross, made in workshops of Russian Orthodox Church, the report said, Interfax reported.
Today, an Interfax report supplied details of Hilarion’s remarks this morning in the catacombs of St. Callixtus.
“Denied by the world, far from human eyes, deep under ground in caves, the first Roman Christians performed the feat of prayer,” Hilarion said. “Their life brought the fruit of holiness and martyr heroism. The Holy Church was built on their blood shed for Christ.”
Then the Church came out of the catacombs, but Christian unity was lost, the archbishop said.
Archbishop Hilarion said that human sin is the cause of all divisions, while Christian unity can be restored only in the way of sanctity.
“Each of us, conscientiously fulfilling a task the Church has given him or her, is called to personally contribute to the treasury of Christian sanctity and work to achieve God-commanded Christian unity,” the archbishop said.
A second Interfax report today added further information about the meeting with the Pope.
Growing influence
“During a talk with Pope Benedict XVI, Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk pointed out the status of Orthodox believers in Western Ukraine where three Orthodox dioceses had been almost eliminated as a result of coercive actions of Greek Catholics in late 1980s and early 1990s,” Interfax reported.
Archbishop Hilarion “stated the need to take practical steps to improve the situation in Western Ukraine,” within the territories of Lvov, Ternopol and Invano-Frankovsk Dioceses, the report said.
Meanwhile, in Russia itself, the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by Patriarch Kirill, seems to be growing, though not without opposition.
The rise in Russia of Kirill and his increasing influence in legislative matters seems to be arousing opposition from the “siloviki,” forces connected with the old KGB.
In an article in the current issue of Argumenty Nedeli, Andrey Uglanov says that Kirill’s extraordinary activity has attracted attention from some who do not like to have their positions questioned, let alone challenged. And that has become Kirill’s “big problem.”
These “siloviki,” Uglanov says, have been offended by Kirill’s “anti-Stalinist and anti-Bolshevik actions,” including his appearance at the Solovetsky stone in Moscow’s Lubyanka Square on the very Day of the Memory of the Victims of Political Repression.
In this context, Hilarion’s visit to Rome takes on even more importance.
The Russian Orthodox Church is a power in Russia, but it faces opposition and needs allies.
What is occurring in Hilarion’s visit to Rome, then, may have ramifications not only for the overcoming of the “Great Schism,” but also for the cultural, religious and political future of Russia, and of Europe as a whole.
It is especially significant, in this context, that Hilarion, Kirill’s “Foreign Minister,” has some of the same deep interests as Benedict XVI: the liturgy, and music.
“As a 15-year-old boy I first entered the sanctuary of the Lord, the Holy of Holies of the Orthodox Church,” Hilarion once wrote about the Orthodox liturgy. “But it was only after my entrance into the altar that the ‘theourgia,’ the mystery, and ‘feast of faith’ began, which continues to this very day.
“After my ordination, I saw my destiny and main calling in serving the Divine Liturgy. Indeed, everything else, such as sermons, pastoral care and theological scholarship were centered around the main focal point of my life — the liturgy.”
Liturgy
These words seem to echo the feelings and experiences of Benedict XVI, who has written that the liturgies of Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday in Bavaria when he was a child were formative for his entire being, and that his writing on the liturgy (one of his books is entitled “Feast of Faith”) is the most important to him of all his scholarly endeavors.
“Orthodox divine services are a priceless treasure that we must carefully guard,” Hilarion has written. “I have had the opportunity to be present at both Protestant and Catholic services, which were, with rare exceptions, quite disappointing… Since the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, services in some Catholic churches have become little different from Protestant ones.”
Again, these words of Hilarion seem to echo Benedict XVI’s own concerns. The Pope has made it clear that he wishes to reform the Catholic Church’s liturgy, and preserve what was contained in the old liturgy and now risks being lost.
Hilarion has cited the Orthodox St. John of Kronstadt approvingly. St. John of Kronstadt wrote: “The Church and its divine services are an embodiment and realization of everything in Christianity… It is the divine wisdom, accessible to simple, loving hearts.”
These words echo words written by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, who often said that the liturgy is a “school” for the simple Christian, imparting the deep truths of the faith even to the unlearned through its prayers, gestures and hymns.
Hilarion in recent years has become known for his musical compositions, especially for Christmas and for Good Friday, celebrating the birth and the Passion of Jesus Christ. These works have been performed in Moscow and in the West, in Rome in March 2007 and in Washington DC in December 2007.
Closer relations between Rome and Moscow, then, could have profound implications also for the cultural and liturgical life of the Church in the West. There could be a renewal of Christian art and culture, as well as of faith.
All of this was at stake in the quiet meeting between Archbishop Hilarion and Benedict XVI on Friday afternoon, in the castle overlooking Lake Albano.
Eirenikon 
God bless Archbishop Hilarion!!
“During a talk with Pope Benedict XVI, Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk pointed out the status of Orthodox believers in Western Ukraine where three Orthodox dioceses had been almost eliminated as a result of coercive actions of Greek Catholics in late 1980s and early 1990s,” Interfax reported.
Now I could live without that little dig. “Coercive” Greek Catholics? Pardon me while I swallow my back teeth (and recall the countless Ukrainian Catholic churches wrested from the Catholics by the Soviets, given to the Orthodox, and never returned…).
Why do these historical grievances supposedly operate only in one direction? Man, does that ever get old.
That cavil aside, I find this whole thing extremely encouraging. If reunion with Moscow actually occurs, I will be convinced that the Eschaton is nigh!
Indeed. We’ve done a lot of really nasty things to one another over the centuries.
Someone, I can’t quite remember who (probably because his name doesn’t come up a whole lot in these Orthodox-Catholic debates), said something about specks and motes in eyes.
Someone, I can’t quite remember who (probably because his name doesn’t come up a whole lot in these Orthodox-Catholic debates)….
LOL!
Oh…Him!!!
I recently heard Dr. Tracey Rowland share about her research into Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict. She is Dean at John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, Australia.
Dr. Rowland has written an excellent book in which she examines the main influences on Benedict’s thought – John Newman, being one of them. She also stated that it is one of Pope Benedict’s highest priorities to find a way to heal the division between the catholic traditions of East and West. He defines catholic as both universal and organic. Nothing synthetic can be catholic, as C.S. Lewis also says in his Introduction to St. Athanasius’ treatise On the Incarnation. I recommend the book:
“Ratzinger’s Faith – The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI”. Published by Oxford University Press.
Alice,
I agree: Dr Rowland’s book “Ratzinger’s Faith” is excellent.
If you steal a church, isn’t that just evidence that you probably need the church more than the people you stole the church from? Its like stealing a bible, if you do it, you probably need the book more than the person you stole it from.
Seriously, the conflicts in these countries have more to do with tribal feuds than religion in most cases. I tend to think both Catholics and Orthodox are the victims in these cases, but what do I know?
It doesn’t seem to me that Hilarion is contesting the return of the churches in Western Ukraine, per se. I think what he is referring to here is the lack of willingness on the part of many of the reconstituted Ukrainian Catholic communities to share their reclaimed churches with the remaining Orthodox in Western Ukraine until such time as these could build new local churches of their own.
Now this is a complicated issue, and the fact that Ukrainian Catholics often had to reclaim their property by force probably left them hardened to the subsequent plight of their Orthodox brethren. But one can forgive Hilarion for legitimately bringing up the concerns of his constituency.
Without wanting to over dramatize the developments described in the article (which probably already over dramatizes to some degree already), I think this apparent warming of relations points again to the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate has always been theologically more in tune with Rome than has virtually any other Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarch’s ecumenism not withstanding.
I am beginning to think that the best way to circumvent the “Estonian” problem in official ecumenical discussions would be for Rome to engage in separate but parallel and reinforcing dialogues with Moscow one one side, and with the rest of Orthodoxy on the other, with the aim of merging the two discourses once circumstances allow.
You may wish to take a look at the most recent entry in a new blog http://towardtransfiguration.wordpress.com/
by a St. Vlad seminarian. Seems apropos here. Peter Gilbert on his blog brought it to my attention
Vito
I have addressed this and various similarly themed reports that have been making the rounds in the (mostly) Catholic press/media on multiple occasions and in multiple blogs and other venues over the last week. Thus I will not belabor an already oft repeated point.
This (and the related reports) making the rounds in the blogosphere is being rather badly misinterpreted. The thaw in relations means that the two churches are talking to each other. Talk of improved relations also likely refers to cooperation in the areas of mutual interest and concern which the Russian Church and +Hilarion in particular have been enthusiastically calling for for years. Reading more into this is wishful thinking.
Please take note that in all of the various reports and rumors floating around, they all have one thing in common. There is not a single sentence, not one syllable, discussing or even hinting at any serious breakthrough in the very serious theological differences dividing Rome from the Orthodox Church. Indeed the silence is deafening.
Anyone who has any knowledge of +Hilarion knows that he has repeatedly made it clear that he considers the theological differences between Rome and Orthodoxy to be of such a nature that he harbors little hope of restored communion. His enthusiasm for improved relations with Rome is based on our concurrence in so many social and cultural issues, nothing more. Moscow is not gong to establish communion with Rome independent of the rest of the Orthodox Church. Indeed, the Russian Church is among the most conservative of the Orthodox churches. It has grown only more so since the restoration of the Church Abroad to full communion and inclusion in the Holy Synod. I remind all concerned that these Orthodox generally receive Roman Catholic converts only through full baptism!
Seriously folks. While I can sympathize with the urgent desire so many Catholics apparently have for restored communion (based on the plethora of web postings on this subject) , it is time for a reality check. Absolutely no meaningful progress has been made on the grave issues which divide us. To believe that there is even a slight chance that the Russian Church is about to break from the rest of the Orthodox world and unilaterally enter into Unia with Rome is beyond naive wishful thinking. It is pure fantasy.
In ICXC
John
“Grave issues which divide us”…”serious theological differences”….
No. These exist more in the heads of polemicists than in reality. May Our Lord through Our Lady’s intercession open the minds and hearts of those who exaggerate — and perpetuate — our differences.
There are theological differences to be sure.
Perhaps an analogy will help. We humans, in fact most animals, have two eyes, ( I can’t think of an animal that sees only with one eye). If we shut one eye and look, we certainly can see but not as accurately as with two eyes.
Perhaps, for the last one thousand years or so, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have been seeing things with only one eye.
Each eye transmits its paricular data to the brain that combines both into accurate vision. Perhaps we need to understand that a bit more clearly.
Q. Are there any one-eyed animals?
A. There are no mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians that naturally have only one eye, according to the New York Zoological Society. Flatfish like the flounder, commonly thought of as having only one eye, in fact have two; one migrates to join the other on the right or left side.
However, there are several orders of one-eyed animals among the invertebrates, said John Behler, a herpetologist, who is reptile curator for the Bronx Zoo. Among them are some “water fleas,” which are actually crustaceans.
Another one-eyed crustacean, appropriately named the cyclops, is a common inhabitant of pond scum in stagnant bodies of water, Mr. Belher said. It has compound eyes like those of the fly, but only one per customer.
From the NY Times Q and A, April 23, 1991.
e, I think the question is: How serious are the differences?
Some people, I think, wildly exaggerate the seriousness.
Others, without necessarily minimizing the differences, seek to understand the linguistic and historical factors that may have led us to misunderstand each other, even though we essentially profess the same Faith.
Catholic convert David Currie once wrote that evangelicals and Catholics share at least 80% of the same Faith. If Protestants are that close to us, theologically, how much more so the Orthodox, who essentially share the same Faith re the hierarchical nature of the Church; the importance of apostolic succession; the Grace-mediating role of the Sacraments; the reality of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist; the legitimacy of venerating Mary, the saints, and icons…etc. etc. etc.
John,
Organic unity is not in the immediate offing, and no Catholic realistically expects any of the Orthodox Churches to enter separately into communion with Rome.
Nevertheless, there are steps short of full communion that can be taken, and that are only inhibited by a polemic temper and reflex which varies in intensity between individuals and from Church to Church within each communion. I would list among the steps on which some progress has already been made:
1. A narrowing of perceived theological differences through discussions aimed at clearing up misunderstandings regarding each other’s teachings;
2. A practice of speaking jointly and with one voice on issues of broad public interest on which substantive agreement exists;
3. The development of an honest joint historical narrative on the political and theological background to the schism, giving proper recognition to the legitimate grievances of both sides, and which would set the ground for a comprehensive expression of remorse and repentance for the lack of charity each has expressed and demonstrated towards the other.
Recent developments in relations between Rome and Moscow point to yet further potential progress and even breakthroughs with respect to all three of these steps, and give Catholics, at least, sufficient grounds for further optimism, however distant prospects for ultimate organic reunion.
Diane, we should neither exaggerate nor minimize the differences that exist between us. I think I can say that the authoritative opinion of the Orthodox Church is that the dividing issues from our side are universal jurisdiction of the papacy and filioque. Metropolitan Hillarion has, on multiple occasions, stated this much.
There are some periphery issues, such as the metaphysics implicit in the immaculate conception and purgatory, which, although needing further clarification, do not need to divide us.
I find the tendency to diminish differences far more odious than that which heightens them. If there are no significant differences, than one side has been in needless schism for 1000 years. This is quite an accusation. Certainly there has been sin involved on both sides of the schism, but to state that there are no theological issues is, I think, condescending to the highest degree.
As David B. Hart (a commenter whom no one can call polemic) has stated that there is a significant dogmatic imbalance (with Rome having considerably more dogma than Orthodox). Simply put, Rome, while cordially inviting us to dialogue, has not, IMHO, done the canonical work to prepare for such a dialogue. Rome is perhaps personally “open to a new situation,” yet canonically, it is not. For instance, we have no ecumenical canon with the absolute breadth and finality as: “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
My point here is simply that there are disagreements and no clear path on the Roman side to resolve them. I’m not suggesting that Rome merely capitulate unilaterally, but that any dialogue will require a clear canonical path forward. This path has been prepared by Orthodoxy in her reluctance to declare subsequent councils to be ecumenical. There has been no such restraint by Rome, which has rebuffed us at many points. I don’t see any possible progress without this canonical preparation, which is more than just evidence of good faith, but clears a path for dialogue to actually be meaningful.
“Between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it is fanaticism alone, that has emphasized the insignificant differences, differences that were never serious, that existed in former times without bringing on a schism.”
— Panteleimon, Metropolitan of Chios, writing in Le Monde, January 26,1952
Ugh, back to the quotes again. I can give you any number of quotes from cardinals saying a whole number of things. This would only prove that both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism do not believe that every bishop speaks for the whole Church. We tease these out in slightly different ways (our highest authority is conciliar, Rome’s is the papacy [which includes councils]). But nevertheless, and I can’t say this with enough emphasis, just because a bishop says something doesn’t mean that it is true nor that he himself isn’t a “fanatic.”
Before the two eyes can agree on a single vision, each must remove the plank lodged within it.
The Orthodox must, at least, come to an agreement as to jurisdiction. This alone is a great impediment.
As for the Catholic side, there has been recognition regarding the role of the Pope. Much research has been done on how the understanding of the Pope’s role changed from the first millenia and there has been a gradual, incremental, improvement in recovering the understanding current in the first millenia. Opposition is evident, of course, and it will not go away easily.
As for the filioque, again there has been a recognition of how and why it developed. It is increasingly recognized that it is a legitimate expression within certain limits.
As for the immaculate conception and purgatory, I don’t see why the Orthodox praise of the Theotokos is any different, ( except that it has not been made dogma), and why the toll-houses aren’t as peculiar as purgatory.
As for the canon quoted, it is necessary to read the history of the Vatican Council I to see how and why that was stated and exactly when it is applicable.
“qui ex Patre Filioque procedit”
The words on the sign posted over the door to the residence of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Constantinople for three centuries.
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…
…So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
In ICXC
John
(The anathematized)
OOOPs
I omitted the caption for the second quote.
-Canons and decrees from the Fourth Session of the First Vatican Council.
-John
e,
I agree with you on almost every point. Further, the problem with filioque is its ambiguity combined with some clearly (according to both Catholic and Orthdox authorities) heretical teaching. Catholics and Orthodox should both cringe when we hear people talking about the Holy Spirit as the love child of the Father and the Son. Further definition is required to avoid these heresies. Bottom line, the *language* of the filioque is not adequate for an ecumenical canon of faith because it is simply imprecise. It is, in this sense, exactly the opposite of the homoousias which was rejected by many because it was *too* precise.
I don’t have any problem with lauding the Mother of God. Far from it. In fact, I argued just this week *against* those to stated that the Orthodox Church does not teach Mary as co-redemptrix. In fact, I think it would be a great ecumenical opportunity for our churches to define this doctrine together. Regarding the Immaculate Conception, even if we get beyond the fact that the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit on Mary occurs, according to the scriptures, *after* the annunciation, we still have remaining *metaphysical* problems. Namely, guilt is passed down from Adam, which is omitted miraculously in Mary so that Christ may be born sinless. This defeats our salvation entirely, since Christ must assume our nature to heal it. If Mary is born exempt from the sinful corruption, then Christ has not assumed our nature and we are not healed. The bottom line is, whatever corruption is passed down from Adam was passed on to Christ through Mary so that it might be healed. Take that away, and we have no salvation.
Purgatory is another one of these issues. I’m running out of time, so I can’t write much. But the Orthodox Church has consistently objected to purgatory since the beginning of its articulation. That being said, we don’t reject to some sort of struggling, purification, etc after death.
Bottom line, Purgatory and IC need more clarification.
The problem with Vatican I is *precisely* the context which you appeal to. I’ve run out of time, so I can’t say more.
There seems to be an assumption that Orthodox merely “don’t understand” things like filioque, papal infallibility, immaculate conception, purgatory, etc. It is not a lack of understanding, we just simply disagree. And with that, I’m out of time. Later!
Sigh….yes, yes, yes.
Repeat this all you want, point to it with fulsome glee if you wish.
But…could you please take a look at the history of how/why that occured and, actual papal practice before and after Vatican I and…Vatican II which took a number of steps to clarify this?
Nathaniel,
In substance, the Catholic Church does not understand itself as expressing a faith any different in 2009 from what it expressed in the period from 1014 to 1100, by which time all the outstanding substantive points of significant disagreement had already been exposed, and yet communion between East and West was maintained.
Significantly, the proximate cause for Orthodoxy’s raising what amounted to a high-level but narrow (Rome-Constantinople) schism to one spanning the totality of both communions was not strictly doctrinal but a dispute over local jurisdiction at Antioch.
The language of Vatican I is certainly formulated in ultramontane terms, as this was the predominant current at the time. But the proceedings of the council and the record of debate make it abundantly clear that the truth intended is not dependent on an untramontane reading. Similarly, while the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was formally articulated and defended in Augustinian terms, it need not be understood in terms of an Augustinian notion of original sin, nor does it make Augustinian theology normative or binding for either Western or Eastern Catholics.
To just give one example, what is it about the authority claimed for the Papacy at Vatican I that St Athanasius (as then mere “vice-president” of the episcopate) was not exercising in practice when unilaterally (i.e. in the absence of any ecumenical conciliar sanction) consecrating orthodox bishops for non-Alexandrian sees occupied by Arianizing incumbents?
Let me concede at this point that this apparent assertion (that Catholic doctrinal formulations need not mean all and only what one might infer from a superficial reading of them) probably offers little comfort to sceptical Orthodox. If anything, it may increase Orthodox suspicion as to the seriousness with which the Catholic side views its own formulations.
Nevertheless, I would invite Orthodox who see in the formulations cause for despair to challenge Rome constructively to re-express them in terms more specifically intended to address Eastern sensibilities. The Catechism, should Orthodox choose to consult it, already goes quite far along this road. With good will on both sides, we can go farther.
Hmmm. Why do I get the impression that some people want to perpetuate divisions?
So much for that silly “that they all may be one” stuff. Now…who was it said that? What was He thinking?
…So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
I seem to rcall Maximus the Confessor saying much the same thing. Oh wait…. ;)
I third the liking of Dr. Tracey Rowland. I think few understand “20th Century Catholicism” as well as she does.
Diane,
“evangelicals and Catholics share at least 80% of the same Faith” – If you want to say things to Orthodox that might cause them to be more open to the ideas you would like them to be more open to, this sort of thinking might not be the way to go.
Straight talkin’ John,
Yep. Rus has some politically savvy men at the helm of late.
As you know, +Kirill does want to work with BenXVI on confronting rampant secularism. I think he thinks that a direct confrontation with the EU on religious matters is in the works, and he sees the advantages of both the Orthodox and the RCs speaking in unison. But there is also Orthodox politics at play here – if the MP can get the RCC to speak with more strength against the EU on religious matters, this only further isolates the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has been the EU’s favorite little religious darling in recent years, and flirts incessantly with EU religious syncretistic nonsense. It also further isolates the Finnish Orthodox Church, which has had clerics speak openly in support of gay marriage. The Finnish Church was granted autonomy by the EP. Most finn Orthodox laity look to Rus, but their clerics and hierarchs are “liberals” who look to the EP. There is a lot at play here. Including the question of who Rome prefers to play ball with. For years the EP has played Rome against Moscow. Now we may be seeing the roles reversed, and, frankly, if I were Rome, I would go for Moscow. Having the EP convert to Catholicism would bring in a host of folks not really sympathetic to RCC moral law. With Moscow you have most Orthodox and you have an ecclesial culture that is far more in line with Rome’s thoughts on the Christian moral life. There is, in my mind, one moral issue impossible to reconcile, “divorce,” but even on contraception I think that the Russian Church’s position is not that far from Mike Liccione’s. On everything else Moscow is pretty much in line with views Catholics would be very comfortable with.
One wonders how there could be more than a Miami sunbather’s chance in a frozen tundra hell that +Kirill or +Hilarion could go home announcing a reunion and get any different sort of treatment than Isidore of Kiev did after Florence.
For all that I agree with John, I cannot help but think at this time of the parameters of the debate for American Orthodox. A dear Catholic friend of mine once asked why Orthodox so liked BenXVI more that JPII, and aside from the Pole thing, my friend was offended when I answered, “because Orthodox are confidant that BenXVI is a Christian.” I meant that more as praise of Ben XVI than an attack on JPII, though as all here probably know I am not the biggest fan of wojtylianism. That sentiment of a relative trust in Ben XVI’s heart, having read his work for years and once having been employed by a former student of his, remains with me, and I see it in a lot of other Orthodox. And, frankly, under current circumstances I have to admit that I admire bishops who do not retain friendships with mobsters who threaten to kill bishops and priests – that is another thing BenXVI has going for him, unquestionable integrity, which is sorely needed in our time. But should, God forbid, BenXVI leave office, things might change drastically.
“evangelicals and Catholics share at least 80% of the same Faith” – If you want to say things to Orthodox that might cause them to be more open to the ideas you would like them to be more open to, this sort of thinking might not be the way to go.
Yeah, Och, well, I figured adherents of the Justin Popovich School of Anti-Ecumenism could conceivably take exception. ;) But you know what? I don’t particularly feel like pandering to that particular constituency, which I am convinced is a shrinking minority, except of course on the Internet.
I’m totally over it. Unlike some (by NO MEANS all) of my Orthodox brethren, I don’t hoist aloft my Crucifix and garlic cloves whenever a Protestant heaves into view. Some of my best friends are Protestant evangelicals. And, while I obviously disagree with them about some aspects of their theology, I also find that I have a heck of a lot in common with them–most notably our shared faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Lord and Savior.
Moreover, I have found that some of my evangelical chums are a lot sounder on social / moral issues such as the pro-life battle than some of my Orthodox acquaintances. Yes, I recognize that the Orthodox are FAR closer to Catholics doctrinally and theologically — as one papal document puts it, there “lacks little” to resolve before reunion can be possible. But, at the same time, I also feel that I would far rather be in “the trenches,” praying outside an abortion mill, with a fervent pro-life evangelical than dealing with an Obama-supporting Orthodox who oh-so-piously and sophistically fudges on the pro-life issue…and yes, I have a particular person in mind when I say this. ;)
In fairness, I will state that I know some very pro-life Orthodox who are fighting the good fight vs. the Culture of Death. But frankly I seldom encounter my Orthodox brethren outside the local abortion mill, e.g., during the 40 Days for Life campaign, whereas I regularly encounter — and pray with — evangelicals in this context. I am NOT saying this to diss my Orthodox brethren; I’m just sayin’ that I have a hard time harboring those de rigeur negative sentiments about my Protestant brethren when I see what they are doing to combat the greatest moral evil of our time.
“For years the EP has played Rome against Moscow. Now we may be seeing the roles reversed, and, frankly, if I were Rome, I would go for Moscow. Having the EP convert to Catholicism would bring in a host of folks not really sympathetic to RCC moral law. With Moscow you have most Orthodox and you have an ecclesial culture that is far more in line with Rome’s thoughts on the Christian moral life. There is, in my mind, one moral issue impossible to reconcile, “divorce,” but even on contraception I think that the Russian Church’s position is not that far from Mike Liccione’s. On everything else Moscow is pretty much in line with views Catholics would be very comfortable with.”
Rome doesn’t see it as either/or, but much of what you see strikes me as true. The EP and his immediate predecessors have been friendlier than their Russian counterparts, but clearly wobblier (without completely falling off the wagon) on a number of issues on which Rome and Moscow see eye to eye, such as Anglican Orders, abortion and women’s ordination.
Even the “divorce” issue poses fewer problems than you might think as the Latin rite has already had to confront and accommodate Byzantine canonical practice as it exists in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I believe that first marriage annulments are understood as corresponding to the Latin determination that a marriage can be declared invalid if one or both of the contractual parties failed to grasp the significance of the obligation matrimony placed on them. Fr. Paul and others should feel free to correct me, if this is a misapprehension on my part.
I suggest that all interested read the two addresses Abp. Hilarion gave when he was in Rome, one to a Roman Catholic community, and another to an Orthodox Church & the press. They are far more revealing and interesting than the media reports. I’m linking to the translations my wife worked on, because the originals are in Italian.
http://tsoab.blogspot.com/2009/09/address-of-abp-hilarion-to-community-of.html
http://tsoab.blogspot.com/2009/09/second-translated-address.html
There is no talk of union there, other than as a hopeful coda to the second address; even when it is discussed, there is no mention of the scope of the problem, just prayerful hope (in other words: there’s no there there, yet). There is a lot of talk on unity of voice in social matters facing the West, however. And the talk of improved relations is largely about this: They are now seriously committed to a meeting between the two hierarchs.
Och,
I confess that I frequently forget about the issue of divorce. That too is going to be a pretty tough nut to crack. Rome’s position is pretty set in concrete.
Diane,
Roman Catholics voted for Obama by a substantial margin in the last election. It’s been a few months but the last poll I remember seeing indicated he still had the loyalty of most of those. Yes we (like all bodies) have our Sunday only faithful. But at least we were not a party to the recent spectacle of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston giving a Catholic send off to the late Senator from Massachusetts that very nearly canonized him as a saint.
Michaël,
Your understanding is probably pretty close to what is going on at the diocesan level in much of the RCC. The Holy See fumes but is routinely ignored by the vast majority of RC bishops who are using annulments as de-facto church divorces. I am not wild about divorce and think we Orthodox have been a bit too casual in blessing 2nd and 3rd marriages. But at least we do it honestly.
In ICXC
John
Michael, thank you for an extremely thoughtful and irenic post.
I’ve never stated that union between our churches would require a monotony of dogma in any sense. None of our bishops suggest this. None of the Roman Catholic bishops suggest this. I’ve only tried to state what appears to me to be the position of our Church, namely that the issues which perpetuate that division boil down to the papacy and (secondarily) filioque. If our bishops want to do something different, I’ll happily follow their lead. I have no desire for needless schism.
Yes, I’m aware of the history of the cascading nature of the Roman/Constantinopolitan schism, namely what was first a local, contained controversy gradually spread throughout the other Churches. Also I am not a sceptical Orthodox (as St Augustine says, God cannot be revealed to a sceptic!), I confess that I have a hard time appreciating the difference between “clarification” and “we don’t like what the last pope (or council) said, so we just spin it.” It is perhaps because of my familiarity with the Machiavellian tactics often employed by Rome in the past. But I digress. I am willing to admit that there may perhaps be a better articulation of IC and Purgatory. My difficulty with IC is that, if the underlying metaphysical system is removed, the doctrine really says nothing. If it is maintained, it says a lot. I’m not sure how this cannot but at least raise thoughts about “the seriousness with which the Catholic side views its own formulations.” I’m not willing to to perpetuate schism on such issues however.
Regarding Athanasius and his replacement of Arian bishops, I agree that this is a complicated issue (in fact, I think one that deserves more academic study). Athanasius is of course not the only case. Constantinople replaced bishops all over the East on numerous occasions (probably many more times than we have historical record of). Rome, at least in my understanding, views this as a privilege exclusive to the Petrine office. This is clearly not the understanding of the other Patriarchates due to their frequent exercise of this privilege throughout various controversies. I think that, surveying the wide variety of scholarship out there, it is probably safest to say that, from the earliest periods in Christian history (far before 1000AD), the privileges which each Patriarch held as natural to their office, Rome held as exclusive to her own. It is this basic conflict which has never been resolved. Although this disagreement was not cause for division for centuries, it has played a major role into the current (unfortunate) division. Therefore, I don’t see how any reunion can take place without a resolution to this issue. I’m hopeful that one can be found.
John,
With respect annulments, I wasn’t thinking so much in terms of the Catholic practice in North America (which in any case is becoming more rigorous), but the theology behind the practice. For the Latin rite, it’s fairly simple. The Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, and in principle Latin canon law reflects this. The Eastern rites, on the other hand, have their own canon law which for the Byzantine rites conforms to the Orthodox practice of easy divorce in the case of first marriages (I didn’t realize that third marriages were possible under Orthodoxy). There is thus what I see as a certain tension between Byzantine Catholic practice and what the Church teaches about the sacraments that is not there in the Latin rite (or at least not to the same degree).
In any case, if Catholic sacramental theology can accommodate Eastern Catholic practice it should be able to accommodate MP practice as well; though third marriages would really be a problem. How can you still claim ignorance of what is involved when you have been ‘married’ once already?
John: Correction. Practicing Catholics — those who attend Mass weekly, as is obligatory for Catholics — did NOT vote for Obama by a substantial majority. Or even by a slim majority, if memory serves.
It is always important to get one’s facts straight. Don’t you think?
Far too many Catholics, even practicing ones, did swallow the Hope-and-Change Kool-Aid last November. But very few Catholics of my acquaintance are Obama Apologists today. Are there some? Sure. I have the same difficulty dealing with them that I have dealing with ardently pro-Obama Orthodox.
But that wasn’t even my point, so why even bring up voting patterns? My point is that I feel much more “at home,” spiritually, with evangelicals who support the Culture of Life than with Orthodox (or Catholics for that matter) who try to justify the Culture of Death.
Moreover, I see a much more visible, widespread witness to the Gospel of Life among both Catholics and evangelicals than I see among Orthodox. There are some wonderful exceptions to be sure. But, by and large, when I go to a prayer vigil at the local abortion mill, I’m almost sure to encounter both Catholics and evangelicals there. I almost never — well, actually, in my personal experience, absolutely never — encounter Orthodox there. Make of that what you will, but others have noticed the same pattern…in widely varying geographical areas.
Among my Catholic friends — and I do NOT attend a particularly conservative parish — pro-life is top priority. It’s the same among my evangelical friends. I do not sense the same level of commitment to pro-life witness among most Orthodox whom I’ve encountered, either online or in Real Life. Again, I can think of some notable exceptions. But those exceptions, I think, illustrate the rule. The pro-life movement is a Catholic Thing and an Evangelical Thing. If it’s an Orthodox Thing in any major visible way, well, I haven’t seen that yet. But I am open to correction re this.
Whom do most people (including the media) think of first when it comes to defense of unborn life? The Catholic Church. And, secondarily, evangelicals. Despite lousy catechesis, despite the scandal of the last election, the Catholic Church is OVERWHELMINGLY identified with the pro-life cause and with the Gospel of Life. I truly don’t see how you can possibly gainsay this. Nor do I see how you can gainsay that evangelicals are also identified with pro-life witness. C’mon, John. Give our evangelical brethren credit for something. ;)
To get back on (thread) topic, though: I think Och’s objection to my positive words about Protestants reflects a fundamental difference in the way Catholics see other Christians (since VCII, at any rate) versus the way some converts to Orthodoxy see other Christians. Catholics look for points of convergence, areas of agreement, things we have in common (without thereby glossing over real–as opposed to imaginary–differences). Certain converts to Orthodoxy, OTOH, focus exclusively on what divides us. It’s a matter of perspective. It’s what one Orthodox priest (now a Catholic priest) once called “the gospel of division and exclusion.” I suppose it’s all very well if one doesn’t take seriously that “ut unum sint” stuff. Unfortunately, some of us just can’t get past the fact that our divisions break Our Lord’s Heart and impede Christian witness in a lost and broken world.
The Eastern rites, on the other hand, have their own canon law which for the Byzantine rites conforms to the Orthodox practice of easy divorce in the case of first marriages ….
Michael–are you sure about this? Can you please cite the relevant canon law, if possible? I confess that this comes as a shock and a scandal to me. :o
Thank you!
Diane,
Thanks for making me check this. It appears I was mistaken. Here is what the Wikipedia entry has to say (I tried leafing through the Code directly, but I am not a lawyer and had to give up):
“The Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches (CCEO) in canon 780 follows the Second Vatican Council’s teaching that the tribunals of the Orthodox Church have a valid annulment process to declare a marriage null. Only divine law and merely civil effects of marriage are not considered valid actions by a tribunal. In other words, if an Orthodox tribunal holds that the marriage was invalid from its inception, that decision would be accepted by a marriage tribunal in the Catholic Church. However, some of the Orthodox churches allow a second or third marriage in oikonomia (economy), which is not permitted in the Catholic Church. This concept states that the first marriage was valid, and the second is allowed in the economy of salvation. The Catholic Church would see this as contrary to divine law, and so not a valid act.”
So it seems the Church’s sacramental doctrine is applied with full rigour after all, even for the Eastern rites, much your and my relief. :-)
Nathaniel,
“Regarding Athanasius and his replacement of Arian bishops, I agree that this is a complicated issue (in fact, I think one that deserves more academic study). Athanasius is of course not the only case. Constantinople replaced bishops all over the East on numerous occasions (probably many more times than we have historical record of). Rome, at least in my understanding, views this as a privilege exclusive to the Petrine office. This is clearly not the understanding of the other Patriarchates due to their frequent exercise of this privilege throughout various controversies.”
That isn’t quite the Roman position. It may shock you, but Catholics believe that *any* bishop can act as Athanasius did and, in fact, *should* in the absence of any practical alternative. All bishops have a responsibility to act in preservation of the faith though, for the sake of order in the Church, they should still strive to act insofar as they can within the scope provided for under canon law. What distinguishes the Pope from the other bishops in this matter is the extent of his responsibility, and his freedom to act anywhere and at any time without being constrained by the formal limits of canon law.
Thus Rome would have no difficulty with a Patriarch deposing a bishop within his own patriarchate for cause, if this were done in conformity with that patriarchate’s canon law. Rome would, of course, reserve the right to hear and review appeals over whether “cause” existed or not or over whether the canons had been respected, but that is a different matter. Rome would also reserve the right to act unilaterally in correcting a canonically unsatisfactory abuse in another patriarchate where the local ecclesiastical authorities prove unwilling or unable to correct it themselves when called upon to do so.
It is in this sense that the adjectives Vatican I associates with papal primacy have to be understood:
SUPERIOR/SUPREME It has to be if the Pope is to properly exercise an appellate function.
UNIVERSAL It has to apply to the whole Church for the same reason.
IMMEDIATE He has to be able to exercise this authority directly because if it has to be mediated then it isn’t his authority anymore but someone else’s that applies.
ORDINARY The authority has to be inherent in his office as bishop of Rome and not delegated to him by some other body, otherwise his use of it would always be contested.
The problem with the code words without this gloss is that they make it sound as if the authority claimed can be exercised arbitrarily and the local bishop dispensed with or by-passed on a whim. While I suspect that this may in part have been why the ultramontanes at the council resisted suggestions that the language required more nuance, the drafters of the canons were nevertheless forced to spell out in plenary what the jargon meant, and to disavow in precise terms any other intended interpretations than those I have given above.
In practical terms, the authority claimed at Vatican I is found perfectly reflected in the canons of the council of Sardica which attempted to give legal form to an authority popes had previously demonstrably exercised since at least Clement letter to the Corinthians.
Annulments
Divorce.
The official Orthodox stance on annulments and divorce.
Basing any kind of cooperation or even “possible union” on the basis of “fighting rampant secularism” is erroneous and simply falls back on the “siege mentality” of both chuches originating in the nineteenth century.
The Vatican I declaration on the Pope was , in large part, an attempt to shore up authority in the face of traumatic political, social and economic events which had overturned the , ( what some perceived as divinely decreed), established order.
The same attitudes were evident in Russia, with the Church’s resistance to the “freeing” of the serfs, public education, economic reform and so on.
To view the present situation as if there was some “pure” Church beset by outside demons is to echo the very same attitudes as those and perhaps even those of the late Roman Empire, ( Augustine etc;).
However, the current situation is not of that order. “Rampant secularism” exists because of the Church’s, ( both East and West), failure to truly convert itself and the society around it to the full, complete, eschatological and contemplative reality of the Faith. Secularism is a first result of Christianity. Its values originate in Christianity and not from anything previous. It is not the reimposition of any previous attitude. If it is “post-Christian”, it is only that in that it no longer understands the teaching of the Church. It no longer understands that teaching because the Church itself does not understand it very well.
It might be that cooperation and possible reunion will occur beginning with this siege mentality but it will become clear that the results will not be those anticipated. At that point, perhaps relection will lead those in charge to realize their true task- to convert themselves first, by abandoning the temptation of power in any form and rather to serve the societies it finds itself in.
This is a very interesting and fruitful discussion, with many things said on both sides I thoroughly aprove of, and with wihich I would like to engage when I have more time available.
One thing, however, leaves me perplexed: those who, on either side, seem to think that the moral controversies of our time are equally important as (or more so than) the dogmatic questions. A particularly problematic thing for me – admittedly a non-american – is the fact that good people on both sides seem to think that voting record in the last election is a test of orthodoxy (lower case deliberate). I did not vote for Obama (of course, since I am not part of the electorate in question) but I don’t think that those who did are necessarily bad Catholics or bad Orthodox, or that it disqualifies them from the right to a hearing. “Siege mentality” indeed, as Evagrius says – it makes us sound as ideological as the “enemy”. Apologies to those who will immediately catalogue me as a pinko liberal, but I’ll just have to live with it. Let’s get back on topic, folks.
Father Paul: Obama is the most radically pro-abortion president in American history, by far and bar none. I get the impression that many of our European coreligionists don’t quite see this; even L’Osservatore Romano has been known to fawn over Obama on occasion. But please, trust us Americans; we know what we’re dealing with here.
I agree that voting records should not be used as polemical weapons; that is why I am focusing on attitudes, especially attitudes right now, rather than on the 2008 election results. (It was my friend John who brought up 2008 voting patterns, not I. ;))
But, Father, I disagree that social and moral issues are not extremely, crucially important. I confess that I can’t see how one can separate Faith and Morals…don’t they go together more or less inextricably? Yes, doctrinal questions are more important, but “faith without works is dead”; therefore moral issues matter. A lot. And, among those issues, as several popes have made clear, the Gospel of Life is numero uno.
In America, every single day, some 3,000-4,000 unborn babies are aborted. That’s more people than died in the 9/11 attacks. Every single day. This has been going on, in this country alone, every single day since 1973. It is a holocaust of unprecedented proportions.
I am sorry if I have scandalized anyone by intimating that I feel more comfortably, spiritually, with seriously pro-life Protestants than with those Orthodox AND Catholics who try to justify the butchery of unborn babies. But I do happen to feel that it is far more important for Catholics and non-Catholics to work together to advance the Culture of Life than for Catholics and Orthodox to bicker about the Filioque on the Internet. As important as the latter exercise may be. ;)
But that’s just me.
One revert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism once told me that what turned the tide for him was a weekend visit to an Orthodox monastery, where the seminarians accompanying him spent a good deal of their time beefing about those horrible heterodox Romans and all their horrible heterodox heresies. This person reflected, “Here we are facing all these huge societal issues that will dramatically affect our children and our children’s children…and all these guys can do is go on and on about how evil the Romans and the Protestants are.” The experience gave him pause. And, I think, rightly.
Diane,
I think you will find that this site is a bit more international than a lot of the ones you usually participate in. As such the way in which the culture wars resonate in the US don’t necessarily find the echo here that you might be used to.
Granted that abortion is a murderous abomination. I doubt anyone here will contest this. But a legitimate question for Catholic voters in the US should be whether punishing or defeating pro-abortion candidates is more important than actually reducing the number of abortions performed by, for example, supporting better health, education and social policies that might make childbirth seem the better and safer alternative.
Furthermore abortion isn’t the only “life” issue on the table: capital punishment (which the magisterium has described as largely indefensible in prosperous modern societies) and wars of choice (Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan) are also legitimate worries for devout American Catholics.
I am not trying to make the case that Catholics should have voted for Obama (or, for that matter, that pro-life politicians should be admitted to communion). I am merely pointing out that for many American and non American Catholics, the idea that US Republicans should automatically get a pass on all other issues just because they pay selective lip service to the “life” cause is not necessarily compelling.
Now, as to why you don’t see many Orthodox at protests? The answer could lie in part in that devout Orthodox in the US are few.
ev,
Frankly, I agree with you. I do not think the combined efforts of the RCC and ROC (whether just working together as separate churches or whether through an ecclesial union) are going to turn the tide in Europe. I think it a naivety common to ecclesiophiles to think that the Church has or potentially has a great deal of influence with regard to secularism, etc. I think the Church at this time should concern itself first and foremost with growing secularism within the Church – getting its own to live lives which reflect actual belief in God. That would be the best and most effective witness against “rampant secularism.” All the programs and huffing and puffing and bloated preaching and press releases and conferences and new media formats in the world are not going to budge European secularism one inch.
Diane,
Thanks. I did not mean to spur that on. I have a great respect for my own Protestant upbringing, but I cannot fathom how one could say that with regard to dogma or praxis Baptists share 80% in common with Orthodox. If you think that Baptists and Catholics share 80% in common, well, I’m not going to argue with you. On moral issues, one thing you might want to consider is this – it is rather undisputed that Evangelicalism has changed a great deal in the last 20 years, and (of great concern to some Evangelical leaders) younger Evangelicals are far less likely to embrace the public moral fights their parents did. We see slightly higher pro-death numbers among young Evangelicals, but a much higher number who are willing to vote for pro-death politicians even if they themselves state pro-life positions. Further, on the matter of homosexuality, younger Evangelicals are significantly more open to gay marriage, if not blessed by the church at least legalized. These trends have been widely talked about in Evangelical circles, and when one considers how the content of Evangelical faith, and the teaching of that content, has gone down the gutter in the last few decades, largely due to the dumbing down of Evangelicalism through technology and the marketplace (you used to have daily devotions, not you have trinkets; you used to have hymns with serious theological content, now you have mindless praise&worship; you used to have serious bible reading and study, now you have a devotion sent to you by email that has a lot of flashy pictures and is pretty thin, etc). In the end, all sectors of Christianity are struggling with identity issues, in light of the issues late modernity raises.
One question though – do you consider Mormons to be your brethren as well? If not, why not?
On the divorce issue,
I am aware of the Eastern Code of Canon Law on the RCC, with regard to its statement that the traditional means of dealing with annulments by the Eastern Churches are to be maintained.
BenXVI made comments a while back on Greek Orthodox second and third marriages (you can read them and my response to them here: http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2006/05/benedict-xvi.html ). The gist is this – he states that in Orthodoxy 2nd and 3rd marriages, realized through the special penitential marriage rite, are not sacramental marriages, and he seems comfortable with this. I suggest in the post that the matter is more complicated than that and that this would mean the Church is blessing non-sacramental sexual activity, a notion I find theologically inconceivable.
In any event, it is important to note that while Greeks do have an annulment process (one that reflects a view of marriage that is different from the traditional RC view, and a process that is routinely ignored), the Russians do not have such a process. In Slavic Orthodoxy (with a few minor exceptions here and there), 2nd and 3rd marriages are granted permission in the same manner that 1rst marriages are – you get permission from your priest. Rarely is a bishop consulted on the matter of a 2nd or 3rd marriage. Thus there is nothing like an annulment process. In many places, the penitential rite is only used if both parties were married before, but the regular rite used if just one had been married before (from an Orthodox point of view, divorce or widowhood don’t matter – any remarriage is considered oeconomia and penitential). Anyway, if it is the position of the Eastern Code that Eastern Churches follow their own traditional annulment processes, what do you do when there is no such process at all?
Frankly, I am of the opinion that anytime anyone is getting remarried under any circumstances, it should be normal that a bishop should be consulted to get permission and blessing. I also think that even if one party only has been married before, we should normally use the penitential rite.
Michael, please believe me that I am not carrying water for the Republicans. Much less giving them a pass on other issues. That is precisely why I mentioned only the pro-life issue, not the other stuff currently roiling the conservative U.S. community.
But the Holy Father himself has said that the issue of Life trumps all other moral issues — not because the others are not important but because, as JPII said, you cannot defend human dignity if you’re not first defending human life. In Catholic moral teaching, there is a hierarchy of moral issues, and the sanctity of life–especially of defenseless, innocent human life–is at the top of the hierarchy. This comes straight from the popes, straight from the Magisterium. (When I have time, I’ll quote chapter and verse. :)) The defense of unborn human life, the defense of the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, is fundamental. This does not mean we refuse to help relieve poverty and suffering. Of course not. Did Mother Teresa, a fearless pro-life advocate, refuse to help relieve poverty and suffering? No; but, at the same time, she recognized that the right to life is THE fundamental human right from which all other rights spring. That is why she was not afraid to speak truth to power at the famous Clinton prayer breakfast back in the ’90s.
But I digress…sorry!
Bottom line: The commitment above all to the Cause of Life is not an American Thing. It is very much a universal — in short, a Catholic — thing. I cannot see how this can be gainsaid. The Catechism, the encyclical Evangelium Vitae — are these exclusively American things? No; they are Catholic, universal.
And, like it or not, this puts Catholics and their evangelical brethren in a collision course with the “Party of Death” (in D’nesh D’Souza’s apt phrase), whose sacrament is abortion. No, this does not mean we are mindless neo-cons enamored of the GOP. Far from it. (I, for one, have strong disagreements with GOP immigration policy, among other things.) But it does mean that we know who the Pro-Deathers are, and they’re the ones we’re dealing with, they’re the ones we’re up against, in the overarching battle for the Culture of Life.
Again…in the light of Evangelium Vitae, among countless other Magisterial documents, I cannot see how putting a priority on the Gospel of Life can be viewed as an exclusively American Thing. Forgive my being so impassioned…but this is very important to me.
Re the relatively small numbers of Orthodox in America: That’s a fair point. (Although we have a large Greek Orthodox community in my area…just sayin’. ;)) However, I am not just talking about protests at abortion mills. In general, both online and in Real Life, I have not seen the same level of commitment to the Gospel of Life among the Orthodox as among the Catholics and evangelicals I know. And I’m far from the only person who has noticed this.
But I do not want to make invidious comparisons here. My initial purpose was to defend my evangelical brethren, not to diss the Orthodox. So, I would rather keep the tone positive. Suffice it to say that I appreciate evangelicals’ willingness to join hands with us Catholics in defense of unborn human life.
Furthermore abortion isn’t the only “life” issue on the table: capital punishment (which the magisterium has described as largely indefensible in prosperous modern societies) and wars of choice (Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan) are also legitimate worries for devout American Catholics.
Totally agree. But, as the popes have made clear, these issues are not on the same plane or of the same order of magnitude as abortion. Since capital punishment was re-legalized in America, some 200 or so adult criminals have been executed. Tragic as this is, it pales in comparison with the 3000-4000 totally innocent unborn babies who are brutally butchered every single day in our abortion mills.
Same goes for the Iraq War (which I certainly do not defend). Its death toll (on all sides) is tragic….but it still pales in comparison with the death toll from abortion. And I think I can safely say that not one of those aborted babies was a bomb-throwing insurgent. ;)
I think the moral equivalence argument — Cardinal Bernardin’s famous “seamless garment” — has probably done more to further justifications for abortion than anything the pro-aborts have come up with. Thank goodness even the USCCB has rejected this argument. (And that’s saying a lot.)
I read your citation with interest, but I don’t think Bennedict was claiming that there was unity on the issue described. What I think we was offering was a Catholic understanding of the significance of Orthodox praxis in Catholic terms, given that the Catholic Church recognizes the “validity” of Orthodox sacraments. This recognition can only make sense if a distinction can be made between the sacramental nature of first and later marriages. So he makes one. Whether Orthodoxy accepts this distinction is a different matter.
I have had an Orthodox priest tell me that *all* marriages are sacramental, but this is not what Catholics believe. Unsanctioned civil marriages, for example, are not sacramental, nor are those between non Christians, nor are unsanctioned marriages between Christians and non Christians.
Where Rome might give a pass to Orthodox practice regarding second and third marriages is with respect to the couple’s subsequent access to communion. But I can’t now see Rome as accepting the actual blessing of such unions, anymore than it could accept the blessing of gay unions. So if you are right in assuming that the MP would insist on blessing second and third marriages, then yes, this would constitute a significant problem for Catholics.
Michaël,
Yeah, there is the problem.
I don’t understand what good it does a Catholic to “interpret” the Orthodox as providing the sacrament of marriage only in the marriage rite for first marriages, but not in the marriage rite for 2nd and 3rd marriages. Yes, then you have preserved a Catholic understanding of no possibility of sacramental remarriage, but you have also just admitted that the Orthodox bless sexual relationships that are not sacramental marriages.
The penitential rite for 2nd and 3rd marriages is very different from the normal rite, but it is still obviously a blessing from the Church. I have heard Orthodox state that it is not and cannot be an “eternal marriage” like a first marriage, but I have never heard an Orthodox state that there is no sacramental grace in the blessing of 2nd and 3rd marriages – it is inconceivable from an Orthodox point of view to have such a ritual and not to have it understood as a Mystery. Take this for instance, if it were not deemed a Mystery then non-Orthodox should be able to have it done, as non-Orthodox can be anointed with certain non-sacramental oils, such as at vigil services, etc., but non Orthodox cannot receive Holy Unction. Obviously, from a ritual point of view, Orthodox approach the penitential marriage rituals as a Mystery.
It seems to me that from the Catholic understanding, if we deem these penitential marriages as non-sacramental, and yet acceptable, it opens up a precedent for other non-sacramental yet acceptable blessings of sexual relationships. If we can have a non-sacramental penitential rite for 2nd marriages, why not allow a non-sacramental penitential rite for homosexuals? The logic remains the same – one could argue that though homosexual relationships are not what the Church wants of her children, the Church will make allowances, etc., and grant a blessing though only via a penitential rite to such persons, that they can still receive the sacraments. I don’t see how one could avoid this reasoning if one accepts any type of blessing of sexual activity that is not sacramental.
Hence, as I see it, the Orthodox penitential rites only work in a theological ordo in which they are deemed sacramental. Thus it would seem that Orthodox and Catholic theologies of marriage are simply incompatible. And since the Orthodox oeconomiac blessing of 2nd and 3rd marriages predates the schism, one cannot ask them to change that praxis if one is saying that they only have to return to the relationship they had with Rome prior to the schism, etc.
but you have also just admitted that the Orthodox bless sexual relationships that are not sacramental marriages.
To put it bluntly: Yes.
I’m at a loss to see any way around this. And, quite frankly, I do not see how the view you describe can be squared with the words of Our Lord.
But this has been hashed and re-hashed a million times. Please…let’s not go there again.
All I will say is that East-West reunion may entail what our friend Panagiotis likes to call “repentance” on the Orthodox side, not just on the Catholic side. ;)
We should perhaps move this discussion to the new thread our host has started, but for now…
“It seems to me that from the Catholic understanding, if we deem these penitential marriages as non-sacramental, and yet acceptable, it opens up a precedent for other non-sacramental yet acceptable blessings of sexual relationships. If we can have a non-sacramental penitential rite for 2nd marriages, why not allow a non-sacramental penitential rite for homosexuals? The logic remains the same – one could argue that though homosexual relationships are not what the Church wants of her children, the Church will make allowances, etc., and grant a blessing though only via a penitential rite to such persons, that they can still receive the sacraments. I don’t see how one could avoid this reasoning if one accepts any type of blessing of sexual activity that is not sacramental.”
I don’t see things as quite that simple. Catholicism draws a harder line between the seven sacraments on one hand, and other blessings (sacramentals) on the other. Can a non sacramental marriage be blessed without becoming sacramental? I would argue that it can. Let me take two examples that taken together might demonstrate my case.
In the first case, an unrepentant sinner presents himself at the communion rail. The priest, quite properly, withholds the eucharist and offers a blessing instead. Does this blessing somehow validate the recipient’s state of sin or somehow substitute for the withheld eucharist? If the answer is no, we then have an example of a blessing that, while falling short of being an approbative sacrament, remains a blessing.
In the second case, impressed by the outward holiness of a priest, a non Christian couple approach him and seek his blessing for their marriage and progeny. Would a priest refuse such a blessing? Would such a blessing somehow sacramentalize their non sacramental marriage in a Christian sense even when this is not the couple’s intent? Even without such a blessing, would you describe this non Christian couple as living in a state of sin merely by virtue of their non sacramental marriage?
It may be casuistry on my part, but I would argue that there may be an asymmetry in the degree to which sacramental matrimonial theology has been fully articulated in both our communions. The fact that some Orthodox seek to make a distinction between an “eternal” and “penitential” marriage might point to this. This would allow, as Bennedict appears to suggest, for the legitimacy of a more rigorous application of ancient Eastern practice, so long as the heretofore unrecognized distinctions are accepted in a more fully developed sacramental understanding.
Again, I am only speaking as a lay non theologian. My views are subject to correction from more competent authorities. But this seems to me to be no more a rationalization than many of the other examples of the way in which Rome has reconciled itself to the way sacramental practices differ between East and West.
Michaël,
In both of the examples you use, we see a general blessing that does not in any way effect the relationship of the parties to the sacraments. This is what I meant when I referred to the blessing with non-sacramental oils in Orthodox services – anyone can so be blessed.
But the blessing that occurs in a penitential rite of a 2nd marriage allows a divorced party to have sex with another person, with the Church’s blessing, and still receive the sacraments, hence we have what effectively acts like a sacrament here. It blesses a sexual relationship, not in the sense of a general blessing, but in the sense of that specific blessing which allows one to fully participate in Church life.
This blessed person is now married to another, and the Church has not stated that the first married never occurred or was not really a marriage, etc. How can this not be seen as in direct violation of Catholic teaching regarding marriage? If the first marriage were deemed not a real marriage, why then use the penitential rite for the second?
Diane,
I do not wish to debate the marriage question again either, that is not my point here – we both know that we disagree. My singular point is this – if Orthodox must repent of their remarriage praxis, then it simply is not true that all that must happen for reunion to occur is for Orthodox to return to the relationship they had with Rome prior to the schism. Because prior to the schism their praxis with regard to remarriage is as stated. Then again, it seems that with the Melkites Rome already looks aside when it comes to these issues, but that begs a whole host of other questions…
Because prior to the schism their praxis with regard to remarriage is as stated.
Actually, that’s not true.
From what I’ve been told–and I would have to recheck with the Byzantinist I’m married to re this–the historical developlent of the Eastern praxis was more or less along the following lines (oversimplified to fit in a combox):
Apostolic and patristic periods: Near-unanimous consensus on the indissolubility of a validly contracted sacramental marriage
Sixth century: Justinian proposes divorce / remarriage in cases of spousal adultery (IIRC); his interpretation is strenuously resisted by Eastern hierarchs
Gradually over the next few centuries: Imperial pressure is brought to bear on Eastern hierarchs, who eventually, from about the 10th century onward, start to cave on the divorce/remarriage question. The cave-in process is slow, however, and by no means complete by the time of the Schism (whenever that is, right? ;)).
By 13th-14th centuries: The Eastern Church allows divorce/remarriage up to three times for up to 20 reasons, some of which have nothing to do with adultery — a praxis that is arguably hard to square with Scripture, however one chooses to exegete (or eisegete) the “Matthean exception.”
Diane,
As you know, many Orthodox disagree with your Catholic husband’s version of the story. We have argued the history before.
But it really does not matter. What matters is this – The Orthodox Church blessed remarriages prior to the schism. And, the bishops of the Orthodox Church, then and now, do not believe that the Pope has the authority to meddle with their marriage discipline. Even certain Eastern Catholics believe as much.
But even my above comment is moot given that BenXVI has deemed that Orthodox bless divorced persons in non-sacramental rituals and then allows these persons to receive Holy Communion, and, then he does not see this as an impediment to reunion. It would seem Catholic discipline on marriage is malleable perhaps. In any event, I am going to email my homosexual friends with the good news that in the event of a Catholic-Orthodox “reunion” it should not be long before the Church blesses homosexual unions, though in a non-sacramental penitential rite.
“It simply is not true that all that must happen for reunion to occur is for Orthodox to return to the relationship they had with Rome prior to the schism.”
Given how unstable that relationship had been, it certainly wouldn’t be a very safe base on which solely to rest prospects for reunion. Both communions have grown separately in their discernment since then on a number of issues. Catholics do see a stronger distinction between doctrine and praxis than do Orthodox, however (while fully acknowledging that the relationship between the two is necessarily an intimate one). This means the Catholic side can accept the doctrinal orthodoxy of Orthodoxy while still having serious reservations as to how this orthodoxy is manifested in Orthodox practice.
A perfect example of what I mean would be a typical Catholic response to the OCA episcopal statement on marriage posted in the other thread. From a Catholic perspective, it says all the right things about marriage while betraying baffling inconsistency in its notwithstanding acceptance of serial monogamy.
I don’t think such perceived inconsistencies in praxis would necessarily preclude communion, however. It’s not as if remarried Orthodox couples who convert to Catholicism are forced to separate and live celibate lifestyles.
Och, my husband is about as far from being a fervent Catholic apologist as a cradle (and reluctantly practicing) Catholic can be. He probably has more issues with the Catholic Church than you do, LOL! So, believe me, the genetic fallacy really falls flat in this case. His objectivity cannot be dismissed nor his scholarship impugned purely and simply because he’s Catholic. For, frankly, he isn’t particularly Catholic.
Moreover, he is not the sole source for my understanding of the history. But, be that as it may, are there not sources we can both go to that may illuminate this question for us? Scholarly sources, I mean, rather than polemical sources? Surely someone has posted a pertinent bibliography somewhere on the Internet?
Michael, you wrote:
This means the Catholic side can accept the doctrinal orthodoxy of Orthodoxy while still having serious reservations as to how this orthodoxy is manifested in Orthodox practice.
I pretty much agree. I think the serial-monogamy thing is a matter of praxis, not doctrine, which can be resolved as such. To me, it is a rough counterpart to Catholic abuses of the annulment process. (As you point out, the Church is cracking down on such abuses; I know of a bunch of recent cases where people, including good friends, were denied annulments; but there have certainly been plenty of abuses in the recent past. Just ask the Kennedys.)
Anyway, the more we uncover, through research, the authentic patristic witness to the indissolubility of marriage, the better position we may be in to convince both our Orthodox brethren and our more lax Catholic tribunals to take the permanence of sacramental marriage seriously.
It’s not as if remarried Orthodox couples who convert to Catholicism are forced to separate and live celibate lifestyles.
Hmmm. I have read of Protestant converts who had to do this — not separate, necessarily, but live as brother and sister.
I’m not sure this is such a horrible onerous thing, especially for older couples. We are called to embrace the Cross, after all. And, for many of us, there comes a point in life where sex is not the be-all and the end-all, if you know what I mean.
;)
Diane,
By Catholic I did not mean EWTN style hyper convert apologist. I meant something akin to say, Robert Taft, who is not really a polemicist but who takes great pleasure in using various historicist schemes to undercut traditional Orthodox teachings. Its all good and well and fun for him, and it is fun to watch him get all worked up when Orthodox dismiss him, but, well, in this matter (RCC-EOC relations) it really does not matter how the academy interprets the data, what matters is how each Church has traditioned their beliefs regarding marriage. Orthodox are not going to change a praxis on the basis of what a Robert Taft is teaching this week, etc.
As for the bib, we have been down this exact route before.
Och, I think my DH would be flattered to be compared with Fr. Taft, but I don’t think he (DH) is even that Catholic. Trust me on this one. :D
I cannot share you apparent skepticism WRT the value of historical research. It is certainly true that our varying traditions deeply color our approach to the primary source data. But this does not mean we can never arrive at some approximation to historical truth (small-t truth). The historian’s craft is not quite that pointless, I hope!
Historians may wrangle endlessly about this or that fine point, but they usually reach some sort of rough consensus on at least some of the more salient broader points…and, even when one generation’s consensus is overthrown by the next generation, we still inch that much closer to understanding what actually happened.
Moreover, there are hard data which effectively set the parameters for speculation. If most of the ECFs said X and not Y, and that is verifiable, even allowing for the vagaries of translation etc., then…it is what it is. There is only so far we can go in asserting, “No, it means ABC,” if there is little or no evidence to support this assertion.
This is a poor analogy, but here goes anyway: My Romantic poetry professor once told us, “There is great latitude in interpreting poems. But some interpretations are, quite simply, WRONG.”
This goes double for historical research, which at least pretends to be as much science as art.
If we cannot determine whether ECF So-and-So actually said X, not Y, based on his extant writings, then what on earth can we say about anything? Why engage in any scholarly study? Why not resort to epistemological despair?
I fully recognize that history is exceedingly messy. But that does not mean it can tell us absolutely nothing.
If indeed it does turn out that the majority of the ECFs supported the indissolubility of marriage, then IMHO no amount of wishing this away will alter the fact. If the evidence does overwhelmingly show that the Eastern Church’s acceptance of serial divorce/remarriage entailed a slow, gradual process, under pressure from the emperors — if enough primary-source evidence supports this — then IMHO the Orthodox have to deal with that. They can’t alter what has happened in the past. Either it happened or it didn’t…and, if it did, then it has implications.
Diane,
I should have offered this caveat – I did not mean to imply that I do not appreciate your DH’s work. For one thing, I read and appreciate much of the work of Fr. Taft.
Keep in mind that we Orthodox have a precedent here which is increasingly used among Orthodox as an example of why we need to be very, very careful with historicist schemes.
During the Nikonian liturgical reforms in Russia, the praxis was altered in order to comply with Greek texts which were, according to the scholarship +Nikon accepted, older than the Russian rubrics. The liturgy was fiddled with, and we have the Old Believers schism which remains with us to this day. Later, scholars would essentially prove that if was actually the Russian rubrics which were the more ancient. Even +Kirill has recently used this example of why we Orthodox need to be very careful in the manner we approach changing things and what we base those changes on.
I am familiar with recent historiographic theory.
But I think we also should keep in mind that in 100 years, most, but not all, of the interpretation of the historical data in question will either change or be heavily nuanced with regard to how it is interpreted today. We also have to ask with each historical theory what possible motivations lay behind the interpretation. One need not be a Catholic to be motivated to assent to the interpretation of the data you have suggested. For generations now, it has been quite in vogue to focus upon what are believed to be changes in the praxis of the various Christian churches. This naturally undermines claims and efforts toward a firmness in discipline on the part of those churches. Indeed, I have read interpretations of the data regarding the RCC on birth control and the RCC on marriage discipline that seemed to be written by persons seeking to undermine RCC claims of consistent teaching on those matters.
Several generations ago, following Dix, everyone thought there had been a single liturgy from which all other ancient liturgies derived. Virtually no one embraces that theory today. The interpretation of the marriage discipline data is complicated, in the same manner that the interpretation of early penitentials is complicated – the texts we have stress a strict discipline, but the historical record also shows a significant number of instances when the strict discipline is not followed. For Orthodox this appears natural – seemingly obvious instances of oeconomia. What is debated here is how common that oeconomia was actually engaged in. Nonetheless the historical record shows that there was remarriage prior to the schism. Later Orthodox bishops interpreted that as oeconomia in keeing with the penitential remarriage rites that developed in the 13th and 14th centuries. They claimed that they were just, organically, giving more pronounced ritual place to what was already occurring and had occured for a long time. History cannot prove that x% of Eastern bishops in 1000 meant y with regard to the praxis of oeconomiac remarriage. It can only show the data it finds. The intepretation of that data will always be subject to influences that bring with it various motivations.
Orthodoxy believes itself to be a living tradition. Take the ancient penitentials. They were very strict. Do x sin and you must stand outside the church for y years. But because one can look around even traditional Orthodoxy today and see a wide variety of praxis with regard to the application of oeconomia, it is normal for Orthodox to look at the ancient penitentials and assume a relative degree of variance with regard to oeconomiac allowances. Perhaps that is wrong. Perhaps almost everyone in the world required the strict adherence to the penitential norm they used. We know of some cases where texts tell us otherwise, but perhaps those were the only cases of oeconomia. Then again, perhaps oeconomia was widespread. We cannot know, but we can intuit certain parameters by faithfully living within the tradition. Of course historians would see this as anachronistic, but this is how the Church thinks.
But everything I have written above is really moot isn’t it? Orthodox in the West have often gone way, way, way beyond the normal parameters of oeconomia seen before. Perhaps this is analogous to the fact that Catholics in America contribute to a huge percentage of annulments. This all seems to point to the fact that something is going terribly wrong.
Hi, Och! No offense taken whatsoever! I certainly did not take your refdernces to Fr. Taft as a dig at my hubby; quite the contrary. :)
I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by “historicist schemes.” I am talking about historical scholarship, plain and simple…the historian’s craft, which is really a very modest, plodding enterprise, which has nothing to do with grand explanatory schemata.
I’ll give your post a more careful and thorough reading later…am still at work now and feeling guilty about spending so much time on this blog today. :)
Diane,
I do not mean by “historicist schemes” all historical scholarship. What I mean this this – the notion that because of x interpretation of historical data, I will demand y change in Church praxis, and so forth. My concern is that if we change the praxis for every change in interpretation, we will all end up Episcopalians at some point.
One more thought – we could debate the marriage discipline until blue in the face, but what does it really matter when we live in a culture in which both Orthodox and Catholics have divorce rates that are close to the high rates seen in the culture at large (and I fully admit that Orthodox divorce rates are slightly higher than Catholic rates, last time I heard anyway)? Divorce is rampant, and it seems that neither of our church disciplines is working effectively to cultivate a culture of marriage within our ecclesial communities. If we wanted to have a fruitful discussion of marriage discipline and the Church, it might be one where we ask, what can be done to cultivate church cultures that support and defend marriage? But by this I do not mean more programs. The RCC, various Orthodox jurisdictions, and various Evangelical groups have all tried any number of programs to bring about better marriages and better fathers, etc., but we still see rampant divorce. I think a more fundamental change in posture might be in order, but I do not really know what that might involve.
I would like to return to a point you made earlier and to which I have been giving some thought.
“I don’t understand what good it does a Catholic to “interpret” the Orthodox as providing the sacrament of marriage only in the marriage rite for first marriages, but not in the marriage rite for 2nd and 3rd marriages. Yes, then you have preserved a Catholic understanding of no possibility of sacramental remarriage, but you have also just admitted that the Orthodox bless sexual relationships that are not sacramental marriages.
“The penitential rite for 2nd and 3rd marriages is very different from the normal rite, but it is still obviously a blessing from the Church. I have heard Orthodox state that it is not and cannot be an “eternal marriage” like a first marriage, but I have never heard an Orthodox state that there is no sacramental grace in the blessing of 2nd and 3rd marriages – it is inconceivable from an Orthodox point of view to have such a ritual and not to have it understood as a Mystery. Take this for instance, if it were not deemed a Mystery then non-Orthodox should be able to have it done, as non-Orthodox can be anointed with certain non-sacramental oils, such as at vigil services, etc., but non Orthodox cannot receive Holy Unction. Obviously, from a ritual point of view, Orthodox approach the penitential marriage rituals as a Mystery.”
First, let be begin by stating that I do not accept Mary’s suggestion (made in the other thread) that the Catholic Church views its own post annulment marriages as “penitential”. I have combed through the internet and found nothing even remotely supporting this contention.
Now, specifically relating to your remarks, I would call attention to the following inferences I draw from them:
1. That from the Catholic point of view there might be something improper in blessing a non sacramental marriage;
2. That the use of “sacramental oils” somehow invalidates the rite as a full sacrament, distinguishing it thereby from non sacramental blessings; and
3. That, as sacraments are reserved to the Orthodox, the exclusion of non-Orthodox from a rite establishes its sacramental character.
Let me explain why I find these three inferences uncompelling.
1. In the Catholic understanding a non sacramental marriage can still be a valid marriage in which conjugal relations are not sinful. Such marriages are not open to Catholics, this is true. But this is a disciplinary and not doctrinal prohibition. As I have indicated before, there is nothing preventing a Catholic priest from blessing a marriage between non Christians. Such a blessing simply does not confer a sacramental character to the marriage. There is also no suggestion that non Christians are somehow are in a state of sin by virtue of the conjugal relations they enjoy in non sacramental marriages.
2. While it is no longer in use (there being no Orthodox monarchies anymore), does not the Orthodox anointment of kings use exactly the same holy chrism as is used in chrismation, first marriages, ordination and holy unction? Are we to conclude thereby that it ranks as a sacrament (or “mystery” as you call it) necessary or instrumental to the economy of salvation? If not, why would the unction of second and third marriages necessarily qualify them as sacraments?
3. I can understand that sacraments might be reserved to the Orthodox, but how does it then follow that the exclusion of non Orthodox from a rite establishes its sacramental character as you seem to be claiming? There seems to be a logical fallacy here. B is not A, therefore not A is B?
All this simply suggests to me that there is nothing preventing Orthodoxy, in the context of reunion, from drawing a line between first and subsequent marriages, and from agreeing that the latter do not enjoy the same sacramental character as the former. It wouldn’t involve blessing sin, and would require no change in a practice the Latin rite could accept in principle as proper to the ancient discipline of its Byzantine counterparts.
Now as to whether it would be morally expedient for the Orthodox Churches to tighten their criteria for acceptance of second marriages, this is an issue on which reunited Catholics and Orthodox could legitimately differ without necessarily thereby reviving prospects of schism.
Michaël,
Very briefly in response to your 3 counterpoints…
1. I have always understood that the RCC does in fact (at least as a matter of discipline) prohibit its clergy from blessing marriages where neither party is Catholic. I will have to check on that. But that has been my understanding for as long as I can remember.
2. Unlike in the West the number seven is not carved in stone. Our position is that there are many sacraments. We have never defined their number although there is a widespread agreement on the seven also recognized by Rome. Some Orthodox catechisms and documents refer to “seven” sacraments or Holy Mysteries. But this in no way should be interpreted as meaning there only seven. One might fairly refer to those seven as the major or more common sacraments. But there are others. Among those not generally recognized by Rome, many see the tonsuring of monastics, the Churching of women after child-birth, the Orthodox Funeral, and yes the Solemn Annointing of an Orthodox Monarch as sacraments. (May God grant the speedy revival of the latter.)
3. Your third point from a logical position strikes me as fair.
That said I believe there is an overwhelming recognition in Orthodoxy that second and third marriages are indeed sacramental in nature. The Church does not bless conjugal relations outside of Holy Matrimony.
As for the question of tightening the discipline surrounding those marriages, I have personally long been in favor of that. I will be the first to admit that (IMHO) we Orthodox have become too lax in granting near automatic blessing to these marriages. This is especially so in the case of third marriages. But that is a matter of church discipline and the application of oikonomia.
In ICXC
John
John,
“1. I have always understood that the RCC does in fact (at least as a matter of discipline) prohibit its clergy from blessing marriages where neither party is Catholic. I will have to check on that. But that has been my understanding for as long as I can remember.”
You are correct, but only insofar as such a “blessing” would be intended to confer a sacramental character to the marriage in question. (both sacraments and sacramentals are “blessings.”) The Catholic Church does not perform marriages for non Catholics (mixed marriages aside). The Church does, however, make a clear distinction between what it describes as the sacraments, which confer the grace of the Holy Spirit, and mere sacramentals which do not.
I would refer you to entries 1667-1679 in the catechism. Specifically, “certain ministries of the Church” and “a great variety of circumstances in Christian life” figure as suited for sanctification, but so do “certain states of life” and “the use of many things helpful to man” for which explicit Christian qualifications are not included. Furthermore, the role of sacramentals in “[preparing] us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” makes the blessing of marriages of well-disposed non Christians particularly appropriate. According to entry 1670, “There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed towards the sanctification of men and praise of God.”
It is not necessary that Orthodox hold to a Catholic understanding of Orthodox praxis for union to be possible. All that is required is that Catholics be able to understand Orthodox praxis in a way consonant with what the Catholic Church teaches. In this case a problem would only occur if Orthodoxy were to formally declare that second and third marriages enjoy the same sacramental character as first marriages, and confer the same grace of the Holy Spirit. I don’t see any Orthodox formularies making such a claim, and apparently, neither does Bennedict. But, if you want to set up further roadblocks in the path of possible reunion, then the way is open to you. :-/
Michaël,
Correct me if I am misreading your statement. It seems that what you are saying is that it would be an impediment to restored communion with Rome if the Orthodox Church were to declare that 2nd and 3rd marriages were sacramental. But Rome would not have a major problem being in communion with a church that blesses adultery.
In ICXC
John
John,
Please, it’s not that straightforward. If Orthodoxy were to insist that second and third marriages conferred the same Grace as first marriages, then yes this would be a big problem for Catholics (though I would suspect it would be so for many Orthodox as well). As to blessing “adultery”, this is your word, not mine. If Orthodoxy were to claim it was blessing “adultery”, then obviously that also would be a problem, but surely this is not what Orthodoxy intends.
Even if one were to consider conjugal relations in penitential marriages adulterous, the non carnal charitas within the marriage and the fruits of such unions could still be blessed, even prospectively, independently of the sin. So, if you would insist on casting the practice in terms totally unacceptable to Catholic theology, you will have succeeded in precluding reunion. But as Bennedict has indicated, Orthodoxy has yet to do so. So why go that route unless you actually *want* to create new grounds for precluding reunion?
Barring new and compelling evidence establishing an intent to bless adultery, Rome is willing to give Orthodoxy a pass on the practice. If you think Orthodox practice sanctions adultery, then it’s up to you to deal with it within Orthodoxy.
Please pardon me for appearing (and probably being) really dense…but can’t we look at Our Lord’s words on this subject? If anyone can possibly extrapolate second and third marriages from those words, well, let’s just say that I’m too unsophisticated to grasp such nuanced exegesis.
Does Our Lord’s command count for nothing?
I do not want to appear to be favoring barriers to reunion, because, believe me, I’m not. But ISTM serial monogamy is adultery … I seem to recall Jesus Himself explicitly saying so. I do not dispute that other aspects of such unions can be grace-filled; that is why divorced-and-re”married” couples are admitted to Communion if they consent to live as brother and sister. But conjugal relations in a second union contracted after divorce (when the initial union was a sacramental marriage) are adulterous by definition. Hate to sound simplistic, but Jesus said so; we’ll have to take it up with Him.
ISTM this question goes beyond the question of whose praxis is more spiritual or more pastoral or whatever. It goes to the heart of the trustworthiness of Christ and of Christianity. We all know Jesus uttered some very hard sayings. Should we throw all those hard sayings out the window when they no longer suit our convenience? Should we bring up all the pastoral “hard cases” and use them to justify flat violations of Christ’s commands? That’s precisely what the most liberal Protestant groups have done; it is why they now justify same-sex blessings and the whole nine yards. Do we really want to go there?
Whatever happened to the Cross? I’m as averse to suffering as the next person, and when I’m faced with the Cross of personal suffering, I flee from it. But the fact remains that the Cross is at the heart of Christianity, and we are called to “take it up daily,” and He wasn’t kidding about that.
I have known couples who were denied annulments (which rather gives the lie to the claim that the Catholic and Orthodox praxes are “six of one, half a dozen of the other,” but no matter). One couple became Episcopalian. Another couple attends our parish but does not receive Communion. I know it’s really hard; it is only by God’s grace that I do not face such a situation myself. But you know what? It’s also really hard for the children of divorced parents. Perhaps, in fact, it’s far harder for them than it is for the adults in our no-fault-divorce society who seek “fulfillment” in second and third marriages. IOW, there may be a reason why Our Lord forbade divorce/remarriage. And there may be a very good reason why all of us — Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants — should heed His very stern and serious command in this matter.
Diane,
I am not going to address in any detail Rome’s views on divorce and remarriage. It is sufficient I think to say that the Orthodox Church has a different opinion based on the consistent discipline of the early church in the East, the views of many of the Eastern Fathers and church canons which we Orthodox consider to be approved by the OEcumnical Councils (Rome of course does not agree). We have beat that horse to death.
That said, I do think your position more accurately reflects Rome’s than Michaël’s. I think his argument while born of a laudable desire to foster the conditions under which communion could be restored simply can not be squared with Rome’s long standing discipline on the subject of remarriage.
Let us assume, ad argumentum, that all other issues were resolved and Rome decided this was not worth postponing communion over. So Rome nod’s and winks and communion is restored with our marriage discipline intact. How would this be possible without fatally undermining Rome’s discipline on this subject?
How could a Latin Rite bishop tell a divorced Roman Catholic “sorry you can’t remarry and receive communion in the Church,” while admitting to communion all of our divorced remarried Orthodox? What would prevent him/her (other than our own rules) from just walking down the street to the local Greek Church and (since we would all be one happy church again) getting remarried in the Orthodox Church and being admitted to communion in both Churches?
This is the fatal flaw for those who believe that Rome can just agree to disagree on this. Any acceptance of the Orthodox discipline would effectively spell the end of the discipline of the Latin Church on this subject.
In ICXC
John
It seems to me that our Lord’s words concerning marriage were in the context of His debate with the Jewish authorities who were legalists to the highest degree. He tells them that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. He is using the problem of divorce, not to teach about divorce, but to highlight the hardness of the hearts of “religious” leaders who were putting away their wives. These same leaders would put Him on the Cross.
Alice, please forgive me, but I think you have just nuanced and “contextualized” Our Lord’s words right into the ether.
All of Our Lord’s words were uttered in an historical and cultural context. Does that mean we can dismiss or attenuate the rest of His words, too? Is this not precisely what the demythologizers do? Is it not exactly what the Episcopalian far-left liberals do when they brush aside Scriptural condemnations of homosexual activity as mere cultural artifacts, reflective of a certain time and place and “context”?
Again…do we really want to go there? Doesn’t that put us on a bit of a slippery slope heading straight downhill to the Jesus Seminar? ;)
John: I would ask that we focus for a moment, not on what Rome says, but on what Jesus said. (We can engage the so-called “Matthean exception,” too…I’m not afraid to go there. ;)) The Catholic Church is not the only communion that takes a hard line on divorce. Certain very strict Protestant groups also do so, from what I understand, and they too base their polity on Our Lord’s actual words. Would it not be appropriate to address those actual words, the very Words of God uttered by Jesus Christ, as the basis for our views of divorce / remarriage?
John,
“How could a Latin Rite bishop tell a divorced Roman Catholic “sorry you can’t remarry and receive communion in the Church,” while admitting to communion all of our divorced remarried Orthodox?”
I think you are operating under a false presumption. Just because a Latin bishop accepts that his Eastern counterpart admits a particular individual to communion does not mean he has to follow suit. Whether anyone is admitted to communion is principally within the discretion of the local ordinary. Even within the context of a hypothetical reunion, the Latin bishop might still exclude those Orthodox whose lifestyles he finds unworthy of the standards he sets for his diocese.
“What would prevent him/her (other than our own rules) from just walking down the street to the local Greek Church and (since we would all be one happy church again) getting remarried in the Orthodox Church and being admitted to communion in both Churches?”
The fact that he might still be excluded from communion in a Latin church. Reunion would require that Latin rite bishops *accept* the practices of Eastern ones. It would not, however, require Latin bishops to conform their own practices to Eastern ones.
“This is the fatal flaw for those who believe that Rome can just agree to disagree on this. Any acceptance of the Orthodox discipline would effectively spell the end of the discipline of the Latin Church on this subject.”
That’s just the same argument made by Irish American bishops opposed to accepting married Eastern clergy for churches under their jurisdiction, ergo that such acceptance would undermine Western clerical celibacy. It doesn’t hold water.
Diane,
Before you go further down this road, you might consider that while we are called to perfection, our salvation does not depend on our actually achieving it in this world. Christ’s words set the parameters of what is sinful and what is not, but he also granted the Church the freedom to bind and loose. The fact that the East tempers its acceptance of second marriages by declaring them penitential demonstrates, in my view, recognition of their sinful state.
The existence of this dispensation in the Orthodox Church does strike me as unfortunate and lacking in rigour. But it is John’s apparent dismissal of the sacramental significance of the resulting penitential state that I find disturbing.
Michael, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Of course, we are all sinful, and we all fall far short. But how can this justify “relaxing” the rules on divorce / remarriage — rules that come directly from Christ? Should we also “relax the rules” on murder, adultery, and sex abuse, simply because human beings are sinners who sometimes commit murder, adultery, and sex abuse?
Our Lord offers fathomless love, mercy, and forgiveness to us poor sinners. But WRT serious sin, He also says to us, as He said to the adulteress: “Go and sin no more.” Repentance — turning from sin — is the key. He cannot shower His infinite Mercy on someone who refuses it. He will not violate our free will.
The sanctity of marriage, the integrity of the family — these are more important than ever today. I am extremely reluctant (to put it mildly) to capitulate on this one. :)
Diane
Diane,
You don’t have to capitulate. All I am saying is that sinners can still be admitted to the eucharist, if, when and under such conditions the Church deems expedient. John is the one trying to suggest that remarried Orthodox are not thereby in a state of sin. I am contending that the penitential nature ascribed to the marriage by the Orthodox Church should be read as indicating something significant, i.e. that those participating in it are in a state of sin. In essence, I am suggesting that John’s interpretation of Orthodox teaching in the matter (which gives no sacramental significance to the ascription) is mistaken. If it isn’t, then I do see this as a problem for reunion.
No, Diane, attempting to understand Jesus’ words in context isn’t a slippery slope. It is simply part of the exegetical task.
Michaël,
For the life of me I cannot understand your position here.
The issue of married priests is a case in point. John Ireland may have believed that the Eastern practice was gravely disordered, but the Catholic Church teaches, now rather forthrightly, that the Eastern discipline regarding married priests is good and venerable, even if it has no intention of changing the Western discipline with regard to priests and marriage.
But with remarriage the RCC teaches that a remarriage is a gravely disordered mortal sin that separates the remarried person engaged in conjugal activity from sanctifying grace. The Greek Orthodox who have what they sometimes call an annulment process do not normally declare in that process that the first marriage was not a marriage – they simply grant that due to certain circumstances a 2nd marriage will be allowed. The Slavs generally do not have such a process at all, assuming that the first marriage was a real marriage (if they deemed that it was not a marriage, then they would not ask the person to undergo the penitential rite for the 2nd marriage). Orthodox marriages conducted with the penitential rite thus assume the validity of the first marriage. The Church then blesses them to have sex with someone other than the spouse from the first marriage.
Any person who has been divorced and remarried in the Latin Church must get an annulment in order to receive Communion. This applies to folks who were always Catholics. It applies to folks who converted to Catholicism but were married and divorced outside of the Church. It applies to divorced non-Catholics who seek to marry Catholics. It applies to folks who have had a civil marriage, and eloped even. They still need an annulment before the RCC will bless them to have sex with another person and not be excommunicated.
Thus, the Orthodox Church marries persons whom the RCC believes to be in grave mortal sin.
If we say that, for reunion to occur, what RCs understand to be grave mortal sin does not have to be the same as what Orthodox believe to be so sinful that it necessarily requires excommunication until the act has ceased, then it seems to me we are suggesting a sort of positive law here – RCs say what is grave mortal sin for them, Orthodox say what is equivalent for them, etc. Each binds and looses on its own, even with utter contradictions at hand. The problem with this, from a Catholic point of view, is that it contradicts Catholic teaching. RC teaching is that remarriage which involves conjugal activity is intrinsically evil – this teaching is based on the RCC’s understanding of universals. If a certain act is intrinsically evil, it can’t be intrinsically evil for some and not for others, on the basis of which Rite they happen to be in.
It seems to me that in the argument you make we could change the term and follow the same course. RCs teach that abortion is a grave mortal sin and that one cannot, say, work as an abortionist and continue to receive Communion while doing such work. What if the Ecumenical Patriarch were to, say, we have no problem communing abortionists in certain circumstances, and argued that the EP has been doing this a long time? That the RCC would not allow this practice in their own wing in the event of a reunion does not resolve the fundamental issue – that it makes no sense to have an ecclesial communion between two groups which teach such radically different things about whether or not a certain act necessarily puts one in a spiritual state which requires excommunication until the act has ceased.
It seems to me that current RC allowances of Eastern Rite Churches is hopeful, in the sense that Rome hopes these Eastern disciplines mean what Rome means. I cannot speak for Eastern Catholics, but I can say with some assurance that Orthodox rather routinely remarry folks whose first marriages are believed to have been real marriages, that they routinely do this without an annulment process of any kind, that they believe this to be in keeping with their own tradition, and that even though this is only done in oeconomia it is nonetheless a blessing of the Church to have sex with a person who is not the spouse from the first marriage. Now, I suppose the Catholic could argue that the judgment of the Eastern bishop (or priest acting in place of bishop) to allow the remarriage is a de facto judicial act which renders the first marriage invalid – I could see certain Catholic interlocutors I have had in the past arguing along these lines, basically saying that even if the Orthodox bishop does not believe that this is what he is doing, this is what he is actually doing, because Rome says this is what must actually happen, and if Rome says something is happening even if Orthodox do not believe it, because Orthodox are true particular churches and Rome ultimately determines the truth of all things within the scope of the Church, then Rome defines a reality which Orthodox participate in without even knowing it. Fine and well, that would be a coherent argument no matter how much I might disagree with it – but then we come back to the tricky little point about the penitential rite for 2nd marriages. BenXVI himself stated that this ritual infers that the first marriage was sacramental and the 2nd and 3rd not so. Obviously he does not think that these non-sacramental rites in essence annul the first marriage, without even the Orthodox knowing that is what is going on. Thus he seems to recognize that the Orthodox bless sexual unions which Rome considers gravely disordered, and he does not seem to think that this is an impediment to reunion. Let us say then that my old Catholic interlocutors state that, well, BenXVI got this one wrong. Fair enough. Still, if they hold that the decision of an Orthodox bishop to allow a remarriage is a de facto judicial decree which annuls the first marriage whether the Orthodox admit/know this or not, you still have the tricky business of the penitential rite. At that point, the praxis decidedly does not match Rome’s theology. For it makes no sense to use a penitential rite for 2nd and 3rd marriages if, ontologically speaking, 2nd and 3rd marriages do not exist.
This causes me to wonder, how many of my Orthodox brethren who so desire reunion with Rome believe that part of what we Orthodox need to “repent” in order for reunion to occur might or should involve a repeal of the penitential rites used for 2nd and 3rd marriages?
Of course, certain sectors of American Orthodoxy rarely use the penitential rites anymore. But I assure you this is not because they believe the remarriage is an ontological impossibility.
But I assure you this is not because they believe the remarriage is an ontological impossibility.
Hate to keep harping on this…but Jesus Christ believed that remarriage was an ontological impossibility.
Can’t imagine why everyone keeps leaving Him out of the equation. ;)
John,
I can’t respond to a post that is so rambling. Let me try to spell out just some of my difficulties with what I, with the utmost difficulty, am able to infer from your line of reasoning.
1. That Rome cannot under any circumstances whatsoever grant communion to sinners or allow any Church in communion with it to do so.
2. That Rome must understand the penitential aspect of the Orthodox rite for second or third marriages as having no sacramental significance.
3. That Rome must understand the supposed distinction between “eternal” and “penitential” marriages as purely rhetorical.
4. That Rome must understand the blessing of second or third marriages as actually somehow sanctifying any associated sexual relations.
5. That Rome must somehow view sex in non sacramental marriages is inherently sinful.
1 and 5 are simply not true. 2, 3 and 4 could be true, but would depend on Orthodoxy positively and authoritatively articulating these points. The evidence for this, such as you offer it, appears to be both conjecture and speculation on your part.
You may still well be right, but one important reason for my doubting it is that Bennedict is a theologian whereas the two of us are not. Given his age, scholarship, and the office he occupied prior to becoming Pope, I also strongly suspect that he has studied Orthodox theology and practice more deeply and thoroughly than you have. Furthermore, he has access to Catholic bishops from every Byzantine rite (other than the Georgian) on whom to test his understanding.
If he states that the practice of penitential marriages allows for such distinctions that it can be reconciled with Catholic theology, I would be strongly predisposed to accept his judgment in the matter, and would assume that he knows or understands something about the issue that you do not.
Having said this, it may also be that my own reasoning concerning how the two might be reconciled is faulty. I am operating way outside my personal expertise here. But the reasons you have adduced for why Catholic sacramental theology and Orthodox praxis (insofar as it is ancient, proper and not abused) must be incompatible strike me as unconvincing. At best, your arguments might convince me that praxis in some Orthodox Churches has drifted abusively from its theological and patristic moorings. As such a conclusion would be uncharitable, I prefer to suspend judgment and leave the matter to trained canon lawyers and liturgists.
No, Diane, attempting to understand Jesus’ words in context isn’t a slippery slope. It is simply part of the exegetical task.
Of course. But IMHO using “context” to conclude that Our Lord’s commandment forbidding divorce does not apply to us today goes far beyond “the exegetical task.”
This is the first time I have seen this argument employed, and I confess it rather stuns me.
God bless,
Diane
Diane,
I think it is clearly demonstrable from Scripture that He stated that remarriage was a grave sin, not that is was ontologically impossible. And I am far from being a Protestant sola scriptura exegete.
Michael: But, in His eyes, the second “marriage” was not a marriage at all but rather adultery.
It can scarcely be a “marriage,” ontologically or otherwise ;), if it’s adultery.
Just one question to Orthodox posters here: can an Orthodox marriage properly entered into be dissolved without the consent of an innocent party?
Diane,
“But, in His eyes, the second “marriage” was not a marriage at all but rather adultery.
It can scarcely be a “marriage,” ontologically or otherwise ;), if it’s adultery.”
So marriages under the Petrine or Pauline dispensations are adulterous?
Basically, there are marriages and there are marriages. Some are adulterous and some are not.
I am not familiar with the Petrine privilege, but doesn’t the Pauline Privilege entail an assumption that the prior marriage was not a valid Christian marriage? (OK, my head is now officially swimming.)
Perhaps we are just arguing over semantics, and we basically agree. “Adulterous marriage” still sounds like an oxymoron to me, though, I must confess. :D
Diane
Re the context for Our Lord’s words: Here is an excerpt from the commentary in the Ignatius Study Bible. Mantilla tip to the Coming Home Netowrk folkd:
Does Jesus really make an “exception” to allow for divorce and remarriage? Since the rise of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, many non-Catholic groups have answered “yes.” They began to appeal to this “exception clause” to justify divorce and remarriage in extreme circumstances. However, this view fails to interpret Jesus’ statement in light of its immediate, biblical context. The disciples’ response to Jesus’ statement on divorce (“it is not expedient to marry” [19:11]) demonstrates that, in their understanding, Jesus was leaving no room at all for divorce and remarriage. In fact, they viewed celibacy as a preferable alternative to marriage precisely because Jesus’ teaching on this matter is so strict — far more so than that of any of his Jewish contemporaries. – Ignatius Study Bible in loc. [emphasis added]
If Jesus had really been giving His disciples wiggle-room — as their rabbis did — they would scarcely have responded with astonishment and incredulity to His Words.
OK, now it’s time for beddy-bye. Love, y’all….
Diane
I’m divorced 20 years and have never remarried. I have no desire to remarry, so I don’t have a dog in ths fight.
However, on the subject of marriage the Bible doesn’t present the picture of marriage that is being painted in this discussion. Roman Catholic scholarship, being of the excellent quality that it is, recognizes that the marriage patterns found in Scripture ceased after the coming of Christ. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, fulfills the purpose of marriage according to the ruler-priest pattern of 2 wives (simultaneously, living in separate households, yet equal in status within the Territory). The pattern pertained only to the ruler-priest, a type or shadow of Jesus Christ, and is found to be consistent from Genesis through Jesus’ nativity. This is the tradition Jesus knew. Even Moses had 2 wives, as did his father, Amram. Two wives consituted a united and indivisible kingdom. Likewise, the Kingdom of Christ our God consists of 2: the righteous of old, who like Abraham, saw Jesus Christ’s “day” and believed, and those who are in Christ by baptism in the Church.
Read more here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/09/marrying-that-christ-may-be-born.html
But Alice…you are also defending the Orthodox position, non? So, in that sense–correct me if I’m wrong–you do have a dog in this fight. ;)
Thank you for the fascinating information re the two-wives tradition in Judaism. I deeply respect your knowledge of Scripture and its cultural / historical background.
However, color me completely dense, but I do not see how the information you provided can possibly alter the force of Our Lord’s words.
“What God has joined together, let NO MAN put asunder.”
How can this possibly be interpreted as applying only to the NT period and to the situation of Jesus’ interlocutors?
Did the Fathers interpret it in this way?
I am truly at a loss here.
God bless,
Diane
Did the Fathers interpret it in this way ?
Yes. (At least in the East). I already offered the link, but here it is again, for ther second time:
Canon IV Of Our Holy Father Basil The Great, Archbishop Of Cæsarea In Cappadocia.
They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two. They that marry a third time, three or four years. But we have a custom, that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by canon, but tradition. Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when they have shewed some fruit of repentance.
Canon L Of Our Holy Father Basil The Great, Archbishop Of Cæsarea In Cappadocia.
We look on third marriages as disgraceful to the Church, but do not absolutely condemn them, as being better than a vague fornication.
In the West, serial poligamy is avoided by a harsh analysis of the reasons for obtaining an annulment; in the East, by imposing a maximum number of marriages, namely three (there are no excuses whatsoever for a fourth wedding).
I think Lucian’s citation offers a most useful contribution to this discussion, one that clearly outlines grounds for closure on this subject.
Points to retain regarding Orthodox praxis:
1. One can only ever contract one “eternal” marriage. This is largely consonant with the Catholic understanding of a “sacramental” marriage, basically the same concept, different terminology.
2. Subsequent Orthodox marriages are distinguished as “penitential,” and thus sinful (else why the need for penance?) This is consonant with the Catholic distinction between grace bestowing sacramental marriages and non sacramental marriages.
3. In preference to subsequent marriages, Orthodox are called to celibacy. Subsequent marriages, while allowed, are deemed to be merely the lesser evil in comparison to “vague fornication,” for which one must still do penance. After the penance is complete, Orthodox might be admitted to communion, but even the Latin rite allows for possible dispensations for remarried divorced Catholics. This demonstrates that Catholic exclusion from the eucharist for divorced Catholics is disciplinary rather than an impossibility under divine law.
I see nothing in the canons Lucian has cited to even remotely support John’s contention that subsequent marriages enjoy the same Orthodox sacramental character as “eternal” ones. Nor is there any suggestion that the blessing of subsequent marriages must be construed as a sanctification of sexual relations. Indeed, the shameful as pect of such unions for all concerned is emphasized.
The only substantive difference I can see is that Orthodoxy has a ritual for recognizing non sacramental marriages, whereas the Latin rite does not.
Yes, Michael,
the first wedding is the only “real” wedding in Orthodoxy; (as opposed to the second, which is surreal; and the third, which is pure bliss, I tell you! [‘third time’s the charm!’]. Oh, yeah: it’s worth all the penance in the world, baby!) :D ;-)
Michaël,
“even the Latin rite allows for possible dispensations for remarried divorced Catholics. This demonstrates that Catholic exclusion from the Eucharist for divorced Catholics is disciplinary rather than an impossibility under divine law”
Please elaborate. What such dispensations exist? I was not aware of any canonical alternative for a RC. I thought that the only way to receive Communion after a divorce (assuming the other party still lives) was an annulment or the use of the so called Pauline privilege (which can only be done in very specific cases).
If it can be shown that for the RCC canon law regarding remarriage is disciplinary rather than “under divine law” I will gladly recant and declare that Orthodox and RC marital canons are potentially reconcilable.
John,
From a letter issued on 14 September 1994 by Cardinal Ratzxinger and approved by John Paul II:
“The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.”
I won’t claim that this dispensation is lax, but it at least demonstrates that the exclusion is disciplinary in nature.
Diane,
I’m not defending Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox are unaware of this research, although it is straight from Scripture and anyone can do the kinship analysis and come up with the exact same results. (Kinship analysis is a science like chemistry. The Symbols used can only represent one thing.)
“…the two-wives tradition in Judaism…” The research concerns Abraham and his ancestors who were not Jews.
“What God has joined together, let NO MAN put asunder.” How can this possibly be interpreted as applying only to the NT period and to the situation of Jesus’ interlocutors?
It doesn’t apply only to the NT. None of the old fathers – Nahor-Terah-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob divorced their wives, but the Pharisees and Sadducees/Zadokites did. Jesus called them on their hypocrisy.
Michael: I am as confused as Och is. I believe the Church has always allowed divorced couples who agree to live as brother and sister to receive Communion — I certainly know of such cases predating the document you cite — but how does this relax the Church’s Canon Law? Conjugal relations are an integral part of marriage; if the couple lives as brother and sister, they are not living as a married couple; that is, they are acknowledging that there is no marriage. So, if there is no marriage and the couple acknowledges this, if they live as brother and sister rather than husband and wife — doesn’t this in fact uphold the Canon rather than relax it?
I am so confused. I will have to call in the Cavalry…my poor little head is spinning, and I need help from my friends Dr. Tighe and SimpleSinner (among other things) to sort all this stuff out.
Blessings,
Diane