Rome’s Divorce & Remarriage Argument; Self-Destruction

What seems to be the go-to attempt at a “gotcha” by some Roman Catholic apologists is saying the Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage therefore they aren’t the Church. These apologists paint an image of constant divorce permission within Orthodoxy, total division on the topic, and using historical ignorance they distort the first millennium and Christ’s words ironically proving themselves to not be said Church. What’s the real picture? What’s the actual historical reality? Why has Rome actually been the ironic arbitrator of divorce throughout the early church? And what did Christ mean about divorce? May my words be graced by God the Father in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

What’s The Real Picture?

To begin, we must start with the acknowledgement that divorce is tragic, a sin to repent of, and hated by God. “For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel...” Malachi 2:16.

Roman Catholics are right to bring this issue up to a culture steeped in it, even many modern churches afraid to talk about it leading to some western christians to view divorce exactly as secular persons do. This can be seen in a 51% divorce rate among Protestants almost identical as the national average (1). While I agree with the Roman Catholic reasoning and there is truly much to be shared between Catholics on that; I disagree with their solution. By responding to the extreme of lackadaisical permissible divorce everywhere in our world they have gone to the other extreme of essentially denying divorce ever even occurs theologically in annulments. I’ll get more to that shortly.

Some of these online Roman Catholic apologists paint Orthodoxy the same way they do mega-church Protestant churches as if divorce is a click away on a shopping cart from an Orthodox bishop if two people decide they simply don’t like each other anymore. When this is simply dishonest and frankly just an emotional appeal to draw people towards Catholicism. So what’s the real picture?

Catholics for their supposed crusade against divorce, actually have a higher divorce rate than Orthodox Christians. 19-25% divorce rate for Catholics depending on the study, and 9% divorce rate for Orthodox (2, 3).

The bishop is the one who grants divorce as a condescension to human weakness and failure. The reasons divorce is permitted are usually for one of three reasons ever; adultery as Christ Himself says, abuse, or abandonment. There is no scenario where a marriage in Orthodoxy, one or two of the persons can go to the bishop and just say “it’s not working out or we don’t like each other anymore can we get divorced?” It’s a resounding no, that’s the standard position. Although some leaders will grant it without much inquiry, just as some Catholic leaders also grant annulments without much inquiry. This is a sad practice we both can agree on I believe.

In the case that a second marriage is allowed, it is not at all like the first. The wedding ceremony for a second marriage is repentant and solemn, acknowledging the failure of the previous marriage and all parties involved. Instead of casting off the persons as if the experiences were never real or valid in avoidance, there is a recognition to them, a mourning and true repentance before the Lord.

Annulments are the answer Rome presents to the problem of human relationships. In an annulment, the marriage itself is declared to have never been valid in the first place. I will briefly touch on this topic as this could be an entire separate article of itself that does not bid the time for currently regarding the various discussions between East & West on it including ecclesiastical divorce. According to the United States Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops, “Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.” (4).

Annulments in their premise are worse than divorce, for a variety of reasons. Firstly as just stated because it is contradictory to proclaim that “nothing is made null” proving that you can’t ever know if you’re actually married in the Catholic church, because it could be declared invalid and not real at any moment. It prevents marriage from existing in the first place. Secondly because they suggest the priest has no role in the sacrament at all. Something that is foreign to apostolic Christianity. Thirdly it implies that the breaking of the union has no consequence on the soul. The mindset is there’s nothing to heal from because it was never real. However, this is not how the historical first millennium church approached this issue.

What’s The Actual Historical Reality? Why Has Rome Been The Actual Arbitrator of Divorce In The Early Church?

Before we get to the usual arguments of citing Christ’s own words and interpreting their meaning; let’s look at the historical presence of divorce in the early church as a condescension to human weakness as the Orthodox Church does to this very day.

The Canons of St. Basil were written by St. Basil the Great in the late 300’s, estimated around 370 before his death in 379 (5). They are a collection of canonical letters addressing various pastoral and disciplinary issues within the Church. These letters were universally accepted by all of Christendom.

These canons display the practice of divorce and remarriage, such as Canon VI says, “Let it not be counted a marriage, when one belonging to the canon commits fornication, but let them be forced to part.” (6). Or Letter 1, Canon IX says, “Our Lord is equal to the man and woman forbidding divorce, save in case of fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, though they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take another…” (7).

The Canons of St. Basil were accepted by the 6th Ecumenical Council, which was reiterated by the 7th Ecumenical Council. The canons specific mention is in the Quinisext Council, the Council of Trullo, of which its canons were ecumenically received. Several of the canons were also mentioned and read aloud in the 6th Ecumenical Council and recognized as canons on equal authority with the synodal canons themselves (8).

This means divorce and remarriage were allowed in the pre-schism west. Meaning all the accusations levied against the Orthodox by modern Roman Catholic apologists today fall on their own history and the early Church. Thus by doing so, emphatically declare themselves to not be the early Church. It’s a self-own.

These canons accepted in Byzantine Canon Law is also where the “three divorce rule” came from, this canon was fully enforced in both East & West. Canon IV says the following, “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.” (9).

These canons being enforced can be proven when visiting the Tetragamy Controversy in the 900’s which effectively shows not only Rome accepting divorce & remarriage pre-schism yet again, but Rome also advocating against canon law by advocating for a fourth marriage for an Emperor.

The Tetragamy Controversy began with the misfortune of Emperor Leo VI who had three wives die before bearing children, the fact that he was even allowed to get to a second marriage disproves Rome’s claims already. However, he requested a fourth marriage which was denied by the Patriarch of Constantinople as fourth marriages were never permitted. This shows the canons of St. Basil again as the standard being set in practice in the Church. Instead of accepting this decision, the Emperor sought to replace the Patriarch Nicholas and at the same time appeal to the Roman See to grant his request, which they did.

Rome allowed this fourth union, while the Greeks were against it. The Greeks after years of fighting it and leadership interference eventually conceded only as an exception; all the Patriarchates agreed (10) that the Emperor would need to enforce law for fourth marriages as completely forbidden which he did outside of his own case.

Side Note: Roman apologists enjoy finding places in history where someone appeals to Rome and Rome does something right to prove papal prerogatives. Firstly, the claim of the Orthodox is not that Rome never made any correct decisions in general but that he never did so unilaterally. Which the Tetragamy Controversy again proves they consulted all Patriarchates after the issue was lasting for years and did not just immediately submit to what Rome says. Secondly, and more importantly rather, this was a case of an exception, not a rule. Both sides broke the rules for the Emperor, all rules usually have exceptions. I have other articles that go into places in Ecumenical Councils where Rome affirms correct but the other Sees still consult and don’t unilaterally accept Rome’s decrees and that also goes into the other Sees completely ignoring Rome altogether and refute her position. Both of these things happened in the early Church. However it is only contradictory for the Roman position, not the Orthodox position.

Other historical references we can point to regarding divorce and remarriage in the early Church include Canon 11 of the Council of Arles in the year 314 (11), Council of Vannes in the year 465 (12), the Synod of Rome in the year 826 (13), just to name a few. We could go on for many more sources even in Origen. This last one is especially piercing as it was held in Rome by Pope Eugenius II which explicitly mentions divorce occurring.

Canon 36 says this, “Concerning those men, who have divorced [their] married wives and marry another. Let no one, except for the cause of fornication, divorce their married wife and then marry another. In other respects, it is suitable for the transgressor to be married to the first spouse. If however a man and wife consent to divorce between themselves for the sake of a monastic life, in no way shall it be so without the joint knowledge of the bishop, so that they may be stationed by him in a single prepared location. For [if] due to an unwilling wife or her husband, let it not be dissolved for the sake of the marriage.” (14).

For now this is sufficient evidence to show divorce in the early Church and how this contradicts some Roman apologists claims against the Orthodox. I will also note that there are few Roman Catholics who acknowledge that their church is not saying there was never a marriage, but the legality of it was not valid (15). Meaning they were married in their own eyes but not in how the church saw it. This is a nice way of saying it’s still not a real marriage. So according to this you were married and you weren’t at the same time, that’s a contradiction. This only cements my belief that Rome has mounted so many contradictory stances it has lead to total relativism and confusion in its modern day.

These certain apologists parade about the clarity and need of the pope for issues like this while only stoking confusion more and holding to relativity within Catholicism. They parade about Rome not permitting divorce blind to the historical reality of their own tradition and blind to the ironic fact that Rome divorced herself from Christ’s teaching on this subject.

What Does Christ & Holy Scripture Say & Mean About Divorce?

Our Lord Jesus Christ said; “I tell you that whoever divorces his wife except for reason of sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” + Matthew 19:9.

Here we have what the Church has based her teaching off of, Christ’s own words that adultery is grounds for divorce. Again this is not the intent, God hates divorce as previously mentioned, but it is a concession to human weakness that Christ Himself gave. Jesus is specifically mentioning both divorce and remarriage in that verse. The other biblical precedent that the Orthodox Church grants for rare case of divorce with the cause being abandonment is found in St. Paul’s teaching.

“This is because the unbelieving husband is sanctified in his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but in fact, they are holy. Yet, if the unbeliever decides to leave, let there be separation. The brother or sister is not under constraint in such cases, but God has called us in peace.” + 1 Corinthians 7:14-15.

“But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” + 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Here is St. Paul allowing remarriage for widows.

This verse in Matthew 19:9 has become the squabble of interpretation for Roman Catholics, however the Patristic view with the history of the Church has always interpreted this as it says; divorce is allowed for spousal infidelity. The historical reality has already been proven, and they made this historical judgement off of the Scriptural judgment of Christ. Many of the councils I cited also cite this same scripture in their reasoning for canons.

However some Catholics today will move the goalposts from saying it was always inadmissible to divorce even in cases of adultery, to now it being admissible to divorce but it is inadmissible to remarry (17). Besides this being not the traditional Catholic stance which is that divorce is not permissible ever. At least since the 1200’s, Roman Catholics have always argued for the indissolubility of marriage. This is still an open concession to divorce that no amount of gish-gallop will hide nor the entire reliance on doctrinal development. Additionally it still ignores how St. Paul is allowing widows to remarry in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. The quip back from Catholics will be it wasn’t a real marriage because the spouse died and we are back to square one with annulments going in circles.

To end this more positively for the general Catholics and inquirers reading, I’d like to remind this article is aimed at Internet personalities, I have actually very rarely in real life found a Catholic who uses this type of argumentation against the Orthodox. Where we do agree between us is that East and West both never endorsed divorce or separation for married couples, it was simply tolerated in the early Church. There is a strong sense of duty to uphold the sanctity of marriage from both the Orthodox and the Catholics which is both beautiful and endearing even if we may disagree on theology and terminology. I will let the reader assess for themselves however the continuity rests in the Orthodox Church for this practice. May Christ guide us all into His peace and truth. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Sources:

1. Pew Research Center (2014). Religious Landscape Study On Divorce.https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/

2. Cooper, Megan. (2023). Breaking Down Divorce Rates By Religion (And What They Tell Us). Love To Know. https://www.lovetoknow.com/life/relationships/divorce-statistics-by-religion

3. Pew Research Center, Lipka, Michael. Most U.S. Catholics Hope For Change In Church Rule On Divorce. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/10/26/most-u-s-catholics-hope-for-change-in-church-rule-on-divorce-communion/#:~:text=A%20quarter%20of%20American%20Catholic,Catholic%20adults)%20are%20currently%20remarried.

4. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Annulment. Marriage & Family Life Ministries. https://www.usccb.org/topics/marriage-and-family-life-ministries/annulment#tab--what-is-an-annulment

5. University of Notre Dame. Basil of Caesarea, Canonical Letters. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. https://pls.nd.edu/assets/154653/2._basil._canonical_letters_selection#:~:text=conciliar%20legislation%20begins%20in%20the,own%20predecessor%20Firmilian%20of%20Caesarea.

6. Canons of St. Basil. Canon VI. The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. Volume VIII. of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 223. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html

7. Ibid. Canon IX.

8. Dr. Lewis J. Patsavos, Ph.D. (August 1985). The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. https://www.goarch.org/-/the-canonical-tradition-of-the-orthodox-church#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20several%20of%20the,in%20the%20Orthodox%20Church%20today.

9. Ibid. Canon IV.

10. Anastos, Milton. (2001). Constantinople & Rome. Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium. Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome. https://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_18.html

11. The Synod of Arles. (314). Canon 11. New Advent. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01727b.htm

12. Council of Vannes. (465). In Latin. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k515896/f483.item.zoom it specifically says, “Also, those who have abandoned their wives, just as it is said in the gospel, except for the cause of fornication, who have married another without proof of adultery, we likewise forbid from communion, in order that not through our indulgence they invite more permitted sins to the license of error.”

13. Synod of Rome. (826). Pope Eugene II. New Advent. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598b.htm

14. Ibid. Canon 36.

15. Catoir, John. Understanding Annulments. Franciscan Media. https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/understanding-annulments/

16. Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) for Holy Scripture quotations.

17. Bollinger, Ben. East vs. West; Divorce and Remarriage. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/east-vs-west-divorce-remarriage