Unity of Flesh

Although these ideas need more development, I am strongly growing in the thought that salvation requires complete unity in the Holy Trinity and this includes unity of flesh. We must be one flesh with the Trinity that is one flesh with the Son of God.

Flesh is something that both unites and divides. It unites all men coming from a common ancestor but it also divides being material and limited by time and space. In Christ, the unity is confirmed and the division overcome in His flesh for those united to Him and partaking of His flesh. For those not so partaking, although they remain united to the human race as such, they remain separated with the space/time bound flesh of death inherited from the fallen Adam. This body is not capable of sharing in the unity of the Trinity because it is a body divided. Only in Christ is one united again with both Christ and all others in Christ.

This need for physical unity in the flesh, as well as faith and love, is the reason for the necessity of the Mysteries, especially Baptism and the Eucharist, and the twin nature of the Mysteries being both material and spiritual. Unless one is born again in Baptism and partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ, one is not united with Christ in flesh and remains separate from Him regardless of how “holy” one is, although true holiness can only be found in Christ with participation in the Holy Spirit and deifying grace. The Church through this takes on a very physical presence and unity on earth as well as in heaven. It is a physical but spiritualised body, the Body of Christ, in each member and as a whole. Coming into the Church and participating in the Church as physical as well as spiritual events. The body participates in the spiritual life as well as the soul or intellect.

Even though the Mysteries are not merely physical but also spiritual, fulfilled in the Spirit, they are nevertheless physical. Connection to Christ and the Church must involve a physical connection, not just a spiritual one. There is no way around this without denying the physical nature of humanity and the need for physical unity. Salvation is not merely an individual exercise for those who believe and are holy but also a corporate exercise, one that involves being part of a Body, physically. The Sons of God were the family of descended from Seth, the holy line that in a way remained in Christ, the rest of humanity, the sons of men were separated from this. The family shared a physical unity. Later this family ending in Abraham was extended to a nation, Israel, the chosen people of God united in physical connection to the nation and in physical symbols of this. Salvation was with the Jews. Then in Christ, salvation was extended to all nations but only in Him, only in Baptism and in the Mysteries with those becoming one flesh, one Body with Him.

Our physical humanity at once is a burden of separation, we must physically get to the Church, but it also opens a unity with God in Christ and a unity with the whole of creation that can only come through this physically humanity which is spiritualised in Christ, transcending itself while remaining itself.

Filioque essay

I have attached a paper written for my Master’s Degree entitled: “Discuss the filioque in the background of Orthodox ecclesiology, the theology of deification and the Orthodox Biblical exegetical methodology.” It received a good mark but there were questions as to how well is represents the Orthodox view on things. Feel free to raise any critiques of it.
Themes in Orthodox Theology

God within

One aspect of Orthodox Theology is the understanding of salvation as theosis, which is the participation in the very Life of God, participating in God. God is not related to externally, as over there but internally within. Although, He is not encompassed by us, nevertheless, He is to be found within our hearts and not by looking for Him externally. That is why it is hopeless to ask to see God because that is not how one knows God. When God is within then we are also in Him and He in us. We participate in His Life, which becomes our life.

Our worship consists not of outward raising of arms and clapping of hands with joyful songs but with a broken and humbled heart that is softened and open to His entry within to make us what He is. Not that we are lost in Him but that we become ourselves in Him; He gives us a new name that we are known as ourselves and being so known remain as ourselves forever in Him and He in us in unity. External modes of worship have their place but they are to bring the heart to the right place before the Lord, so that He may freely enter.

The Tradition of worship in the Orthodox Church reflects and reinforces this true worship. The Church buildings, music, icons, structure and form of participation are all there to provide the correct environment for this.

The music using the Church monophonic chants sung by properly appointed male chanters, excepting convents, provide the right tone and spirit of music to raise the heart to divine thoughts. The tone in contrite and deep yet laced with joy. Nothing light and frivolous, affecting the emotions or passion, nor merely pleasing to the ear and mind but something that moves the heart in a spiritual manner. Instruments have no place because they focus the mind on the sounds as an end in themselves and on material things rather than on the words that enlighten and edify the mind and heart lifting them to heaven.

Icons also present the same spiritual environment. They do not express emotion, passion nor physical movement but in calm, sober reflection lift ones mind and heart to God. They radiate a passionless joy and interior contemplation, knowing God within Who radiates His light from the Saints face, as He did for Moses.

The structure of the Church within also develops the right relationship between man and God. The Altar area or rather the throne room of God, Bema, is the centre of God’s reign. It is here that Christ brings man and lifts him by His sacrifice, resurrection and ascension. The centre of this area is the Throne, the High place. The altar is set before this but should not replace it because the focus is coming into God and not on the sacrifice as an end in itself. It reminds us of God’s presence in man and man’s in heaven. The nave of the Church, properly surrounded by the icons of the Saints and Angelic hosts, forms the place where man meets God. It is separated from the Throne because man has yet to ascend into eternal life yet it is in God because God reigns in us now. It is a holy place for the royal priesthood and not those of the world who do not belong here. The narthex is the place where man seeks God but does not yet have Him reigning within through Baptism and repentance. The Throne room is reserved for the Priesthood who as Christ bring man before God. Laymen remain outside reminding us that we have not yet completed the struggle and reached the final goal.

Worship is largely clerical in form and mostly done in one voice whether it is the Bishop speaking, or a chanter. This reflects that we speak with one voice in the same mind and this is the mind and voice of Christ. We worship in Christ, we come to the Father in Him not of ourselves. He it is who leads the worship in the Spirit. Worship is not of man but of God. It is participation in the Life of God as the Son relates to the Father, so to must we also. God does not force our participation and we too relate in the Son as ourselves so the laity respond as if with one voice to the petitions of the priest or deacon or own the hymns of the chanters for themselves by participating in the refrains. Worship is orderly with each keeping to ones proper rank and place because God is a God of order and has arranged His creation and angelic hosts in appropriate order as He sees fit. Men and women stand separated to remind us that our real unity comes not with earthly bonds but with each one uniting to Christ in oneself but also with all. It also helps to remind us to lift our minds from earthly pleasures to those true pleasures in heaven.

The Church building, temple, whether the ancient basilica or the domed “Byzantine”, focuses the eye and mind on its interior. It does not lift ones mind out of the temple and skywards with spires and height to an external God “up there” but brings the mind within itself, into the heart. Heaven is within the Orthodox temple and is manifest with the presence of frescos and icons of the Saints building up to Christ Himself in the interior of the dome. The temples, although sometimes large, are humble on the exterior but within the true glory shines forth as it does with the Saints.

So, all things bring the mind into the heart where God dwells in His Spirit. Here it is that man knows God and participates in the very life of God, in God and God all in all.

God’s desire for unity

John 17 is often sited for the cause of the ecumenical movements desire for reconciliation of “Christians”. It is true that Christ said these things but when the Scriptures are considered closely then it appears that the ecumenical movement has taken the words out of context.The unity that Christ desired in firstly grounded in Faith (John 17: 8-9) and in Himself, which also unites one into the Trinity (John 17:21-26). It is not a desire for all people to be united as an end in itself but all to be united in Himself. Those in Him are one because He is one. Thus unity is found not in humans agreeing with each other but in agreeing with Christ.

This agreement with Christ is through faith. This does not mean only the act of believing itself but also what one believes. One may be sincere and faithful in one’s belief but if one does not believe in Christ then such a belief is of no avail. Thus, union with Christ requires a union of faith, being of one mind and believing the same thing, the faith of Christ.

The Fathers of the Church summarised this Faith in the Creed, or the “Faith”. The Nicene-Constantinoplian Faith (as the Greek word for Creed is literally translated.) Thus, to accept the Faith of Christ and to be united to Him requires one to accept this Faith as it is without adding to it or subtracting from it. Unfortunately, the western Churches, added to this Faith and began to confess something different from the Faith of the Church. Eventually, when they showed themselves entrenched in the proclamation of this different Faith they became separated from Christ.

Being separated from Christ means separation from the Church and from the Holy Spirit. Even though those in many of these groups are referred to as “Christians” and their gathering/organisations are called “churches”, they are not properly so unless they are united to Christ, sharing one Faith with Him and with those whom also share this Faith. Because the Church on earth is the Incarnate presence of Christ, then it is seen in its physical presence that is linked through the laying on of hands, baptism and the Eucharist. Without the participation in these there is no participation in the Church. Those who have broken the physical connection with the Church must, along with accepting the Faith of the Church, also be physically reunited with the Church before being reunited with her. So, groups outside the Church cannot reunite with the Church by a mere confession of the Faith but they must each personally be physically brought back in the Church and established in the Church with a properly ordained Priest under a recognised Bishop.

On these grounds, the talk of reunion with those groups outside the Church, such as the various Protestant Churches, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, is a mistaken, if it is based on a premise that these bodies are real Churches in Christ between whom there has somehow been a rift rather than a cutting off. Rather, it must be understood that a “reunion” of those other churches, also called “Christian churches”, can only come about not through an agreed declaration of faith that is acceptable to all within their present “traditions”, as if these are all different expressions of the one Tradition, but through repentance and the agreement with the Faith of the Church, abandoning their own “traditions” and accepting those of the Church. Each person so “reuniting” (“uniting” is a better term because almost all such persons have never been united personally to Christ, the Church) with the Church must be physically established in the Church through baptism, or perhaps at least the physical anointing of chrismation as an act of economy once they declare the Faith of the Church and renounce errors. There can be no corporate “reunion” because outside of Christ there is no true unity in a church but rather a collection of individuals. Only in Christ is the Church truly united and one body.

So, God does desire union, but in Himself, in Christ and in His faith, in accepting His words. Christ prays for those accepting His words and not for the world. Those bodies separated from the Church are not churches in the true sense of the word and Christ does not desire the union of such groups as an end in itself but rather repentance and coming to Him to be united to the Church. There is a requirement for the Church to accept those who desire to repent but none to unite with other groups who claim to be Christian and even hold many of the same beliefs. Rather it is to speak the truth clearly in love to keep open the way for repentance, while rejecting those who refuse to repent of error as sons of perdition because in this state they are indeed bound for eternal perdition being apart from Christ; it isn’t “nice” but it is the reality. Christ’s love requires that the errors need to be identified in discussions and the truth made clear to allow repentance. Identifying common areas of faith helps to ground teaching of understanding towards the truth but it is the errors that have caused the division and these need to be constantly noted and shown for what they are. One must accept what the Church, Christ, accepts and reject what the Church, Christ, rejects. Again, it is of no avail to accept what the Church accepts but fail to reject what she rejects, that is leaving those groups persisting in error and joining the Church, the pillar of the Truth.

Epiclesis

Regarding the Epiclesis,

From my reading its seems that the West did have an Epiclesis but about the Fifth Century it was moved, and perhaps split up, to before the Words of Institution, in line with the Western emphasis.

“Veni, Sanctificator omnipotens aeterne Deus. et bene dic hoc sacrificum tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.”

“Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your holy Name.”

“Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris,. ut nobis Corpus, et Sanguis fiatdilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.”

“O God, deign to bless + what we offer, and make it approved, + effective, + right, + and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may become for our good, the Body + and Blood + of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

There is no sense that the Spirit’s blessing of the Gifts is not still required in the Roman rite but only it is not directly invoked at particular point after the Words of Institution, as it is in Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Also, in the West the Liturgical action, according to Nicholas Cabasilas, was not complete until after the prayer:

“Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu dininae majertatis tuae: ut quoquot ex hac altaris participatione, sacrocanctum Filii tui Corpus, et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.”

“Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your Holy Angel to Your altar above, before the face of Your Divine Majesty. And may those of us who by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing, Through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

He considered this to be the “Epiclesis” and from it that the Latins were incorrect to consider the change complete before this time, otherwise there would not be an imploring for God to accept the offerings to be brought to the Altar, which would be tantamount to blasphemy because they would already be so, being the Body and Blood of the Lord already accepted. This prayer is in contrast to a similar prayer in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom that presupposes the change of the Gifts before the prayer:

“Ὑπὲρ τῶν προσκομισθέντων καὶ ἁγιασθέντων τιμίων Δώρων, τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.

Ὅπως ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ προσδεξάμενος αὐτὰ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὑπερουράνιον καὶ νοερὸν αὐτοῦ θυσιαστήριον, εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας πνευματικῆς, ἀντικαταπέμψῃ ἡμῖν τὴν θείαν χάριν καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, δεηθῶμεν.”

“For the precious Gifts, which have been spread forth and sanctified, let us pray to the Lord.

That our God, who loveth mankind, receiving them upon His holy, most heavenly, and noetic Altar as a savour of spiritual sweetness, will send down upon us in return His divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray.”

This prayer is reflected earlier in the service for the preparation of the Gifts:

‘Αὐτὸς εὐλόγησον τὴν Πρόθεσιν ταύτην καὶ πρόσδεξαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον.”

“…Do Thou Thyself bless this oblation, and receive it upon Thy most heavenly Altar…”

which is much in line with the prayers in the Roman rite.

Thus, the two rites are very similar and the anaphora properly concludes with a prayer after the Words of Institution. The Roman rite in this is not different from that of Constantinople and the issue is not so much the words of the rite but the interpretation.

Note: I am opposed to any artificial inclusion of an Epiclesis in the Roman rite as used in Western Rite Orthodox Churches, because of the above.

Thought on post on CathedraUnitatis regarding St Nicodemos

Regarding depositions, I am much in support that one jurisdiction should not accept as clergy those defrocked by another jurisdiction. However, there is an exception to this if the defrockings can be shown to be unjustified or based on erroneous reasons. This requires the proper investigation of a council. The case of the Antichocian Priests may come into this. However, I get rather upset when a jurisdiction that recognises another as valid accepts a Priest who was defrocked for immorality or clear schism. This does no good whatever to harmony and respect.

Some Old Calendar groups denying grace in “mainstream” Orthodox jurisdictions are free to do as they please because they do not see a valid ordination anyway. Nevertheless, some candidates that seem to have made their way into these bodies are of dubious quality and don’t add credit to these bodies; not to say that all clergy in mainstream Churches are beyond dubiousness.

Within Orthodoxy there seem to be two developing camps in the Church regarding relations with other churches and the opinions dividing these camps are reflected on their attitudes to receiving converts, especially from Roman Catholicism and these camps focus on what are acceptable rites rather than on error or validity per say. Those who see the Roman Church as being a genuine Sister Church should not accept converts but rather encourage people to stay with their own pastors and should be opposed to the Orthodox presence in Western countries anyway to even permit free attending; on this reasoning Eastern Churches have no place in the west unless one does so for ethic reasons but these parishes should still be under western Bishops. Most Orthodox Churches in the West do not officially fall into this category and this presupposes that the Roman Church or other western churches are not legitimate churches but rather in error. Whether this error only requires confession or whether it requires baptism is another issue. Even though only chrism and confession is permitted by conciliar decision in the US, such a position is considered erroneous on Mt Athos, who see it as endangering souls who have not been baptised in a manner acceptable to the Church. I understand the main Orthodox issue being that the Roman form of baptism is not baptism but sometime different and as such cannot have any validity at the time of application or upon reception into the Church. Even if it was accepted earlier, possible recent changes, if any have been made, could invalidate it. This takes constant vigilance on the part of the Church and the reception of converts can be modified if the practices of other communities change. (The theory is the same for all Orthodox but the line of acceptability for some is application of water in the name of the Trinity and for others immersion (or as close as possible to it) in water in the name of the Trinity. It is the way water is applied that is at issue and not whether baptism in itself is acceptable (either outside or on reception) or whether Roman Catholics are in error, which reception of converts other than directly communing presupposes. Everyone would agree that if Roman Catholics stopped using the name of the Trinity, water or baptism although then they could not be accepted without Baptism, even if all else remains equal. The affect of the rite of Baptism (or its validity) outside the Church is another matter than how to receive converts. For this the rite used is the essential matter.

The influence of or reaction to western churches/thinking has also played a large part in the way baptism was received. It takes quite a bit to unpack all these influences and to extract legitimate practice from that which was mistaken; not to re-mention the strong evidence of the legitimacy of different practices.

Note: it seems strange to me that people accept the judgement of the neophyte Orthodox churches in the US rather than the judgement of the centuries old centre of Orthodox spirituality on Mt Athos and consider these monks as “ultra-traditionalists” misguided by a Saint named Nicodemos. Hmm…

Regarding valid and not valid, I think that only a distinction between ritual form and Spiritual transformation of a Mystery can help in this matter, such as without the Spirit transforming the gifts on the Holy Table they would remain only bread and wine even if the service is done in all other respects validly. Does the performance of the ritual of itself force the Spirit to transform it to its spiritual reality or is He free to transform only those performed legitimately within the Church? (Perhaps the whole circumstances of the ritual, in deed and thought, will be honoured by the Spirit without fail, including not only the immediate rite but also the canonical/creedal position of the Priest and the local Church within which he serves.) I think that there may be a valid form but an invalid Mystery because it is not transformed by the Spirit. The need of Chrism for converts supports this idea because it implies the absence, in Mystical/Sacramental terms, of the Holy Spirit. The question is whether the form can be transformed at a different time to its application.

Thoughts about post on CathedraUnitatis.

As may be expected, I am quite in agreement with the Archbishop on the principal of Primacy and Conciliarity. I don’t think that the East has really done a much better job of maintaining these principles than the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople basically appoints every Bishop in his Patriarch and the Metropolitan system system seems to have collapsed somewhat. The same may also apply to other Patriarchates, except perhaps Moscow, but I am not sure of the details. There is also the sense of Patriarchal imposition of will without consent in the East as well as the West; the difference perhaps being in the West that such a thing is de jure, even if somewhat a rubber-stamp of consensus, while in the East it is de facto, even if lip-service is paid to consent.

I am struggling to see how there can be a common position between the two schools of thought. I believe that the Primacy -Conciliarity model is the way to go but Rome has a long tradition of a sense of primacy transcending consensus and whether it could reconsider its function within consensus without negating its tradition is an interesting matter. This may be possible if it makes a distinction between Patriarchal and universal jurisdiction and narrows its universal jurisdiction quite markedly, such as appointing Bishops in line with ancient usage in which the Papal jurisdiction was more limited. However, this does not seem so likely considering the removal of the title Patriarch of the West.

The more I read on the matter the more I see that the differences between West and East have long roots. It is a miracle that the split did not happen 200-300 years earlier and I am struggling to understand how such divergent practices could have come from one Apostolic Tradition, although one may point to all the commonalities, which in proportion may overwhelmingly outweigh the divergences. Many Fathers noted that divergent practices could be accepted in the unity of faith but I believe in practice divergence can only be limited before rifts form, as historically happened. I think that one can only really accept substantial divergence in practice if one disincarnates the Church, i.e. Protestantism. (Note: development of practice is also another area, I believe more than that of doctrine, that is at issue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, i.e. can Apostolic practices be developed or changed over time or do we hold fast to them as we do doctrines (cf 1 Cor. 11:2).)

Rome considers its primacy as Apostolic Tradition and the East considers primacy and conciliarity as Apostolic Tradition. If union is to be achieved without need of denying ones belief of Apostolic Tradition then it would require some way of uniting these two Apostolic Traditions and accepting any divergence from the other Tradition to be a mistake of application but not in the core of the Tradition itself.

I think that the Primacy and Conciliarity model does work best for this, in that the councils cannot provide universal decrees without Papal consent, e.g. all Ecumenical Councils, nor can the Pope provide universal degrees without conciliar consent e.g. St Leo I in Chalcedon. This fits with the historical life of the Church and supports the general reliability/infallibility/permanence of the See of Rome but nevertheless allows for the odd stray Pope without damaging the structure as such. It also supports consensus and a say for everyone and the sense of brotherhood. Not that this would work perfectly but I believe the principle could be accepted in theory and a reunion made agreeably on these grounds.

Even with Primacy sorted there needs to be some unification of theological frameworks, especially the Filioque and Essence/Energies distinction, not to mention the link of indulgences to merits and the framework supporting a doctrine of purgatory. Practical matters, especially expected ascetial practices such as fasting days, Priestly celibacy etc must, in the modern world, be made uniform, otherwise they could cause resentment and church hopping to find somewhere “easier”. The ethos of Liturgical practices needs to be harmonised, such as use of instruments and the new order rite in the west, as does the ethos of monasticism. I guess that is what all the dialogues are trying to sort out.

Rome’s missions, I believe, were mostly post-”Schism” so it can hardly be expected that they would have then cared for the Patriarchal jurisdictions of Alexandria or Antioch, not that the Orthodox seem really honour these things either at present, although they will complain if such jurisdictions are infringed to their loss. Even, if Alexandria did recover Patriarchal jurisdiction of Africa, even admitting Rome’s historical connection with western North Africa, it would still have to respect Roman rites and customs (if of course these are acceptable within a reunion) as Rome would of present Orthodox parishes within its proper jurisdiction. Can such trust be made of other Patriarchs? There are early models for this in Constantinople but also early counter-examples.

Finally, I see the differences between Roman Catholics and Orthodox with high probability pointing to an underlying difference of Faith and as such I am unhappy with such terms as “Sister Churches” or that two halves of one Church need to be reunited. Although, it would be great to accept such things, I think that one must seek reunion from the basis that either one or the other is substantionally “correct” and indeed the Church, while that other is in schism or heresy and not the Church as such. This is the traditional default position and I don’t think enough has been resolved other than good intentions to claim any greater connection between the two, although this is not to deny that there may be so, just that it is not appropriate to assume or state that it is so. Running ahead, I think does more harm than good because it starts to force theological hands to keep up with declarations and tends to decide beforehand that the divergences etc are of no real consequence and just matters of opinion, which goes against the opinions of centuries on both sides, which must continue to hold the default ground until shown to be utterly false. Nevertheless, if it can be proven that both are the Church, inspite of the differences, then it would be a magnificent thing and reunion should take place at once. Any reason for delay supports more initial position and confirms staying away from terms that suggest present unity, even in spirit.

Remember me O Lord in Thy Kingdom

Not to be taken too literally, it can be said that the Son, begotten of the Father, is as Word begotten from thought. This adds substance to the constantly repeated prayer for God to remember us.

God, of course, never forgets us so the idea of remembering on a human level is not applicable to God. Something more must be meant with this prayer. One aspect is that we remember God and, in our prayer, it is our remembrance of Him that appears to remind Him of us with the synergetic assistance He then provides. Along with this aspect, is, I believe, another aspect of the prayer. This is that in God remembering us, thinking of us, He begets us, as words in the Word so that we become sons of God, albeit by adoption rather than nature. While, all people are remembered and all live forever, only the faithful will be remembered in “Thy Kingdom” that is they will reign with Christ and in Christ as sons.

So, God remembering us is not merely a mental note about us but the establishing of our very being and existence; without this we would cease to exist. This also applies to the Liturgy, which we do in remembrance of Him. This again is not merely the recalling of past events but the making real of the Life of Christ in which we truly participate. The Liturgy is not only the transformation and eating of the Body and Blood of Christ but a complete union with His entire life, that which is past, that which is now and that which is too come. It is completely realised in the Liturgy through remembrance of Him, in the Spirit. The Liturgy is a Divine action in which we participate; it is not of ourselves or our own work, although we also bring our own bodies to the Altar and share in the Life of Christ, which becomes ours.

Proof of God

This is an attempt at a proof for the existence of God. I have had it read by an Orthodox philosopher who said that it contained some controversial philosophic ideas and it wasn’t particularly Orthodox in its approach. So, I don’t have any high hopes for it but here it is to see what others think of the idea. 

The Fool said that there is no God

The Fool said… PDF version 

On Divorce

A recent comment has been added to my post on mixed marriages about how it pales compared to allowed divorce and especially re-marriages in many Orthodox churches today.

Christ and the Fathers are quite clear about divorce in that unless for reasons of fornication a man or woman may not leave his/her spouse. St Paul does permit a separation, wisely, but not a re-marriage, and even the separation should be reconciled if possible. Also, the Fathers in case of divorce for unfaithfulness permit a man to remarry but generally prohibit a woman from doing so. Why?

Marriage being a Mystery manifesting the union of the Church, woman, with Christ, man, provides the reason for these things. There is one Christ and one Church. Once a woman marries then her husband is Christ to her, as long as he lives. Even, if he proves a brute or unfaithful to her, he is still the only Christ for her, she cannot have another. For the man, Christ, there is only one Church and even if she is disobedient and troublesome, he nevertheless remains with her, loving her and giving all of himself for her as his own body. However, if she proves unfaithful, as a Church in heresy, he is free to find another as the church because the first wife has failed to remain his church. Christ does not cease to be Christ but a Church can cease to be the Church in unfaithfulness.

Permitting divorce and remarriage is a grievous sin against the Mystery of marriage and fails to recognise the full implication of the Mystery. Such remarriages, except a man after the unfaithfulness of the wife, are not marriages because they fail to manifest or contradict the Mystery of the relation between Christ and the Church. They are rather acts almost amounting to that of heresy and schism because a different Christ is chosen or a different Church. Marriage is not just a symbol of the union of Christ and the Church but a participation in the very reality of this union.

Bishop’s are not free to do as they please in this regard but to carefully maintain the Traditions of the Church and the commandments of Christ. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, but we are all sinners in need of God’s mercy for our weaknesses.