But from the beginning it was not so

Alright, it's time I return to posting here on a regular basis. I have never intended this to be an apologetics blog and it won't become one. My goal is to go into some details and provide a different perspective that might challenge the way some view Eastern Orthodoxy (or Catholicism for that matter). I am not arguing (at least not strictly speaking) against Eastern Orthodox positions and opinions, I am simply providing information in order for people to have a more sober and informed assessment of them. There are many scholars and highly knowledgeable people out there but I am that village idiot that annoys them with questions, keeping them busy and remind the village folk not to trust any smart guy who comes to town. Anyway, continuing with this "pastoral" theme, here's an interesting story. 

A long time ago in a land far far away a guy decides to leave his wife of  many years for another beautiful woman. You know how life goes. However, this was a time when divorce was not taken lightly; no one really cared about personal feelings and desires. So, the guy says his wife tried to kill him, and so the poor woman is arrested and sent away. The main elder of the land, however, refuses to acknowledge this phony divorce and bless the new union with some cunning broad. Sounds familiar? Well, we aren't talking about England and Henry here. We are talking about Constantine VI, his wife Mary, Patriarch Tarasius, all of whom lived, as you've guessed already, in the Eastern Roman Empire. Disregarding the disapproval of Tarasius, a priest-monk by the name of Joseph "marries" Constantine and one of his court ladies Theodota in Hagia Sophia. Soon after other noblemen figured they could do the same and started banishing their wives under different excuses. I guess, it was their Summer of Love. However, this was a time when the real cool guys, the rock-stars of their time were always on the side of morality, purity and righteousness. One of these guys was Venerable Theodore the Studite.

Of course not everyone wants to stay indie and DIY for the rest of their lives, some sign to a major label and attempt to stay true but also have the resources of a fancy studio, while others sell out completely. The patriarch was one of these Rage Against the Machine types. He condemned emperor's behavior, canonically rejected it (at least at first) but practically accepted it. The basis for his soft stance was the concept popular in contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy (and certain German Catholics) - oeconomia (οικονομία if you read Elvish), which refers to the practice of softening a certain rule or law or interpreting it in a "merciful" manner for the the greater good. The opposite concept is akribeia (ακρίβεια) - strict adherence to the letter of the law. Unfortunately today the later is seen as something unmerciful, rigid (to use the term of a certain someone) and pharisaic. Of course the merciful types love to use this  principle when they personally dislike someone, who challenges them but of course the affairs of the heart are a mystery. For those of you living in Shire, the tall folk call this whole situation Moechian controversy, which we would simply call Adultery controversy. 

Theodore and the Monastery of Stoudios

Let's go back to one of my favorite "pharisees" Theodore the Studite, who along with abba Plato and other brothers of Sakkoudion monastery stood up to the lawless behavior of the emperor and his supporters, including the patriarch. I'll skip all the historical details to get to the point but now you have the key and you can open the entrance into Misty Mountain yourself (sorry for all of the Tolkien references, I guess, I haven't watched the films or read the books in a few days). Theodore and his brethren for all intents and purposes rejected the principle of oeconomia (at least in the way it is often used today). It should be said, however, that these terms were not really used in a legal sense until the 18th century, when Nicodimus the Hagiorite used them in his Pedalion to explain the discrepancy between the Greek and the Russian practices of accepting Catholics in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Of course, Russians being the most hardcore (ROCOR ftw!!) did not want to baptize Catholics, while the liberal Greeks did not accept the Latin baptism. That's not to say that these concepts were unknown - they were, otherwise Theodore would not have anything to reject. Although Theodore was not so rigorous as to reject the notion of mercy when it comes to practical matters, he did however set a very definite and strict limits on its application. 

He viewed oeconomia as something that cannot be applied generally but something that is to be applied in particular cases, i.e. you cannot make a practice out of it that would in turn create a law. Notice here how we are not going to be talking about liturgical issues or fasting habits but about moral issues (unfortunately, today it is often the other way around). After all, the rule of Theodore's monastery is considered to be a very soft one, compared to the rigorous and heavy rules of the Jerusalem typikon; but there was no room for going "pop" in terms of morality and dogma in Theodore's mind. In his opinion, the guideline for applying oeconomia was, on the one hand, not to altogether break a certain rule, nor to be so rigorous that it might be detrimental to  what the rule tries to achieve. He even says that adopting to the situation of the times is not a bad thing (he was hip to the spirit of Vatican II, ya'll!); crime lies in divergence from the goal of a particular law. In short, oeconomia is not about drinking Pepsi all the time, it's about allowing Pepsi here and there, so that your diet and exercise won't make you so irritable that you choke out your friend in a locker-room, instead of getting you lose those extra pounds. Once you stop attending the gym and go into a soda-pop frenzy, Saint Theodore has no sympathy for you, since now you've committed paranomia (a crime), not oeconomia. He says the following about the merciful priest who allowed this so-called marriage to occur: "He who married the adulterer continues to be a priest, as if he did not do anything indecent, and did so not in some secret place but in the very Catholic Church, as if made into an example for other  priests". I don't think I need to quote his words on the adulterer himself.

Anyhow, you can guess what the merciful oeconomists did. Yes, they took the old abbot Plato, who criticized them along with Saint Theodore, and threw him in prison. That's okay, he is a saint now, the Eastererns venerate him on the 18th of April, and the Latins on the 4th of the same month. It seems Theodore has an answer for this strange contradiction: when mercy becomes an excuse for every breaking of the law, making the very crime lawful, it stops being mercy and in fact ceases to exist. When you allow your child to do whatever he or she wants, that is not mercy, that is irresponsible parenting. As mentioned before, Patriarch Tarasius did think that "marriage" was unlawful, he did not participate in the ceremony (he might as well have slapped the emperor in the face) but he also did not stand up to the emperor and did not get involved in the controversy for the sake of peace. Don't worry though, the whole situation kind of resolved itself - Constantine's mother Irene became the ruler and Tarasius lived a holy life until his death and was canonized (Byzantines commemorate him on the 10th of March, Latins - 18th February). 

Patriarch Tarasius

So what's the example of oeconomia Theodore gives in this case? Well, if the priest who "married" the adulterers was stripped of his faculties Theodore would again enter in communion with the Patriarch (yeah, Theodore, broke communion with the patriarch over this issue). In other words, Theodore was willing to accept the patriarch, who did not condemn the adultery, if the reality of the law was made evident. If not, he would be willing to bend the law in terms of submitting to his superiors in order to defend the law of marriage. 

I am sure I am making my imaginary SSPX readers very happy at this point, and as much I would like to ruin their party, I'd let them be happy for now, since I'd have to really go off-topic to become the party pooper. However, since we are talking about oeconomia here, it is necessary to remind of the fact that the line between mercy and lawlessness is the particular and temporary nature of applying oeconomia, it cannot become the norm. Theodore did what he did only because he was sure that a) it was a local matter and he theoretically had the support of the bishop of Rome (I'll discuss Studite's papism some other time) and other orthodox bishops of his time (which means he did not make not-communing with superiors into a new norm) and b) he used it as a tool to change the patriarch's mind, i.e. to achieve a result in his life-time. In other words, his actions were oeconomia, because they were particular (local), temporary and did not break the law altogether, creating a new contrary law. How's divorce different? Well, in Eastern Orthodoxy it became the norm and general practice that can no longer be considered temporary.

We are not going to go into the nature and theology of marriage in this post we will consider some canonical matters, however. It is no secret that in Eastern Orthodoxy the list of the reasons for the divorce has expanded and no longer includes simply adultery. Granted we accept divorce due to adultery (that's for another article to discuss), we can still wonder which words of Christ made it lawful to marry someone else, because the spouse was sent to Siberia or became seriously ill? Contrary to what many think, the second marriage mentioned in canons refers to a marriage after one of the spouses dies. Thus, the real reason for allowing re-marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Churches is oeconomia; to quote an article on the biggest Russian Orthodox website: "The Church frowns upon second marriages and allows them only as a leniency towards human infirmities"*. Well, that doesn't make any sense! The canon and service books speak of the fact that the second marriage is somehow lesser than the first one but if they are referring to widowers and windows, what wrong with the second marriage? What can I say, those ancients were crazy rigorous: "He that can take, let him take it" (Mt. 19:12)! Also one can in turn ask: if the second marriage is lawful while the first spouse is alive, then why should be considered less perfect? Oeconomia doesn't really apply here, because re-marriage is still a norm, even if you show from time to time that it's not too desirable (think of Patriarch Tarasius during the controversy described above).

Let's look at a famous 20th c. Serbian Orthodox canonist bishop Nikodim (Milaš) of Dalmatia. If you suspect him of some Catholic sympathies, think again: he was a staunch anti-unionist and wrote against Leo XIII's call to union. Then again, so was Peter Mohyla but let's not go into that for now. 

87 canon of the Quinisext Council (Catholics should keep in mind the status of this Council according to Rome) says: "She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil" and further: "he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord". It should be noted that about women it says "she appears to have departed from her husband without reason".

Here's what Kyr Nicodimus says: 

According to Roman as well as Ecclesiastical law, marriage is a union and coming together of a husband and a wife for their whole life (conjugatio maris et foeminae et consortium omnis vitae). This is an exact exposition of the teaching of Holy Scriptures (Mt. 19:5-6, Mk. 10:5-9, Eph. 5:32) and is a creedal teaching of our Orthodox Church. According to this, he who enters into a lawful marriage and this marriage has not been dissolved by death of one of the spouses, cannot enter into a new marriage with another person.

Mic drop? Note quite, since Byzantine Empire was not a state, in which Ecclesiastic law was separate and above the civil law. Thus, Emperor Justinian introduced a list of cases in his so-called Novels (mid 6th c.), which make the divorce possible: 1) when a husband or a wife committed a crime, punishment for which is death; 2) when a man or a woman are in a state equal to death; 3) adultery; 4) absence of a "physical condition" (we're all adults here); 5) when the spouses want to dedicate their lives to God. This list is essentially identical to that of Patriarch Minas of Constantinople (an interesting person for those studying papacy) it was included in Nomocanon (main books of Canon Law in Eastern Orthodoxy) several centuries later. For the time being we are not going to dispute the status of any of these documents, it is clear though, we are, so far, talking about a divorce, not second marriages, since the Quinisext Council and the Novels don't contradict each other, for the former is talking about a new marriage,  while the former is talking about the possibility of leaving one' spouse, which exists in the Catholic Church as well, older canon books even call it divorce.

Going back to Nicodemus' commentary he refers to canon 93 that supposedly allows the "innocent party" to marry again. Keep in mind, though, that contemporary Eastern Orthodox practice is different, since there is no "guilty" or "innocent" party, neither is there a court that would decide these matters. However, when one opens canon 93 there's nothing about this. It simply talks about leniency (oeconomia) towards a woman who is married to a soldier and who considering him dead married again, though the canon still says that if she did so "before she is assured of the death of the first, she is an adulteress". That's what you call bending rules Byzantine-style. However, lo and behold, if the husband does come back, the wife's new marriage is made null and void. So where's the innocent party, to which Kyr Nicodemus referred to? Well here it is: "But she who in ignorance has married a man who at the time was deserted by his wife, and then is dismissed because his first wife returns to him, has indeed committed fornication, but through ignorance; therefore she is not prevented from marrying". In short if you marry a guy who was in fact married leaves, you can still marry afterwards, though "it is better if she remain as she is".

Moving on, 98th canon of the same Council says: "He who brings to the intercourse of marriage a woman who is betrothed to another man who is still alive, is to lie under the charge of adultery". Talk about being rigid! Synod of Carthage (393–419) in canon 102 (115) says: "It seemed good that according to evangelical and apostolic discipline a man who had been put away from his wife, and a woman put away from her husband should not be married to another, but so should remain, or else be reconciled the one to the other".

Kyr Nicodemus comments: 

According to the decree of this rule, one cannot dissolve a lawful marriage based on the fact that a husband or a wife left their spouse; such marriage remains valid and if the spouses don't make peace, they shall forever remain separated without the right to marry another person. 

He then acknowledges that it was the law until 7th century and cites the Quinisext Council concerning the guilty party. However, we have already looked at what he refers to in this case.

Apostolic canon 48 says: "If any layman put away his wife and marry another, or one who has been divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated". Here we can look a certain logic behind current Eastern Orthodox "oeconomia", since Milaš says: "This union of the two who were lawfully wed can be dissolved either by death or by a reason that so to speak transcends the Church idea of indissolubility of marriage and that destroys its moral and religious basis, which is also death, albeit of a different nature". Well, I'll leave it up to you to think about this reason that transcends Church's (aka Christ's) idea of "until death do us  apart".

Now let's finish with the matter of second marriage. The very first canon of Synod of Laodicea states:

It is right, according to the ecclesiastical Canon, that the Communion should by indulgence be given to those who have freely and lawfully joined in second marriages, not having previously made a secret marriage; after a short space, which is to be spent by them in prayer and fasting.

Seems pretty charitable. Here's what Kyr Nicodemus states: 

By second marriage (δεύτερος γάμος) of which this canon speaks, we must understand such a one, which is entered into by a person after the death of their first spouse. This second marriage, being entered into freely (ελευθέρως), lawfully (νομίμως) and in the absence of a previous secret marriage (λαθρογαμία, occultae nuptlae), i.e. according to Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, the intending spouses did not have intercourse before, is also considered permissible according to the divine law (Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor 7:39). However, over time, when celibacy came to be considered a virtue superior to married life, the second marriage was looked at with more strictness, allowing it, according to Saint Basil, only as a cure for fornication (87 canon). This Laodecean canon is the expression of the Church's view on second marriage, which though is permitted, is allowed after a certain penance (epitimia); namely, it decrees that those entering into second marriage (δευτερογαμουντες) can receive holy communion at their wedding only after a known period of time (ολίγου χρόνου παρελθόντος), which they should spend in fasting and prayer. According to the fourth canon of Basil the Great, this penance should last one year. Such a strict view of the Church on second marriage is expressed also in other canons, according to which a) not a single person in second marriage is to be consecrated into priesthood (Ap. 17, Trul 3, Basil Gr. 12), b) a priest is forbidden to take part in wedding banquets of those in second marriages (Neocaes. 7), and c) he who enters into a second marriage cannot be wed according to the rite established for those who are wed for the first time. 

At this point I invite you to be merciful and lenient like the Father, not like a bunch of major-label sellouts, be punk, be true 'til death... or if you're not into the whole pop-culture garbage, you can be merciful like Thranduil... or the saints, whatever works for you!