On Marriage

On Marriage #

What is marriage? #

Marriage is a sacrament in which, with the free promise of mutual marital fidelity made by the groom and the bride before the priest and the Church, their marital union is blessed as a symbol of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church, and they are granted the grace of pure harmony for the blessed birth and upbringing of children. Such a consummation of marriage is praised by the holy apostle, who says: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

How is it evident that marriage is a sacrament of the Church? #

It is evident from the following words of the Apostle Paul: “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5:31-32).

Is it necessary for everyone to enter into marriage? #

No. Virginity is better than marriage if one can maintain it in purity. Christ Himself said about this: “Not all can accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:11-12). The Apostle also says: “I say to the unmarried and to widows: it is good for them if they remain as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. The unmarried man cares for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he who is married cares about the things of the world, how he may please his wife. He who gives his virgin in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better” (1 Corinthians 7:8, 32, 38).

Can those who live in lawful marriage enter the kingdom of heaven? #

The Holy Local Council of Gangra speaks on this matter: “If anyone condemns lawful marriage and despises a faithful and pious wife who is united with her husband, or reproaches her as one who cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, let him be under a curse” (Canon 1). And further: “If anyone refuses to accept communion from a priest who has a lawful wife and says that it is not proper to receive communion from him, let him be cursed” (Slavonic Kormchaia, Canon 4).

What is the benefit of the sacrament of marriage? #

Firstly, those who cannot maintain the purity of virginity avoid fornication by marriage, for those who live in lawful marriage do not sin before God and do not receive any reproach from people. Secondly, children born of marriage are honorable before people, and if they are raised in the Christian faith, they are holy before God. Thirdly, in every weakness and sorrow, the husband and wife are each other’s closest helpers, according to God’s blessing: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

How is a lawful Christian marriage performed? #

According to the rite of the sacred service, as shown in the order of the wedding in the service books and needs books, performed by a pious priest. But marriages, as written in the Kormchaia, between those who abduct and the abducted, when the abducted woman remains under the power of the abductor, as well as secret and all other marriages that are not performed with the Church’s blessing and the proper rite by their pastor, that is, by the bishop or by the priest of that parish, with the wedding being conducted in the presence of two or three witnesses, according to the conciliar statute and the teaching of the holy fathers, are not lawful, but rather unlawful, and are nothing (ch. 51, l. 522).

How do some assert that the sacred rites and the blessing of the marriage are not mandatory for the consummation of marriage, and how do they base this on the following statement from the Kormchaia: “Let marriage be accomplished not deceitfully by the counsel of the persons involved, whether by the blessing in the Church, or in the presence of five other persons”? (ch. 50, l. 500 ob.). #

The cited words from the Kormchaia in no way deny the sacred rites and the blessing of marriage. For these words are taken from the imperial laws of Leo the Wise and Constantine, who lived in the 10th century after Christ’s birth. They speak only of how marriage should be arranged so that judges might properly rule on matters of inheritance if one of the spouses should die soon, whether they have children or not. For this reason, it is recommended there that a written agreement be made at the time of betrothal, specifying the dowry brought by the wife. And then, as an exception to the law, a concession is made, stating: “If, due to constraints or poverty, someone cannot easily and properly arrange a written marriage agreement, then let marriage be concluded without such a written document, and so on…” Here, a properly arranged marriage is referred to as one that is written, although in the instructions on its composition, there is not a word mentioned about the blessing of the parents or the priestly blessing of the marriage. Does this mean that for a properly arranged marriage, such a written document is not required at all? But since marriage is a sacrament of the Church, the regulation regarding the priestly blessing of marriage undoubtedly originates from the holy apostles, who called honorable marriage an undefiled bed, while declaring that fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God. It is clear that the command of Emperor Leo and Constantine did not concern the performance of this sacrament itself but only the proper order of its arrangement, according to which it would be easier for judges to examine matters of inheritance in the event of any sudden disruption. If the imperial law is cited among the Church rules, it is not to contradict them but solely to confirm them. As Matthew the Canonist declares in the preface to his book, saying: “It was necessary to attach the concise formulations of civil law related to the rules of the Church, supporting and confirming them with great firmness” (Embrace of All Matters, l. 3). And that a properly arranged and written marriage did not exclude the blessing of the parents or the priestly blessing of the marriage, this is testified by Simeon of Thessalonica, who speaks as follows on this matter:

“If those who are marrying have parents, they agree among themselves and make their opinions known on the matter. Then, when the day comes for writing the contract, there is a gathering of honorable persons to witness the event and to verify that the agreement on lawful marriage is being made. For this purpose, an official is also appointed who writes the contracts and affixes the seals of the contracting parties in the form of a cross, showing that this act is from God and is begun in Christ. The future spouses and their parents sign with a pen, thereby expressing their voluntary consent and free will, and the fact that Christ is joining them… These contracts are called ‘cross contracts,’ and they cannot be annulled without any lawful reasons, such as those required for dissolving an already established marriage; otherwise, the annulment would be unlawful. When the time for the marriage arrives, the groom and bride appear in the church, for the husband receives his wife from God and His Church. The priest, dressed in sacred vestments, first places an iron ring on the sacred table, symbolizing the strength of the husband, and a gold ring, symbolizing the tenderness and purity of the wife; then he places the pre-consecrated Holy (Gifts) upon the table, for this act is done before Christ, and He will be their communion and union in sanctification and true faith in Him, and in chastity.” This is taken from the chapter titled: “Why crowns are used during the performance of marriage” (in the Russian translation, ch. 241).

Therefore, if a properly arranged and written marriage did not exclude the priestly blessing of the marriage, even though the will concerning it is not mentioned in the marriage contract, then likewise, the unwritten agreement concerning the dowry, whether simply by the counsel of the parents or by the Church’s blessing or in the presence of five others (that is, witnesses), does not exclude the sacred blessing of this marriage. The imperial decree on unwritten marriages had no reason to exclude or annul the priestly blessing of lawful marriage, which is not subject to its jurisdiction, but only needed to indicate the custom that existed among good people concerning marriage agreements before its legislation, so that it would be easier to consider the dowry in the event of the death of one of the spouses. As the very title of this decree clearly shows, which states: “On unwritten marriages and what should be inherited by those who do not have wives (after their death).”

Matthew the Canonist writes: “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a joint inheritance for life, a participation in divine and human rights, either by blessing, or by wedding, or by writing: but whatever happens through these means, if they are not properly done, is considered as not having occurred” (composition g, ch. 3). Is it then justified for some to assert that marriage can be valid without the sacred wedding rite? #

Matthew the Canonist, in making this statement, was referring to the law, and by the term “law,” he meant the civil laws established by pious emperors. Since before all the articles titled “law,” he indicates the legislators themselves, as in the case of the cited testimony, where, in the initial article of the law, he names Leo the Wise. This Leo is the same Leo the Wise, whose decree on written and unwritten marriages is fully cited in the Kormchaia, from which the previous question and answer were derived. However, Matthew the Canonist did not fully align his literal interpretation with the Kormchaia because he was summarizing not only civil laws but also sacred rules, as he himself testified, saying: “I, therefore, concerning the confirmation of the salvific tradition and the necessary teaching for all people… have gathered all the divine rules and their explanations by those who interpreted them with a godly mind, and have summarized them in a way that preserves their meaning as much as possible” (Embrace of All Matters, l. 3).

In the previous response, we stated that Leo’s decree on written and unwritten marriages legislated only the proper order of how property should be arranged for those entering into marriage, and did not exclude the sacred wedding rite in the consummation of marriage. Therefore, the same meaning is expressed by Matthew the Canonist, though in a summarized form. In his words, “marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a joint inheritance for life, and participation in divine and human rights,” two types of rights are implied: one divine, the other human, and thus the composition of marriage is shown to be twofold, namely, according to human law and according to God’s law. Human law consists in the initial agreement of the parents of those marrying, and in the mutual choice of each other by those wishing to enter into marital cohabitation, with the proper confirmation of this either by writing, as was explained in detail in the previous response from Simeon of Thessalonica, or by blessing, that is, with the sacred prayers of betrothal. God’s law is fulfilled in those who faithfully receive the sacred wedding rite, which, according to the apostle, produces an honorable marriage and an undefiled bed.

The initial agreement concerning marriage and its confirmation, either by writing or by betrothal, which pertains to human law, is sometimes made long before the sacred wedding rite. Thus, the venerable Macrina, the sister of Basil the Great, was betrothed at the age of 12 to a chosen young man by her father, who then postponed the marriage until the maiden reached the appropriate age for marriage, as written in her life in the Menaion for July 19. And the venerable Eupraxia, also with the postponement of marriage until the appropriate age, was betrothed at the age of five to a noble young man from the sons of senators, as shown in her life in the Menaion for July 25.

A divorce from a lawful marriage without valid reasons is not allowed, not only according to divine law, as prohibited by Christ Himself, saying: “What God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9), but also according to human law, as determined by sacred rules and civil laws. The determinations of the rules on this matter are as follows: “He who takes in marriage a woman betrothed to another, while her betrothed is still alive, shall be guilty of adultery” (Canon 98 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). “Betrothed virgins who are later abducted by others are to be returned to their original betrothed, even if they have suffered violence from the abductors” (Canon 11 of the Council of Ancyra). “He who abducts a betrothed woman shall return her to her betrothed” (Canon 22 of Basil the Great). Similarly, Simeon of Thessalonica speaks of written betrothal: “These contracts are called ‘cross contracts,’ and they cannot be annulled without lawful reasons, such as those required for dissolving an already established marriage; otherwise, the annulment will be unlawful” (in the Russian translation, ch. 241).

Therefore, Matthew the Canonist, citing the law of Leo the Wise on written and unwritten marriages, also included in it the final consummation by the sacred wedding rite, that is, he spoke jointly of the betrothal and the wedding. But that he could not thereby prove that marriage could be consummated, as some think, not only by wedding but also by the blessing of the parents or by writing, is also evident from the fact that Matthew the Canonist, further down in the same section, brought forward an article from the law that says: “No one shall be secretly married, but before many witnesses; and if anyone dares to do so, let him be chastened with penance, as well as the priest, who has been attached to such an unseemly act, and let them be subject to appropriate punishment according to the Church’s rules” (composition g, ch. 3). If marriage could be consummated either by wedding, blessing, or writing, why then does this final article of the law punish only secret weddings, leaving blessings and writings without punishment? Could only weddings be conducted secretly, while it is impossible to abuse blessings and writings? Sacred history tells us that Jacob, the patriarch of Israel, stole the blessing from his father Isaac. Unprincipled people can commit various abuses in all sacred and divine matters. But abuses in blessings and writings in marriage are not scrutinized by the law because they do not yet constitute the final consummation of the marriage, and therefore, before the wedding, they can still be corrected upon discovery.

It is absolutely impossible to deny the necessity of the sacred wedding rite for the consummation of a lawful Christian marriage. We will not assert that there were never Christian marriages that were solemnized without a sacred wedding rite. This we allow without any dispute. However, we also cannot admit that the solemnization of a lawful Christian marriage with a sacred wedding rite is not an apostolic tradition within the Church of Christ. For the 11th canon of the Apostle Paul defines this matter as follows: “If a believer has a concubine who is a slave, he may either keep her or marry her according to the law. But if she is free, he must lawfully take her as his wife; otherwise, he shall be rejected” (Slavonic Kormchaia, l. 26).

Regarding the marriages of masters with slaves, according to the 42nd canon of Basil the Great, the masters have the same authority and will as parents over their children. And if, according to the 38th canon of Basil the Great, the reconciliation of the parents to the cohabitation of a maiden who independently entered into marriage healed the initial unlawfulness and made her marriage indissoluble with the parents’ consent, then a slave who independently decided to cohabit with someone could also have her unlawfulness healed if her master granted her freedom for such cohabitation, and the marriage, according to the 33rd canon of Basil the Great, would remain indissoluble. However, the Apostle Paul does not recognize the lawfulness of marriage by the mere consent of the master, by which he allows his slave to be his concubine. He further requires that the master lawfully take her as his wife if she is free (i.e., unmarried). This strict requirement for the lawfulness of the master’s marriage indicates nothing other than the sacred wedding rite for the consummation of a lawful marriage. The same is pointed out by Saint Ignatius the God-bearer, a disciple of the Apostle John the Theologian, who says: “Those who are marrying and taking a spouse should do so with the bishop’s consent, so that the marriage may be in the Lord, and not in lust” (His Epistle to Polycarp). This is further confirmed by Pope Evaristus of Rome, who established that a priest should unite newlyweds in the presence of the whole Church (Historical Theatron, Anno Domini 111, l. 134 ob.).

The same sacred wedding rite in the consummation of marriage is also noted in the following statements of the ancient fathers:

Tertullian (who lived in 203 AD): “How can one describe the happiness of a marriage that is encouraged by the Church, sanctified by its prayers, recorded by angels in heaven, and blessed by God the Father?” (ch. 2, last page).

Basil the Great: “Husbands, love your wives, even though you were strangers to each other when you entered into marriage. This bond of nature, this yoke laid on with a blessing, should be a union for you who were once distant” (ch. 1, on the Hexaemeron, Homily 7, p. 132).

Timothy of Alexandria, a contemporary of Basil the Great: “A priest is called to bless a marriage; if he knows that it is unlawful, he should not join in the sins of others” (His 11th canon, Kormchaia, l. 270).

John Chrysostom: “The priest performs the marriage union with prayer and blessing” (Homily 49 on Genesis). And also: “For this reason, crowns are placed on the heads, as a symbol of victory, because they come to the bed as those who have not been overcome by passion. But if one has been captured by passion, he gives himself over to harlots, and therefore, what further use is there for a crown on his head as one who has been defeated?” (9th moral teaching on the 1st Epistle to Timothy).

Therefore, it is impossible to deny the apostolic tradition of the sacred wedding rite for the consummation of a lawful Christian marriage. But that in antiquity some Christians solemnized marriages without the sacred service was more due to the fact that at that time, many Christians delayed baptism until the age of 30, or even later, and thus they entered into marriage according to the custom of the pagans without a sacred service. There were also cases like that of the parents of Saint Gregory the Theologian, where one party entering into marriage was unbaptized while the other was baptized. Consequently, these marriages were also solemnized without a sacred service. Others, though both parties were Christians, neglected the apostolic ordinances and solemnized their marriages without the sacred wedding rite, following the pagan custom due to their desire.

However, the early Church tolerated some customs that were deeply rooted in paganism or Judaism for a time, as we noted earlier when discussing the celebration of Pascha with the Jews and the admission of women as priests at the beginning of Christianity. Therefore, one should not take as an example anything done in Christianity that does not follow the universal tradition of the Church, for, according to Valsamon’s testimony, “there is a lawful rule that states: what is not according to the rules, should not be used as an example” (his other commentary on the 18th canon of the Council of Sardica). Emperor Alexios Komnenos’s decree also prohibits marriages without a sacred service, solely because it is contrary to apostolic tradition. It states that masters who are reluctant to solemnize the marriage of their slaves with a sacred service, lest they be freed, should not permit them to marry in this way (Kormchaia, l. 334).

This clearly shows that the masters held the sacred wedding rite in such high regard that they believed if such a rite were performed on their slaves, it would grant them freedom. Therefore, they did not allow their slaves to be wed in the same manner as free people. Consequently, the decree further states that at weddings, the prayers of betrothal and wedding should be observed not only for the free but also for slaves, and henceforth no marriage should be called lawful or worthy of Christian structure unless the prayers unite the betrothed, that is, the bride and groom, in love: “For it is fitting that all Christians, who hold to one faith and one baptism, by which we were brought to God… should not indulge in certain thoughts… and thus, when free people marry each other, they are first united by divine prayer, while slaves are deprived of such a good and do not receive God’s blessing for their union” (Kormchaia, l. 335). Thus, it is clear that the decree did not newly establish the sacred wedding rite for the lawful Christian marriage, but only prohibited slaves from being deprived of it due to their masters’ misguided reasoning. Therefore, the decree further expresses not its own opinion but the generally accepted view of the Church from ancient times, stating: “Those who unite their slaves in marriage without sacred prayers do not establish a godly marriage for them, but rather affirm a sinful union. Those who are not united by God through sacred prayers gather in sin” (Kormchaia, l. 336).

This is confirmed even by the holy angels, as seen from the account of Theodora to Gregory, saying: “And I encountered the 17th tollhouse, which is for fornication, and soon the servants of Satan came and examined my deeds, for before I served our holy father, I had a spouse given to me by my mistress, and I lived with him, but at times I was unfaithful to him with other young men, and for this reason, they greatly accused me. But the holy angels who were carrying my soul said to them, ‘This was a slave, neither blessed by a priest nor married in the Church of the Lord with her husband, whom she took, so these sins are not considered adultery, but rather should be called fornication.’” (The Life of Saint Basil the New, l. 30). Matthew the Canonist agrees with this, saying: “Marriage among us (Christians) cannot be consummated without a sacred service” (composition g, ch. 8). Even Basil the Great, during whose time, according to Matthew the Canonist, marriage could stand with the mere consent of the parents to the cohabitation of a maiden who independently entered into marriage, did not approve of such marriages, but reproached them, saying: “Fornication is not marriage, nor even the beginning of marriage. Therefore, it is better to separate those who have united through fornication, if possible. If they insist on cohabitation, let them receive the penance of fornication, but let them remain in marital cohabitation, lest something worse happens” (Canon 26 of the full translation). Or, as Matthew the Canonist noted, “The woman who has united in marriage through adultery may fall into further adultery with the first partner she secretly grew up with, or those who love each other passionately and are forbidden to be together may kill themselves, being extremely overwhelmed by passion and unable to bear separation from each other” (composition p, ch. 14). Therefore, although during Basil’s time marriages were sometimes solemnized without a sacred service, this was not in accordance with Christ’s words: “What God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:9), but only to prevent something worse (than fornication). Consequently, this cannot serve as any weakening in the consummation of a lawful Christian marriage with the sacred wedding rite.

The Holy Apostle Paul writes: “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not leave her. And if a woman has a husband who does not believe, and he is willing to live with her, let her not leave him” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13). So, why does the Apostle allow marital cohabitation in cases where it was not possible to have a sacred wedding ceremony? #

The Apostle’s words do not imply that a believing husband or wife is free to marry an unbeliever. Rather, Paul was providing guidance on how marital cohabitation should continue if, after entering into marriage in a state of unbelief, one of the spouses converts to the faith. Such guidance does not in any way contradict the practice of solemnizing marriage in the Church of Christ with a sacred wedding ceremony. Indeed, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in its 72nd canon, literally repeated the Apostle’s advice mentioned in this question. But can it be suggested that during the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Church did not have a rite for solemnizing lawful Christian marriages with a sacred wedding ceremony? If there is no doubt that during the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Church had a marriage rite with a sacred wedding ceremony, even though the Council reiterated the Apostle’s advice, then it cannot be argued that in the time of the holy Apostles, this guidance contradicted the sacred rite of marriage with a sacred wedding ceremony.

Aristen, the interpreter of the sacred canons, in his commentary on the 72nd canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, says: “If some unbelievers have united in lawful marriage…” Here, lawful marriage is recognized even in the union of unbelievers, certainly without a sacred wedding ceremony, so how do you base the lawfulness of marriage on that ceremony? #

In the Church of Christ, the lawfulness of marriage is completed in purity and holiness, whereas among unbelievers, the lawfulness of marriage is considered only insofar as it does not exceed the boundaries of the customs universally accepted in that place. However, their lawfulness cannot possess purity or holiness, as the Apostle says: “To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled” (Titus 1:15). Concerning the indissolubility of marriage, as established by the law of the Church of Christ, Christ Himself declares, saying: “What God has joined together, let no man separate… and whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:6,9). “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:12). However, this determination of Christ does not apply to the lawful bond of marriage formed among unbelievers, as the holy Apostle explains, saying: “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Corinthians 7:15). Therefore, if a marriage formed by unbelievers does not adhere to the binding nature of the above-mentioned commandment of Christ, it is evident that it is not sustained by its holiness or purity, but solely by condescension, in the hope foretold by the Apostle: “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:16). And regarding the concern that believers might feel defiled by marital cohabitation with unbelievers, the Apostle, to reassure them, said the following: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (1 Corinthians 7:14). Thus, it is clear that the holiness of a marriage formed in unbelief does not depend on the lawfulness that unbelievers consider in that marriage, but solely on the faith of the believing spouse. Therefore, if the unbeliever does not wish to continue marital cohabitation with the believer, the believer is not bound to remain under the yoke of a marriage formed in unbelief.

The Great Catechism acknowledges that the primary agent of the sacrament of marriage is the Lord God Himself, who created the first man, Adam, and Eve, and blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). The Lord reaffirms this in the Gospel, saying: “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Accordingly, the couple themselves enact this mystery, saying, “I take you as my wife” and “I take you as my husband.” Just as someone who sells themselves is both the seller and the item sold, so too in this mystery, the couple sells and gives themselves to each other in this honorable service (ch. 79 On Lawful Marriage). Therefore, is it justifiable for some to assert that the sacred wedding rite is not mandatory for the consummation of a Christian marriage? #

It is not justifiable. Although the cited response from the Catechism does not explicitly mention the sacred wedding rite, the Catechism does not expound on the detailed rites of the sacraments but only addresses them to the extent that doubts or misconceptions arise about them. The Holy Church, while accepting these teachings to instruct its children, cannot, based on any brief catechetical reminders about its sacraments, deviate from the universally accepted order of performing these sacraments.

Let us take an example from Holy Baptism. Christ, instructing believers in baptism, did not go into detail about its performance but left a very brief commandment, as recorded by the Evangelist John: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). According to Mark: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Even in the Gospel of Matthew, where the instruction is more extensive, it is still not fully clear and sufficient. Here, Christ, commanding the apostles regarding the baptism of others, said: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). From this teaching on baptism by the first evangelists, there is no mention of even invoking the Trinitarian name of God, and in the last account, the reference to triple immersion is not entirely clear. However, this does not provide any justification for anyone to corrupt the established order of Holy Baptism within the Holy Church. The 49th and 50th Apostolic Canons prescribe deposition for bishops and presbyters who do not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with triple immersion.

Similarly, in the statement from the Catechism mentioned in this question, if the exact order of the wedding ceremony with the sacred rite is not explicitly defined, it should not be taken as a specific order of marriage. Even more so, it should not be regarded as the proper order of marriage, lest it be used to excuse the licentious behavior of many. For if we allow that the couple themselves perform the mystery of marriage with the words: “I take you as my wife” and “I take you as my husband,” then there would be no reason to condemn those who, even in fornication, bind themselves with oaths never to leave each other. Yet, according to the canons of the holy fathers, they are punished not only for their fornication but also for their oath regarding an unlawful act. Therefore, the couple alone cannot constitute a lawful marriage.

If we examine the matter more closely, we see that the Catechism does not permit this either, for it states that the first to enact the mystery of marriage is the Lord God, noting that He blessed Adam and Eve. But this blessing of God upon our foreparents was not without a perceptible voice, and therefore even now, God’s blessing upon marriage must be accompanied by some visible and tangible sign, which indeed occurs in the sacred wedding rite. The Venerable Theodore the Studite speaks on this, saying: “Pay attention to the sacred order of the wedding of those being united, and observe… what the priest pronounces, that God Himself truly confirms” (Letter to Patriarch Nikephoros, ch. 1, p. 289). Saint John Chrysostom also says: “For with the hand and tongue of the priest, God blesses” (2nd moral teaching on the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians). The Catechism itself also understood God’s blessing upon marriage as the sacred wedding rite, as is evident from the fact that it calls marriage a mystery, and earlier in its discussion of the seven mysteries, it explained that “no one can perform mysteries except for bishops ordained by the laying on of hands, who have received authority from the Lord God as successors of the apostles” (Catechism, ch. 72). Therefore, the sacrament of marriage must always be consummated in the Holy Church with God’s blessing through the sacred wedding rite.

What should a Christian do if, for his marriage with a sacred wedding ceremony, he cannot find a pious priest? #

While it may be highly unlikely that a Christian would ever find themselves in such a situation as described in this question, it is equally unthinkable that the Christ-given priesthood could ever be entirely extinguished. Without an Orthodox priest, it is not only impossible to enter into a lawful marriage but also to perform any Church sacrament. This is tantamount to saying that without an Orthodox priest, one cannot be an Orthodox Christian. Therefore, when addressing this question, the first point to consider is why an Orthodox Christian cannot find an Orthodox priest for his marriage.

If the person was baptized and raised by a pious priest but has been involuntarily separated from him—whether due to being drafted into military service or exiled under some sentence, making it impossible to return to his spiritual father—and meanwhile, he feels an urgent need to marry lawfully, in such a case, he should write to his spiritual father, asking for advice and guidance on the matter. It may be that the spiritual father, knowing of another Orthodox priest not far away, whom the person seeking advice might not be aware of, will advise him to approach that priest for the marriage. Or, in the absence of such a priest, he may bless him to unite with his wife in a lawful marriage, with the stipulation that they must complete their marriage with a sacred wedding ceremony at the first opportunity when they meet a pious priest.

But if he finds himself in a situation where the Orthodox clergy available to him have all fallen into some form of error, the Orthodox Christian must seek out any priest who remains free from such error or encourage those in error to return to piety. If he truly believes in Christ’s words, “Seek, and you will find” (Matthew 7:7), he will undoubtedly find what he is looking for, as the holy psalmist assures us: “The Lord fulfills the desires of those who fear Him; He hears their cry and saves them” (Psalm 145:19). However, if someone, in their weakness of faith, enters into a marriage without a sacred wedding ceremony before finding a pious priest, they should not remain in their lack of faith but should seek out a pious priest afterward to rectify the great deficiency in their marriage. When they find a pious priest, they should then receive the sacred wedding ceremony with their spouse.

For those who took wives in a pagan manner, without sacred blessings and prayers, Saint Sava, the Archbishop of Serbia, ordered that they be properly married with a wedding ceremony. Even if they are old and have children, they should still be received under the protection of the Church and married with the sacred rite. In accordance with this, the new decree of Emperor Alexios Komnenos also commands that sacred prayers be performed over those marriages which were initially formed without the sacred wedding rite due to improper customs (Kormchaia, ch. 43). This is also evident in the letter of Photius, Metropolitan of Kyiv, to Pskov in 110 A.D., where it states: “And those who live with wives unlawfully, having taken them without the blessing of a priest, should be instructed and brought to Orthodoxy: so that they may take their wives with a blessing. If they do not wish to live with a blessing, they should be separated. And you, priests, should not receive them, nor their offerings, nor give them gifts, nor the bread of the Mother of God” (Russian Historical Library, vol. 6, p. 279).

Is is possible for Christians to marry heretics? #

There are holy council decrees concerning this. The 14th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council decrees that readers and singers should not be allowed to marry someone of a different faith; those who have already had children from such a marriage and previously baptized them among heretics should bring them into communion with the Catholic Church. Those who have not yet baptized their children should not baptize them among heretics, nor should they marry a heretic, Jew, or pagan unless the person marrying the Orthodox spouse promises to convert to the Orthodox faith. Anyone who violates this decree of the Holy Council is subject to penance according to the canons (Canon in full translation).

Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, says: “This was also established by the Council of Laodicea in its 10th and 31st canons, and by the Council of Carthage in its 21st (20th) canon. The (Sixth) Ecumenical Council, held in the Trullo palace, gave a more detailed ruling on this matter (Canon 72).” However, the Council of Carthage, like the present canon, deals only with clergy, while the Laodicean and Trullan Councils prohibit any Orthodox Christian from marrying heretics and command the annulment of such a marriage if it has taken place (Canons of the Ecumenical Councils with Commentaries).

Thus, it is clear that it is unlawful for Orthodox Christians to marry heretics, and anyone who dares to do so will have their marriage recognized as unlawful and subject to annulment. Therefore, under no circumstances, writes Symeon of Thessalonica, should an Orthodox Christian be married to someone of a different faith. For, as the Apostle says, “What fellowship has the believer with the unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:15).

Are there reasons for which a lawful marriage may be dissolved? #

Christ says: “It has been said (in the law of Moses), ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32). Saint John Chrysostom explains this: “The one who divorces his wife, even if he does not take another wife, still makes his wife commit adultery, and by this very act makes himself guilty, while the other man who marries her becomes an adulterer because he has taken another man’s wife. Do not tell me that he cast her out, for even when cast out, she still remains the wife of the one who cast her out. Moreover, lest by putting all the blame on the husband who sends her away, Christ would not thereby make the woman more audacious, He has closed the door on her entering into a second marriage with another by saying, ‘Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.’ By this, Christ makes it completely impossible for the divorced woman to marry another man, thereby making her chaste even against her will, depriving her of any opportunity for pretense. For knowing that she must absolutely remain with the first man who was given to her, or knowing that if she leaves his house, she cannot have any other refuge, she will, although unwillingly, be compelled to love her husband… The Savior allowed only one reason for divorce, saying, ’except for sexual immorality.’ By allowing divorce in such a case, He still aims at chastity. For if it were commanded that a man should keep in his house even a wife who lived with many others, this would be tantamount to permitting adultery” (Gospel Homilies).

And the Apostle Paul says: “Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Saint John Chrysostom, in explaining this, says: “Since it happens that spouses separate either for the sake of self-restraint or for other reasons or due to dissatisfaction, the Apostle says: it would be better if this never happened at all; but if it does happen, then let the wife remain with her husband, if not for union, at least so that she does not know another man” (Apostolic Homilies).

Basil the Great in the 9th canon says: “The Lord’s command that it is not lawful to dissolve a marriage except for sexual immorality applies equally to both men and women. But this is not the custom. Regarding women, we find many strict declarations. The Apostle says: ‘He who is joined to a harlot is one body with her.’ And Jeremiah: ‘If a wife goes to another man, she will not return to her husband, but she will be greatly defiled.’ And again: ‘He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.’ Custom dictates that women should keep their husbands even if they commit adultery or live in debauchery. Therefore, I do not know whether a woman living with a man abandoned by his wife can be called an adulteress; for here the blame lies on the wife who left her husband. If she left because she was beaten and could not endure the blows, she should have borne them rather than separate from her spouse. If she left because she could not endure the loss of property, this reason is not worthy of respect. If she left because her husband lives in debauchery, we do not have this precedent in Church practice; even from an unbelieving husband, it is not permitted for a wife to separate, but to remain with him, as it is uncertain what will follow. For what do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Therefore, a woman who leaves her husband is an adulteress if she goes to another man; and the abandoned husband is worthy of mercy, and the woman living with him is not condemned. But if the husband, after leaving his wife, takes another woman, then he himself is an adulterer, for he makes her commit adultery, and the woman living with him is an adulteress, because she has attracted another woman’s husband to herself.”

Zonaras’ commentary: “The Lord said that a marriage should not be dissolved except for sexual immorality (Matthew 5:32). The great father (Basil) says that this statement equally applies to both men and women, so that neither should a husband divorce his wife nor should a wife leave her husband. But custom does not treat men who leave their wives and women who do the same in the same way. For if a wife leaves her husband and cohabits with another, she is recognized as an adulteress and is not received back by her husband unless he desires it. But a wife, even if her husband commits adultery, cannot leave him. Therefore, says the holy father, if the abandoned man lives with another woman, she who cohabits with him should not be recognized as an adulteress; for the sin belongs to the woman who left her husband and to whom it is not permitted to depart from him; on the contrary, she must endure, even if he treats her harshly or causes her financial harm, wasting her dowry. She must bear it and not separate from her husband, even if she suffers from jealousy seeing that her husband is cohabiting with another woman. For if even in the case where one of the spouses is not a Christian, the blessed Apostle forbids the other to separate from him against his will, then how can anyone be innocent who dissolves a marriage for any other reason? So, if a wife leaves her husband and enters into cohabitation with another, she is recognized as an adulteress; but the woman who unites lawfully with the abandoned husband is not condemned as an adulteress or a fornicator. The husband, if he dissolves his marriage with his wife and lives with another woman, is an adulterer and makes his wife an adulteress if she enters into a relationship with another; and likewise, the woman who cohabits with such a man, knowing that he has divorced his wife, is an adulteress, for she has attracted another woman’s husband to herself.”

But this was according to the custom that prevailed during the time of this great father. Based on a novella issued later by Emperor Justinian regarding the dissolution of marriages, included in the 7th title of the 28th Book of the Basilics, in addition to other reasons by which women are granted the right to dissolve cohabitation with their husbands, they are also allowed to dissolve their marriages due to jealousy if the husband cohabits with another woman in the same house or city and does not cease his relationship with her despite the wife’s request (Canon in full translation with commentaries).

Justinian’s novella lists the following grounds upon which a husband may divorce his wife:

If the wife knows of a conspiracy against the empire and does not inform her husband.
If the wife is caught in adultery and it is proven to be true.
If she conspires in any way against the life of her husband or knows of others plotting against him and does not inform him.
If she dines or bathes with other men without her husband’s knowledge.
If she stays overnight somewhere without her husband’s knowledge, especially not with her parents.
If she attends horse races without her husband’s knowledge.

And the following are grounds upon which a wife may leave her husband:

If the husband conspires against the empire or knows of others plotting and does not inform the authorities.
If he in any way conspires against his wife’s life.
If he attempts to prostitute his wife by delivering her to others for adultery.
If he accuses his wife of adultery and cannot prove it.
If the husband cohabits with another woman in the same house or city, and after being confronted by the wife or her relatives, he does not correct his behavior.

A marriage is also dissolved:

When three years pass and the husband cannot cohabit with his wife. The wife is given the freedom to leave him, even if he does not wish it.
When one of the spouses desires to take monastic vows, it is not forbidden, even if the other spouse does not consent, and the one who takes the vows is allowed to enter into another marriage.
When the husband is captured and no news is received within five years that he is alive, the wife is allowed to remarry. However, if the husband’s whereabouts are unknown for more than five years, the wife is not allowed to enter into a second marriage.

However, the dissolution of a marriage for the aforementioned reasons should not be done arbitrarily, but only when the city judges recognize the validity of these reasons. The Scripture’s words that say, “the adulterous wife shall not return to her husband,” should be understood as applying to the husband who does not wish to take her back; for if the husband forgives the offense, then according to this (Justinian’s) novella, he may take her back within two years without hindrance. For further details, see Kormchaia, chapter 44, page 361; Matthew the Canonist, “Compendium,” chapter 13, and Theodore Valsamon in his commentary on the 5th Apostolic Canon and the 87th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Is it permissible to remarry after dissolving a marriage for reasons specified by law? #

According to the Lord’s command through the Apostle, “A wife is not to depart from her husband; but even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), there is no right to enter into a new marriage for those who have already dissolved a lawful marriage. However, according to the 9th Canon of Basil the Great, a husband who is abandoned by his wife without fault is worthy of leniency, and the woman living with him is not condemned. But if the husband himself, having left his wife, marries another, then he is an adulterer, and the woman living with him is an adulteress. The wife, being without fault and released by him, according to Zonaras’ interpretation of the 87th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, will not be guilty if she becomes the wife of another, while the husband should be subject to penance because he himself was the cause of his wife’s sin.

Thus, it is clear that if those who have dissolved a marriage live in a new marital union, such cohabitation is marred by adultery. However, only the guilty party in the dissolution of the previous lawful marriage and those who enter into a new cohabitation with them are given penance for the sin of adultery. The innocent party in the dissolution of the marriage, though they enter into a new marital cohabitation without the permitted legal basis for that marriage, is nevertheless left without the penalty of penance assigned to adulterers.

Does a second marriage after the death of a husband or wife have lawful permissibility? #

Blessed Theodoret writes: The Apostle even legitimized a second marriage. For he said: “But I say to the unmarried and to 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). By “burning,” he meant not merely the burden of struggling with lust but being overcome by it. And he confirms this law after a few words, saying: “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39)—that is, chastely and lawfully, to a pious and faithful man. He advises restraint: “But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment” (1 Corinthians 7:40). And the certainty of the law is shown by the addition: “And I think I also have the Spirit of God.” It is not by human reasoning that I establish this law but as one who has become an instrument of the Spirit of God. It is worth noting that he called the one who abstains not “blessed” but “more blessed,” teaching by this that the one who chooses a second marriage is not entirely deprived of blessedness, provided she has taken on this yoke according to the established law.

Writing to the Romans and explaining the distinction between law and grace, the Apostle also presented a second marriage as an example. For he says: “Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man” (Romans 7:1-3). Therefore, here too, while intending to prove something else, he simultaneously proved that a second marriage is not rejected.

Also, writing to the blessed Timothy, setting forth the laws concerning ecclesiastical orders and going into details about the state of widows, he added: “But refuse the younger widows” (1 Timothy 5:11), and explaining the reasons, he adds: “Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Timothy 5:14). But when Paul says: “I desire,” Novatus (a heretic rejecting second marriages) dares to say: “I do not desire.” We follow the laws of Paul, but we leave Novatus’ arrogance to mourn over itself (Part 6, Sermon 26, p. 92). Thus, a second marriage has lawful permissibility.

Is a third marriage considered lawful? #

Basil the Great says in the 8th canon regarding this matter: “There is no law for three marriages; therefore, a third marriage is not established according to the law. We view such actions as impurities in the Church, yet we do not subject them to public condemnation, as they are preferable to promiscuous adultery.” Furthermore, in the 4th canon, he states: “For those who have entered into a third or multiple marriages, we have imposed the same rule as for those in second marriages, but in proportion. The second marriage requires a one-year separation, and others require two years. Those in third marriages are separated for three or even four years and are no longer referred to as being married but rather as being in a state of polygamy or rather, as a punished form of fornication… We do not derive this from any rule but from the precedent set by our predecessors. We have received the custom of separating those in third marriages for five years. Nevertheless, they should not be entirely barred from the church, but after two or three years of listening to the Scriptures, they should be allowed to stand among the faithful but still be withheld from partaking of the Holy Mysteries. And if they show some fruits of repentance, they may be restored to full communion.”

The interpretation by Valsamon: “After stating that the ancient Fathers did not consider a third marriage to be a true marriage but rather polygamy, or rather punished fornication—meaning not free and indifferent, but restrained and limited to one woman—and after confirming through Scripture that a third marriage is not a true marriage, this great Father added that third marriages are punished similarly to second marriages. Therefore, it is clear that a third marriage, like a second, is not annulled but is subject to penance, although not for two years as with second marriages, but for five years. During this period, those in third marriages are to stand among the listeners for three years and then among the faithful until the completion of five years. After showing the fruits of repentance, they are to be restored to full communion. Such is the rule of this holy Father.”

The union that took place under Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Romanus… says in the end: “We decree with a common opinion and judgment that from this present year, which is 6428th, indiction 8th, no one should dare to enter into a fourth marriage, which is entirely rejected; and if anyone decides to enter into such a union, let them be deprived of all church assemblies and be a stranger to the holy temple as long as they remain in this union, for this was also pleasing to the holy Fathers before us. And to make this decision more clear, we declare such a person to be a stranger to the Christian community. Such is the decree concerning the fourth marriage. And to bring greater propriety to other (repetitive) marriages and to give them a semblance that does not appear unworthy of Christian life, we also decree regarding the third marriage that it should not be performed simply and as it happens; for although it was tolerated by the Fathers as an impurity or as something that was then not done as shamelessly as it is now, and not spread so widely, but was akin to dirt that lies somewhere in the corner of a house and on which none of the entrants pays particular attention, but now, when this impurity has become open and, due to its widespread distribution, is no longer considered something shameful and defiling, we have deemed it good to remove it in the same way as we would never leave dirt, if it is not lying in a corner but scattered around the dwelling, but clean the house and throw out everything that is unpleasant to the eyes. Therefore, conceding to human weakness and caring for the appropriate decorum of Christian life, we decree to observe the following concerning third marriages: if someone, having reached the age of forty, and without shame of nature, without care for the proper arrangement of life that befits every Christian, but driven only by passionate desire, throws themselves into a third marriage, such a person shall not partake of the Holy Mysteries until five years have passed, and this is to be observed with all strictness, so that the time of penance shall not be shortened for them in any case. For whoever, after the age of forty, has chosen to be or is considered in the Christian Church as impurity, what assurance will they give that they are concerned about their life and deserve that the time of excommunication from the Mysteries be shortened for them? But even after they are deemed worthy of the most honorable communion, they should not be allowed to approach the communion at any other time, except only on the Day of the Saving Resurrection of Christ our God, when, as much as possible, they will purify themselves through abstinence during the preceding days of fasting. But this we say about those who, as mentioned, enter into a third marriage after the age of forty, having no children from previous marriages: for if there are children, a third marriage is not permissible for them, as it would be extremely unfair to indulge the untimely desire of the father and not care about the fate of the children from previous marriages, so that they are secured and free from the disadvantages that accompany excessive childbearing in the family. And whoever, being thirty years old and having children from previous marriages, joins a third wife, such a person should be removed from the Mysteries for four years without any leniency: for they entered into this marriage evidently not for any other reason, but out of indulgence to unrestrained passion and because they are a slave to fleshly desires. And after the term of penance has passed, they are allowed to partake of the Mysteries only three times a year, the first time on the Day of the Saving Resurrection of Christ our God, the second on the Dormition of our Most Pure Lady Theotokos, and the third on the Nativity of Christ our God, for these days are preceded by a fast, which brings benefit to (weak souls). But if there are no children, since the desire for childbearing is not unforgivable, such a marriage should be granted leniency and healed by the penance that has been in effect from the beginning until now.”

Thus, while a third marriage is tolerated in the Church without dissolution, it is not considered lawful; a fourth marriage is utterly rejected. To complement what has been said, we will also provide a most fitting statement from Basil the Great, who says: “The Fathers were silent about polygamy as something bestial and completely foreign to the human race. To us, this sin seems graver than fornication (Canon 80).” But if even fornicators, according to the Apostle, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), it is evident that those who sin more gravely, such as those who engage in polygamy, will also not receive it. Therefore, we who await the blessed life of the world to come must by all means avoid polygamy.

source