HistoricalChristian.Faith

Is the Eastern “economy” (oikonomia) permitting remarriage after divorce legitimate?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — the claim that the Eastern churches’ practice of permitting a divorced person to remarry (up to a limit, under a penitential rite) by oikonomia — pastoral “economy” that condescends to human weakness rather than applying the akribeia (strictness) of the canon — is a legitimate development faithful to Jesus and the Fathers, not a capitulation. Anciently attested as a principle (Origen’s “some bishops,” Basil’s “custom,” Epiphanius’ “concession to weakness,” Trullo’s graded penance) and left un-anathematized by Trent; contested where its later extension into church-blessed remarriage outruns the patristic toleration of a penitent, where it grew entangled with imperial civil law, and where the objection bites that economy cannot dispense from a divine law · adjudicates the pastoral mechanism, not the text of the exception (that is the remarriage-or-separation argument) · advanced through Epiphanius of Salamis and the Council in Trullo

The claim

The Byzantine Church, though proclaiming and cherishing the principle of the indissolubility of marriage… never understood indissolubility to be a legal absolute. It condoned the famous exception, found in Matt. 19:9… and recognized adultery as a legitimate cause of divorce, covering other situations, where the mystical union of husband and wife had, in reality, ceased to exist, that is, situations practically equivalent to the death of one of the partners… However, even in cases when divorce was admitted, remarriage was, in principle, only tolerated and subject to penitential conditions.

— John Meyendorff, “Christian Marriage in Byzantium,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990). The claim is not that Jesus permitted remarriage — that is the disputed textual question weighed elsewhere — but that, whatever the text says, the church holds the pastoral authority to relax the strict rule (akribeia) case by case, out of mercy (philanthropia) toward a bond that has died and a penitent who cannot bear continence, without thereby denying the ideal it still upholds. The question here is whether that mechanism — not the reading of Matthew 19:9 — is a faithful development or a capitulation.

Who advances it

The practice is the settled discipline of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and its modern theological statement belongs above all to the Orthodox historian John Meyendorff (Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, 1975; “Christian Marriage in Byzantium,” 1990), who reads it not as laxity but as the fruit of a marriage-theology centred on the Eucharist and on the union of Christ and the Church — a bond so real that, when it “in reality, ceased to exist,” the church can recognize its death and, condescending to weakness, tolerate a second union under penance. Behind him stand the ancient witnesses this timeline already carries: Origen (c. 246), the first to report “some even of the rulers of the church” permitting remarriage while a spouse lived; Basil (c. 375), who codified an unequal “custom” he admitted the Gospel did not require; Epiphanius (c. 375), who positively defended remarriage after divorce as a “concession to… weakness” the church “does not censure”; and the Council in Trullo (692), which met the hard cases with graded penance rather than permanent exclusion. The technical vocabulary — oikonomia (“economy,” the stewardship of the household of salvation) set against akribeia (canonical strictness) — is patristic; the fullest recent canonical study is Kevin Schembri’s.¹

The case for

The precedent is ancient, not a Byzantine novelty. The strongest plank is that the toleration is attested from the third century, long before the imperial canon law that formalized it. Origen already knew of bishops who “permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living… not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things.” Basil’s canonical letters, later given conciliar force, frankly legislate a relaxation he traces to “custom.” Epiphanius — a rigorist heresy-hunter, not a laxist — defends the concession outright: if after a divorce “for some reason… the man marries a second wife or the woman a second husband, God’s word does not censure them or bar them from the church and life, but tolerates them because of their weakness.” The tolerant strand is thus as old as the strict one it qualifies, not a late corruption of it.²

It upholds the ideal it relaxes. Oikonomia is not the denial of indissolubility but its deliberate exception. The East calls marriage lifelong, treats the second union as a fall from the norm, receives the remarried only through repentance, and hedges the concession with real limits: Basil sets escalating penances (one, then two, then three or four years’ exclusion) on successive marriages and calls a third not marriage but “punishable fornication”; a fourth was forbidden outright (the tetragamy crisis over Leo VI); and the second-marriage rite in the Orthodox service-books, unlike the first, “possesses a penitential character” and historically withheld communion for a year or two. The bond is held so serious that only its death — adultery, desertion, disappearance, “situations practically equivalent to the death of one of the partners” — opens the door, and even then grudgingly. This is disciplined mercy, not permissiveness: the ideal is never surrendered, only its rigor suspended for the salvation of a soul that would otherwise be lost to the church entirely.³

Rome declined to condemn it. The most striking external datum is that the Latin church, at the very moment it fixed indissolubility as dogma, took care not to anathematize the Greeks. When the Council of Trent debated canon 7 in August 1563, the Venetian delegates — whose territories held Greek-rite Christians who dissolved marriages for adultery and remarried — protested that the draft would condemn those Eastern Christians directly; in deference the Council recast the canon to anathematize only the claim that the church errs in teaching indissolubility, not the Eastern practice itself. The point was pressed at Vatican II by the Melkite archbishop Elias Zoghby and revived by the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica: Trent’s anathema, on this reading, does not reach “what the Orthodox call the principle of economy.” That the West’s dogmatic close left the Eastern mechanism formally untouched is powerful evidence that oikonomia was not simply seen as heresy even by its sharpest opponents.⁴

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The pastoral principle — that the church may condescend to human weakness, receiving the penitent rather than casting him out, without denying the norm — is genuinely patristic and genuinely dominical in root (the keys, the power to bind and loose, philanthropia toward sinners). Its ancient attestation is real: Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, and Trullo are not invented pedigree. Its bounded, penitential form answers a cost the strict tradition never resolved — the “monstrous” dilemma Origen himself flagged, of binding an innocent party absolutely to a dead marriage — and it keeps the ideal visibly in force. And Trent’s studied wording shows the practice cannot be dismissed as bare capitulation.

What is overstated or imprecise. Three cautions keep the thesis short of “sound.” (1) The ancient precedents are thinner than the modern principle built on them. Origen reported the toleration in order to disapprove it (“contrary to what was written”); Basil twice conceded his rule rests on mere “custom,” not the Gospel, and codified an indefensible double standard far harsher on the wife; Epiphanius’ lenient passage is textually contested and reads oddly in a heresy-hunter. What they attest is the readmission of a penitent after penance — not a positive right to a church-solemnized second marriage. The developed Byzantine practice went materially further: Meyendorff himself dates the “crowning” of second marriages only to the late eleventh century, noting that in Theodore of Stoudios’ day such unions were “sanctioned by civil law only.” The mechanism drifted from tolerating the fallen to blessing the remarriage. (2) Its genesis is entangled with imperial civil law. In Byzantium divorce was “a purely civil procedure”; Justinian’s and later legislation codified the grounds, procedure, and penalties of divorce and remarriage (the Novellae of 535–556); and the church, once made society’s sole registrar of marriage, accommodated. Meyendorff concedes that for “politically minded patriarchs, oikonomia was becoming a form of realistic accommodation with the powers-that-be” — the very charge Catholic critics press, that the scriptural justification was supplied a posteriori to a divorce law inherited from Rome, much as David Hunter argues the lone Latin leniency of Ambrosiaster reflected Roman law rather than the Gospel. (3) Economy classically dispenses from ecclesiastical, not divine, law. This is the sharpest defeater. Oikonomia relaxes the church’s own canons (akribeia); it does not claim to dispense from a command of Christ. If the bond’s indissolubility is dominical — the unqualified Mark, Luke, and Paul, “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” — then no pastoral economy can license what the Lord forbade; that would be dispensation from divine law, which economy disclaims. So the legitimacy of oikonomia here is parasitic on the prior, unsettled question of whether the bond is indissoluble by divine law (weighed on the indissolubility argument and the remarriage-or-separation argument): if it is, economy cannot reach it. The Eastern reply is precisely to deny Rome’s ontological indissolubility and hold that the bond can genuinely die — a coherent and different framework, but one resting on the contested premise, not establishing it. And even the East’s best voices press inward: Theodore of Stoudios restricted oikonomia to the repentant who had broken off the adulterous union, a limit the developed remarriage practice sits in tension with.⁵

Assessment

Contested. As a bounded pastoral principle — the church condescending to weakness, receiving the penitent under a penitential rite while holding indissolubility as the ideal — oikonomia is anciently attested (Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, Trullo), coherently grounded in an Eastern theology of the keys and of a bond that can die, and pointedly not anathematized by Trent. But whether that principle can legitimately extend to dissolving a valid marriage and blessing a second does not hold without genuine dispute: the ancient precedents attest the toleration of a penitent, not the later church-solemnized remarriage that outran them; the mechanism grew up entangled with imperial civil law, so that its own defenders concede it became “realistic accommodation with the powers-that-be”; and the decisive objection — that economy dispenses only from ecclesiastical, never divine, law — makes its legitimacy turn on the indissolubility question it cannot itself settle. So the interpretation is strong by the lights of the pastoral tradition, the reception of a major communion, and Trent’s studied silence, and weaker by the lights of the dominical sayings and the “economy-cannot-reach-divine-law” defeater — a genuine deadlock with no clear winner. It is deliberately kept distinct from the remarriage-or-separation argument, which adjudicates the text of the exception; this page grants that question unsettled and weighs only the mechanism of practice.

Sources