DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, AND HOLY ORDERS IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH: FIRST PRINCIPLES AND A WESTERN ORTHODOX CONCLUSION

Entering Christ’s Kingdom through Holy Baptism, Our Holy Orders are Grounded in the Spirit-Filled Reality of the Kingdom to Come

By Bp. Joseph (Ancient Church of the West) 

INTRODUCTION

The question is simple to pose and complex to answer: May a man who is divorced and possibly remarried be ordained, and does it matter whether the divorce occurred before or after his entrance into the life of grace? In recent Western Orthodox debate a practical split has emerged: some reckon “life in Christ” from Holy Chrismation (following the example of many Eastern Churches that do not count anything before Chrismation as valid or “in the Church”), and therefore treat a pre-chrismation divorce as no impediment; others hold that any divorce at any time is disqualifying for sacred orders, believing that it destroys the mono-relational icon of Christ’s faithfulness to the Church. Beginning from Scripture, then reading the Fathers and the canons, including the mind of the ecumenical councils, we can identify the true “line” the ancient Church used, weigh the two contemporary positions, and render judgment.

SCRIPTURE: THE MORAL ARCHITECTURE

1. Our Lord’s teaching. Jesus forbids the sundering of what God has joined and brands remarriage after an unlawful divorce as adultery, with a debated exception for porneia (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18). The thrust is indissolubility, not opportunistic escape clauses.

2. St. Paul on marriage and separation. St. Paul transmits the Lord’s command: the married are not to separate; if they do, they must remain unmarried or be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). He also addresses abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15) and permits (not commands) widowed remarriage “only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39).

3. Qualifications for clergy. Bishops and deacons must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). In patristic exegesis, this excludes polygamy, concubinage, serial unions, and scandal: calling for a man whose marriage history is single, stable, and above reproach.

PATRISTIC WITNESS: THE MIND OF THE FATHERS

1. St. John Chrysostom and others read “one-wife man” as a moral and visible state, not a mere arithmetic of papers. Apostolic continence, fidelity, and an unimpeachable household are essential because the clergy are set forth as patterns to the flock (1 Timothy 3:4-5).

2. St. Basil the Great regards second marriages as lawful yet penitential, requiring a time of discipline and public repentance; they reveal weakness, not sin per se, in the laity, but he consistently treats digamy (a second union while the first spouse lives, whether after widowhood or after a putative divorce) as incompatible with promotion to major orders. He believes that married widowers are also excluded, because the picture of singular commitment is not longer present, even though St. Paul makes it clear that remarriage after the death of a spouse is not sinful, and did not disqualify in the ancient understanding of Christian practice. 

3. Sts. Augustine, Ambrose, and the broader Latin tradition prize univira/univir fidelity as a sign: the cleric’s state embodies the nuptial mystery of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32). Even where the innocent party exists, the clerical standard aims higher than bare justice.

CANON LAW AND CONCILIAR DISCIPLINE

1. Apostolic canons and early local synods. The ancient canons habitually mark their impediments with the clause “after baptism.” Those who have married twice after baptism are excluded from the major orders; marriage after ordination is forbidden; and clerics may not put away their wives on a pretense of piety. The discipline presumes that the sacramental life creates a new accountability.

2. Ecumenical mind. Nicaea regulates clerical continence and household order; later the Quinisext of Trullo attempted to harmonize East-wide practice, without agreement from Rome or ratification by the other patriarchates. The principles that emerge are no marriage after ordination; candidates who are digamists are not promoted; bishops must come from the permanently married or monastic state, figuring fidelity, devotion and single-heartedness. While details vary East and West, the controlling idea is constant: a clear, edifying marital history for clergy, with “after baptism” repeatedly functioning as the canonical hinge.

3. Western canons echo the same instinct. Latin councils and decretals commonly bar twice-married men from higher orders and treat even permitted second unions as signals against ordination, not because the marriage is evil, but because the clerical sign should be obvious and clear.

THE THEOLOGICAL HINGE: WHEN DOES LIFE IN CHRIST BEGIN?

1. Baptismal regeneration. Scripture and Fathers teach that baptism is the new birth (John 3:5; Romans 6:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Therefore the canonical tradition counts sins and states of life “after baptism” with special weight: one is now publicly incorporated into Christ and judged as a Christian.

2. Reception by Chrismation. In the East, when those already validly baptized are received by the sacrament of Chrismation, the Church does not erase their baptism; rather, she seals and perfects it. Treating Confirmation/Chrismation as a reset of moral history implicitly denies the efficacy or recognition of prior Trinitarian baptism. The ancient West, likewise, never made confirmation the ontological beginning of Christian life; baptism is.

THE TWO MODERN WESTERN ORTHODOX POSITIONS

Position A (the Chrismation line): divorce before Chrismation does not impede ordination.

Arguments offered: a convert truly “enters” the Church at Chrismation; things before that belong to the “old life”; applying impediments to pre-chrismation events discourages converts.

Strengths: pastoral desire to honor conversion; resonance with the ancient principle that pre-baptism sins are washed away.

Weaknesses: it relocates the moral line from Holy Baptism to Chrismation, which is theologically and canonically alien to Western doctrine and inconsistent with the very Eastern practice it appeals to: since reception by chrismation presupposes the reality of the earlier baptism.

Position B (absolute disqualification): any divorce at any time is disqualifying.

Arguments offered: “one-wife man” means married once for life or celibate; ordination requires an irreproachable sign; allowing any divorced man creates scandal and ambiguity for the faithful.

Strengths: takes seriously the exemplary nature of orders; avoids casuistry; coheres with a long instinct against digamy in clergy.

Weaknesses: it ignores the ancient “after baptism” hinge and effectively denies the fullness of baptismal remission by treating pre-baptism history as permanently disqualifying, contrary to the logic of regeneration that the canons themselves assume.

EVALUATION FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES

1. Scriptural coherence. Both positions appeal to 1 Timothy 3, but Scripture’s sacramental architecture locates new life in Baptism, not in Chrismation, and does not bind the pre-baptism state to perpetual clerical disabilities as if Baptism did not recreate the person.

2. Patristic consistency. The Fathers apply stricter discipline to post-baptism fault and to visible states that confuse the faithful. They often allow penitent laity a second marriage, yet keep the bar higher for clergy. They do not, however, make Confirmation/Chrismation the moment of ontological beginning, nor do they commonly impose absolute, lifetime clerical disqualification for every pre-baptism marital failure.

3. Canonical exactness. The canons’ repeated “after Baptism” phrasing is not accidental. It embodies baptismal regeneration as a juridical principle. Position A violates this by moving the hinge to chrismation; Position B violates it by erasing the hinge altogether.

4. Ecclesial sign. The presbyter’s marriage should be a single, clear sign: either lifelong fidelity to one wife or widowed continence. Where there has been post-baptism divorce and remarriage, the sign is broken and the ancient canons exclude. Where the break occurred before Baptism, the sign must be carefully discerned: Baptism re-begins the man; yet the Church still must ensure there is now one stable, sacramental marriage, publicly irreproachable.

A WESTERN ORTHODOX RULE OF THUMB

1. The Baptismal line. 

The only consistent theological and canonical hinge is Baptism. Pre-baptism sins and civil entanglements are remitted in principle; post-baptism states carry clerical impediments.

2. Practical norms.

a) Post-baptism divorce with remarriage disqualifies from major orders, even for the so-called innocent party, because the public sign is no longer single.

b) A widower who has entered a second marriage is ordinarily excluded from major orders, in keeping with the ancient instinct against digamy in clergy, but there has been some flexibility in this issue. 

c) Pre-baptism divorce may not of itself impede, provided the candidate now lives in one (and only one) sacramental marriage that is stable, public, and without scandal; rigorous pastoral examination is essential.

d) Reception by Chrismation cannot be used to re-date baptismal life; if the candidate was validly baptized before reception, the “after baptism” canons measure from that baptism.

FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE TWO CONTEMPORARY POSITIONS

1. Which is more consistent and logical? Neither, as stated. Position A is internally inconsistent because it asks the Church to honor prior baptism for reception but ignore it for moral history; Position B is internally consistent as an ethos of maximal caution, but it contradicts the canonical logic that privileges the “after baptism” line.

2. Which better reflects the canons? The canons favor the baptismal hinge; thus Position A fails by moving the hinge, and Position B fails by deleting it.

3. Which better reflects baptismal regeneration? Position B undercuts regeneration by making pre-baptism history irrevocably disqualifying. Position A intends to honor a break with the past, but it honors the wrong sacramental moment.

4. Therefore the right and anciently faithful resolution is neither A nor B, but the baptismal line: evaluate impediments from baptism, not chrismation, and require a single, unambiguous marital sign for the clergy. If compelled to choose between the two as written, Position B is safer for avoiding scandal but remains theologically and canonically inferior to the baptismal rule; Position A is pastorally sympathetic but sacramentally incoherent. The baptismal line alone is fully consistent, logical, canonical, and truest to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

FINAL ARGUMENT

The Ancient Church guarded the altar with a humane but exacting wisdom: baptism remakes a man; holy orders demand a public sign worthy of the mysteries. Apply the hinge where Scripture and the Fathers place it, at the font, and the present Western Orthodox impasse resolves. Prioritize one-wife fidelity and visible irreproachability for the clergy; acknowledge the true beginning of Christian life in baptism; and refuse to dilute either truth by moving the line to chrismation or by denying baptism’s regenerating power.

COLLECT

ALMIGHTY GOD, Who by the laver of holy Baptism dost make all things new, cleansing us from the sins of the old man, and regenerating us unto life everlasting: Grant, we beseech Thee, that Thy Church may faithfully discern the holiness of Thy sacraments, and uphold the purity of Thy ministers, that those who serve at Thine altar may be examples of fidelity, chastity, and unblameable life; and that in all things Thy people may behold in them a true witness of the one Bridegroom and His spotless Bride. Through the same Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.