Bishop
Artemy (Rantosavlievich)
According to Orthodox teaching, marriage (2) is one of
the seven Mystery-Sacraments of the Church. By it, the Church blesses,
elevates, and sanctifies the deliberate conjugal union of a man and a woman,
supplying the divine grace necessary for the completion of their whole life “in
the Lord” and for the fulfillment of the objectives of marriage. The principal
and ultimate goal of Orthodox marriage is the spiritual and moral perfection of
the spouses. The two rise to this as they work through and fulfill other goals
of married life, among which the most general are procreation and the Christian
upbringing of offspring. (3)
Divine grace is dispensed to the couple through prayer and
the blessing of the Church (by the priest). The grace sanctifies the couple’s
union, makes it morally sound, elevates it, makes it more spiritual, and thus
enables the couple to attain marriage’s lofty goals. This is precisely why in
almost every prayer of the marriage ceremony, the Church (through the priest)
prays that the Lord grant His servants three things. First, the Church prays
for the granting of self-restraint, honorable marriage, and the bed
undefiled. Second, there is supplication for “long lasting posterity, the
grace for producing offspring . . . and that [the couple] see their children’s
children.” And finally, the Church prays for the pair to receive earthly goods
“from the dew of heaven above and from the richness of the earth,” and these
not simply for their own enjoyment, but “that they may also give to those in
need.”(4)
These subjects, however, and others related to the mystery
of marriage, cannot be correctly understood except within the general framework
of Christian anthropology. Only when we understand the Church’s teaching on
man’s creation, fall, and redemption, will we also be able to understand Her
teaching on marriage.
According to the teaching of the Church, superbly
articulated by the Holy Fathers, man was created for the purpose of being in
communion with God in love; or according to the Apostle Peter, to partake of
divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In reference to this passage, Saint Maximos the
Confessor writes:
God made us so that we might become “partakers of the
divine nature” and sharers in eternity, and so that we might come to be like
Him through deification by grace. It is through deification that all things are
reconstituted and achieve their permanence; and it is for its sake that what is
not is brought into being and given existence. (5)
Man was supposed to move toward this goal, living in
accordance with his own nature, that is, in accordance with God’s will that was
innate in human nature. But his God-implanted natural motion toward the ultimate
goal was interrupted by the fall. Adam’s sin and the beginning of evil in the
visible world, according to Saint Maximos, consists in the anomalous motion of
his natural powers; or put another way, in the misuse (use contrary to nature)
of his natural powers and of God’s other creations in general. From then on,
man slavishly served the irrational impulses of these powers, which impulses
drove him to incline toward pleasure alone, and as far as possible to avoid
pain. For fallen man “directs his whole effort toward pleasure and does all he
can to avoid pain. He struggles with all his might to attain pleasure and
fights against pain with immense zeal.”(6)
The consequences of man’s fall into sin are many. Considered
by the Holy Fathers to be the most fundamental consequence is that, through
sin, corruption and death entered into man (and into the world in general),
since through sin man was deprived of eternal life, of God. However, according
to Saint Maximos, man’s reward for sin is seen not only in his body’s passible
and mortal condition. Man did not simply lose the incorruptibility of his
nature, but he was also condemned to passionate generation through sperm in the
manner of animals:
The first man was fittingly condemned to a bodily
generation that is without choice, material and subject to death, God thus
rightly judging him who had freely chosen what is worse over what is better…to
bear the dishonorable affinity with the irrational beasts, instead of the
divine, unutterable honor of being with God. (7)
In reference to the consequences of the fall, Saint Gregory
of Nyssa likewise elaborates on the subject of man’s condemnation to spermatic
generation: “Through the beguilement of the enemy of our life, man freely
acquired the bent toward what is bestial and without intelligence.”(8)
Elsewhere, this Holy Father characterizes all the consequences of the fall as
“the putting on of the skin garments.” By “skin garments,” the Saint means the
sum total of the evident signs of the corruption of human nature, namely:
“copulation, conception, parturition, impurities, suckling, feeding,
evacuation, gradual growth to full size, prime of life, old age, disease, and
death.” (9)
Sin, as we said, introduced corruption and death into man
and creation. Death, as we know, constitutes the end of individual life and is
the soul’s separation from the body. Man, however, was called to life. The law
of sin, therefore, in order to compensate for the law of death and
satisfy—albeit a little—the instinct for life, manifested itself in the lowest
form of pleasure, resulting in generation of birth “in sins” (Ps. 50:5).
This is why marriage is called honorable, because it
preserves people in bodily self-restraint and because it prevents them from
committing immorality and adultery.
Summarizing Saint Maximos, L. Thünberg writes in his
well-known study Microcosm and Mediator: “The law of death, putting
an end to individual life, has its counterpart in a law of pleasure, regulating
new physical life.”10 According to Saint Maximos, it is precisely through
the birth “in sins” from the first Adam that the freely chosen sin (sensual
pleasure), as well as nature’s sin (its possible condition, that is, pain), is
transmitted to all human beings; for in every birth through sperm, the
ancestral sin is transmitted in its entirety:
When our forefather, Adam, broke the divine commandment,
in place of the original form of generation, he conceived and introduced into
human nature, at the prompting of the serpent, another form, originating in
pleasure and terminating through suffering in death… And because he introduced
this ill-gotten pleasure-provoked form of generation, he deservedly brought on
himself, and on all men born in the flesh from him, the doom of death through
suffering. (11)
Hence, it appears that herein chiefly lies the ancestral
sin, with and in which every human is born, since “all those born of Adam are
‘conceived in iniquities,’ thus coming under the forefather’s sentence.” (12)
Balthasar considers that, according to Saint Maximos, “the
phenomenon of the two sexes plays an important role here. In self-love are
found egoism and carnal pleasure. Through pleasure and birth, man tries to free
himself from pain and death. The result: a new victim of death.”(13) But
speaking about birth through sensual pleasure, Balthasar poses the question:
“Well, then, is marriage a sin?” And he answers: “No, because if marriage were
a sin, then sin would also be the natural law of birth, in which case all the
blame for sin would fall on human nature’s Creator.” (14)
While acknowledging that marriage is indeed not a sin but a
blessing from God, we are, however, obliged to point out that it evaded
Balthasar that, for Saint Maximos, what we know as the law of birth through
sperm is not a law of creation, but rather a law that sin introduced. Hence,
the Saint writes:
It was necessary, yes truly necessary, that in restoring
nature through himself, nature’s Creator (that is, Jesus) first abolished those
laws of nature by which, through disobedience, sin had condemned human beings
to propagation from one another—a trait identical to that of the irrational
animals—and thus, restore the laws of the first and truly divine creation; so
that what man, being infirm, destroyed out of carelessness, God, being
powerful, might restore in His loving care for mankind. (15)
Elsewhere, when asked the meaning of the Psalm verse “I
was conceived in iniquities, and in sin did my mother bear me” (Psalm
50:5), Saint Maximos answers: “God’s original purpose was not that we be born
from corruption through marriage. But Adam sinned, and the transgression of the
commandment introduced marriage.”(16) Even before Saint Maximos, Saint John
Chrysostom taught the same thing:
After he was created, he lived in Paradise, and there was
no reason for marriage. A helper needed to be made for him, and one was made,
and even then marriage was not deemed necessary. It had not yet appeared. But,
rather, they continued without it, living in Paradise as if in heaven and
delighting in their converse with God . . . . As long as they were unconquered
by the devil and respected their own Master, virginity also continued, adorning
them more than the diadem and golden clothing adorn the emperors. But when,
becoming captives, they took off this garment and laid aside the heavenly
adornment and sustained the dissolution deriving from death, the curse, pain,
and toilsome existence, then together with these, enters marriage, this mortal
and slavish garment. Do you see whence marriage had its beginning, whence it
was deemed necessary? From the disobedience, from the curse, from death. For
where there is death, there also is marriage. Whereas, when the first does not
exist, then neither does the second follow. (17)
This position of the Holy Fathers is closely connected to
the other one that, according to God’s original plan, man was not divided into
male and female, since “the distinguishing qualities of male and female were
not at all contingent on the divine intention concerning man’s generation.
Foreknown to God was yet another way of increasing mankind into a multitude.”
(18)
It should be emphasized here that, according to Saint
Maximos—and according to all the other Fathers of the Church—evil (that is,
sin) does not exist within things themselves (for God made all things “very good”)
but only in man’s misuse of them. Specifically, Saint Maximos writes:
It is not food that is evil but gluttony, not the
begetting of children but unchastity, not material things but avarice, not
esteem but self-esteem. This being so, it is only the misuse of things that is
evil, and such misuse occurs when the intellect fails to cultivate its natural
powers. (19)
(That is, fails to use things in accordance with nature.)
What exactly constitutes the partial misuse or abuse of things Saint Maximos
explains elsewhere:
Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of
things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women,
for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting
of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it
wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has
intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to
other things and one’s conceptual images of them. (20)
According to Saint Maximos, there are three things that
impel us toward every vice:
. . . passions, demons, and sinfulness of intention.
Passions impel us when, for example, we desire something beyond what is
reasonable, such as food which is unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is
not our wife or for a purpose other than procreation. (21)
Saint Maximos’s position here, that even within lawful
marriage, a husband and wife’s relations are blessed and permitted only for the
purpose of procreation, is not an isolated one or merely his. Nor
is it new. On the contrary, it constitutes the unwavering position of the
Church from the beginning down to our own day, based on the ontology of things,
as we saw. Holy Fathers before and after Saint Maximos bear witness to this, as
does the very spirit of the Church. Thus, for example, Athenagoras, a Father of
the second century, says the following:
Because of our hope of eternal life, we despise the
lesser goods of this life, even the pleasures the soul has herein. Each of us
looks upon the wife he has married according to the laws we [Romans] have laid
down as one who will bear him children—no more. The farmer sows his seed in the
ground and waits for the harvest, not troubling to sow his land again the
while. For us, too, the begetting of children is the limit of our indulging our
passions. (22)
From all that has been said above, and especially from the
preceding passage, it is clear that after conception and throughout the entire
term of pregnancy, the couple should by rights abstain from one another and
exercise self-control, since during this period the warrant of procreation no
longer exists. Saint Athanasios the Great, when asked about the use of the
reproductive organs, answered in the same vein:
Which use are you referring to? That in the Law which God
allowed by saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth?” (Gen.
1:28), which the Apostle [Paul] approved when he said, “Marriage be honorable,
and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13:4); or that which, while popular, is performed
secretly and adulterously?. . . The same argument holds with regard to
copulation. Blessed is the man who in his youth having a free yoke employs his
natural parts for the purpose of producing children. But if for licentiousness,
the punishment spoken of by the Apostle shall await the immoral and adulterous
(Heb. 13:4). (23)
Saint Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, the eighteenth-century
Father, with all the Church Fathers before him in mind, is of the same opinion
on this issue, and he states it in detail in his Commentaries on the
Epistles of Saint Paul (especially I Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5:22–23;
I Timothy 4:1–5), as well as in his annotations of the sacred canons in The
Rudder.
Divine grace is dispensed to the couple through prayer
and the blessing of the Church (by the priest).
What has been said thus far materializes the evident truth
that the Church and the God-bearing Fathers accept, admit, and bless human
marriage in the fallen world because, on the one hand, now there is truly no
other way to “multiply,” except by marriage; and on the other hand, human
nature’s weakness for carnal pleasures is great, and thus marriage comes as a
medicine and an aid for man, so that he might overcome this weakness of his and
live in self-restraint. The first to express this view was the Apostle Paul
when he wrote: “But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should
have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (I Cor. 7:2). This quotation
from the holy Apostle (like so many others) speaks of the fact that marriage is
admitted and that its purpose is self-restraint. Saint John Chrysostom, the
inspired interpreter of the Apostle Paul, writes in the same spirit concerning
the admission of marriage: “So, do not prefer over virginity that which was
admitted because of your weakness. Rather, do not even put them on the same
level.”24 Saint Nikodemos interprets the above passage ofSaint Paulas follows:
When Paul says that marriage should be allowed because of
the temptations to immorality, he is actually exhorting married believers to
practice self-control and self-restraint . . . . This is why marriage is called
honorable, because it preserves people in bodily self-restraint and because it
prevents them from committing immorality and adultery. (25)
Concerning the “allowance” of marriage, Saint Gregory the
Theologian very clearly says: “Marriage is the allowance of passion,”26 as
“a lawful union of bodies.”27 But he, too, demands self-restraint in
marriage:
It is good for one to be tied in marriage, temperately
though, rendering more to God than to sexual relations. It is better to be free
of these bonds, rendering everything to God and to the things above… Marriage
is concerned about spouse and loved ones. Whereas for virginity, it is Christ.
(28)
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, without a doubt expressing the
position of the entire Church on the subject, writes: “Let no one think that by
these words we reject the dispensation of marriage. For we are not unaware that
marriage, too, is not alienated from God’s blessing.”29 But exactly
wherein “God’s blessing” on marriage lies is explained by Saint John
Chrysostom: “Marriage is good, for it preserves a man in self-restraint, and it
does not allow him to fall into immorality and die.”30 Elsewhere, this
Father stresses this same idea even more: “You do not see marriage anywhere
marveled at by itself, but only because it restrains the immoralities, the
temptations, the lack of self-control.”(31)
In this dogmatic light, it is evident that none of the holy
Fathers speaks of marriage (much less of “sexual relations” themselves) as the
way to theophany and knowledge of God, as do some theologians of more recent
times. Saint Gregory the Theologian lists in great detail the achievements of
marriage, all mostly relating to culture and civilization, that is, the earthly
goods.32 Such praises of marriage are woven by “those who are of one mind
with their ribs,” that is, happily married. But nowhere among these
“achievements” do they mention the matters of spiritual ascent, that is,
knowledge of God and theosis.On the contrary, the Fathers say that,
on the one hand, marriage and the things belonging to it constitute an obstacle
to ascent; while on the other hand, the road upward is the road of purity, of
self-control or, in a word, virginity. Thus, for example, Saint Gregory of
Nyssa, even though he was married, (33) writes:
It has been shown that it is not possible for the soul to
be united with the incorruptible God in any other way except that it become
nearly pure through incorruptness, so that it may attain like by like, setting
itself as a mirror looking up at the purity of God, so that the beauty in the
soul be formed by participation in and reflection of the original beauty. (34)
Saint Gregory the Theologian teaches about this more
clearly:
Conjugality, on the other hand, runs completely away from
Christ by reason of the surging of corruptible flesh and worldly cares of every
kind; or it only slightly approaches God. (35)
And even this simple drawing near to God within marriage is
possible only through exercising self-restraint. Whereas, “to be sure, marriage
is deprived of all praise whatsoever, when one indulges in it to the point of
satiety.”36 Then the words of Saint Gregory of Nyssa hold true: “. . .
lest through such passionate attachments (as in I Cor. 7:5) he become wholly
flesh and blood, in whom the Spirit of God does not remain.”37 Elsewhere
the same Father says:
So, it seems that these examples are instructing us,
through the remembrance of those great Prophets [that is, Elias and John], to
become entangled in none of those things that are pursued in the world.
Marriage is one of these things pursued; rather it is the beginning and root of
the pursuit of things vain. (38)
Whereas the Holy Father views marriage (and honorable
marriage at that) in this way, he praises virginity, writing:
If one wishes carefully to examine the difference between
this way of life (that is, marriage) and virginity, he will find it almost as
great as the difference between earth and heaven. (39)
Saint Gregory the Theologian is more specific in comparing
the two life-styles. On virginity since the time of Christ, he writes:
Precisely then [that is, with Christ’s birth from the
Virgin] did virginity shine brightly to mortals; free of the world, and freeing
the feeble world. It so surpasses marriage and the fetters of the world even as
the soul is apt to be more excellent than the flesh and the wide heaven than
the earth; as the stable life of the blessed is more excellent than transitory
life; as God is superior to man. (40)
This is precisely why virginity, and not marriage, has such
power: “through itself it brought God down for participation in human life,
while in itself it enables man to soar to the longing for the things of
heaven.”(41)
Marriage does not attain such heights, for “even though
marriage be honorable (Heb. 13:4), yet it can only go so far as not to defile
those who engage in it. But to produce Saints is not within the power of
marriage but of virginity.”42 In response to those who ask how Abraham,
being married, attained perfection, while so many virgins lost the kingdom of
God (cf. Matt. 25:1–13), Saint John Chrysostom answers:
It was not marriage that made Abraham a Saint, nor
virginity that destroyed those miserable maidens. But rather, what made the
Patriarch illustrious was his soul’s other virtues, and likewise what handed
the maidens over to the fire was their life’s other vices.(43)
Likewise, commenting on I Cor. 7:16, the same Father writes:
One might ask: So what shall we reply to Paul who says:
“Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?” and who thus
declares her help necessary in spiritual matters as well? But I concede this,
too. For I also do not cut her off completely from the alliance in spiritual
matters. Perish the thought! But, I say that she can achieve this only when she
no longer does what belongs to marriage, but when, while in nature remaining a
woman, she crosses over to the virtues of blessed men . . . . Hence it is not
by having relations with him as his wife that she will be able to save her
husband, but rather by exemplifying the evangelical way of life, since many
women have done this without being married . . . . So if she persists in
pursuing what belongs to women, she not only benefited him nothing, but has
also done him great harm. (44)
The correctness of this Patristic view on marriage and
virginity, and the unfoundedness of the views of the new theologians, is
confirmed by the Church’s life itself. The greatest Saints and servants of the
divine mysteries were not the greatest lovers (and I am referring to human
sexual love, about which the new theologians theologize), but the greatest
practitioners of self-control. But according to Daniel Chiou, Christos
Yannaras, and others, the opposite should have occurred.
On the basis of all that has been said thus far, we are able
to surmise the Church’s teaching on Marriage and may concisely define it as
follows:
1) The Church, adhering faithfully to the Lord
Jesus, the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Fathers, puts virginity on a higher
level than marriage, for “the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the
Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly
affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried
woman or virgin is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in
body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to
please her husband” (I Cor. 7:32–35).
2) Because of our weakness, the Church also
allows marriage, blesses it, and hallows it. In this way she sanctifies the
natural union of two “into one flesh” and renders it a Mystery-Sacrament.
Conjugal relations within marriage are blessed only for the sake of
procreation.
3) The Church condescends to our weaknesses even
further and also tolerates relations within marriage that result from “lack of
self-control” (in accordance with I Cor. 7:5–9), when such relations do not
have procreation as their immediate purpose, but rather serve as medicine
against immorality or adultery (that is, extramarital relations). When such is
the case, one ought to realize and acknowledge his lack of self-control and to
humble himself before the Lord. He should not expect to receive crowns for his
weakness, but rather should hope that God will have mercy on him because of his
humility. This condescension on the part of the Church, however, is not to be
construed as a toleration of any prophylactic measures that would prevent the
possible conception of a child.
4) The Church cannot condescend any further, and
she considers sinful any means or method, whether natural or artificial, to
prevent conception and avoid procreation. For they who employ such means prove
that they consider sensual pleasure the sole purpose of intercourse. From this
it becomes evident why the Church does not permit Holy Communion to such
individuals, nor to anyone else who does not conform to the Apostle’s ordinance
concerning self-control (I Cor. 7:5) and to the sacred canons of the Orthodox
Church. (45)
This article first appeared in Greek in “KLYRONOMIA”1
NOTES
1. Translator’s note: Written when the author (a disciple
of the late great Serbian Orthodox theologian and elder, Father Justin
Popovich) was still a hieromonk, this article first appeared in Greek in
“KLYRONOMIA” 9, Vol. II (July 1977): 246–64, as part of the debate then current
in Greece over the issues related to the so-called “theology of eros,” and the
book Eleftherya tou Ythous (The Freedom of Morality) by the modern Greek
philosopher and theologian Christos Yannaras (Athens: “synoro” series, 1970).
Since then, Dr. Yannaras has rewritten much of his material and in 1979
published a second revised edition under the same title, though essentially a
new book (Athens: Grigori Publications, 1979). See Christos Yannaras (Library
of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data spelling: Chrestos Giannaras), The
Freedom of Morality, 2d ed., rev., trans. Elizabeth Briere, No. 3 in the series
Contemporary Greek Theologians, ed. Christos Yannaras et.al. (Crestwood, NY:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984). He has changed his former critical views
regarding the Church’s canons that deal with sexual life and motherhood.
Instead of the strong statements that appeared in the first edition, which had
occasioned the writing of this article, he writes an apologia (see the Foreword
to the second edition, pp. 18–19, not included in the English version; see also
“Christos Yannaras: Ta Kath’ eafton” (Athens: 1995, pp. 95-100)), and he
presents a convincing defense of the Church’s traditional canonical and
pastoral practice (Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, 2d ed., rev., 1984, pp.
225–52).
The author of this article, Artemios Rantosavlievich, is
currently a bishop of the Orthodox Church in Serbia.
2. Translator’s note: The Greek word for marriage, gamos,
signifies both the “marital fact” and the “marital act.” This comprehensive
meaning is particularly evident in patristic literature.
3. Thus, Saint John Chrysostom specifically writes:
“Marriage was introduced, not that we should be licentious, nor that we should
be sexually immoral, but that we should practice self-restraint. At least
listen to Saint Paul who says: “But because of the temptation to immorality,
each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (I Cor. 7:2).
For two are the reasons for which marriage was introduced: that we should
practice self-restraint, and that we should become fathers. Of the two, that of
self-restraint comes first.” Saint John Chrysostom,”Eis ton Ieron Thesmon tou
Gamou” (“On the Sacred Institution of Marriage”) 1, in Apanta ton agion Pateron
(Answers of the Holy Fathers) 35, 155; (PG 51).
4. See Mikron Euchologion I Agiasmatarion (Short Book of
Prayers). 11th ed. (Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece, 1992),
125–26, 134.
5. Saint Maximos the Confessor, “First Century of Various
Texts” 42 in The Philokalia 2, trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard,
Kallistos Ware (Winchester: Faber and Faber, 1986), p. 173.
6. Saint Maximos the Confessor, “First Century of Various
Texts” 53, Ibid., p. 175. Saint Maximos placed great emphasis on the
relationship between pleasure and pain in man.
7. Saint Maximos,”Peri diaforon aporion” (“On Various
Perplexing Topics”), PG 91, 1348A.
8. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “Pros tous penthountas” (“To
Those Who Mourn”), PG 46, 521D–524A.
9. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “Peri psichis ke anastaseos”
(“On the Soul and Resurrection”), PG 46, 148C–149A.
10. Lars Thünberg, Microcosm and Mediator, the
Theological Anthropology of Maximos the Confessor (Land: 1965), p. 169: “The
most basic consequence is the fact that the physical mode of man’s life is
changed and marked by pleasure and pain. Man was destined to live eternally,
but through his choice of temporal, sensible pleasure he called upon
himself—according to God’s good counsel—a pain, which introduced into his life
a law of death, which—seen from the aspect of the divine purpose—is there to
put an end to his destructive escape from his natural goal. Death is thus the
culmination of pain. On the other hand, man is still created to live, and mankind
gains its life, after the fall, by means of that very lust, sexual intercourse,
which is an excellent example of sense pleasure, and which also leads to a
birth through pain. The law of death, putting an end to individual life, has
its counterpart in a law of pleasure, regulating new physical life. These laws
constitute the collective imprisonment of fallen man, from which he cannot
escape, except through Christ.”
11. Saint Maximos, “Fourth Century of Various Texts” 44,
Philokalia 2: 246–47.
12. Saint Maximos, “Peusis ke apokrises” (“Questions and
Answers”) 3, PG 788B.
13. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Kosmische Liturgie: Das
Weltbild Maximos des Bekenners. (Einsiedeln: 1961), pp. 194–96.
14. Ibid.
15. Saint Maximos, “Peri diaforon aporion” (“On Various
Perplexing Topics”), PG 91, 1276B.
16. Saint Maximos, “Peusis ke apokrises” (“Questions and
Answers”), 3, PG 788B. It should be noted that David and the holy Fathers speak
of birth “in sins” within lawful marriage. Such views on birth are seen already
in the Old Testament, where special “sin offerings” are prescribed by God for
the purification of a woman after she gives birth (see Lev. 12:6–8: cf. Luke
2:24). The Church also expresses this view when she says among other things: “
. . . forgive Your handmaiden (name) who gave birth today.” (Third prayer for a
woman in childbed on the day when her child is born); and: “Wash away her
body’s filth and her soul’s stain, now that she has completed her forty days”
(Prayer for churching a child after forty days. Prayer for the mother of the
child.) Short Book of Prayers, 66, 72.
17. Saint John Chrysostom, “Peri Parthenias” (“On
Virginity”) 14, PG 48, 543–44. See also Saint Athanasios the Great, “Eis
Psalmous” (“The Psalms”), PG 27, 240C.
18. Saint Maximos, “Peri diaforon aporion” (“On Various
Perplexing Topics”), PG 91, 1309A. Cf. Saint John of Damascus, The Orthodox
Faith 4, 24 in Saint John of Damascus: Writings, trans. Frederic H. Chase, Jr.
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), pp.
393–94.
19. Saint Maximos, “Third Century on Love” 4, Philokalia
2: 83.
20. Saint Maximos, “Second Century on Love” 17,
Philokalia 2: 67–68. That is, as it appears, in the holy Fathers there is not
even a trace of the opinions of the new theologians (like Yannaras and others).
21. Saint Maximos, “Second Century on Love” 33,
Philokalia 2: 71. In respect to this position of the holy Fathers, no one can
be rid of the impression that Yannaras, and other theologians with similar
views, do nothing but write the theology of their own passions.
22. Athenagoras, “Embassy for the Christians” 33, trans.
Joseph Hugh Crehan, S.J. in Ancient Christian Writers No. 23, ed. Johannes
Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe (New York: Newman Press, 1956), p. 74.
23. First Epistle of Athanasios the Great addressed to
the Monk Amun in The Rudder, pp. 576–77. Cf. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “Peri
Parthenias” (“On Virginity”) 19, PG 46, 396C: “For it has been revealed through
the divine sayings that pregnancy and birth are good.”
24. Saint John Chrysostom, “On Virginity” 15, PG 48, 545.
Cf. Theodore N. Zeses, “Techni Parthenias” (“The Art of Virginity”), A B 15
(Thessaloniki: 1973), pp. 37–38.
25. Saint Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, “Ermineia eis
tas 14 epistolas tou Apostolou Pavlou” (“Commentary on the Fourteen Epistles of
the Apostle Paul”) Vol. I (Athens: 1971): 253. According to this Father,
self-restraint in marriage means that “married couples should have sexual
intercourse only for procreation and not for the enjoyment of pleasure.” This
is but a reiteration of Saint Gregory the Theologian’s definition of
self-restraint: “Self-restraint is to prevail over sensual pleasure; on the
other hand, the prevalence of the latter is what I call licentiousness.” Vol.
II, “Epi Ithika” (“Moral Epopees”) 31, “Ori pachimereis,” PG 37, 651A.
26. Saint Gregory the Theologian, “Pros parthenous
parenetikos” (“Exhortation to Virgins”), PG 37, 634A.
27. Saint Gregory the Theologian, “Oroi pchimereis,” PG
37, 958A. See also his “Sigkrisis vion” (“Comparison of Life-Styles”), PG 37,
651A.
28. Saint Gregory the Theologian, “Eis sofrosinin” (“On
Self-Restraint”), PG 37, 643A–644A.
29. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “Peri Parthenias” (“On
Virginity”) 8, PG 46, 353A. The Church condemned those heretics who held the
opposite view, i.e., that marriage is an “abomination”: such were the
Marcionites, Encratites, and Manicheans. See also Canon LI of the Holy
Apostles.
30. Saint John Chrysostom, “Peri Parthenias” (“On
Virginity”), 25, PG 48, 550. And elsewhere: “Behold where the great achievement
of marriage ends: in not being accused, not in being marveled at.” Ibid. 48, PG
48, 571.
31. Ibid. 39, PG 48, 562.
32. See Saint Gregory the Theologian, “Parthenias epenos”
(“In Praise of Virginity”), PG. 37, 563A.
33. He himself gives proof of this when he writes
concerning virginity and its value, saying: “Therefore, we are but spectators
of others’ goods, and witnesses of the blessedness of each.” Saint Gregory of
Nyssa, “Peri Parthenias” (“On Virginity”), 3, PG 46, 325B.
34. Ibid. 11, PG 46, 368BC.
35. Saint Gregory the Theologian, “Parthenias epenos”
(“In Praise of Virginity”), PG 37, 563A.
36. Saint John Chrysostom, “Peri Parthenias” (“On
Virginity”), 48, PG 48, 557.
37. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “Peri Parthenias” (“On
Virginity”), 8, PG 46, 356D.
38. Ibid. 7, PG 46, 352D.
39. Ibid. 3, PG 46, 355.
40. Saint Gregory the Theologian, “In Praise of
Virginity”, PG 37, 538A. The superiority of virginity over marriage is the
theme of the book by Theodore N. Zeses, The Art of Virginity A B 15, which has
been republished under the new title, Gamos ke agamia eis ta peri parthenias
paterika erga (Marriage and Celibacy in the Patristic Writings on Virginity),
(Thessaloniki: Kyriakides Bros., 1987).
41. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “Peri Parthenias” (“On
Virginity”), 2, PG 46, 324B.
42. Saint John Chrysostom, “Peri Parthenias” (“On
Virginity”), 30, PG 48, 554.
43. Ibid. 82, PG 48, 593.
44. Ibid. 47, PG 48, 568–69.
45. See Canon LXIX of the Holy Apostles and the
commentary in The Rudder, 94. See also the following canons and the
commentaries on them: Canon XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Ibid. 230;
Canon III of Dionysios of Alexandria, Ibid. 549–50; Canon XIII of Timothy of
Alexandria, Ibid. 672–73; Canon V of John the Faster, Ibid. 702.
[Editor’s Note: While Saint Maximos’s teaching on sexual
dimorphism and generation occurring as a result of the fall is not unique to
him, but rather is held by many of the Fathers, it is not a dogma of the
Church, but rather a theologumenon. ]
This article was originally published by the Monastery of
St. John,www.monasteryofstjohn.org,
in The Divine Ascent Vol. 3/4. This and other publications can be found
on their bookstore website, www.stjohnsbookstore.com.
This article was posted here with permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment