I guess my fundamental problem is there are no “vows” in Eastern Christian marriages. In the West, the couple are the ordinary ministers of the sacrament; in effect, they marry each other, and the Church stands as witness and blesses the union. In the East, the priest is the ordinary minister of the sacrament, who unites the couple through the descent and action of the Holy Spirit (which is why a deacon is not permitted to preside when a Roman Catholic marries an Eastern Catholic). The man and woman do not exchange any vows, nor is there even an exchange of rings (rings are exchanged at a separate betrothal service).

So, while you may have a point within the Western sacramental theology of marriage, it doesn’t apply to Eastern marriage. That said, ultimately, the Church is the final arbiter of what constitutes a nullification of the union, and obviously even the Latin Church did not consider leaving marriage for the monastic life to violate the sacrament.

The Eastern Churches would hold that only one sacramental marriage is possible, period, regardless of whether the other spouse is living or deceased. In the West, marriage tended to develop in the form of a life contract, whereas in the East, the older view of marriage as transcending death persisted.

This may seem paradoxical, as the Eastern Churches allow remarriage after widowhood and divorce, but second marriages, for whatever cause, are not considered sacramental. In fact, prior to the 9th century, the Eastern Churches did not even perform second marriages, but only reintegrated those who got them in civil ceremonies through a penitential process of prayer, fasting, and abstinence from communion for 3-5 years. The Eastern Churches also only allow remarriage after divorce for a severely limited number of reasons (of which the desire of one party to enter monastic life is one), and then only to the innocent party.

Thus, e.g., adultery is considered legitimate grounds for divorce, but only the offended party would be allowed to remarry. If both parties had committed adultery, neither would be permitted to remarry. Neither is “irreconcilable differences” or mutual desire for divorce considered just grounds, and couples who engaged in deception in order to obtain a divorce (e.g., the husband moves to another village to feign abandonment, or one party consents to an act of adultery by the other, then neither would be permitted to remarry.

Finally, the Eastern Churches will allow only three marriages per lifetime, total, in accordance with the teaching of St. Basil the Great.

To some extent yes, and yet to another, no. Take, for example, a man imprisoned for life without conjugal visitation rights. Or a couple who are not, for physical reasons able to engage in conjugal relations any longer. While the Church has always held that marrying without any intent to consummate the marriage was grounds for annulment (false intentions), it has never found inability to be grounds for annullment.

Sorry, I’m not familiar with that term.

I just think it’s odd that marriage vows can be set aside at will like that — that, in effect, man CAN put asunder what God joins together, as long as there’s a monastery involved. I don’t understand what a permanent vow can mean in that context.

By the same token, a divorce a mensa et thoro would amount to a dissolution of marriage, but it has always been permitted by the Church.

The indissolubility of marriage means that no second marriage is possible during the first.

Stuart Koehl

You are right to distinguish between the ancient and universal rule that made holy orders and impeciment to marriage and the Latin practice of not ordaining married men to the priesthood.

Until the Reformation, only the Nestorian churches of the Persian empire briefly allowed those in holy orders to marry and the ensuing scandals caused them to abandon it, with priests using their influence as spiritual directors to become the successful suitors of rich widows &c.

But every age has its blind spots.

I don’t think the Church actually saw it in that light, but rather viewed it as a mutual search for a higher degree of perfection in Christ. From a practical standpoint, it also offered a degree of security for people in their declining years, since monks and nuns would be fed, clothed and given care even after they could no longer do so for themselves. It is difficult to make judgments about people who lived in the past unless we can understand their world view and situation.