bs_bs_banner

The Documents of the Holy and

Great Council on Marriage and
Fasting
A Critical Response

Paul Meyendorff

Paul Meyendorff was the Father Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology at St
Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary from 1987 to 2016, and is a member of the Faith and
Order Commission of the World Council of Churches.

Abstract

This article offers a critical response to the documents on marriage and on fasting of the Holy
and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, which took place in Crete in 2016. It suggests
greater attention be given to the concept of oikonomia in contemporary Orthodoxy, both in
the context of the issues raised in these two documents and with respect to other contentious
issues. In contemporary Orthodoxy, the exercise of oikonomia is understood in different
ways. One approach is the legalistic understanding of the term that is employed in the council
documents; the second and more traditional approach is to understand oikonomia as
discernment of what is true and authentic, even outside the canonical limits of Orthodoxy.
The article asks whether such a perspective could characterize the church’s approach to other
complex pastoral issues, such as those related to marriage and fasting.

Keywords

Holy and Great Council, Orthodox church, marriage, fasting, oikonomia

I am honoured to have received this invitation to address this 8th International

Conference of Orthodox Theology, which occurs at such a critical time in a tumultuous

DOI: 10.1111/erev.12524
470 © 2020 World Council of Churches
Paul Meyendorff Marriage and Fasting

world that needs our united Orthodox witness more than ever.1 With all of you, I cele-
brate the fact that the Great and Holy Council did, despite so many obstacles, finally
take place, despite the absence of several local churches. At the same time, as one com-
ing from the so-called diaspora, I lament the fact that the council was unable to resolve
the persistent canonical problem that afflicts us. For nearly a century now, we have been
living with the scandal of multiple jurisdictions in one place, and the winds of
­ethno-phyletism, the conflation between church and nation, do not seem to be abating.
I pray, therefore, that the now-revived pan-Orthodox conciliar process will continue
and will be able to resolve these difficult issues.
My task here, however, is to focus on the contemporary liturgical and pastoral questions
that the council did address, namely, the texts on marriage and fasting.

The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments

The first section of the statement on marriage of the council in Crete attempts a posi-
tive formulation of marriage as a sacrament,2 grounded in the creation of Adam and
Eve in paradise before the fall, then sanctified by Christ at his first miracle in Cana. The
text then continues by citing numerous New Testament texts supporting the sanctity of
marriage, before shifting to a defensive mode and reacting to current societal trends
that challenge traditional conceptions of marriage.
Biblical scholars might argue with the statement that marriage is “the oldest institution
of divine law,” as the law comes only after the fall, and Orthodox generally avoid using
this kind of juridical language. Certainly, marriage is a fundamental human reality (that
is the implication of the Genesis creation account), but it is fully revealed and realized
only in the context of the church. However, since marriage is grounded in creation, can
it not also be experienced, even if only partially, by all humankind? After all, it did exist
prior to the incarnation, and Christ fulfilled and perfected something that was already a
reality. The same can also be said of baptism and the eucharist, where ordinary human
activities are transfigured and become means of salvation and communion. Thus, mar-
ried persons entering the church through baptism or chrismation have always been
­received in their married state, with their marriage accepted as sacramental through
their incorporation into the church. It matters not whether they were formerly

1 This is an edited version of a paper given at the 8th International Conference of Orthodox Theology, held in
Thessaloniki, 21–25 May 2018, on the theme “The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: Orthodox
Theology in the 21st Century.”
2 “The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments,” Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the
Orthodox Church, https://www.holyc​ouncil.org/-/marriage.

© 2020 World Council of Churches 471

The Ecumenical Review Volume 72  •  Number 3  •  July 2020

non-Christian or Christian.3 Is it possible to say that they were not married before? It is
better to say that their marriage is fulfilled and transfigured when they become Christian.
The text acknowledges that religious and civil law coincide to a certain extent. The
church’s canonical tradition did absorb elements of Roman (and Byzantine) civil law,
and the marriage rite similarly incorporated numerous elements from civil society – but
church and society were never identical. For example, under Roman civil law, rules for
divorce were far more lenient than in the church; but the church did not object to impe-
rial legislation and simply applied its own rules to its own members. Clearly, the interests
of church and state do not coincide in every respect. As an example, the church only
tolerates second and third and forbids fourth marriages, while the state imposes no such
discipline out of its interest for the social and financial stability of its citizens.
This bifurcation between church and state is particularly relevant today with respect to
the current debates in Western society about same-sex marriage. In recent years, many
Western countries have legalized such unions, basing their decisions on many factors
with which the church is not always comfortable: individual human rights, new and dif-
ferent understandings of gender identity, and other, more pragmatic factors, including
financial stability and civil benefits.
These contemporary developments certainly pose challenges to the church, and sim-
plistic appeals to ancient canons are no longer sufficient. In recent years, questions of
gender and sexuality have caused divisions both within and between Christian commu-
nions, and the Orthodox are not immune, though they are barely beginning to address
these issues. Clearly, many challenges remain, particularly in the area of human anthro-
pology. We Orthodox certainly need to become aware of developments in physical and
human sciences. Without such an awareness, we will not be able to address the ques-
tions being posed by modern society. Unfortunately, the council documents show little
openness to this. Far better, in this regard, is the recent statement addressed to young
people on “Love – Sexuality – Marriage” by the bishops of the Orthodox Church in
Germany.4
From the perspective of Orthodox who live as minorities in the West, however, it is
the final section, entitled “Impediments to Marriage,” that raises the most difficulties.
This section restates many of the ancient canons dealing with marriage discipline, and

3 The practice in some local Orthodox churches to remarry converts is highly problematic.
4 Orthodox Bishops Conference in Germany, “A Letter from the Bishops of the Orthodox Church in Germany
to Young People concerning Love – Sexuality – Marriage,” 12 December 2017, http://www.obkd.de/Texte/​Brief​
%20OBK​D%20an%20die​%20Jug​end-en.pdf.

472 © 2020 World Council of Churches

Paul Meyendorff Marriage and Fasting

it is the paragraph on mixed marriage, quoting Canon 72 of the Quinisext, that is most
problematic. This canon, which dates from the late 7th century, was issued at a time
when Orthodox Christians were an overwhelming majority in the Empire, and it was
thus relatively easy to enforce.
The situation today is vastly different. In many parts of the world, Orthodox are but
a tiny minority, with the result that more than 80 percent of Orthodox marry non-
Orthodox. In reading the council document, one would conclude that this reflects a for-
bidden practice, and that mixed marriages are tolerated only out of oikonomia. Yet these
mixed marriages have resulted in a large influx of new members into the Orthodox
Church, particularly in those churches that are more acclimated to the local cultures. In
the United States, for example, converts constitute close to 50 percent of the faithful
in the Antiochian Archdiocese and the Orthodox Church in America. In those jurisdic-
tions that identify themselves more strongly with particular ethnic groups, the number
of converts is smaller, but not insignificant. Yet the percentage of mixed marriages in
these more ethnic churches is no less, and the result is that the Orthodox marriage part-
ners more often than not abandon the church of their ancestors, either to join another
Christian body, or to leave the church altogether.
In short, mixed marriages can be, and often are, missionary opportunities. The church,
rather than simply condemning them, should seize the opportunity to welcome poten-
tial new members, but it ought to do so gently, without any coercion, by providing a
space where both marriage partners can grow spiritually. Any form of coercion, such as
requiring the non-Orthodox partner to convert, should be rejected as causing spiritual
harm to both spouses.
And this is a challenge not just in places where Orthodox are in the minority. In many
traditionally Orthodox countries, in fact only a small percentage practise the faith, even
if they formally identify themselves as Orthodox, having been baptized as infants. Is
not the marriage of a practising Orthodox with a lapsed or non-practising one the
functional equivalent of a mixed marriage? But, here again, such marriages create cat-
echetical and missionary opportunities that should not be missed.
An even more difficult situation arises in the case of marriages between Orthodox
and non-Christians, which our document accurately states are categorically forbidden
in the canonical tradition, and which therefore can receive no church blessing at all.
Yet, such marriages are increasingly common and result in the Orthodox spouse’s sim-
ply being excommunicated and leaving the church. Surely, more reflection on this is
needed. If we Orthodox argue that the roots of marriage are found in God’s intention
from the very beginning of creation, then all humanity, made in God’s image, can share
in its grace, even if not fully. Could not some blessing – certainly not a full service of

© 2020 World Council of Churches 473

The Ecumenical Review Volume 72  •  Number 3  •  July 2020

crowning, but perhaps based on the Genesis narrative – be developed to cover such
instances? Obviously, the hope would be that the spouses will ultimately come to share
one faith, but without any form of pressure or coercion. The spiritual benefits of such
a pastoral approach would extend to both the Orthodox and non-Orthodox spouse.
“For,” as St Paul says in a slightly different context, “the unbelieving husband is conse-
crated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband”
(1 Cor. 7:14).

The Importance of Fasting and Its Observance Today

Like the text on marriage, this document begins with an extensive and positive state-
ment on fasting based on scriptural and patristic sources.5 Notably, the statement situ-
ates fasting in a broader, ecclesial context and presents it as integrally connected with
prayer and merciful deeds. And it rightly acknowledges the need for flexibility in adjust-
ing fasting rules to local circumstances and pastoral necessity. In these ways, the docu-
ment simply restates current practice and offers little that is new, certainly not the more
fundamental changes in fasting regulations that some were expecting.
Where I would offer some critique of this document is its somewhat legalistic tone.
For the most part, it presumes that the church’s fasting rules are fixed and set in stone,
though it does acknowledge that fasting seasons and rules have evolved. In fact, how-
ever, few councils, particularly ecumenical councils, have addressed fasting specifically,
and most fasting regulations are to be found in the Typikon, which does not have the
status of ecumenical canons and was never promulgated by an ecumenical council.
Historically, it was only the Church of Russia which, from the 16th century onward,
began to canonically legislate liturgical, and also fasting, practices.
A further critique I would offer concerns the use of the term oikonomia in both docu-
ments. The word is used repeatedly in both texts in a legalistic way, as the right of the
church, primarily through its bishops, to waive a canon or a rule. It is used to mean
leniency, as opposed to strictness (akribeia). But this use of the word is modern and
differs from its classical use as meaning “household management,” as for example in
1 Corinthians 4:1. Rather than being legalistic, the term implies pastoral discernment,
the proper exercise of apostolic and episcopal leadership. Thus, in a given situation, the
exercise of oikonomia can be either lenient or strict – both reflect oikonomia.
The concept of oikonomia in contemporary Orthodoxy certainly needs greater reflec-
tion, both in the context of the issues raised in these two documents and with respect

5 “The Importance of Fasting and Its Observance Today,” Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of
the Orthodox Church, https://www.holyc​ouncil.org/-/fasting.

474 © 2020 World Council of Churches

Paul Meyendorff Marriage and Fasting

to other contentious issues, such as the mode of receiving converts, where the issue
arises in its most dramatic form. Ever since the 4th century, baptized converts entering
the church have generally not been rebaptized but have been received either by chrisma-
tion or confession – and this has been understood and explained as an exercise of
oikonomia. In contemporary Orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted in different ways.
There are some who would say, based on a Cyprianic ecclesiology such as that espoused
by St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, that baptism outside the canonical limits of
the Orthodox Church is null and void; but the bishop can, by oikonomia, waive the
canonical rule that converts be baptized. This reflects the legalistic understanding of
the term, and this is how the term is employed in the council documents. The second
and more traditional approach is to understand oikonomia as discernment of what is true
and authentic, even outside the canonical limits of Orthodoxy. According to this
approach, converts are not (re)baptized, because their previous baptism is seen to be
real and authentic, and thus of the church – this is the fundamental approach taken by
St Basil the Great and much of the patristic tradition. This latter approach reflects a
more open view of other Christian bodies, and it reflects the general practice of the
Slavic churches to this day.6
Cannot such a perspective also characterize the church’s approach to other complex
pastoral issues, such as those related to marriage and fasting? Orthodoxy too often
tends to react with fear to developments in the world, whether in global Christianity or
civil society. When it does so, it tends to turn inward, to reject the other, to hide behind
appeals to ancient canons – rather than, in the words of Fr Georges Florovsky, “putting
on the mind of the Fathers”7 by squarely engaging in a fruitful dialogue with the con-
temporary world. The Great and Holy Council in Crete was a beginning, but many
challenges remain.

6 See my article “The Liturgical Reforms of Peter Moghila, A New Look,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 29
(1985), 101–14.
7 Georges Florovsky, “St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers,” in Bible, Church, Tradition: Collected
Works 1 (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1972), 113.

© 2020 World Council of Churches 475