Послание Феофила епископу Агафону Правило 13 Феофила Александрийского

Maxim claimed that he entered into an illegal marriage out of ignorance of the laws of the church: and since he was embarrassed by his excommunication from church meetings, he assured that, having committed lawlessness out of ignorance, he would by consent refrain from lawless cohabitation, to which his wife agreed. And if you see that they are doing this in agreement and are not deceiving, then, since ten years have already passed from their combination, if you decide to place them with the catechumens, arrange this. If you notice that they want to deceive, and severity is still needed against them: do what God inspires you, guided in everything by prudence. For being on the spot, you can better know their location. (Ap. 48; Trul. 87, 93, 98; Ankir. 20; Carth. 102; Basil Vel. 9, 21, 31, 35, 36, 46, 48, 77, 87). This rule deals with the contractual dissolution of marriage (divortium ex consensu) between husband and wife. Such termination was allowed by Greco-Roman legislation 148; but the church has never recognized such a dissolution, except in two cases, namely, when the spouses sought a more perfect life, which, according to the teachings of the church, consisted of monastic asceticism, or when the husband was elected to the bishop and the wife agreed to the dissolution of the marriage. We talked about this in the interpretation of the 48th rule of the Trullo Council. But from the fact that the church prohibits the contractual dissolution of marriage (except for the two cases mentioned), it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that the present (13) rule of Theophilus of Alexandria contradicts the teaching of church law on divorce, for in this case we were talking about the illegal marriage of a certain Maxim with his wife, as a result of which he was excommunicated by the church court. He, apparently, despite the court's decision, continued to live in an illegal marriage, and when his conscience spoke to him and he felt the severity of church punishment, then he repented and declared that, by agreement with his wife, he would break off further marital cohabitation. Here, therefore, there was no contractual dissolution in the sense of the then civil law, but this was a consequence of the decision of the church court, which recognized the illegality of the marriage and, therefore, its invalidity. Patriarch Theophilus advises Bishop Agathon to make sure not whether the contractual divorce is true, but whether the repentance of these persons is true and whether they really obey the decision of the church court - let him act accordingly. See my “Right. Tsrkveno pravo” (2nd Serbian ed.), p. 620. You might be interested in: