Annulment Reforms

[twf]

Have any of the patriarchs / synods / primates formally commented on Rome’s new reforms? Personally, while a byzantine bishop was on the committee that drafted the reforms, I think it is absolutely absurd that changes like this are imposed. They should be ratified by the individual synods.

 

[malphono]

Have any of the patriarchs / synods / primates formally commented on Rome’s new reforms? Personally, while a byzantine bishop was on the committee that drafted the reforms, I think it is absolutely absurd that changes like this are imposed. They should be ratified by the individual synods.

This is a rather complicated thing. The whole “annulment” business is basically a Western concept. And the fact is that the CCEO itself is a Roman imposition, which can only be amended by the very same authority.

Consider, too, that canonical divorce is the EO/OO norm, as opposed to annulment, which is far more rare. Consider, as well, that some EC/OC Churches, being more Latininzed than the Latins, would never in a million years have even considered lightened the “annulment” burden on their own. (It’s actually likely that they’re balking about this unilateral action by Rome, but I digress.) But this is a case of “roma locuta, causa finita” and I don’t think it’s a bad thing in the particular circumstances. Short of reverting to the true Eastern/Oriental norm of canonical divorce which, of course, Rome will never allow - the action of any EC/OC synod notwithstanding - I think it’s the best we’re going to get.

 

[twf]

Malphono:
To be fair, canonical divorce, and especially ecclesiastical second marriages (as opposed to simply tolerating a second civil marriage) was a rather late development in the Byzantine tradition. Do you know the history in regards to the Oriental Orthodox practice?

 

[getysbg]

The beliefs and teachings remain the same. Pope Francis just changed the “paperwork”.

 

[twf]

The beliefs and teachings remain the same. Pope Francis just changed the “paperwork”.

Yes, but there are some significant procedural reforms. Many would argue that the respective synods of each Church Sui iuris should have had time to review and adopt.

 

[5Loaves]

This is a rather complicated thing. The whole “annulment” business is basically a Western concept. And the fact is that the CCEO itself is a Roman imposition, which can only be amended by the very same authority.

It is indeed complicated, when dealing with apples and oranges.
I don’t know if there are ECCs which have so changed their marriage service that it substantially differs from those of the Orthodox, but to the extent that our Churches maintain the Betrothal Service, and the Crowning Service from our Orthodox mother Churches just reading the text one sees the fundamental difference from that of the Latin Church marriage rite. There are no vows during the exchange of rings in the Betrothal Service, nor anywhere in the service. (Nor is there any “Until death do us part”, a different topic as regards remarriage.) The Latin Church teaches that the couple are the ministers of the sacrament; in the East the minister of the sacrament is the priest; it’s not the couple.

Any Eastern Catholic who seeks remarriage and thus is subjected to the “annulment” process has my sympathy. It must be at some level submitting to abandoning their patrimony. On the other hand I’ve not been through an “annulment” as envisioned in the CCEO. Perhaps the Eparchies do somehow rather grant an ecclesiastical divorce.

As to the actual changes in the Code

Finally, he decrees and establishes that in Title 26 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Chapter 1, article 1). Cases for the declaration of the nullity of marriage, canons 1357-1377) is entirely substituted by the new norms, with effect from 8 December 2015.

where can we find codes in English?entirely new

 

[Vico]

… The Latin Church teaches that the couple are the ministers of the sacrament; in the East the minister of the sacrament is the priest; it’s not the couple. …

As to the actual changes in the Code
where can we find these entirely new codes in English?

CCEO and CIC both hold that the Church must approve the marriage. In the absence of a Catholic minister, for more than a month, the couple may marry with themselves and just two ministers. However, for eastern Catholics,CCEO Canon 832

1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:INDENT in danger of death;
   (2) outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.
   [/INDENT]***Mitis et misericors Iesus
   ***Just Latin and Italian so far. The changes entirely replace CCEO canons 1357 to 1377.
   gcatholic.org/documents/year/2015.htm#5844

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It is indeed complicated, when dealing with apples and oranges.
I don’t know if there are ECCs which have so changed their marriage service that it substantially differs from those of the Orthodox, but to the extent that our Churches maintain the Betrothal Service, and the Crowning Service from our Orthodox mother Churches just reading the text one sees the fundamental difference from that of the Latin Church marriage rite. There are no vows during the exchange of rings in the Betrothal Service, nor anywhere in the service. (Nor is there any “Until death do us part”, a different topic as regards remarriage.) The Latin Church teaches that the couple are the ministers of the sacrament; in the East the minister of the sacrament is the priest; it’s not the couple.

I’m not sure what you are assigning to the Latin Catholic, vs. Orthodox.
As I am going through the annulment process, I find several comments in this thread absolutely fascinating. There was no vow, as in “I swear”, in the Latin Catholic marriage ceremony I was in. In fact, I was under the impression that I had already married my ex-wife before the ceremony because of a certain encyclical (Castii connubi) which either I read too quickly, or else it blatantly omitted any reference to the legal requirement for witnesses in order for a marriage to be valid. Jesus never mentioned the requirement for witnesses either … I mean, Adam and Eve didn’t have any witnesses “in the beginning”, did they?

But, of greater interest to me is that the annulment questionaire presumed that I said “till death do us part” exactly as you mention; but, in fact, that was not part of the promises we actually made at the altar. The promises we chose (of those allowed by the priest) was of the generic form: “I xxx, take you to be my xxx; for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, I promise to love and honor you all the days of my life.”

When you say “There are no vows during the exchange of rings in the Betrothal Service, nor anywhere in the service.”; do you mean in the Eastern service, or the Latin one?

There is no swearing in the Latin service, although the word “sacrament” means “oath of consecration.” Jesus said, with regard to marriage, that a person is not to swear at all; they are to say “yes” when they mean yes, and “no” when they mean no. Anything more is from the evil one. Notice the pericope I mention follows immediately after the statements of Jesus regarding the permanence of marriage, “In the beginning.” (not as a sacrament.)

I have seen comments in the (Eastern) early church fathers, that indicate an Eastern marriage where the priest(s) omit a special blessing saying that God has joined (eg: I assume in persona Christi) the couple; that the marriage is not joined by God. Hence, all marriages of that kind can be separated, for God never joined them.

I find the canons, mentioned in this thread, stating that even in the Eastern churches two people can validly marry each other when a priest is not available impossible to understand in terms of historical Eastern Christianity. I would tend to think, that according to the Eastern rite logic, such a situation could only be construed as a natural marriage and not a sacrament. In order to assure the permanence, would not such a marriage still have to be blessed by a priest before it would have the status of permanence in a patriarchal ruling?

Perhaps the Eparchies do somehow rather grant an ecclesiastical divorce.

I notice that your “rite” indicates “Greek Russian.” What exactly is that?
I am aware that some orthodox rites had their original bishops executed during the Stalinist revolution in the USSR and replaced by the government with appointees. I am also aware that people who belong to that rite are permitted divorce by the soviet appointed bishops; eg: Is that what you mean by “ecclesiasitcal divorce?”

The logic is muddied by so called, “Co-consecrations” that are happening; but as the bishop appointees by the Soviet union did not receive the laying on of hands by the previous bishops; I assume that the Latin Church does not accept many of them as having authority to join marriages in the first place. So all marriages by priests appointed by the Soviet bishops would automatically be considered natural (speculative inference). Hence, they would be separable. (Even though Jesus never said natural marriages before the institution of the sacrament were separable. The church, via. St. Paul, Pauline/Petrine privelege, etc. has essentially ruled that natural marriages are separable. )

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sir, your entire reply is replete with muddled statements, factually incoherent opinions, and downright slanderous accusations… I mean this sincerely, I wouldn’t know where to begin to address this.

 

[Vico]

… In order to assure the permanence, would not such a marriage still have to be blessed by a priest before it would have the status of permanence in a patriarchal ruling?
…

The Church must always approve the Catholic marriage (Latin or eastern), but some approvals are given in canon law for certain circumstances. The tradition of receiving the ritual blessing in the eastern tradition is preserved when it is possible, however, if it is not possible it does not invalidate the marriage. A couple married in this way may never see a Catholic priest or bishop again due to isolation.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sir, your entire reply is replete with muddled statements, factually incoherent opinions, and downright slanderous accusations… I mean this sincerely, I wouldn’t know where to begin to address this.

Are you responding to me?
If so, try taking one statement at a time. Ask for clarification, etc.

There was no slander in the reply that I am aware of.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The Church must always approve the Catholic marriage (Latin or eastern), but some approvals are given in canon law for certain circumstances. The tradition of receiving the ritual blessing in the eastern tradition is preserved when it is possible, however, if it is not possible it does not invalidate the marriage. A couple married in this way may never see a Catholic priest or bishop again due to isolation.

But, as was mentioned before, the orthodox supposedly do not believe the spouses are the minister of the sacrament; but rather the priest is.

In neither East nor west, is a layperson considered a ministerial priest.
Logically, then, in the East; when two people contract a marriage with no priest present to give them the special blessing; there is no way to say “Jesus joined these two in marriage.”

I am not claiming the marriage is invalid; I am questioning the theology of the East regarding the sacramentality of such marriages.

Note: Adam and Eve had a VALID marriage; however, they did not have a sacrament.
By definition, Sacraments could not exist until AFTER Jesus came and instituted them via the incarnation… As St. Paul comments, our salvation is effected through the two becoming one flesh; and he means Christ and his Church (incarnation/Eucharist/etc.)
For this reason (and what I am saying is obscure, I apologize) I do not believe an Eastern rite marriage consummated without the possibility of Eucharist, and blessed by a priest, is of the same quality as one with no possibility of either.

So, the objection I am alluding to is that any marriage contracted by two people (man, not God) which is later tried by a Orthodox ?tribunal? (or patriarch?) for validity, has no basis for claiming that Jesus/God Joined them until a blessing is given.

eg: consider this case: The couple married in isolation, but did NOT remain in isolation on some hypothetical island; but divorced separated/and after coming back into contact with the Orthodox church refused to receive a blessing. If they refused, would you argue they had a sacrament? Are there not clearly grounds in Eastern Theology to say that such a marriage could still be separated; eg: Jesus literally said “What GOD has joined, let no man separate.” Jesus did not say, what man has Joined, let no church acting in my name separate. etc.

If the Orthodox really do believe that a priest must act to join a marriage; then, the exception you mention which allows two people to marry without a priest can not possibly be based on the exact same theology; such a position is intrinsically inconsistent.

I could accept that the exception is more of an issue of “no sin found here…” therefore, no punishment. Or insufficient evidence; but I have a hard time believing Eastern theology accepts the western position in case of emergency, but not as the norm.

I mean, the smallest tittle of the law can get a person off the hook when it comes to marriage…

Even to the woman caught in adultery in Scripture, Jesus said (paraphrase); “Is there no one here to condemn you?” and she said, “No one”; Jesus said “Therefore, neither do I condemn you.”

Eg: according to law people may only convicted of adultery on the testimony of “TWO” or more witnesses. One witness, alone, is insufficient.

 

[Vico]

But, as was mentioned before, the orthodox supposedly do not believe the spouses are the minister of the sacrament; but rather the priest is.

In neither East nor west, is a layperson considered a ministerial priest.
Logically, then, in the East; when two people contract a marriage with no priest present to give them the special blessing; there is no way to say “Jesus joined these two in marriage.”

I am not claiming the marriage is invalid; I am questioning the theology of the East regarding the sacramentality of such marriages.

Note: Adam and Eve had a VALID marriage; however, they did not have a sacrament.
By definition, Sacraments could not exist until AFTER Jesus came and instituted them via the incarnation… As St. Paul comments, our salvation is effected through the two becoming one flesh; and he means Christ and his Church (incarnation/Eucharist/etc.)

So, the objection I am having, logically; is that any marriage contracted by two people which is later tried by a Orthodox tribunal for validity, has no basis for claiming that Jesus/God Joined them until a blessing is given. If the couple were to NOT remain in isolation on some hypothetical island, then they would be required to get a blessing? And if they refused, would there not be grounds to say the marriage could still be separated; Jesus said “What GOD has joined, let no man separate.” Jesus did not say, what man has Joined, let no church acting in my name separate. etc.

If the Orthodox really do believe that a priest must act to join a marriage; then, the exception allowing two people to marry can not possibly be the same theology or tradition. The exception is more of an issue of “no sin found here…” therefore, no punishment.

The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic have differences in the sacrament of matrimony and the number of allowable valid marriages. In both “ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage.” The Church can determine the valid form of celebration of matrimony. Note also that there are differences between the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox with regards to marriage. For example, Armenian Orthodox do allow marriage of an Armenian Orthodox with non-Armenian Orthodox without conversion, however the Eastern Orthodox are more restrictive. Also, the Assyrian Church of the East does not consider matrimony to be a sacrament.

All of the Catholic Church sui iuris share in the same sacraments. There has been change in the Orthodox sacrament over time since the early Church, due to the imposition of the eastern Emperor’s laws over the Church.

The Eastern Orthodox do consider impediments, which when they exist, may declare that the matrimonial union does not exist. This is similar to the Catholic. In both traditions a valid canonical form exists.

USCCB has this to say:In the teaching of our churches, a sacramental marriage requires both the mutual consent of the believing Christian partners and God’s blessing imparted through the official ministry of the Church. At the present time, there are differences in the ways by which this ministry is exercised in order to fulfill the theological and canonical norms for marriage in our churches. The Orthodox Church, as a rule, accepts as sacramental only those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which are sanctified in the Church’s liturgy through the blessing of an Orthodox bishop or priest. The Catholic Church accepts as sacramental those marriages of Christians baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity which are witnessed by a Catholic bishop or priest (or, in more recent discipline, a deacon), but it also envisages some exceptional cases in which, whether by law or by dispensation, Catholics may enter into a sacramental marriage in the absence of a bishop, priest or deacon. There are also differences in our theological explanations of this diversity. As older presentations of sacramental theology indicate, Orthodox theologians often have insisted that the priest is the proper “minister of the Sacrament”, whereas Roman Catholic theologians more often have spoken of the couple as “ministering the sacrament to each other”.

We do not wish to underestimate the seriousness of these differences in practice and theological explanation. We consider their further study to be desirable. At the same time, we wish to emphasize our fundamental agreement. Both our churches have always agreed that ecclesial context is constitutive of the Christian sacrament of marriage.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, but there are some significant procedural reforms. Many would argue that the respective synods of each Church Sui iuris should have had time to review and adopt.

At first, I would agree. Each sui iuris Church should decide for itself, or at the very least have some significant (name removed by moderator)ut.

However, what complicates the issue is that the we do need to have a certain uniformity for the process of declaring attempted marriages null. Remember, we’re talking about the annulment process here, not the various forms of celebrating marriage.

The reason why we need (near-universal) uniformity among the churches is because at the stage of applying for a declaration of nullity, we might be dealing with members of 2 different sui iuris Churches, and even dealing with a total of 3 Churches all at the same time. …

For example: Let’s say that 2 people marry in Eastern Europe. One is Russian (church, not just ethnicity), the other is Greek (literally, from Greece). Years later, they immigrate to the United States, to a place where there is no hierarch for either of them. One party petitions the local Latin bishop for a declaration of nullity. Imagine how extremely difficult it would be for the tribunal to have to sort through the individual canons, which might not even be in any language that a member of the tribunal reads.

It is complicated enough when tribunals must apply two Codes—even though they are nearly identical in this regard. If we had 22 sets of codes it would present very real problems.

In the U.S. we have many different Eastern Churches represented, and Catholics marrying someone from a different ritual Church is rather common. Even if we limit ourselves to discussing only those Eastern Churches who have a hierarchal presence in the U.S. we’re still talking about expecting every tribunal in the country (Eastern and Latin) to become familiar with several different codes. It would be a nightmare for canonists.

Simply designing the forms for a preliminary look into the situation would be nearly impossible. Imagine forms that read “if Ukrainian, skip to question 14. If Melkite, skip to Q. 23. Answer questions 35 to 42 only if one party is Syro-Malabar…” You get the idea.

Having said all that, I know you wrote “review and adopt” not “review and adApt.” So I’d like to address that part.

When it comes to the process of seeking a declaration of nullity, we do need to have (at least nearly) identical processes for East and West. That means that if the procedures for the West become final, it’s a given that those same procedures for the East will necessarily have to be adopted.

I suppose it’s a question of which is better/worse: the Pope making the changes for the whole Church and simply presenting them to the East as a “done deal” OR giving the Eastern Synods a chance to vote for themselves on implementing the changes, but saying to them “these changes are happening, now vote and approve them. Only an affirmative vote will suffice.”

 

[FrDavid96]

The Church must always approve the Catholic marriage (Latin or eastern), but some approvals are given in canon law for certain circumstances. The tradition of receiving the ritual blessing in the eastern tradition is preserved when it is possible, however, if it is not possible it does not invalidate the marriage. A couple married in this way may never see a Catholic priest or bishop again due to isolation.

While what you wrote is true…

In the Eastern Churches, the priest is the true minister of Marriage. In the Latin traditions, the couple are the ministers.

It’s a difference between East and West.

It is simply a difference that exists. It’s not a problem.

 

[Vico]

While what you wrote is true…

In the Eastern Churches, the priest is the true minister of Marriage. In the Latin traditions, the couple are the ministers.

It’s a difference between East and West.

It is simply a difference that exists. It’s not a problem.

Of course, the implication of the canons for exceptional circumstances for the eastern Catholic, is that the blessing of the Church is granted although no minister is present, but rather only the couple and two witnesses.

 

[FrDavid96]

Of course, the implication of the canons for exceptional circumstances for the eastern Catholic, is that the blessing of the Church is granted although no minister is present, but rather only the couple and two witnesses.

In such a circumstance, the couple is still required to seek the blessing of a priest (even a non-Catholic one) afterwards; since the priest is the true minister of the marriage.

The whole “marriage without a priest” idea is completely foreign to Eastern Catholic spirituality and sacramental theology (I know, “Mysteries” but there’s no such phrase as “mystery theology”). It was imposed into the Eastern code by Western influence. Although that possibility is in the Eastern Code, from the Eastern perspective, it makes no sense.

 

[Vico]

In such a circumstance, the couple is still required to seek the blessing of a priest (even a non-Catholic one) afterwards; since the priest is the true minister of the marriage.

The whole “marriage without a priest” idea is completely foreign to Eastern Catholic spirituality and sacramental theology (I know, “Mysteries” but there’s no such phrase as “mystery theology”). It was imposed into the Eastern code by Western influence. Although that possibility is in the Eastern Code, from the Eastern perspective, it makes no sense.

Even an non-Catholic priest may be give the blessing sometimes, yet it is still valid without the blessing:

CCEO 832
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without
prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.

 

[FrDavid96]

But, as was mentioned before, the orthodox supposedly do not believe the spouses are the minister of the sacrament; but rather the priest is.
…

Yes. Exactly.

Unless the couple is actually married by a priest, then the canonical procedures for declaring that attempt at marriage null would never even start in an Orthodox church.

This is similar to what happens in the Latin Church.

If two Catholics (or at least 1) are married by a justice of the peace, or an Elvis impersonator, it’s merely an administrative matter to declare the attempt null. Likewise, for the Orthodox, if there’s no priest acting as the minister, then there’s nothing more to investigate. There was no marriage.

 

[FrDavid96]

Even an non-Catholic priest may be give the blessing sometimes, yet it is still valid without the blessing:

CCEO 832
2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without
prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.

Yet this entire concept is foreign to Eastern Catholic (of course Orthodox) theology.

It’s an example of something that exists in the Code which contradicts the Eastern Church’s theology.

It’s a strange situation in the law.

If a couple cannot be married by a priest, they can “validly” marry in front of witnesses alone, but until the priest acts as the minister by blessing the marriage, the marriage is a sort of “valid but incomplete” (to coin a phrase). It’s odd.