I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
The OP started:
Even according the Vatican, we’re part of Christianity (and according to me, you are too, btw).
- Status
A
Abba
Guest
No. The same would not apply in the Catholic Church. My understanding is that for a marriage to be annulled both partners need to be aware of the process. I don’t think that the Catholic Church would give an annulment to one person without nofitying the other.
I am surprised at the lack of committment and acknowledgement from the Orthodox Church and how the Orthodox Church does not value the Sacrament of Marriage yet the Catholic Church permits these inter-marriages.
Thank you for your time.
Abba
A
Abba
Guest
The blessing was not a ceremony the orthodox priest acknowledge the marriage and he congratulated us. I understand he received a copy of the marriage certificate from the Catholic Church. Secondly, why do you care?
Oh, because for the past fifteen years I have known that I was married. And, I’m trying to understand why the Catholic Church accept inter- marriages with Orthodox if an Orthodox can retake the sacrament up to three times. He understood at the time that he was making a sacred vow and the same committment that I was. Then, back in 2001 he informed me that he learned that the Orthodox Church allows a second and third try. So, he took what the Orthodox Church was offering him.
So, what? There are children involved. My children and I are practicing Catholics. So, the marriage they were born under did not happen and the concubine is now the wife and their child is the child but mine are bastards? And all this according to the Orthodox Church.
How is it that it seems ok to make a vow to God and then break it because it is convenient or because people say it’s ok?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Your husband is saying Corban.
No, I don’t think he would (or should) have gotten off scott free. That he didn’t get married in the Church means he was excommunicated. It doesn’t follow that the marriage was void (we don’t have annullments). Not knowing all the details, but since you might want some idea, I just make some remarks (of course, the problem is you are obviously dealing with someone who doesn’t play by the rules, and has been enabled in this: the Orthodox priest shouldn’t OKd the marriage outside the Orthodox Church, and the one who married him the second time evidently didn’t do his job (the second wife I take it was also divorced?).
When your husband married outside the Church, he was automatically excommunicated. To be remarried in the Church, he would have to confess, and that would involve the reason for the excommunication. In these cases the usual procedure is simple: they marry in the Church. He didn’t do that, and that’s a problem. When he “returned” to the Church (I’m just going on your description: it would seem he is not God-fearing) he would bring his marital status with him. When married converts are chrismated, their marriage is chrismated as well. He couldn’t return to the Church without bringing his marriage into it, which also would mean the Church would have to deal with it.
So, the case could be made that he’s a bigamist, but where would that leave you? Where do you want it to leave you?
Do you want an anullment? The Orthodox don’t do that, and since you’re not Orthodox, what would it mean to you? Would the Vatican give you one? I can’t speak for them, for obvious reasons, but I have dealt with it for a couple of friends. I would say yes, because your husband was not free to give his consent to the ceremony in your church (he’d be excommunicated). You would have to see your priest on that.
A
Abba
Guest
What canon law stipulates this? How is it that the Orthodox priest was not aware of this? After the marriage in the Catholic Church, which was my requirement as I planned to raised the children Catholic and was and still am a practicing Catholic, we would go to the Greek Orthodox Church and he would receive communion. He was a member and financial supporter of the Greek Orthodox Church. As far as he was aware and the Orthodox priest, he was not excommunicated.
I would not attempt to annull the marriage. I fear God and I don’t play games with him. If the Catholic priest that married me was alive now, I would not dare go to him and ask him to pretend that that day and that sacrament and those vows and his blessing of that union; never took place. I could not ask him, let’s find it invalid and declared that it never happened. This priest was a holy and wise man. I travelled far and so did many people to hear him preach in a standing room only church with people outside of the church in the mountain of Chartreuse. He was tough and would reprimand and people liked being told the truth. What is important to me is the Catholic Church and that is why I got married in the Catholic Church and by a Catholic priest. I have no annullment business with the Vatican
I seems as though after the notes made on this thread and a discussion I just had with an Orthodox priest, that no matter what the three strikes your out goes through after a period of spiritual guidance and supposedly repentance but whatever that means.
Thank you for your time.
Abba
M
Mickey
Guest
Wow! So many names.
Yes.
Actually…it is. You cannot pretend that something did not happen. And you cannot justify this pretension through legalism. As Isa would say…“Corban”.
Silly analogy. If the Catholic Church married a couple on a dung heap with a woman priest–then your analogy might be more applicable.
1
1ke
Guest
Because Catholic priests are instructed that when a Catholic-Orthodox couple presents themselves for marriage, they must marry in the Orthodox Church for the marriage to be valid.
He did not complete the paperwork for dispensation from form or advise you that you need to marry in the Orthodox Church for your marriage to be valid.
Yes, in the Orthodox Church, not in the Catholic Church. That makes all the difference regarding validity.
It’s your choice as to whether you petition for a decree of nullity, but you have valid grounds based on the fact that he is Orthodox and did not marry in the Orthodox form.
The Church accepts at face value the consent given at the time of the marriage. Your husband vowed perpetuity and fidelity. If he perpetrated a fraud, then that also is grounds for nullity.
#1 your children are NOT “bastards”. Catholic canon law is very clear regarding that.
And who cares what the Orthodox think about anything? You and your children are CATHOLICS. I don’t understand your obsession with what the Orthodox Church or you ex-husband thinks or does.
It’s not ok, and he will have to answer for all of his actions and choices on judgment day.
J
john_chrysostom
Guest
How is this in harmony with Christianity?
It is not, and it is repugnant to God.
The only part of the Historic Church that makes a business out of investigating marriages is the Church of Rome. Eastern Orthodox “view a divorce as a death in the family”. Anglo Catholics accept the reality and focus on healing.
For example, an Orthodox and a Roman Catholic marry in a ceremony officiated by an Anglo Catholic clergyman. They divorce. What happens with the tribunal’s pharasees? It is a cheapie $50 defective form if either party can prove they were what they say so long as no Orthodox or Catholic clergy was present. But what if the Roman Catholic party cannot cook up a baptismal document? Then that party is not really Catholic, and the ceremony defaults to one of an Orthodox party and non Catholic party. If the Orthodox party cannot prove chrismation (confirmation) then the tribunal sees it as a non Catholic party and a non Catholic party, and that costs between $700 to $1200 for a formal investigation.
Now the reader may ask, why would the Catholic Church even care about non Catholic marriages. The short answer is that the Church should not care because it never had any jurisdiction over the parties or the ceremony in the first place. But the dollar amount of $700 to $1200 is suddenly a cash cow, and the Catholic Church now makes a business out of sticking its long bony nose into non sacramental marriage ceremonies.
Instead of healing the broken marriage wound, the Catholic Church now has minions in tribunal offices who bark, “You messed up your whole life forever with your bad marriage, but maybe this tribunal office can get your life back together again for you.” $1200 is arguable simony, pure and simple.
It is not, and it is repugnant to God.
The only part of the Historic Church that makes a business out of investigating marriages is the Church of Rome. Eastern Orthodox “view a divorce as a death in the family”. Anglo Catholics accept the reality and focus on healing.
For example, an Orthodox and a Roman Catholic marry in a ceremony officiated by an Anglo Catholic clergyman. They divorce. What happens with the tribunal’s pharasees? It is a cheapie $50 defective form if either party can prove they were what they say so long as no Orthodox or Catholic clergy was present. But what if the Roman Catholic party cannot cook up a baptismal document? Then that party is not really Catholic, and the ceremony defaults to one of an Orthodox party and non Catholic party. If the Orthodox party cannot prove chrismation (confirmation) then the tribunal sees it as a non Catholic party and a non Catholic party, and that costs between $700 to $1200 for a formal investigation.
Now the reader may ask, why would the Catholic Church even care about non Catholic marriages. The short answer is that the Church should not care because it never had any jurisdiction over the parties or the ceremony in the first place. But the dollar amount of $700 to $1200 is suddenly a cash cow, and the Catholic Church now makes a business out of sticking its long bony nose into non sacramental marriage ceremonies.
Instead of healing the broken marriage wound, the Catholic Church now has minions in tribunal offices who bark, “You messed up your whole life forever with your bad marriage, but maybe this tribunal office can get your life back together again for you.” $1200 is arguable simony, pure and simple.
P
Phemie
Guest
J
john_chrysostom
Guest
Originally Posted by Abba View Post
[1]My understanding is that for a marriage to be annulled both partners need to be aware of the process.
[2]I don’t think that the Catholic Church would give an annulment to one person without nofitying the other.
[3]When someone petitions for a decree of nullity, the Tribunal will attempt to notify the other party but if he/she cannot be located the process will still go ahead.
Re 1, 2, 3: the parties are notified supposedly to give the respondent a chance to answer, but see next paragraph since response is moot without jurisdiction of the tribunal. The request for response is in practice only to make less work for the tribunal so as to avoid appeal of the decree should the respondent learn later that it was granted without knowledge of the respondent. Hence, it is purely self-serving that the tribunal notifies the other party.
A more important legal issue here is jurisdiction. If the respondent is not Catholic, then the Church is attempting to gain jurisdiction over the respondent. (Even the legalistic term “respondent” implies that person must answer any tribunal court mail.) In fact the tribunals flaunt their court-like characteristics with prelates signing letters as “Judicial Vicar” and “Judge” as if the poor respondent will end up in court with a traffic fine if the paperwork goes unanswered.
For a respondent over which the arrogant tribunal is attempting to gain jurisdiction, the best practice is not to play. If the respondent does not open the mail, photocopies the face of the letter, marks “Unsolicited - Refused - Return to Sender”, and mails it back (no postage required), then the tribunal is effectively foiled as far as the respondent is concerned.
Tribunals typically wheedle, beg, and cajole respondents for some reply because, again, it makes it easier for the tribunal to do less paperwork by avoiding an appeal based on a “service of process defect”.
If the tribunal is unscrupulous or stupid enough to send more US Mail, as they usually are, then the respondent may repeat the process above. Armed with two photocopies of the letter faces, the respondent could enter the nearest civil court of jurisdiction to seek a temporary restraining order against the tribunal for harassment by the US Mail.
The tribunal cannot lamely argue that the respondent never told them not to keep sending mail, because “Unsolicited - Refused - Return to Sender” means exactly that.
Usually a temporary restraining order is granted, and a court date is set for a hearing to determine if the order should become permanent. Depending on the court, the respondent may need to contact the tribunal with notification of that court date.
However, the last thing the canon lawyers in tribunals want is to join the respondent at such a civil court hearing for a permanent restraining order because the tribunal officials are not really civil lawyers (even though they speak and write a good imitation) and would have to engage local legal counsel to represent them. This is not to mention the potential bad press if a reporter finds out that the Catholic Church is wasting money on defending against restraining orders that beat up on divorced people.
The upshot of this is that tribunals typically act as bullies, even though they sign their letters as “assuring you of our willingness to help”, because they send letters by US Mail to look like civil legal process.
Also, petitioners should know that tribunals will make comments in letters to intimidate, harass, or bully with guilt, depending on the mood of the prelate writing the letter. For example, if one of the parties was Episcopalian, then the parties should expect verbiage in the letter saying unkind things about Episcopalians, as if all current or former Episcopalians condone same sex unions.
In some areas, Catholic laity are in such rebellion against this nonsense that: 1. forgeries of decrees are bought and sold; and 2 the dishonest situation that follows.
Catholic A and Catholic B, both divorced, want to get married and live in Diocese 1. Catholic A petitions for annulment in Diocese 2. Catholic B petitions for annulment in Diocese 3. Catholic A and Catholic B go to Diocese 4 and are married as Catholics without impediments. Catholic A and Catholic B return to Diocese 1 and quietly cohabit as man and wife, waiting for paperwork from Diocese 2 and Diocese 3, and keeping all Dioceses at arm’s length during the process so that no one Diocese knows about any other. Will Catholic A and Catholic B go to hell for this? Let’s let Jesus say on Judgment Day, but I say very probably NOT, and it could even make Jesus laugh because He has a sense of humor above and beyond the Saducees in tribunals (whose mouths Jesus refers to as whited sepulcheres (painted out-houses)).
[1]My understanding is that for a marriage to be annulled both partners need to be aware of the process.
[2]I don’t think that the Catholic Church would give an annulment to one person without nofitying the other.
[3]When someone petitions for a decree of nullity, the Tribunal will attempt to notify the other party but if he/she cannot be located the process will still go ahead.
Re 1, 2, 3: the parties are notified supposedly to give the respondent a chance to answer, but see next paragraph since response is moot without jurisdiction of the tribunal. The request for response is in practice only to make less work for the tribunal so as to avoid appeal of the decree should the respondent learn later that it was granted without knowledge of the respondent. Hence, it is purely self-serving that the tribunal notifies the other party.
A more important legal issue here is jurisdiction. If the respondent is not Catholic, then the Church is attempting to gain jurisdiction over the respondent. (Even the legalistic term “respondent” implies that person must answer any tribunal court mail.) In fact the tribunals flaunt their court-like characteristics with prelates signing letters as “Judicial Vicar” and “Judge” as if the poor respondent will end up in court with a traffic fine if the paperwork goes unanswered.
For a respondent over which the arrogant tribunal is attempting to gain jurisdiction, the best practice is not to play. If the respondent does not open the mail, photocopies the face of the letter, marks “Unsolicited - Refused - Return to Sender”, and mails it back (no postage required), then the tribunal is effectively foiled as far as the respondent is concerned.
Tribunals typically wheedle, beg, and cajole respondents for some reply because, again, it makes it easier for the tribunal to do less paperwork by avoiding an appeal based on a “service of process defect”.
If the tribunal is unscrupulous or stupid enough to send more US Mail, as they usually are, then the respondent may repeat the process above. Armed with two photocopies of the letter faces, the respondent could enter the nearest civil court of jurisdiction to seek a temporary restraining order against the tribunal for harassment by the US Mail.
The tribunal cannot lamely argue that the respondent never told them not to keep sending mail, because “Unsolicited - Refused - Return to Sender” means exactly that.
Usually a temporary restraining order is granted, and a court date is set for a hearing to determine if the order should become permanent. Depending on the court, the respondent may need to contact the tribunal with notification of that court date.
However, the last thing the canon lawyers in tribunals want is to join the respondent at such a civil court hearing for a permanent restraining order because the tribunal officials are not really civil lawyers (even though they speak and write a good imitation) and would have to engage local legal counsel to represent them. This is not to mention the potential bad press if a reporter finds out that the Catholic Church is wasting money on defending against restraining orders that beat up on divorced people.
The upshot of this is that tribunals typically act as bullies, even though they sign their letters as “assuring you of our willingness to help”, because they send letters by US Mail to look like civil legal process.
Also, petitioners should know that tribunals will make comments in letters to intimidate, harass, or bully with guilt, depending on the mood of the prelate writing the letter. For example, if one of the parties was Episcopalian, then the parties should expect verbiage in the letter saying unkind things about Episcopalians, as if all current or former Episcopalians condone same sex unions.
In some areas, Catholic laity are in such rebellion against this nonsense that: 1. forgeries of decrees are bought and sold; and 2 the dishonest situation that follows.
Catholic A and Catholic B, both divorced, want to get married and live in Diocese 1. Catholic A petitions for annulment in Diocese 2. Catholic B petitions for annulment in Diocese 3. Catholic A and Catholic B go to Diocese 4 and are married as Catholics without impediments. Catholic A and Catholic B return to Diocese 1 and quietly cohabit as man and wife, waiting for paperwork from Diocese 2 and Diocese 3, and keeping all Dioceses at arm’s length during the process so that no one Diocese knows about any other. Will Catholic A and Catholic B go to hell for this? Let’s let Jesus say on Judgment Day, but I say very probably NOT, and it could even make Jesus laugh because He has a sense of humor above and beyond the Saducees in tribunals (whose mouths Jesus refers to as whited sepulcheres (painted out-houses)).
P
Phemie
Guest
Catholic A & Catholic B cannot marry in Diocese 4 without presenting a new Certificate of Baptism from their respective baptismal parishes. Those certificates will have a notation indicating that they are both married, effectively putting an immediate halt to their wedding plans in Diocese 4.
J
john_chrysostom
Guest
What you write does not make sense to me because Catholic A and B could proffer baptismal certificates from their childhood parishes as stored ever since by their mommies. What I described is exactly the way it was described to me by one who knows one of the parties. In fact, one of the parties works as the secretary to a Catholic Diocesan. They somehow got around the baptismal-previous-marriage difficulty you point out above. One way of course was for them to find a deacon or priest in Diocese 4 who accepted them into Diocese 4 as if it was to become their permanent parish.
Please think about it further, because I am now interested in exactly how they did it. They clearly short circuited a genealogical traceback on their baptismal certs. As a senior posting member here, haven’t you seen this come up before with ingenious result?
I remember the parochial school dictum that the whole point of such a dishonest exercise is to see who can do end runs around it in the most clever way.
P
Phemie
Guest
No, they couldn’t because that’s not what the priest will ask them for. The priest who is doing the pre-nuptial investigation will ask them for Certificates of Baptism that are less than 6 months old, precisely to find out about prior marriages. In many cases he will specifically request that the certificates be sent directly to him from the baptismal parish.
- Status