Catholic and Orthodox views on marriage

[JohnVIII]

Warning: I am about to say some things that most of you are going to think are crazy! You ready? Here it goes.

The REAL root reason that Orthodox can dissolve a marriage but Roman Catholic cannot is because in the RCC this sacrament is done by the engaged couple themselves, and not by a priest, and in the OC the sacrament is done by a priest, not by the engaged couple. Two layman cannot hold the keys to binding and loosing, so really they cannot bind (marry) or loose (divorce). Any priest who has the power to bind also has the power to loose, so in the OC a priest marries and a priest divorces. But in the RCC has can it be that a layman and a laywoman can have the authority to marry unless they are extended priesthood authority to do so! Now can the Church even give the woman priesthood authority? And the man, once priesthood authority is extended to him BEFORE he marries then he, by virtue of the fact that marriage cannot follow priesthood, is in effect self-defrocking himself and the married is void. RC marriages then at this point are just assumed to be valid.

Yes, what I said sounds crazy, but if you all cannot find any flaw it this reasoning then I will lay claim to the fact that this reasoning is crazy but true!

Any comments?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The OO do permit remarriage due to adultery, but the rationale is not exactly “the spouse has committed adultery, and therefore the bond is broken.” Rather, the OO view it in terms of spiritual death.

Interesting. Jesus did say that the spouses become one flesh, so I wonder how spiritual death can break the marital bond?

 

[Vico]

Warning: I am about to say some things that most of you are going to think are crazy! You ready? Here it goes.

The REAL root reason that Orthodox can dissolve a marriage but Roman Catholic cannot is because in the RCC this sacrament is done by the engaged couple themselves, and not by a priest, and in the OC the sacrament is done by a priest, not by the engaged couple. Two layman cannot hold the keys to binding and loosing, so really they cannot bind (marry) or loose (divorce). Any priest who has the power to bind also has the power to loose, so in the OC a priest marries and a priest divorces. But in the RCC has can it be that a layman and a laywoman can have the authority to marry unless they are extended priesthood authority to do so! Now can the Church even give the woman priesthood authority? And the man, once priesthood authority is extended to him BEFORE he marries then he, by virtue of the fact that marriage cannot follow priesthood, is in effect self-defrocking himself and the married is void. RC marriages then at this point are just assumed to be valid.

Yes, what I said sounds crazy, but if you all cannot find any flaw it this reasoning then I will lay claim to the fact that this reasoning is crazy but true!

Any comments?

Actually in the Catholic Church (Latin or eastern) valid matrimony requires:

1. no impediments of the kind that cannot be dispensed with
2. proper consent of the couple (a divine law)
3. approval of the Church (which includes proper form or a dispensation from it or an canonical exception).

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And what about all the “annulments” granted to U.S. Catholics annually? Isn’t that “divorce by the backdoor?” And irrespective of what the Church teaches?

And I think you will find much fewer Orthodox divorcing and remarrying in their Church than Catholics who get an “annulment” (sometimes on the strength of a psychological assessment) and then remarry in their Church.

Perhaps the U.S. Catholic Church is being disingenuous here?

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

And I think you will find much fewer Orthodox divorcing and remarrying in their Church than Catholics who get an “annulment” (sometimes on the strength of a psychological assessment) and then remarry in their Church.

Isn’t ratio and proportion the answer here? There’s significantly more Roman Catholics in the US than ECs and EOs and OOs.

 

[josephdaniel29]

And I think you will find much fewer Orthodox divorcing and remarrying in their Church than Catholics who get an “annulment” (sometimes on the strength of a psychological assessment) and then remarry in their Church.

Although I haven’t seen any hard statistics proportionally I doubt that is true.

Perhaps the U.S. Catholic Church is being disingenuous here?

Alex

In some respects yes they are. When you can get a '“no-fault” annulment, marry and participate in the sacraments as if nothing had happened; and an Orthodox in the exact same marriage would likely have to serve a year of excommunication and may or may not be granted the right to remarry, then yes the criticism seems a little disingenuous. Couple that with the fact that the East already practiced economia in permitting second marriages long before the schism and you can see our confusion at the Catholic opposition to our practice.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Joe,

OK, I’ll see about the statistics!

You reference that great Holy New Hieromartyr Fr. Daniel Sisoev - are there any icons of him that have been produced? Would you know if there are any online?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Isn’t ratio and proportion the answer here? There’s significantly more Roman Catholics in the US than ECs and EOs and OOs.

OK, fair ball!

But I’m still concerned about the apparent chasm between what the RC Church teaches on this, and how RC laity are able to get around those teachings via an annulment process that SEEMS to be out of control.

Could you speak to that?

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

mardukm;7322547:

The OO do permit remarriage due to adultery, but the rationale is not exactly “the spouse has committed adultery, and therefore the bond is broken.” Rather, the OO view it in terms of spiritual death.

Interesting. Jesus did say that the spouses become one flesh, so I wonder how spiritual death can break the marital bond?

I’d like to add just a little ‘food for thought’. Although I know of no Orthodox today that follows these canons, there are old canons in the Eastern Orthodox Church that say that adultery is grounds for divorce only in the case where it is the woman that committed the adultery, in the case that it is the man that committed adultery then the woman does not have the right to divorce her husband.

The canons also make it very clear that adultery is a sin committed against a man, not a woman. So if a married man has relations with an unmarried woman it is not adultery because there was no sin against any man, it is only fornication, punishable by 7 years ban from Holy Communion. But if the case is the same except the married man has relations with woman who is married, then the man has committed adultery against that woman’s husband, and the canonical penalty is 15 years ban from Holy Communion.

One more thing, although it is allowable for a man to keep his marriage if his wife has committed adultery the canons very strongly speak against it. If the man has relations with his wife after she has committed adultery that is considered to be consent to that adulterous act and it could bring a penance against the man for doing so. If the man is a priest he may continue to be a priest only if he has not had relations with his wife after her adultery, if he has, even by accident, he is deposed.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear Joe,

OK, I’ll see about the statistics!

You reference that great Holy New Hieromartyr Fr. Daniel Sisoev - are there any icons of him that have been produced? Would you know if there are any online?

Alex

[edit]

Here is an icon of Fr Daniel.

http://marcio9.files.wordpress.com/...1175935820_31152152_342313_n1.jpg?w=490&h=533

 

[ConstantineTG]

OK, fair ball!

But I’m still concerned about the apparent chasm between what the RC Church teaches on this, and how RC laity are able to get around those teachings via an annulment process that SEEMS to be out of control.

Could you speak to that?

Alex

I guess the difference here is that the Roman Church is very legalistic, and everything is written down in Canon Law or other “legal” documents. And where you have legal documents, you have hordes of lawyers trying to find loopholes. Whereas in the East where its much less legalistic, there are not the same amount of documents to analyze and over analyze, or that things written down aren’t necessarilyl seen as legal the way it is in the West.

 

[Ghosty]

As I understand the situation, the Catholic disagreement with the Orthodox is less with divorce than with re-marriage after divorce (when the spouse from the first marriage is still living).

Yes, this is precisely the problem, and the one that I was referring to, but not so clearly. Christ condemned remarriage after divorce, as did St. Paul. No hint of any exception was made except perhaps for adultery (this itself is contentious, because the term used for “fornication” in that case is also the term which refers to an improper marriage in the first place).

The Catholic practice is that one can always divorce, because divorce is a civil matter. One can’t remarry until that former spouse had died, however, unless the marriage is determined to have been improperly contracted.

In the U.S. there is rampant abuse of the practice of annulment, but abuse does not negate right use. U.S. annulment practice is not indicative of the actual belief and practice, and the fact that the vast majority of U.S. annulments that are appealed to Rome are overturned demonstrates this.

Regardless, my concern on this issue has less to do with the practical effects, and more to do with the justification of the practices in question. It sets a very, very dangerous and unhealthy precedent, IMO, to say that the Church can overwrite God’s word on moral matters. Abuses will always be with us, but legitimizing abuses as ecclesial practice is very troubling. Forgiveness for sin is one thing, but legitimizing something God has called sin, and giving it Church sanction, is something all together different.

Peace and God bless!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Yes, this is precisely the problem, and the one that I was referring to, but not so clearly. Christ condemned remarriage after divorce, as did St. Paul. No hint of any exception was made except perhaps for adultery (this itself is contentious, because the term used for “fornication” in that case is also the term which refers to an improper marriage in the first place).

The Catholic practice is that one can always divorce, because divorce is a civil matter. One can’t remarry until that former spouse had died, however, unless the marriage is determined to have been improperly contracted.

In the U.S. there is rampant abuse of the practice of annulment, but abuse does not negate right use. U.S. annulment practice is not indicative of the actual belief and practice, and the fact that the vast majority of U.S. annulments that are appealed to Rome are overturned demonstrates this.

Regardless, my concern on this issue has less to do with the practical effects, and more to do with the justification of the practices in question. It sets a very, very dangerous and unhealthy precedent, IMO, to say that the Church can overwrite God’s word on moral matters. Abuses will always be with us, but legitimizing abuses as ecclesial practice is very troubling. Forgiveness for sin is one thing, but legitimizing something God has called sin, and giving it Church sanction, is something all together different.

Peace and God bless!

That’s all well and good except for the fact it’s a departure of the practice of the undivided Church. The Church always allowed, as a matter of economia, remarriage after a period of repentance. That is still the case today in the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches who have maintained the traditional practice. The Roman Church had no issue with it for centuries prior to the schism. Why is it such an issue today?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Ghosty]

That’s all well and good except for the fact it’s a departure of the practice of the undivided Church. The Church always allowed, as a matter of economia, remarriage after a period of repentance. That is still the case today in the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches who have maintained the traditional practice. The Roman Church had no issue with it for centuries prior to the schism. Why is it such an issue today?

In Christ
Joe

No, the Church as a whole didn’t always allow this. If you read the writings of St. Ambrose, for example, and many other Fathers, you’ll see that they explicitely forbade any remarriage after divorce, even in the cases of adultery. So some locales and Bishops allowed it, and others didn’t. Some Saints and Fathers also believed in apokatastasis in the undivided Church, but that doesn’t make it correct.

Just as there are abuses and deviations today, there were abuses and deviations then. Simply pointing out that something was done in the past, especially when it was hardly a universal practice, is not solid support for challenging the clear statements of Christ.

Peace and God bless!

 

[josephdaniel29]

No, the Church as a whole didn’t always allow this. If you read the writings of St. Ambrose, for example, and many other Fathers, you’ll see that they explicitely forbade any remarriage after divorce, even in the cases of adultery. So some locales and Bishops allowed it, and others didn’t. Some Saints and Fathers also believed in apokatastasis in the undivided Church, but that doesn’t make it correct.

Just as there are abuses and deviations today, there were abuses and deviations then. Simply pointing out that something was done in the past, especially when it was hardly a universal practice, is not solid support for challenging the clear statements of Christ.

Peace and God bless!

The Canons of St Basil, which prescribed penances divorce and remarriage, were formally received into the canonical literature of the Eastern Church at the Quinisext Council in 692 (over 300 years prior to the schism). Those canons had been part of the tradition of the East for centuries prior to that.

These practices were not a cause for separation for many centuries and in fact, it wasn’t cited as a cause for separation at the time of the schism. It’s only much later that they came to be such an issue.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Ghosty]

The Canons of St Basil, which prescribed penances divorce and remarriage, were formally received into the canonical literature of the Eastern Church at the Quinisext Council in 692 (over 300 years prior to the schism). Those canons had been part of the tradition of the East for centuries prior to that.

These practices were not a cause for separation for many centuries and in fact, it wasn’t cited as a cause for separation at the time of the schism. It’s only much later that they came to be such an issue.

In Christ
Joe

When have I ever said they should be a cause for seperation? In fact, I said just the opposite in the ongoing reunification poll-thread.

I’m simply saying that the practice can’t be morally justified, and that it goes against the very clear words of God on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[DavidKays]

Recently I’ve been thinking/researching a bit about the Catholic and Orthodox views on divorce and remarriage… and I’m a bit confused about something. I was hoping someone could help me out

When I read Christ’s words in the Gospel, I get the impression that He is saying that only unfaithfulness can truly destroy a marriage. Thus if a person remarries after their spouse was unfaithful to them, they are not committing adultery. However, He did not mention any other reason. The Orthodox Church however, grants divorce and remarriage for various reasons… doesn’t this mean that it allows remarriage while the first marriage is still in place, if no marital infidelity took place? I hope this question makes sense.

My second question is… for this reason, the Catholic view makes more sense to me, because it clarifies that a marriage can’t be simply “dissolved”, and so a person can’t remarry if the first marriage is still valid. However, it also teaches that an annulment means that a marriage* never occured*. I’m kind of confused about this too… I’ve heard some Orthodox say that it is an incorrect view because it means that the couple lived in sin, thinking they had a valid marriage. What would be the Catholic reply to this statement? Also, can we see annulments in the early Church; when did they start?

At this point, I don’t quite understand either the Orthodox or the Catholic view entirely… the Orthodox position makes no sense to me because it claims to dissolve marriage - when Christ said this is not possible except for unfaithfulness; and the Catholic position is also confusing for me for the reasons I stated.

Thank you!

Hi! I am a Greek Orthodox Christian who has lived in both worlds, Orthodox and Catholic. I have studied this and my conclusions are that both Churches are doing the same thing. To a Catholic, the Orthodox way looks kind of mushy and to the Orthodox, the Catholic way also seems to be mushy. I have concluded that both Churches are right in the way they must deal with marriage accordingly to their respective doctrines and laws. Personally I do not see one " better " than the other. I see both as trying to handle marriage accordingly to their own respective laws. I do not see any problems in either views. Many do but I don’t. I accept them both and I believe God does too. I am not a hardliner on marriage and see the possibility of a second chance at marriage as all right. Sin can corrupt people and therefore the dissolution of a marriage may be better than open warfare. The Catholics permit annulments and the Orthodox permit a 2nd or 3rd marriage. However the Orthodox do not permit divorce. When a person marries a 2nd time it is done in a penititial rite. Anyway whatever each Church decides they are still giving the person another chance. I feel young people are not too smart today picking and choosing their spouses and the Church is willing to marry too often too many misguided people. Giving people another opportunity is better than continuing a marrige that does not exist. When Jesus is referring to adultery please understand that once a marriage is made it is not always right. There can be exceptions and God will be willing to give couples another chance. But when people were meant for each other and their marriage celebrated for some time then the Church and God will indeed have problems with that. Look at King David’s adultery to see what I mean. But when young people seperate and are really not meant for each other we should not punish them but give them another opportunity. This then is what both Churches do. Call it what you want but both Churches do exactly the same thing.

 

[Madaglan]

Regardless, my concern on this issue has less to do with the practical effects, and more to do with the justification of the practices in question. It sets a very, very dangerous and unhealthy precedent, IMO, to say that the Church can overwrite God’s word on moral matters. Abuses will always be with us, but legitimizing abuses as ecclesial practice is very troubling. Forgiveness for sin is one thing, but legitimizing something God has called sin, and giving it Church sanction, is something all together different.

Peace and God bless!

Hi Ghosty,

I understand where you’re coming from, and I believe your concern is legitimate to a considerable degree. Certainly the Church cannot overwrite God’s word on moral matters.

A question in my mind, however, is how are we to understand God’s commandments themselves? Are they laws fixed in stone that allow no exceptions in any circumstances? Or, are they standards that must be followed, but which allow for exceptions in specific pastoral situations that call for mercy?

One concern I have is that New Testament commands and sayings become a second Law where it’s the letter of the law and strict justice rather than the spirit and mercy that reigns supreme. I do not see this within the Catholic Church alone, but also in certain strains of Orthodoxy.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Catholic Annulment Statistics:
“For the year 2002: of the 56,236 ordinary hearings for a declaration of
nullity, 46,092 received an affirmative sentence. Of these, 343 were handed
out in Africa, 676 in Oceania, 1,562 in Asia, 8,855 in Europe and 36,656 in
America, of which 30,968 in North America and 5,688 in Central and South
America.”

From “PRESENTATION OF INSTRUCTION ABOUT NORMS IN MARRIAGE CASES”, VATICAN CITY, FEB 8, 2005 (VIS), posted at
vatican.va/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a0_en.htm

Looks like the abuse are in the Catholic Church in America.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Source: 2005 Catholic Almanac

Annulment statistics for 2002

(the most recent year figures are available)

– Annulment hearings, worldwide: 56,246

– Annulments granted, worldwide: 46,092

Annulments by continent:

-Africa: 343

-Oceania: 676

-Asia: 1,562

-Europe: 8,855

-North America: 30,968

-South and Central America: 5,688

Source: Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

Woodeene Koenig-Bricker writes from Oregon. Copyright 3/6/2005 Our Sunday Visitor.
osv.com/OSV4MeNav/WhattheChurchTeaches/WTCTAnnulments/WhattheChurchTeachesTheDignityofMarriage/tabid/387/Default.aspx