S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Couldn’t agree more with you there.
- Status
D
dessert
Guest
thanks, this one works but the others don’t I think it may be my computer.
Here is a thread if you haven’t seen it.
Orthodox and divorce in the noncatholics forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203594&highlight=remarriage
If you were a Catholic and married you would need to get a civil divorce before getting an annullment I think even if you are to become an Orthodox Catholic. You have to get an annullment.
Get that cleared up and then get married in the Catholic church and then transfer to the Orthodox then if you transfer back to the Roman you will be a squared away.
Or if you have your annullment done, you will be starting out at base one marriage in the Orthodox.
W
Woodstock
Guest
The West believes that marriage is contractual between the parties and the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament. The Church requires witnesses from the Church to safeguard and protect the sacrament and the people from abuse, not for validity. The canon law now requires those who are capable of having Church witnesses to do so as proof that they intend what the Church intends, but it also makes allowance for those who are unable to reach Catholic clergy.
The West also has a concept of validity and licitity. Something that is valid meets the most primitive requirements while something that is licit also meets the conventional governing rules.
A contractual understanding of marriage means a presumably valid contract might not have met the validity requirements and if that is later discovered, the contract is null and void and neither party is bound to it. Canon law presumes validity unless determined otherwise and recognizes that there are putitive marriages which are presumed valid but in unknown actuality invalid. In this set-up, if the contract is valid and the wedding is licit and the marriage sacramental, then there can be no breaking it.
The Eastern concept of marriage is more top-down. When the proper priest presides in the proper church with the proper ceremony then the wedding is valid before God and therefore eternal. The emphasis is not on the couple, but on the wedding’s validity. They must adhere to what they know and what has been passed down. It is possible to invalidate an Orthodox wedding with an annulment, like for consanguinity, but less likely. With this definity, there is no process in place to recognize an end to a marriage which was done with the correct legalities and the Orthodox continue to recognize its validity even after death.
At the same time, the East has a concept of law and economy. Anything done short of the law is not known to fulfill the law and they hope that the Lord will take mercy and make up for any deficiencies they are unable to address themselves, but it is not guaranteed. The East can apply this concept to any law, including marital laws, if they feel the parties were unable to do better and are seeking through some sub-standard way to do the will of God. They can say that it doesn’t meet the legal criteria, but they hope that God will make up the remainder and accept what they are doing. It’s got to be better for them to be seeking to do God’s will, even if they fall short, than not seeking it at all, right? And so they now accept divorce and remarriage with economy, as well as the marriages of converts, hoping God will have mercy and supply an overabundance of faith.
Both East and West are legalistic and both purpose to address when sinners fall short, as we inevitably will.
I can understand the compassion of the Latin approach within its system. The contract you entered into didn’t work like it was supposed to, so they say, “well, let’s make sure the contract was valid first.” If it was, they say that there is nothing more they can do in that regard as God sees the person as married and offer social services to help the person best fulfill the will of God through the current circumstances.
I don’t understand the Orthodox response, though. The entire premise is that one must stay within the bounds of what is known and what has been handed on. It is my query how Orthodox priests can apply economy with good faith, hoping the Lord will accept a second or third remarriage, when the early church fathers were clear about that not being an option. I do not understand how they can justify teaching that it is an option or regularly performing second and third marriages knowing that it is not within the bounds of the faith that was passed on to them. To perform a second marriage under these circumstances has zero certainty of finding favor with the Lord, questionably rests on mercy and grace, and goes against what has been passed down to them as being God’s will. Instead of calling people to do what God wills for them, it puts a stamp of approval on what is known to be contrary to God’s will and encourages people to strive for nothing more. It is only social convention which overrides to embarrass a person into not taking advantage of the leniency of the Church.
The Pauline and Petrine Privileges can be contrasted with that because the purpose is to move someone out of a non-Christian and non-sacramental (not recognized by God) marriage into a sacramental Christian marriage which will be bringing the person closer to the Lord with certainty under the Latin model.
Under the Orthodox model, a second or third marriage is known to be taking a person away from God and a determination is made to overlook this, supposedly in favor of his ultimate salvation. It isn’t going to get him back to his wife or fully living his vows, so I don’t understand how, outside of death of a spouse, this can be reasonably, much less casually, recommended or allowed.
The West also has a concept of validity and licitity. Something that is valid meets the most primitive requirements while something that is licit also meets the conventional governing rules.
A contractual understanding of marriage means a presumably valid contract might not have met the validity requirements and if that is later discovered, the contract is null and void and neither party is bound to it. Canon law presumes validity unless determined otherwise and recognizes that there are putitive marriages which are presumed valid but in unknown actuality invalid. In this set-up, if the contract is valid and the wedding is licit and the marriage sacramental, then there can be no breaking it.
The Eastern concept of marriage is more top-down. When the proper priest presides in the proper church with the proper ceremony then the wedding is valid before God and therefore eternal. The emphasis is not on the couple, but on the wedding’s validity. They must adhere to what they know and what has been passed down. It is possible to invalidate an Orthodox wedding with an annulment, like for consanguinity, but less likely. With this definity, there is no process in place to recognize an end to a marriage which was done with the correct legalities and the Orthodox continue to recognize its validity even after death.
At the same time, the East has a concept of law and economy. Anything done short of the law is not known to fulfill the law and they hope that the Lord will take mercy and make up for any deficiencies they are unable to address themselves, but it is not guaranteed. The East can apply this concept to any law, including marital laws, if they feel the parties were unable to do better and are seeking through some sub-standard way to do the will of God. They can say that it doesn’t meet the legal criteria, but they hope that God will make up the remainder and accept what they are doing. It’s got to be better for them to be seeking to do God’s will, even if they fall short, than not seeking it at all, right? And so they now accept divorce and remarriage with economy, as well as the marriages of converts, hoping God will have mercy and supply an overabundance of faith.
Both East and West are legalistic and both purpose to address when sinners fall short, as we inevitably will.
I can understand the compassion of the Latin approach within its system. The contract you entered into didn’t work like it was supposed to, so they say, “well, let’s make sure the contract was valid first.” If it was, they say that there is nothing more they can do in that regard as God sees the person as married and offer social services to help the person best fulfill the will of God through the current circumstances.
I don’t understand the Orthodox response, though. The entire premise is that one must stay within the bounds of what is known and what has been handed on. It is my query how Orthodox priests can apply economy with good faith, hoping the Lord will accept a second or third remarriage, when the early church fathers were clear about that not being an option. I do not understand how they can justify teaching that it is an option or regularly performing second and third marriages knowing that it is not within the bounds of the faith that was passed on to them. To perform a second marriage under these circumstances has zero certainty of finding favor with the Lord, questionably rests on mercy and grace, and goes against what has been passed down to them as being God’s will. Instead of calling people to do what God wills for them, it puts a stamp of approval on what is known to be contrary to God’s will and encourages people to strive for nothing more. It is only social convention which overrides to embarrass a person into not taking advantage of the leniency of the Church.
The Pauline and Petrine Privileges can be contrasted with that because the purpose is to move someone out of a non-Christian and non-sacramental (not recognized by God) marriage into a sacramental Christian marriage which will be bringing the person closer to the Lord with certainty under the Latin model.
Under the Orthodox model, a second or third marriage is known to be taking a person away from God and a determination is made to overlook this, supposedly in favor of his ultimate salvation. It isn’t going to get him back to his wife or fully living his vows, so I don’t understand how, outside of death of a spouse, this can be reasonably, much less casually, recommended or allowed.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, the Fathers, and their canons accepted by the Ecumenical Councils allowed it for adultery, which is probably contrary to everything you have been told…
Only two things I’ve ever heard that could remotely be called an “Orthodox Annullment”
- Lawless marriage: marrige to a pagan, Jew, Muslim, etc. to the adulterer, etc. The Church cannot bless such unions, and the priest attempting to do so is defrocked (and it does happen, even today. Does the annullment tribunal check out the priests making all these “invalid” marriages? Does the Rota in Rome look into tribunals with high overturn rates?).
- The Athonites telling priests to seperate Orthodox married to those who have united themselves to Rome. Given the dearth of marital experience on Mt. Athos, not much is paid to them on this, except not to get in such a union in the first place.
St. Basil canon, accepted by the Quinisext and Seventh Ecumenical Councils:
CANON IX.
Our Lord is equal, to the man and woman forbidding divorce, save in case of fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, though they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take another, and though he were deserted for adultery, yet St. Basil will be positive, that the other woman who afterward takes him is guilty of adultery; but the wife is not allowed this liberty. And the man who deserts an innocent wife is not allowed to marry.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html
If it makes you feel good…
The “Petrine Privilege” “does NOT equal anulment” as it dissolves a valid marriage, even according to the theory. At least the Pauline privilege has a biblical and patristic basis, although it also dissolves a valid marriage.
cont…
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Semantics. Mark 7:11-3.
Soooo as long as we keep the letter of the law…
Any consequence for those who preside over invalid marriages, not checking on form, matter and intent beforehand?
Any consequence for tribunals who use them “too widely?”
take a look at orthodoxchristianity.net while you’re at it.
I’ll have to take a look at byzcath.org, to see if someone is looking foolish or someone is singing to the choir.
If this issue wasn’t brought up with such triumphalism and sanctimony, the issue of annulments being Latin divorces wouldn’t come up.
You have the canon of St. Basil above.
Add this:
Quntisext
Canon II.
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that…we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers…Likewise too the Canons * of…Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia;…of Amphilochius of Iconium;…And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.ii.html
Seventh Ecumenical Council Nicea II
Canon I.
That the sacred Canons are in all things to be observed.
The pattern for those who have received the sacerdotal dignity is found in the testimonies and instructions laid down in the canonical constitutions, which we receiving with a glad mind, sing unto the Lord God in the words of the God-inspired David, saying: “I have had as great delight in the way of thy testimonies as in all manner of riches.” “Thou hast commanded righteousness as thy testimonies for ever.” “Grant me understanding and I shall live.” Now if the word of prophesy bids us keep the testimonies of God forever and to live by them, it is evident that they must abide unshaken and without change. Therefore Moses, the prophet of God, speaketh after this manner: “To them nothing is to be added, and from them nothing is to be taken away.” And the divine Apostle glorying in them cries out, “which things the angels desire to look into,” and, “if an angel preach to you anything besides that which ye have received, let him be anathema.” Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers. For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. And now “let your conversation be without covetousness,” crieth out Paul the divine Apostle, who was caught up into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xiv.i.html
Happy?*
D
dessert
Guest
This is what I got from reading and don’t ask I don’t remember where will have to look it up again.
In the old old days the hebrews had two thing to do on marriage you got married with a prenuptial- like agreement or you didn’t, sooooo you just got married like a shotgun you know just fast as you could.
The Catholic Church promotes the agrreement type, more legit , the children need to attend school be brought up in the faith you need the sacraments etc. and usual stuff, no adultery etc. and the party of the second part needs to agree. Soooooo this is like a prenuptial and so if the party of the second part dissolves their promises and does things to interfere with the vows, the annulment means the partnership is dissolved, spiritually so as well. Why? because you need to unyoke yourself spiritually as well, like I just said I repeat myself alot. You were the link to the Church for him or her, does this sound cruel? No!
I’m thinking divorce in the Orthodox is not really that easy, and simple as you may think.
There is another thread about someone married 5 times and then wanted get into the Catholic Church, the answer yes the person needs 5 annulments, take care of each one.
You are much too hard on the Church Fathers and I will write out what my book says in my next post but it is 11pm now and too late.
Or I may not respond to you at all!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes. I notice they quote St. Basil, but not the quotation I have provided. Silence on why St. Basil wrote said canon.
Antiquarian interest now. Their Ecumenical authority comes from the councils that adopted them, not St. Basil.
Since the canons cover a array of issues and not just marriage, what would be the intent?
I haven’t been able to get the date, whether it was Leo III’s Ecloga (shortly after Trullo) or Basil (10th cent.) or some other date. I first came across it in Conniaris (?) “Marriage, Sexuality in the Greek Orthodox Church” or something like that (I’m having server trouble looking it up to confirm). It was part of several reforms of Roman law, where laws that contradicted the canons were held null and void, and marriage was put entirely in the Church’s hands
The Pedalion isn’t online, and my copy is in storage.
Yours,
Whim
P.S.: The thread at byzcath.org was shut down for reasons incomprehensible to me.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
And if we didn’t have a legal system that created a multi-billion dollar industry that gorges itself on dismembering families.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Ditto.
A
Alexius
Guest
Exactly
A
Aramis
Guest
A little poking around (pun inentional) on the OCA website, the Statutes of the OCA, Article XI, section 5:
In the OCA, at least, Divorce exists.
[/quote]
oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=11
In the OCA, at least, Divorce exists.
[/quote]
T
TheWhim
Guest
Isa Almisry,
let’s postulate a controversial thesis:
since the regulation of marriage was enteriley placed into the hands of the Curch, that is, since the civil marriage was so to say abolished, the Church blessed adulterous(i.e. second) marriages in rite; beforehand, they were contracted outside the Church, just civilly. That is, due to the mixture of Church and State the doctrine of the church was confounded; what was merely tolerated by the bishops beforehand, namely a second marriage, then received blessing of the Church in ceremony. This, again, lead to a confusion of theology and to the forgetting of the strong stance of the fathers against remarriage, Clement Alexnadria, Origen, Basil included.
What do you mean?
let’s postulate a controversial thesis:
since the regulation of marriage was enteriley placed into the hands of the Curch, that is, since the civil marriage was so to say abolished, the Church blessed adulterous(i.e. second) marriages in rite; beforehand, they were contracted outside the Church, just civilly. That is, due to the mixture of Church and State the doctrine of the church was confounded; what was merely tolerated by the bishops beforehand, namely a second marriage, then received blessing of the Church in ceremony. This, again, lead to a confusion of theology and to the forgetting of the strong stance of the fathers against remarriage, Clement Alexnadria, Origen, Basil included.
What do you mean?
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Yes, I’ve heard of this before and after reading the below can understand it. However, why then do the Orthodox today allow divorce for all most any reason? What say you about this?
And these are still annulments are they not? You asked earlier which canon allowed for annulments? Well which canon does? Where do the Orthodox get the authority to do such things if no canon exists? We at least have Councils that discuss this.
1 Esdras 10:1-14
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
So says you…
Yes, because Priests are mind-readers and can know the entire intent of those coming into Holy Matrimony beforehand. [/sarcasm]
Possibly, but that’s up to God. This issue is like the selling of indulgences. Popes try and get the madness to stop, but sometimes folks just refuse to listen. It’s easy to “armchair quarterback” and say what you would do in the given situation, but sometimes Popes have to think more in the grand scheme of things.
I actually looked at that site in great detail when I was still deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. However there, like everywhere else, the answers for divorce, as well as artificial birth control just came up very short in my opinion.
I apologize then if any triumphalism was seen as my intent. I can assure you it wasn’t. I just wanted to advise the OP according to what Catholics understand of the situation. This is after all, a Catholic forum.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Great post, Woodstock! Thanks for all the info and wisdom.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I hardly found them a slam dunk.
The twin of this thread, with much the same responses.
This one someone states they admire the Latins for not allowing divorce, and then states that annullment is a sneaky loophole.
A deacon under Rome notes that his church followed the Orthodox in ecclesiastical divorce, until the late 1800s when the Latin system of anullments was imposed (without it taking account that the priest marries, not the parties, in Eastern theology).
“looks like a divorce, stinks like a divorce, has the same effects of a divorce . . . it may be an annulment” and Rome is commended for its tough stand?
And, appropriate to the season, the observation that St. John the Baptist would not have been beheaded: finding out that Herod was with his brother Philip’s wife would have said “let’s go the marriage tribunal and work this out.”
Someone pointed out that the issue came up at Florence, and the Orthodox position (ecclesiastical divorce) was accepted.
Another made the comparison between an Orthodox second marriage, and a Latin priest getting a dispensation to marry. Someone else denied this ever happens, and someone posted the details of how the Latin church goes about doing this.
Someone brought up a EC priest who had divorced and remarried prior to ordination, to which someone lobbed a canard: a rumor that Alexei PoM was divorced and his exwife remarried (someone noted, even if true, what does that mean for him?).
This one has a post that points out that the Latin tribunals say a marriage never existed and let the most guilty of marital partners to remarry, noting that we thought the mysticism of the East was inscrutable.
On this one our Mardukm asks for one canon that shows that a ECF allowed remarriage when the first spouse was alive. I posted the canon of St. Basil above.
Otherwise it has no more than has appeared on this thread.
Just keep repeating
I guess so.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Taking for instance, St. Basil’s canon: he formulated it centuries before civil marriage was abolished (btw, it then became the betrothal service). I’m still not sure of when it was abolished, but it was after Justinanian I remember (Leo III?, Basil the Macedonian?, Leo IV?). At most, the abolition codied what had been practiced according to canon.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Abuse.
Watch out for that log.
Not in the Latin sense.
In the Latin tribunals, after years of marriage the marriage dies and you go to try to find some escape in things that happend decades ago.
In the cases I’m talking about the priest finds out that so and so is married to a heretic, for instance (the example usual given is those who submitted to Rome in Corfu or other places): the priest is told, on finding this out, to physically seperate the couple, enlisting the magistrate if needed, whether the couple wants to be separated or not.
For example: Laodica (accepted by Chalcedon, Quinsext, Nicea II)
Canon XXXI.
It is not lawful to make marriages with all [sorts of] heretics, nor to give our sons and daughters to them; but rather to take of them, if they promise to become Christians.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxvi.html
Which one would that be?
this verse has already been disposed of on this thread.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
So says the Lord.
So they can read them with crystal clarity decades later.
Perhaps the best way to stop is not to start.
I’ve always found it odd to decide a church based on what it says is bad things (the Latin church does say anullments are bad, like the Orthodox say divorce is bad, nay evil, no?)
Not anymore. We’re in non-Catholic territory now.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
So I guess the street’s one way for you then? The Orthodox can abuse divorce, but God forbid that the “Latins” do it with annulments.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
Not that it matters to you, because you wouldn’t recognize it, try reading the parts of Trent that discuss the indissolubility of marriage.
Ah, yes because your one short sentence on it on page one really did the trick. Since Rome has the Primacy, I’ll stick with them.
- Status