Dispensation to convert to Orthodoxy for purpose of religious life

[SyroMalankara]

Hi there,

We have monastics in the Malankara Catholic Church, as well as our Syriac Catholic and Maronite Syriac Catholic sister Churches. These are Oriental and in communion with Rome. Also our sister Churches in the Syriac Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox Churches have monastic Traditions according to the Oriental Tradition. There is also monasticism in the Tradition of the Church of the East - the same Tradition as your Syro-Malabar. Mar Mari Emmanuel (who was recently reported excommunicated and expelled for some reason still unexplained) of the Ancient Church of the East Sydney, Australia Diocese is a monk.

 

[Tomdstone]

A person needs a dispensation to marry anybody outside of full communion with the Catholic Church, and they must baptize & raise any children they have within the Catholic Church.

Not true. If a Catholic marries an Orthodox in an Orthodox wedding ceremony, the marriage is valid even if the Catholic did not get a dispensation.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/10/10/why-catholic-permitted-to-marry-in-an-orthodox-ceremony/
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm

 

[Vico]

Not true. If a Catholic marries an Orthodox in an Orthodox wedding ceremony, the marriage is valid even if the Catholic did not get a dispensation.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/10/10/why-catholic-permitted-to-marry-in-an-orthodox-ceremony/
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm

Since Orthodox sometimes allow second and third marriages (and no annulment) validity may be lacking, depending on the impediment of prior union, per Catholic canon law.

 

[Tomdstone]

Since Orthodox sometimes allow second and third marriages (and no annulment) validity may be lacking, depending on the impediment of prior union, per Catholic canon law.

I guess that in the case of reunion of the two Churches something is going to have to be resolved with respect to recognition of marriage annulments in one church and church approved divorces in the other.

 

[TK421]

The idea of a top-down reunion seems virtually inconceivable (i.e. the Orthodox patriarchy becoming Catholic). Reunion with the Catholic Church would involve the Orthodox submitting to Rome, not coming to a halfway point. Similarly, protestants coming to Catholicism have to submit to Church teaching. If an Orthodox priest or bishop became Catholic, he would simply be replaced by another Orthodox priest/bishop. The congregations wouldn’t spontaneously convert to Catholicism with him.

 

[Tomdstone]

Reunion with the Catholic Church would involve the Orthodox submitting to Rome, not coming to a halfway point.

I don’t think so. I think that a reunion would look not too much different from what we have now, except that the Orthodox and Catholics would recognize the Pope as first among equals. Each side would stay pretty much the same, except that there would be intercommunion and recognition of authenticity of differing church teachings.

 

[TK421]

Divorce & remarriage could never become regarded as metaphysically possible in the Catholic Church, nor would it be possible for the Church to bring Orthodox Churches into full communion and yet accept something different as a valid teaching. This would negate the definition of “full communion”. This question concerns a metaphysical reality of the marriage sacrament that applies to all of humanity. It is not a discipline, and so it is impossible for current Orthodox teaching & Catholic teaching to both be accepted (whereas different disciplinary practices in other Rites are of no concern to a full communion) So, if Eastern Orthodoxy were reunited with the Catholic Church, it would need to submit to the Magisterium on these matters.

 

[Tomdstone]

Divorce & remarriage could never become regarded as metaphysically possible in the Catholic Church, nor would it be possible for the Church to bring Orthodox Churches into full communion and yet accept something different as a valid teaching. This would negate the definition of “full communion”. This question concerns a metaphysical reality of the marriage sacrament that applies to all of humanity. It is not a discipline, and so it is impossible for current Orthodox teaching & Catholic teaching to both be accepted (whereas different disciplinary practices in other Rites are of no concern to a full communion) So, if Eastern Orthodoxy were reunited with the Catholic Church, it would need to submit to the Magisterium on these matters.

No, because the Orthodox say that they allowed church approved divorce when the two churches were one before 1054 and Rome did not object then.
Further, I don’t believe that the infallible Council of Florence required the Eastern churches to stop this practice.

 

[Tomdstone]

Divorce & remarriage could never become regarded as metaphysically possible in the Catholic Church, nor would it be possible for the Church to bring Orthodox Churches into full communion and yet accept something different as a valid teaching. This would negate the definition of “full communion”. This question concerns a metaphysical reality of the marriage sacrament that applies to all of humanity. It is not a discipline, and so it is impossible for current Orthodox teaching & Catholic teaching to both be accepted (whereas different disciplinary practices in other Rites are of no concern to a full communion) So, if Eastern Orthodoxy were reunited with the Catholic Church, it would need to submit to the Magisterium on these matters.

No, because the Orthodox say that they allowed church approved divorce when the two churches were one before 1054 and Rome did not object then.
Further, I don’t recall where the infallible Council of Florence, which effected a temporary reunion of the two churches, required the Eastern churches to stop this practice.

 

[phil19034]

No, because the Orthodox say that they allowed church approved divorce when the two churches were one before 1054 and Rome did not object then.
Further, I don’t recall where the infallible Council of Florence, which effected a temporary reunion of the two churches, required the Eastern churches to stop this practice.

I doubt that the “divorce” the East allowed back then was similar to divorce today.

I bet it was more inline with annulments, the Petrine Privilege, and the Pauline Privilege.

 

[Tomdstone]

I doubt that the “divorce” the East allowed back then was similar to divorce today.

I bet it was more inline with annulments, the Petrine Privilege, and the Pauline Privilege.

Here is an article on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Orthodox Church. AFAIK,the Orthodox teach that marriage is indissoluble, but that exceptions may be allowed as seen from the words of Christ, Matt 19:9, the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostrom, and the early practice of the Church which was not disputed by Rome. Also, I don’t see where there was any objection to this practice at the Council of Florence.
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm#25

 

[5Loaves]

Yes, but that does not mean they are not serving God with their work caring for orphaned and abandoned children. Even if she was just an evangelical Christian now, she is still serving God. That’s my point. I will leave the judgement to God.

I misunderstood you when you said

While a dispensation may not be given, what you seek is possible. This is an account of a Roman Catholic monastic who is now an Eastern Orthodox abbess

hogarafaelayau.org/cms/pages/who-we-are.php

I thought you meant they were still Roman Catholics living as an EO abbess because of a dispensation given.

 

[Vico]

No, because the Orthodox say that they allowed church approved divorce when the two churches were one before 1054 and Rome did not object then.
Further, I don’t recall where the infallible Council of Florence, which effected a temporary reunion of the two churches, required the Eastern churches to stop this practice.

Marriage An Orthodox Perspective (Fr. John Meyendorff)p. 24
V. WEDDING AS A SEPARATE RITE
Until the ninth century the Church did not know any rite of marriage separate from the eucharistic Liturgy: Normally, after entering a civil marriage, the Christian couple partook of the Eucharist, and this communion was-according to Tertullian-the seal of marriage, implying all the Christian responsibilities which we discussed above.

p. 27
The Church had to pay a high price for the new social responsibility which it had received; it had to “secularize” its pastoral attitude towards marriage and practically abandon its penitential discipline. Was it possible, for example, to refuse Church blessing to a remarried widower when this refusal implied deprivation of civil rights for one or two years? As soon as the sacrament of marriage-received in the Church became legally obligatory, compromises of all sorts became unavoidable; and, simultaneously, the idea that marriage was a unique and eternal bond-reflecting the union of Christ and the Church-was obliterated in the pastoral practice of the Church and in the conscience of the faithful. Emperor Leo VI himself, the author of the novella, forced upon the Church his own fourth marriage with Zoe Carbonopsina in 906.

The only compromise which the Church could not accept, however, was to mitigate the holiness of the Eucharist: it could not, for example, give communion to a non-Orthodox, or to a couple entering a second marriage. Thus, it had to develop a rite of marriage separate from the Eucharist. The change was made more acceptable by the fact that the obvious connection between Church marriage and Eucharist was lost anyway as soon as Church marriage became a legal requirement.
However, even the novella of Leo VI failed to suppress entirely the possibility for a particular category of Church members to marry sacramentally, through the Eucharist, without a separate-and often expensive-“crowning.” The slaves, i.e., more than half of the Empire’s population, were not touched by the new law. This discrepancy between marriage law for slaves and for free citizens was suppressed by Emperor Alexis I Comnenos (1081-1118) another novella making “crowning” a legal obligation for slaves as well.

p. 28

By establishing a rite of “crowning” separate from the Eucharist, the Church did not forget, however, the original and normal link between marriage and Eucharist. This is clearly shown in the text by St. Symeon of Thessalonica quoted below (Appendix IV).

 

[HungerNThirst4R]

Have you looked into Eastern Rite Catholicism? There are Coptic Catholics from the regions you are talking about. I am not sure what types of monasticism there are for these Eastern rites but you could look into them before leaving the faith. Otherwise you would have to convert.

 

[HungerNThirst4R]

Hi there,

We have monastics in the Malankara Catholic Church, as well as our Syriac Catholic and Maronite Syriac Catholic sister Churches. These are Oriental and in communion with Rome. Also our sister Churches in the Syriac Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox Churches have monastic Traditions according to the Oriental Tradition. There is also monasticism in the Tradition of the Church of the East - the same Tradition as your Syro-Malabar. Mar Mari Emmanuel (who was recently reported excommunicated and expelled for some reason still unexplained) of the Ancient Church of the East Sydney, Australia Diocese is a monk.

Best response, I hope you take this advice. God Bless you.

 

[Tomdstone]

Marriage An Orthodox Perspective (Fr. John Meyendorff)

Here is another quote from page 54 of the book:
"In the Christian Empire under Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and others, laws defined the various legal grounds and conditions on which divorce and remarriage were permissible. It is sufficient to say that they were relatively lenient. However, no Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) says, “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).

However, the Church always remained faithful to the New Testament ideal. Only the first and unique marriage was blessed in Church during the Eucharist. As seen above, second and third marriages, after widowhood, were concluded at a civil ceremony only, and implied a penance of one to five years of excommunication. After this period of penance, the couple was again considered as full members of the Church."

 

[Tomdstone]

I doubt that the “divorce” the East allowed back then was similar to divorce today.

I bet it was more inline with annulments, the Petrine Privilege, and the Pauline Privilege.

How do you explain the fact that Pope Sergius sent papal legates to Constantinople supporting the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo?
<<<Leo VI caused a major scandal with his numerous marriages which failed to produce a legitimate heir to the throne. His first wife Theophano, whom Basil had forced him to marry on account of her family connections to the Martinakioi, and whom Leo hated, died in 897, and Leo married Zoe Zaoutzaina, the daughter of his adviser Stylianos Zaoutzes, though she died as well in 899. Upon this marriage Leo created the title of basileopatōr (“father of the emperor”) for his father-in-law.

After Zoe’s death a third marriage was technically illegal, but he married again, only to have his third wife Eudokia Baïana die in 901, Instead of marrying a fourth time, which would have been an even greater sin than a third marriage (according to the Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos) Leo took as mistress Zoe Karbonopsina. He married her only after she had given birth to a son in 905,[36] but incurred the opposition of the patriarch. Replacing Nicholas Mystikos with Euthymios, Leo got his marriage recognized by the church (albeit with a long penance attached, and with an assurance that Leo would outlaw all future fourth marriages)…On March 1, 901, Nicholas was appointed patriarch. However, he fell out with Leo VI over the latter’s fourth marriage to his mistress Zoe Karbonopsina. Although he reluctantly baptized the fruit of this relationship, the future Constantine VII, Nicholas forbade the emperor from entering the church and may have become involved in the revolt of Andronikos Doukas. He was deposed as patriarch on February 1, 907 and replaced by Euthymios…Sergius; the pope sent papal legates to Constantinople, who confirmed the pope’s ruling in favour of the emperor, on the grounds that fourth marriages had not been condemned by the Church as a whole.>>>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_VI_the_Wise#Leo.27s_marriages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Mystikos
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sergius_III

 

[Keeperer]

It is interesting. If Orthodox man, or woman is marrying a Roman-Catholic for example in the Orthodox Church, in order to get approval from the bishop, this Orthodox man, or woman, must sign a promise in which he/she promises that their future children will be educated and baptized as Orthodox Christians.

 

[Vico]

Here is another quote from page 54 of the book:
“In the Christian Empire under Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and others, laws defined the various legal grounds and conditions on which divorce and remarriage were permissible. It is sufficient to say that they were relatively lenient. However, no Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) says, “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies). However, the Church always remained faithful to the New Testament ideal. Only the first and unique marriage was blessed in Church during the Eucharist. As seen above, second and third marriages, after widowhood, were concluded at a civil ceremony only, and implied a penance of one to five years of excommunication. After this period of penance, the couple was again considered as full members of the Church.”

It was objected to by the Catholic Church. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: “A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity” (Labbe, “Concilia”, II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, “They are forbidden to marry” (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.

The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, “Epist. ad Exsuper.”, c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): “Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides.” Compare also with “Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.”, xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): “In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died.” The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin.

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

Quotes from Fathers of the Church are here:

catholic.com/tracts/the-permanence-of-matrimony

 

[Tomdstone]

It was objected to by the Catholic Church. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: “A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity” (Labbe, “Concilia”, II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, “They are forbidden to marry” (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.

The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, “Epist. ad Exsuper.”, c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): “Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides.” Compare also with “Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.”, xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): “In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died.” The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin.

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

Quotes from Fathers of the Church are here:

catholic.com/tracts/the-permanence-of-matrimony

The Synod of Elvira was a local synod and not an ecumenical Council. the Counicl of Florence was an ecumenical Council according to the Catholic Church.