Eastern Catholic marriages and annulments

[josephdaniel29]

Greetings all!

Had a question come up today and I hope you guys can help me with the answer. Correct me if I’m wrong, in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church it is the couple who are the ministers of the marriage sacrament. That is the basis for annulment i.e, if one or both of the partners has a misplaced motive such as intending to never have children or to cheat then the Church can say because of that a valid marriage never occurred. That is also why a person who has been married and divorced decides to convert to the Catholic Church, they have to have their marriage annuled since if both of the partners, even though they were not Catholic, were properly disposed then their marriage could still be valid in the eyes of the Church.

Now the question. I assume that Eastern Catholic theology is similar if not identical to Orthodox theology in that it’s the priest who is the minister of the sacrament of marriage not the couple. That being the case when an Eastern Catholic has their marriage annulled what does that say about the priest who administered the sacrament? Does that mean that the priest acted invalidly in some way or had misplaced intentions? If so what does that say about the nature and efficacy of his ordination? Does it have any bearing on his administration of other sacraments?

Thanks in advance,
Joey

 

[malphono]

I am not a canon lawyer and I habitually avoid discussions of marriage law for a wide variety of reasons, but I will make a very brief comment:

I assume that Eastern Catholic theology is similar if not identical to Orthodox theology in that it’s the priest who is the minister of the sacrament of marriage not the couple.

In theory, yes, it’s the same in both the East and Orient. In practice, however, Rome wins out. I believe the late Abp Zoghby argued this point (to deaf ears in Rome) for many years.

That’s my :twocents: and basically ends my involvement in this thread.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Greetings all!

Had a question come up today and I hope you guys can help me with the answer. Correct me if I’m wrong, in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church it is the couple who are the ministers of the marriage sacrament. That is the basis for annulment i.e, if one or both of the partners has a misplaced motive such as intending to never have children or to cheat then the Church can say because of that a valid marriage never occurred. That is also why a person who has been married and divorced decides to convert to the Catholic Church, they have to have their marriage annuled since if both of the partners, even though they were not Catholic, were properly disposed then their marriage could still be valid in the eyes of the Church.

Now the question. I assume that Eastern Catholic theology is similar if not identical to Orthodox theology in that it’s the priest who is the minister of the sacrament of marriage not the couple. That being the case when an Eastern Catholic has their marriage annulled what does that say about the priest who administered the sacrament? Does that mean that the priest acted invalidly in some way or had misplaced intentions? If so what does that say about the nature and efficacy of his ordination? Does it have any bearing on his administration of other sacraments?

Thanks in advance,
Joey

I am not sure I follow you; marriage existed before the Catholic Church, in fact before religion. Marriage is entered by a male/female couple. One may have a marriage with or without a sacrament. Once a person has pledge marriage the Catholic Church no longer considers them free to marry. To pledge marriage a second time the church requires a finding by the church officials that these parties are free to marry each other. This is always the case whether east or west, catholic or not, sacrament or not, etc…
hope that helps

 

[Formosus]

I don’t think there is an answer to the question. You are right, Byzantine marriage theology is identical to the Orthodox, yet we are beholden to Latin marriage laws and practice. Despite the fact that ecclesiastical divorce existed in the East long before the schism occurred. I wouldn’t count on this question ever being solved until the Orthodox and Latin churches reunite.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I am not sure I follow you; marriage existed before the Catholic Church, in fact before religion. Marriage is entered by a male/female couple. One may have a marriage with or without a sacrament. Once a person has pledge marriage the Catholic Church no longer considers them free to marry. To pledge marriage a second time the church requires a finding by the church officials that these parties are free to marry each other. This is always the case whether east or west, catholic or not, sacrament or not, etc…
hope that helps

Whether or not marriage existed before the Church is completely beside the point. I am not arguing whether or not the Latin Church or Eastern Churches are correct in their theology on this point. In Greek-Catholic theology, as I understand it, it is the priest who administers the sacrament of marriage. That being the case how does that jive with the Latin teaching on annulments that all Catholics, Latin or not have to follow?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[malphono]

In Greek-Catholic theology, as I understand it, it is the priest who administers the sacrament of marriage. That being the case how does that jive with the Latin teaching on annulments that all Catholics, Latin or not have to follow?

One of our regular posters once remarked (in another thread) that Rome is the “elephant in the room” and I think that comment fits well in this thread: it explains things rather well.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Whether or not marriage existed before the Church is completely beside the point.

Since god made marriage in the garden of Eden before religion for man to change marriage man would have to have authority to overturn god’s work, so it will not happen

I am not arguing whether or not the Latin Church or Eastern Churches are correct in their theology on this point. In Greek-Catholic theology, as I understand it, it is the priest who administers the sacrament of marriage. That being the case how does that jive with the Latin teaching on annulments that all Catholics, Latin or not have to follow?

Yours in Christ
Joe

Sacraments and marriage are not one in the same a valid sacrament cannot be removed by man. An annulment is a finding no marriage ever existed thus no marriage sacrament was possible. The catholic church cannot change any of that because it simply has no such authority.

hope that helps clearify it

 

[josephdaniel29]

hope that helps clearify it

No, your responses haven’t addressed the OP in anyway. I appreciate your participation nonetheless.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[bpbasilphx]

In theory, yes, it’s the same in both the East and Orient. In practice, however, Rome wins out. I believe the late Abp Zoghby argued this point (to deaf ears in Rome) for many years.

As he put it, the Eastern fathers were no less accomplished moral theologians and scriptural exegetes as those of the West.

 

[malphono]

As he put it, the Eastern fathers were no less accomplished moral theologians and scriptural exegetes as those of the West.

Yes, quite so. And what do we end up with but a classic example of the elephant in the room.

 

[babochka]

I have been seeking a satisfactory answer to this question for many years. I’ve asked priests and laymen alike, and nobody has been able to answer it. I’ve almost given up on the question. I’m pretty sure it has no answer.

Elizabeth

 

[josephdaniel29]

I have been seeking a satisfactory answer to this question for many years. I’ve asked priests and laymen alike, and nobody has been able to answer it. I’ve almost given up on the question. I’m pretty sure it has no answer.

Elizabeth

So it’s an apparent contradiction in belief that both sides are willing to accept for the sake of communion with Rome?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… when an Eastern Catholic has their marriage annulled what does that say about the priest who administered the sacrament?

No sacrament occurred despite the best efforts of the priest

Does that mean that the priest acted invalidly in some way or had misplaced intentions?

Known as illicit? No the Priest never had such authority to install a sacrament without a connection of the Holy Spirit to the participants. If the presented couple did not marry by god’s design the couple’s actions are called invalid

If so what does that say about the nature and efficacy of his ordination?

Nothing absolutely nothing

Does it have any bearing on his administration of other sacraments?

none, none what so ever Look at the parallel to the person who holds back important sins at the confessional, is that the priest’s fault. If the priest absolves the confessed sins is the pennant in grace? etc It is no different with the marriage. Btw A Priest’s error is call illicit ( verses licit) while participant’s errors are called invalid. ( thus the term “invalid marriage” )

I have been seeking a satisfactory answer to this question for many years. I’ve asked priests and laymen alike, and nobody has been able to answer it. I’ve almost given up on the question. I’m pretty sure it has no answer.
Elizabeth

If you can restate the question in another why I would appreciate it.

Hope that helps

 

[josephdaniel29]

No sacrament occurred despite the best efforts of the priest

Is that Eastern Catholic belief?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[SyroMalankara]

As far as I’m aware, FREE CONSENT is REQUIRED or the marriage is invalid - East or West. In the East, this Consent is given at the betrothal, in the West in the marriage rites.

The marriage becomes invalid when that consent is either simulated, imitated, coerced, or fraudulent. Annulment is not unheard of in the Eastern non-Catholic Churches either, they are simply not commonly sought since ecclesiastical divorce is available, much more widely known, and probably easier to get.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Annulment is not unheard of in the Eastern non-Catholic Churches either, they are simply not commonly sought since ecclesiastical divorce is available, much more widely known, and probably easier to get.

The purpose of this thread is to reconcile (apparent) differences between Latin and Byzantine Catholic belief, not to debate or demean Orthodox practice.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not sure what you mean - how is my statement indicative of debate or diminution of Orthodox practice?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Not sure what you mean - how is my statement indicative of debate or diminution of Orthodox practice?

I apologize, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant an Orthodox ecclesiastical divorce is easier to get than a Catholic annulment. After re-reading it I understand what you meant.

Forgive me.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So it’s an apparent contradiction in belief that both sides are willing to accept for the sake of communion with Rome?

Yours in Christ
Joe

I cannot find or see any contridiction. How could a priest possibly be held accountable for the failure of the couple to understand and fulfill marriage? The original questions seems rather simple, yet it appears the matching answers are rejected and I am at a loss why. Maybe, I am not communicating well however under what grounds would anyone under any system conclude the priest had failed?

Is that Eastern Catholic belief?

Yours in Christ
Joe

What other conclusion is possible?

It seems if I may that the primary issue of the thread is whether Eastern and Western marriage reviews Spiritual Court (Eastern) vs Tribunal (Western) are identical. And it would seem they are about 90-95% identical. With the last 5% being the: is it an annulment or an ecclesiastical divorce? The difference being no marriage verses a past marriage dissolved by authority of Christ*. I see no difference in the sacramental issue because the west sees all marriage between baptized couples as sacramental, and the east only performs marriages on baptized people. So when a western couple and an eastern couple go through this procedure in essence there is an at best minute difference.

• the west actual does recognize some divorces however they require an unbaptized party.

 

[KathleenElsie]

The purpose of this thread is to reconcile (apparent) differences between Latin and Byzantine Catholic belief, not to debate or demean Orthodox practice.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Joe sometimes the elephant in the room are the motives behind the questions and who asks them. So maybe questioning the Orthodox beliefs on this issues are just as valid as questioning the Eastern Catholic and Western Catholic practices.