Eastern Catholics & Remarriage

[ByzCathCantor]

Maybe I’m missing something here, I’m asking about Eastern Catholics (in communion with Rome- part of the Catholic Church, not Eastern Orthodox). Divorce and remarriage simply isnt possible. There can be annulment- which finds a valid marriage never took place.

Perhaps you can share your understanding of the views of the Latin Church in this regard.

I share with you that I know plenty of Roman Catholics who remarried and participate sacramentally in the life of the Church. Given that all of these people had children in their first marriage, and their first spouses are still alive, I am hard pressed to understand how they would have been granted annulments of their first marriage.

 

[lucky4075]

A sacramental marriage can be annulled by the Church if grounds are found that it was never valid when it was created. It can be annulled for various reasons, basically if one or both of the partners did not ever intend to faithfully fulfill the vows or if they were still married in the Church’s eyes when that particular marriage started etc.

Basically what it comes down to is this- a marriage can be annulled because it was never valid to begin with, meaning one or both partners never fully intended to live up to or fulfill their vows or they were married illegitimately through circumstances not made known etc. So you cant get ‘divorced’, but your sacramental marriage that was never really sacramental from the beginning can be dissolved.

 

[dcointin]

Would it be fair to say that in the case or divorce and remarriage that the Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome are not permitted to retain their tradition?

 

[lucky4075]

Would it be fair to say that in the case or divorce and remarriage that the Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome are not permitted to retain their tradition?

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I would think that being in communion with Rome would mean the Orthodox tradition concerning divorce is not allowed.

 

[AnneTeresa]

A priest explained it to me that the Eastern Catholic church takes a less legalistic approach than the Roman Catholic church overall, including in this case.

So the Eastern church recognizes that sometimes marriages do not work out and they sometimes allow people to have second marriages (not just anyone can do this, it has to be approved).

Those second marriages are not considered “sacramental” like the first one is. They are considered kind of a second level of marriage (I forget the term he used). Still the people are allowed to take the other sacraments while they are not allowed to do so in the Roman Catholic church.

It’s what Vico explained above, it’s tolerated.

 

[lucky4075]

I’m really not trying to sound rude or anything, but how can the Church ‘tolerate’ or allow something that goes against moral law? I thought the entire Church was subject to the Pope and laws of the Magesterium

 

[Vico]

Hw can this possibly be allowed though?! This flies in the face of everything I’ve learned from a Roman perspective. The Church is unified under the Pope, so the whole body has the same beliefs etc, how can this be allowed?

What I am posting is a statement from Cardinal Ratzinger which comes from a longer document. He is affirming that there is only one sacramental consummated marriage between two as long as they both live. The canon law both east and west only support one sacramental consummated marriage between two as long as they both live. I don’t know how there could be toleration of a subsequent marriage without annulment, without scandal.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church has allowed remarried cohabiting couples (with a previous and currently valid Catholic marriage - but separated and with civil divorce) to receive Holy Eucharist, where the new couple has confessed in the private forum, takes measures to avoid scandal, and vow to have no sexual relations.

 

[lucky4075]

What I am posting is a statement from Cardinal Ratzinger which comes from a longer document. He is affirming that there is only one sacramental consummated marriage between two as long as they both live. The canon law both east and west only support one sacramental consummated marriage between two as long as they both live. I don’t know how there could be toleration of a subsequent marriage without annulment, without scandal.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church has allowed remarried cohabiting couples (with a previous and currently valid Catholic marriage - but separated and with civil divorce) to receive Holy Eucharist, where the new couple has confessed in the private forum, takes measures to avoid scandal, and vow to have no sexual relations.

So your saying Eastern Catholics (in communion with Rome) can only get remarried after an annulment?(like in the West?) Im really confused. Christ said the gates of Hell wouldnt overcome His Church- His Church cannot error. How can it then allow divorce in the Eastern Catholic Church while simultaneously not allowing it in the West?

 

[Vico]

So your saying Eastern Catholics (in communion with Rome) can only get remarried after an annulment?(like in the West?) Im really confused. Christ said the gates of Hell wouldnt overcome His Church- His Church cannot error. How can it then allow divorce in the Eastern Catholic Church while simultaneously not allowing it in the West?

Yes, divorce is not permitted in any of the 23 Catholic Churches. (Eastern Catholic does not include the Assyrian Church of the East, the six Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the many many Eastern Orthodox Churches.) The Catholic Church also does not recognize an Orthodox divorce, but will accept an Orthodox annulment based upon the same criteria as used in the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s an article written by Cardinal Ratzinger stating the possibility of permitting divorce in the future in the Eastern Churches, with a mind toward Orthodox-Catholic reunion:

pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/

We do hold that our theology on marriage is different than the Western theology is. So annulments is a tricky issue if you force it onto the Eastern theology on marriage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So your saying Eastern Catholics (in communion with Rome) can only get remarried after an annulment?(like in the West?) Im really confused. Christ said the gates of Hell wouldnt overcome His Church- His Church cannot error. How can it then allow divorce in the Eastern Catholic Church while simultaneously not allowing it in the West?

The theology on marriage is different East and West. In the East, the minister of the Sacrament is the priest, turning man and woman into one flesh. In the West, the minister of the Sacrament is the man and woman, conferring the Sacrament on one another. It is not about right or wrong, but how the Sacrament is understood with each praxis.

 

[Vico]

A priest explained it to me that the Eastern Catholic church takes a less legalistic approach than the Roman Catholic church overall, including in this case.

So the Eastern church recognizes that sometimes marriages do not work out and they sometimes allow people to have second marriages (not just anyone can do this, it has to be approved).

Those second marriages are not considered “sacramental” like the first one is. They are considered kind of a second level of marriage (I forget the term he used). Still the people are allowed to take the other sacraments while they are not allowed to do so in the Roman Catholic church.

It’s what Vico explained above, it’s tolerated.

Yikes, it seems that I should have put quotes around what Cardinal Ratzinger said. No, it is not tolerated in the Catholic Churches (Latin or eastern), what he is referring to is the practice in some of the Orthodox Churches.

Here is the page with the discourse:

pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yikes, it seems that I should have put quotes around what Cardinal Ratzinger said. No, it is not tolerated in the Catholic Churches (Latin or eastern), what he is referring to is the practice in some of the Orthodox Churches.

IMHO, I don’t think the issue is so much the letter of the law with this particular subject as is the application in practice.

There was a time, a generation or so ago, when divorce was an outright nasty topic in the Church, especially the Latin Church. There are direct examples in my own family attesting to this. A generation or so ago, it would have been considered scandalous for a divorcee to receive the sacraments. There are those I know well who clearly were the “at fault” party (in the classic, “biblical” sense) in a divorce who now (presumably after penance) actively participate in the sacramental life of the church, together with their new spouse.

I have to admit that I have yet to figure out the actual stance of the Catholic Church on this subject, Eastern or Western, but evidence from my experience seems to strongly indicate that “tolerance” has certainly found its way into the Catholic tradition. I can think of dozens of examples.

All that said, I have heard from many an Eastern Catholic priest (in the context of adult catechesis) that despite canonical consistency with the Latin Church, we retain some of the thinking from our Orthodox roots on this subject and rely on such in application. On the Eastern Catholic side, marriage is not simply witnessed by the Church but is ministered by a presbyter. To acknowledge that a first marriage was invalid would be to acknowledge, in part, that the Church was in error. Sounds pretty Orthodox to me (as a starting point).

Interestingly, I have never encountered in my lifetime a circumstance of divorce within the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church. Remarried widows or widowers, yes - remarried divorcees, not yet. Perhaps this adds to my confusion, as well.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I read the document and I understand that Ratzinger said it, not you, Vico. I did miss that it was in regards to the Orthodox, not Eastern Cath church.

The East still believes in the indissoluability of marriage.What’s “tolerated” is that they do recognize some remarriages but it is not a sacrament. At least that’s how the priest explained it and I think the document shows that too. And as ByzCan says, it is the application in practice that is different.

I think Lucky is interpreting it as the East tolerating (i.e., allowing) a second sacramental marriage and it does not. It does help to hear the difference in how the East/West church confers the sacrament, as explained by Constantine.

Unless I’m misunderstanding the document, it says that there can be an exception to the “no communion” and recognition of some second marriages, where he says…

"emergency situation in the present-day church and describe an exception that satisfies these criteria. I would like to try, with all necessary caution, to formulate a concrete proposal that seems to me to lie within this scope. Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage. ".

I think this is what he means by some “toleration.” Do you interpret that differently?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Unless I’m misunderstanding the document, it says that there can be an exception to the “no communion” and recognition of some second marriages, where he says…

"emergency situation in the present-day church and describe an exception that satisfies these criteria. I would like to try, with all necessary caution, to formulate a concrete proposal that seems to me to lie within this scope. Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage. ".

I think this is what he means by some “toleration.”

Not only does that make sense, but it also seems to be sensible! Thanks for posting this excerpt - I’m going to go back and read the entire piece, for my own benefit, but this seems like a fair and honest compromise position that reconciles current practice to doctrine.

 

[AnneTeresa]

It may be important to note that this document was written in 1972, even though it was translated in 2011. Ratzinger as Pope has made other comments on the subject since 1972.

 

[lucky4075]

hmmmm, its starting to make a bit more sense here. So the second marriage isn’t sacramental because of the level of involvement of the (Eastern) Church in the first marriage. Maybe I’m just to used to the Roman mindset, but wouldnt that be allowing adultery since the original marriage is still intact (indissolvable) and a second is ‘tolerated’ ?

 

[lucky4075]

Yikes, it seems that I should have put quotes around what Cardinal Ratzinger said. No, it is not tolerated in the Catholic Churches (Latin or eastern), what he is referring to is the practice in some of the Orthodox Churches.

Here is the page with the discourse:

pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/

Ohh ok, so any Catholic in the east(in communion with Rome) still follows the Roman rules/laws of marriage? This would make sense since the Church must be united in faith and morals.

 

[Vico]

I read the document and I understand that Ratzinger said it, not you, Vico. I did miss that it was in regards to the Orthodox, not Eastern Cath church.

The East still believes in the indissoluability of marriage.What’s “tolerated” is that they do recognize some remarriages but it is not a sacrament. At least that’s how the priest explained it and I think the document shows that too. And as ByzCan says, it is the application in practice that is different.

I think Lucky is interpreting it as the East tolerating (i.e., allowing) a second sacramental marriage and it does not. It does help to hear the difference in how the East/West church confers the sacrament, as explained by Constantine.

Unless I’m misunderstanding the document, it says that there can be an exception to the “no communion” and recognition of some second marriages, where he says…

"emergency situation in the present-day church and describe an exception that satisfies these criteria. I would like to try, with all necessary caution, to formulate a concrete proposal that seems to me to lie within this scope. Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage. ".

I think this is what he means by some “toleration.” Do you interpret that differently?

Yes, that would be toleration. However, I’m not sure if it is any different than the current exceptions that are granted in the private forum. These Catholic exceptions today, require couples to not give scandal when receiving communion (such as receiving at a parish where their situation is not known) and abstaining from any marital relations.

Looking at more of item 2 it would not be general but limited and only under certain circumstances and in a careful way:
"Thus it [the Church] can in clear emergency situations allow limited exceptions in order to avoid worse things. Criteria of such action must be: an act “against what is written,” is limited in that it may not call into question the fundamental form, the form from which the Church lives. It is therefore bound to the character of exemption and of help in urgent need - as the transitional missionary situation was, but also the real emergency situation of the Church union.

Thereby arises, however, the practical question, whether we can name such an emergency situation in the present-day church …
Such an arrangement seems to me to be for two reasons in accord with the tradition:

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ohh ok, so any Catholic in the east(in communion with Rome) still follows the Roman rules/laws of marriage? This would make sense since the Church must be united in faith and morals.

Not so fast. The theology itself is different. It isn’t clear cut by saying that “we must be united in faith and morals”. Don’t think Orthodox divorce and remarriage is something that is handed out like giveaways during conventions. While I haven’t known anyone to avail of it, from what I’ve heard its easier to get an annulment in the Catholic Church than a remarriage in the Orthodox Church. But hey, those Orthodox folks could just be biased in this view, but at least their point is that its not a simple, straightforward thing anyone can just get for themselves.

hmmmm, its starting to make a bit more sense here. So the second marriage isn’t sacramental because of the level of involvement of the (Eastern) Church in the first marriage. Maybe I’m just to used to the Roman mindset, but wouldnt that be allowing adultery since the original marriage is still intact (indissolvable) and a second is ‘tolerated’ ?

As stated above, its not something given to someone because they just asked for it. How many Catholics you know divorced and left the Church to get remarried elsewhere? Better to bless something and have the person live within the Church, than leave the Church and commit more and greater sins.