Eastern/Oriental Catholics and Annulments

[ForeverAdam]

For now, let me just inform you that a divorce for an unconsummated sacramental marriage is granted only under one circumstance - with the agreement of BOTH parties so one or both of the parties may lead a religious life (OTC - “open to correction”). This has been in the Church’s Tradition since the first millennium. If you can fathom the reason the early Church did it, that might help you to settle your question.

Thanks for your response. I accept the early Church’s allowance of the dissolution of a sacramental marriage for the purpose of one entering the monastic state. The Orthodox Church recognizes this exception while expanding this principle of exception to other important issues (spousal abuse, threat to a spouse’s life, abandonment of spouse, etc.). These exceptions are patterned on Christ’s own exception to the indissolubility of marriage for cases of sexual immorality in Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9. However, we are given a lot of slack by Roman Catholics for this extension of ecclesiastical divorce. It needs to be proven that this condemnation of our practice is based on Holy Tradition. Therefore, I look forward to any evidence from the early Church that you can provide that shows that the consummation of a marriage renders divorce impossible. In short, you need to prove that the consummation of the marriage is what really makes the marriage sacramental, and thus, incapable of divorce. I’ll admit that I’ve never found anything in any of the Fathers, Wedding Liturgies, and general consciousness of the early Church that ever hinted at such an understanding.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

There is one sacrament which cannot be administered by a priest at all - it is Matrimony, for the man and women to be married (provided they are baptized) administer it to each other. They must have their parish priest there, or another his consent. [Sheed goes on to make the point that no priest is permissible in exception circumstances, eg: a desert island etc.][/INDENT]

Interesting. Can anyone provide evidence that the early Church believed that the couple, and not the priest, were the ministers of Holy Matrimony? Thanks.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello Marduk,

Yes, I understand that there is a Pauline and Petrine privilege. However, isn’t it also true that no one can absolve a valid sacramental marriage?
Therefore, how does one reconcile these?

One doesn’t.

In a sense the “Petrine” privilege, a tradition of men, brings to nought the word of God, the Pauline privilege. The idea that a marriage can be dissolved so one can marry a Latin sets the whole idea of indissolibility on its head.

 

[Aramis]

Interesting. Can anyone provide evidence that the early Church believed that the couple, and not the priest, were the ministers of Holy Matrimony? Thanks.

God bless,

Adam

one can infer this from the Jewish tradition, where both husband and wife sign the contracts after a blessing from the Rabbi.

 

[ForeverAdam]

one can infer this from the Jewish tradition, where both husband and wife sign the contracts after a blessing from the Rabbi.

That’s really fascinating. I have a deep interest in the Jewish origins of Christianity. However, I’m afraid that I need more concrete evidence from the early Church, herself. The Jewish people held several views of marriage that would be unacceptable to a Christian, such as the levirate law/marriage and the view that marriage is an earthly contract for the procreation of children. This may be another example of such incompatibility.

God bless,

Adam

 

[YADA]

What is the “Pauline Privilege”?
The Pauline Privilege is a dissolution of marriage in which both parties to a previous marriage were non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. It can be requested when one of the parties either wishes Christian baptism or has been baptized Christian and the other party remains unbaptized. These cases remain in the Diocesan Tribunal, and are decided by the Bishop of the Diocese [Archdiocese].
What is the “Petrine Privilege”?
A Petrine Privilege or Privilege of the Faith is a dissolution of marriage in which at least one of the parties to a previous marriage was non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. If the petitioner is the non-baptized party or was baptized in another Christian church, he or she must either wish to be baptized or received into the Catholic Church, or seek to marry a baptized, practicing Catholic. If the petitioner is a baptized Catholic who was married to a non-baptized person, he or she must either wish to enter into marriage with a baptized Christian, or promise to enter marriage with a baptized Christian in the future. Privilege of the Faith cases involve a special petition to the Holy Father and are decided in Rome.

In both of these cases, the marriage must have already ended civilly [divorce]. Hence the reference to St. Paul’s regarding marriage with an un-believer. That you hould stay married if they desire to continue in the marriage. However, if they desire to be released, allow them.

In the first case we have two non christians, in the second case at least one non-christian and one christian - note the caveat that this is the condition for the entire length of the marriage…if a catholic marries an un-believer who later converts to christianity before the civil divorce, neither the Pauline nor Petrine Privilage would apply.

 

[YADA]

Does anybody know when the Vatican modified its theology and began to accept non-Catholic Christian marriages as sacramental? Or am I wrong about this?

Don’t now when [or if this is a change] but that is Canon Law

Here are the relevant Canon [there are more]

TITLE VII: MARRIAGE

Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

§2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptized persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.

Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility; in Christian marriage they acquire a distinctive firmness by reason of the sacrament.

Can. 1057 §1 A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.

§2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.

Can. 1058 All can contract marriage who are not prohibited by law.

Can. 1059 The marriage of Catholics, even if only one party is baptized, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage.

Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favor of law.** Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.**

 

[Aramis]

That’s really fascinating. I have a deep interest in the Jewish origins of Christianity. However, I’m afraid that I need more concrete evidence from the early Church, herself. The Jewish people held several views of marriage that would be unacceptable to a Christian, such as the levirate law/marriage and the view that marriage is an earthly contract for the procreation of children. This may be another example of such incompatibility.

God bless,

Adam

Some of which are addressed in the Gospels.