Eastern/Oriental Catholics and Annulments

[LakaYaRabb]

Annulments to not properly represent the true Eastern Byzantine tradition. We should use ecclesial divorce instead. It is the tradition. Besides, the theolgy behind annulments does not work in the byzantine tradition. The Church is the minister of the Holy Mysteries, therefore, as the Orthodox Church always assumes, the priest’s intent is to adminster the Holy Mystery. The Roman Church’s Theolgy which uses the spiuses as the ministers is foreign to the Byzantine tradition. That’s why the Orthodox of the Byzantine tradition use ecclesial divorce.

Of course, those Orthodox here I would gladly accept clarification from since I am not an imminent scholar on this subject.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Father Ambrose,

2 points:

1. Your initial example was 2 methodist people, which assumes that both have been baptized. If two baptized protestants get married, the Catholic Church assumes that it is a sacramental marriage.
2. The Catholic Church cannot grant a divorce. It can give a decree of nullity that the marriage was invalid. I don’t know if the Orthodox use the term divorce in place of anullment. The Catholic Church does not.

 

[bobzills]

Annulments to not properly represent the true Eastern Byzantine tradition.

Then why does the Eastern Catholic Church have marriage annulments?

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Why does she have pews? Why doesn’t she list Saints that are canonized? Why have some adopted mandatory celibacy? Why are we on the new calendar?

Latinizations.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. The Catholic Church cannot grant a divorce. It can give a decree of nullity that the marriage was invalid. I don’t know if the Orthodox use the term divorce in place of anullment. The Catholic Church does not.

The Catholic Church grants divorces.

It does this through the Pauline Privilege and through the Petrine Privilege. In both instances valid and consummated marriages are dissolved. These are not annulments. They are divorces.

 

[Dan-Man916]

The Catholic Church grants divorces.

It does this through the Pauline Privilege and through the Petrine Privilege. In both instances valid and consummated marriages are dissolved. These are not annulments. They are divorces.

Father,

Can you give some evidence to this, please?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Father,

Can you give some evidence to this, please?

I think the onus is on you to prove that these Petrine and Pauline divorces are not divorces. You claim they are annulments. But by definition an annulment is a determination that the marriage never existed and it was null from day one.

Is this what the Catholic Church is saying about these non-Christian marriages or marriages where a Catholics is married to a non-Catholic? They can all be declared as null?

 

[mardukm]

Father,

Can you give some evidence to this, please?

Dear brother Dan,

Though Father Ambrose might be mistaken in the specific instances of its use within the Catholic Church, Father Ambrose is indeed correct that these are divorces. You should be content with the knowledge that they are merely an application of the biblical idea of “in favor of the faith” as exemplified in the Pauline privilege.

I hope you understand that the Catholic Church (like any other Church) DOES grant divorces under the Pauline privilege, and the Petrine privilege is merely an extension of the Pauline privilege.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dan-Man916]

Dear brother Dan,

I hope you understand that the Catholic Church (like any other Church) DOES grant divorces under the Pauline privilege, and the Petrine privilege is merely an extension of the Pauline privilege.

Blessings,
Marduk

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?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

. However, isn’t it also true that no one can absolve a valid sacramental marriage?
Therefore, how does one reconcile these?

The point is that these marriages are

1. valid
2. consummated
3. do not qualify for annulment (no impediment existed at the trime of marriage.)

They are dissolved by divorce. In the case of an application of the Pauline Privilege the Marriage Tribunal on the authority of the diocesan bishop grants a divorce.

In the case of an application of the Petrine Privilege the Pope grants a divorce.

 

[mardukm]

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?

You are right. The application of the Pauline and Petrine privileges are for the dissolution of NATURAL marriages, or marriages that are not consummated (I’m not equating natural marriages and non-consummated marriages here).

They are divorces, nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dan-Man916]

ok, thank you. i stand corrected then.

 

[ForeverAdam]

You are right. The application of the Pauline and Petrine privileges are for the dissolution of NATURAL marriages, or marriages that are not consummated (I’m not equating natural marriages and non-consummated marriages here).

Marduk, what patristic support to you have for granting divorces to marriages that aren’t physically consummated, while denying the same divorces for those that are consummated?

God bless,

Adam

 

[mardukm]

Marduk, what patristic support to you have for granting divorces to marriages that aren’t physically consummated, while denying the same divorces for those that are consummated?

It was a common biblical and patristic belief that consummation actually MAKES the marriage. In fact, when a man raped a woman, he was expected to consider her as his wife, with attendant obligations to that wife. Does that ring a bell, or do I need to give you quotes? We also have the biblical teaching of the two becoming one flesh.

So a consummated marriage has a greater degree of finality in God’s eyes than a non-consummated marriage. That is why a divorce can be granted for a non-consummated marriage, while a divorce cannot be granted to a consummated marriage, ESPECIALLY to a consummated SACRAMENTAL marriage.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ForeverAdam]

So a consummated marriage has a greater degree of finality in God’s eyes than a non-consummated marriage. That is why a divorce can be granted for a non-consummated marriage, while a divorce cannot be granted to a consummated marriage, ESPECIALLY to a consummated SACRAMENTAL marriage.

A consummated marriage leads to a special union between the couple, but it doesn’t create a sacramental marriage. Since the Roman Catholic teaching states that sacramental marriages are indissoluble, and you have provided no patristic citations stating that consummation creates the sacramental marriage, why are divorces given for uncommsumated **sacramental **marriages, whereas they are refused for consummated **sacramental **marriages?

God bless,

Adam

 

[mardukm]

A consummated marriage leads to a special union between the couple, but it doesn’t create a sacramental marriage. Since the Roman Catholic teaching states that sacramental marriages are indissoluble, and you have provided no patristic citations stating that consummation creates the sacramental marriage, why are divorces given for uncommsumated **sacramental **marriages, whereas they are refused for consummated **sacramental **marriages?

I have to be off, so I do not have time to investigate this thoroughly (I will when I return - next Tuesday)

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 millenium. If you can fathom the reason the early Church did it, that might help you to settle your question.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

That is why a divorce can be granted for a non-consummated marriage, while a divorce cannot be granted to a consummated marriage,

Would this mean that the actual sacramental act is not in fact the exchange of marriage vows (which seems to be Roman Catholic teaching) but the act of sexual congress?

 

[YADA]

I’ve always understood that the Catholic Church allows divorce for sacramental marriages.

Case in point… two married Methodists. One decides to convert to Catholicism and wishes to marry a Catholic. Rome will dissolve their sacramental marriage and allow a second sacramental marriage.

The Catholic Church will not "dissolve’ a methodist sacramental marriage and in fact presumes that the marriage between two Methodists is sacramental [even if they are married in a purely civil ceremony] unless there is evidence that illustrates that the marriage was not sacramental. Or any other faith [baptist, lutheran, presbyterian, church of christ, etc]…

I personally know man who was Lutheran, married in a Lutheran ceremony [can’t remember if his former soupse was also Lutheran, non baptized or other faith]. His first marriage was held as sacramental and he was not alllowed to marry a second time. He is still a catholic [accepting the decision] and living his life in obedience - not attempting to contract a second marriage - unless his former spouse should pass away.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Catholic Church will not "dissolve’ a methodist sacramental marriage and in fact presumes that the marriage between two Methodists is sacramental [even if they are married in a purely civil ceremony] unless there is evidence that illustrates that the marriage was not sacramental. Or any other faith [baptist, lutheran, presbyterian, church of christ, etc]…

I personally know man who was Lutheran, married in a Lutheran ceremony [can’t remember if his former soupse was also Lutheran, non baptized or other faith]. His first marriage was held as sacramental and he was not alllowed to marry a second time. He is still a catholic [accepting the decision] and living his life in obedience - not attempting to contract a second marriage - unless his former spouse should pass away.

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?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

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?

I’ve been reading Theology for Beginners, by Frank Sheed, and he makes a couple of interesting points as follows…

[pg 145] Baptism is so vital - for it is the beginning of our life as members of Christ, and one who has not received it can receive no other sacrament - that God allows anyone to baptize. Ideally, of course, it should be administered by a priest; but if necessary a layman can baptize; even one not himself baptized may do so which seems strange to me, anyway…], provided he intends to do what the Church does.

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.]

But I don’t know “when”, or if, the Vatican modified its theology.
:twocents: