S
smad0142
Guest
What is the EO theology behind marriage? How does this theology result in the practice of ecclesiastical divorce? Did the EC have a similiar theology and practice until the promulgation of the CIC in 1917?
- Status
M
Montalo
Guest
the CIC has no bearing on the Eastern/Oriental churches whatsoever, rather the CCEO does
(text)
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_index-codex-can-eccl-orient_lt.html
in practice, the marriage is done in the Orthodox church
S
smad0142
Guest
I didnt know if they made that distinction in 1917, but in any case I am still wondering if codified law changed the theology or practice of the EC in 1917.
And the second part does not really answer the question.
And the second part does not really answer the question.
M
Montalo
Guest
The Eastern view of marriage is that the priest is the one who administers the Sacrament to each other, rather than the couples administering it to each other.
This is the reason that a priest must be present in order for the marriage to be valid, rather than a deacon as is permissable in the Latin Church.
There is no divorce, for any reason in any Orthodox or Catholic Church. Annulments may be filed for, if there is just cause and reason that the marriage was invalid to begin with(at least withing the West, i do not know about the Eastern Catholic). The reason that marriage with Orthodox must be done in the Orthodox Church is because the Orthodox do not recognize any marriages as valid unless it was performed in an Orthodox church, while the Catholic Church recognizes marriages outside the Church, with proper paperwork and approvals
This is the reason that a priest must be present in order for the marriage to be valid, rather than a deacon as is permissable in the Latin Church.
There is no divorce, for any reason in any Orthodox or Catholic Church. Annulments may be filed for, if there is just cause and reason that the marriage was invalid to begin with(at least withing the West, i do not know about the Eastern Catholic). The reason that marriage with Orthodox must be done in the Orthodox Church is because the Orthodox do not recognize any marriages as valid unless it was performed in an Orthodox church, while the Catholic Church recognizes marriages outside the Church, with proper paperwork and approvals
C
ciero
Guest
Boy I love it when folks who have no idea what they’re talking about come here and pontificate!
M
Montalo
Guest
i apologize if i was in error, what i said is from my studiesBoy I love it when folks who have no idea what they’re talking about come here and pontificate!
i should have added my line that i apologize for my errors, and i am bound to make some and enjoy the learning experience
In what I am wrong about, please correct me in order that others my learn Truth and i will not make the same errors again
S
smad0142
Guest
The orthodox definitely have ecclesiastical divorce, a simple search should help you learn that it exists. Thank you for trying though.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Orthodox bishops will grant divorce on a case by case basis. Catholics have “annulments” which are less stringently arrived at than the rules governing the same in Orthodoxy i.e. “psychological incompatibility” as allowable grounds for Catholic divorce. . . er, annulments. My apologies!
Alex
J
JohnVIII
Guest
In the book, “The Orthodox Church”, by Met. Kallistos Ware, p. 295, it states, “From the point of view of Orthodox theology a divorce granted by the State in the civil courts is not sufficient. Remarriage in church is only possible if the Church authorities have themselves granted a divorce.”
A
Aramis
Guest
Between 1917 and 1983, it did. The idea of a separate CCEO was long sought, but work on same began in the 1970’s.
The 1917 was for all catholics. It was the first true codification of a core canon law, and had numerous issues… especially the effects upon the Eastern Churches in Union.
D
DL82
Guest
As I understand it, and I may be wrong here, the Orthodox understanding of divorce and remarriage includes the idea that a man is, in some sense, married twice (that’s why there is a limit on the number of remarriages) with the sanction of the Church (something called oekonomia).
I know St Cyril of Jerusalem mentions men who are married twice in his catechetical lectures. They are only able to live as husband and wife with one woman at a time, but in effect their first marriage still has it’s indelible mark, unlike a Catholic annulment, which says the first marriage never took place. This is why the remarriage of divorcees in the Orthodox Church takes a different liturgical form, more penitential, less celebratory than a first marriage.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here.
I know St Cyril of Jerusalem mentions men who are married twice in his catechetical lectures. They are only able to live as husband and wife with one woman at a time, but in effect their first marriage still has it’s indelible mark, unlike a Catholic annulment, which says the first marriage never took place. This is why the remarriage of divorcees in the Orthodox Church takes a different liturgical form, more penitential, less celebratory than a first marriage.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Orthodox will allow up to three marriages . . .
But there is a saying, “The first wife is from God, the second is from the people, and the third is from . . . the devil.”
But the Orthodox do consider that the ultimate “crowning” of one’s life is to enter monastic life, if one can. One spouse should be enough for anyone and if one loses that spouse, then a monastic life can be a very great blessing!
Alex
But there is a saying, “The first wife is from God, the second is from the people, and the third is from . . . the devil.”
But the Orthodox do consider that the ultimate “crowning” of one’s life is to enter monastic life, if one can. One spouse should be enough for anyone and if one loses that spouse, then a monastic life can be a very great blessing!
Alex
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
And as a matter of fact, canon law allows spouses to separate in order to join monasteries.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Yes and St Basil the Great mentions this tradition as well.
There are Orthodox married priests who have separated from their spouses to join monasteries (with the consent of their spouses).
And when a married priest’s wife/presbytera dies, it is traditional for the priest to become a monk.
Alex
There are Orthodox married priests who have separated from their spouses to join monasteries (with the consent of their spouses).
And when a married priest’s wife/presbytera dies, it is traditional for the priest to become a monk.
Alex
A
Aramis
Guest
But not while there are children in the home.
Economia has even allowed for those with small children to be remarried to a new spouse. (The Catholic Church allows this as an economia, as well. I know an RC deacon for whom HH JP II granted permission to marry again after the death of his wife.)
And it should be noted that the Russian church has used monasticizing one’s wife as a form of divorce, at least for the Tsars.
F
Formosus
Guest
If I recall properly, this has precedent among several eastern Roman emperors as well.
A
Aramis
Guest
My undergrad was focused on Russian History, so I can’t say with accuracy, but I seem to recall the same.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alex,
These seem like logical grounds for annulment.
.
We can’t overlook the fact that most (if not all) the acceptable conditions for annulment in the Catholic Church beyond the Traditional conditions (i.e., consanguinity, prior marriage, lack of sacramental form, lack of full consent) really fall under the rubric of “lack of full consent.” If one party were not open to the other party about a particular matter that is integral to the marriage (e.g., extreme sexual obligations that the other party could not fulfill, homosexuality, etc.), then obviously the other party who did not have full knowledge of what he or she was getting into did not give “full consent.” That seems logical, to me anyway. Granted, the practice of annulment is no doubt abused.
Blessings,
Marduk
I did a google on the terms “pschological incompatibility annulment” and all I came up with was “psycho-sexual incompatibility.” This refers to either (1) one party expected extreme sexual obligations from the other party of which the other party was not aware; (2) one party was actually homosexual, and came into the marriage without full consent (pressure from family, etc.).Orthodox bishops will grant divorce on a case by case basis. Catholics have “annulments” which are less stringently arrived at than the rules governing the same in Orthodoxy i.e. “psychological incompatibility” as allowable grounds for Catholic divorce. . . er, annulments. My apologies!
These seem like logical grounds for annulment.
.We can’t overlook the fact that most (if not all) the acceptable conditions for annulment in the Catholic Church beyond the Traditional conditions (i.e., consanguinity, prior marriage, lack of sacramental form, lack of full consent) really fall under the rubric of “lack of full consent.” If one party were not open to the other party about a particular matter that is integral to the marriage (e.g., extreme sexual obligations that the other party could not fulfill, homosexuality, etc.), then obviously the other party who did not have full knowledge of what he or she was getting into did not give “full consent.” That seems logical, to me anyway. Granted, the practice of annulment is no doubt abused.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
JohnVIII
Guest
A re-marriage of a deacon, to me, is scandalous! Who would go to the wedding? Do you know that EO canon law says that a priest may not attend the party following a second-marriage wedding? So the priest marries the deacon a second time but can’t go to the wedding party.
Of course, you said this was a RC deacon. I’m just curious, would a second marriage of a deacon come across as scandalous to the average RC layman? Can anyone tell me?
A
Aramis
Guest
You find scandal where few others do, John.A re-marriage of a deacon, to me, is scandalous! Who would go to the wedding? Do you know that EO canon law says that a priest may not attend the party following a second-marriage wedding? So the priest marries the deacon a second time but can’t go to the wedding party.
Of course, you said this was a RC deacon. I’m just curious, would a second marriage of a deacon come across as scandalous to the average RC layman? Can anyone tell me?
It’s rare. It’s supposed to be. It’s not done for the cleric’s benefit, but for the benefit of his children. And it’s been done by the Russian Orthodox as well as some ECC’s.
Usually, it results in laicization (or, as the canons read, “Let him be deposed”). But the whole point of economia is for the benefit of the faithful.
- Status