Initiating the Cause for Abp. Elias Zoghby

[1holycatholic]

\The second, on the other hand, (which has a certain penitential flavor to it and is without the crowning), is reserved for cases where one (or both) parties had been previously married. (And, if I recall correctly, there’s a “three strikes, you’re out” rule too: a person may obtain a maximum of 2 canonical divorces.)\

I cannot speak for the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, but in Orthodoxy, the Order for Second Marriage is used ONLY when both parties have been married before, whether the previous marriages were terminated by death or otherwise.

Actually, it’s “three marriages” period, again regardless of how the first two ended.

What otherwise would there be? A [valid] Sacramental marriage is dissoluble only by death.

It’s nothing new. It appears throughout the early Church Fathers East and West.

St. Basil of Caesarea - Letter 199

The Shepherd of Hermas (Commandment 4 - On Putting One’s Wife Away for Adultery. Ch 1)

 

[bpbasilphx]

\What otherwise would there be? A [valid] Sacramental marriage is dissoluble only by death.

It’s nothing new. It appears throughout the early Church Fathers East and West.\

The Orthodox discipline is different.

 

[Harpazo]

What otherwise would there be? A [valid] Sacramental marriage is dissoluble only by death.

It’s nothing new. It appears throughout the early Church Fathers East and West.

St. Basil of Caesarea - Letter 199

The Shepherd of Hermas (Commandment 4 - On Putting One’s Wife Away for Adultery. Ch 1)

I’m currently reading St. John Chrysostom’s On Marriage and Family Life (an excellent book, BTW) and the introduction discusses this issue. In the West, the two spouses marry each other, with a priest (or deacon in some cases) present. In the East, it is the priest that marries to the two together. I am more inclined to the view of this from the Orthodox because I don’t see how anyone can retroactively declare a marriage invalid. It’s also noteworthy to mention that this practice was around before the Schism of 1054, but no one in the West seems to have had qualms with it.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Is there any inthusiasm for his case among the Orthodox ?

I don’t think so; at least not by me. In all honesty, it isn’t really a concern of mine, nor is it any of my business what Rome chooses to do because I am no longer in communion with Rome. I think he was a good man, but I really disagree with his views.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m currently reading St. John Chrysostom’s On Marriage and Family Life (an excellent book, BTW) and the introduction discusses this issue. In the West, the two spouses marry each other, with a priest (or deacon in some cases) present. In the East, it is the priest that marries to the two together. I am more inclined to the view of this from the Orthodox because I don’t see how anyone can retroactively declare a marriage invalid. It’s also noteworthy to mention that this practice was around before the Schism of 1054, but no one in the West seems to have had qualms with it.

In Christ,
Andrew

First, the marriage is not retroactively declared invalid, it was always invalid, at least that is the idea.

The difference in who confers the sacrament is where the issue lies. If the couple confers the sacrament on each other with a priest/deacon only as a witness then there can be a way for it to be invalid. In the East the sacrament is conferred by the priest then how could it be found to be invalid at a later date?

This is why the Latin Church has tried to enforce upon the Byzantine Churches that the priest there to “bless the union” trying to sneak out of the idea that the priest confers the sacrament.

I think this is one of the biggest differences in the two Traditions, that and the fact that a deacon can only bless as a lay person in the East.

 

[malphono]

First, the marriage is not retroactively declared invalid, it was always invalid, at least that is the idea.

The difference in who confers the sacrament is where the issue lies.

Yes, that is where the difference lies.

If the couple confers the sacrament on each other with a priest/deacon only as a witness then there can be a way for it to be invalid. In the East the sacrament is conferred by the priest then how could it be found to be invalid at a later date?

Marriage law is not my strong point, but I am familiar with the basic principles (thanks in part to the late Abp Elias Zoghby) so will offer this:

In the East (and Orient) the Church (in the person of the priest) confers the sacrament. But there are conditions on the part of the recipients to the validity of the sacrament and so yes, it’s possible that one or another of those conditions was not met. It is impossible for the priest to be 100% accurate in determining whether all of the conditions are met. For example, maybe one of the parties lied to the priest about intent. Or perhaps one (or both) was under external pressure and had no interest in marrying. There are, of course, others. In any case, that is at least part of the reason why the Orthodox (OO and EO) maintain a process for a canonical annulment, since in fact the conditions were not met and thus a valid union never existed.

A canonical divorce, OTOH, recognizes that human nature, being what it is, mistakes can be made. The intent (and/or other conditions) may have been met, but it turned out that, e.g., that the parties were totally incompatible. It happens, and the OO/EO recognize that. The Church conferred the sacrament and “bound” the union, so the Church can break it. In this case, the Church does not say a marriage never existed.

 

[Hesychios]

Is there any inthusiasm for his case among the Orthodox ?

I doubt that most Orthodox have ever heard of him.

Secondly, his initiative (as much as I admire his chutzpah for it) does not satisfy Orthodox understanding of communion between churches.

A restatement of the Zoghby Initiative:

• I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
• I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

The Achilles heel in it is that the See of Rome is heterodox, so the proposal is ‘premature’. What Kyr Elias proposed would have been perfectly acceptable if it were not so.

As it is, the proposal is just wishful thinking.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I doubt that most Orthodox have ever heard of him.

Secondly, his initiative (as much as I admire his chutzpah for it) does not satisfy Orthodox understanding of communion between churches.

A restatement of the Zoghby Initiative:

• I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
• I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

The Achilles heel in it is that the See of Rome is heterodox, so the proposal is ‘premature’. What Kyr Elias proposed would have been perfectly acceptable if it were not so.

As it is, the proposal is just wishful thinking.

You have gone way to far with this statement. A lot of respect has been lost.

Maybe you should refrain from commenting on Catholic issues as there seems to be much bias and grudge behind them, more so lately than I can recall coming from you in the past.

It is strange that some of the most anti-catholic within other groups (orthodox and protestants) are ex-catholics, maybe they feel that they have to prove themselves to their fellows.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is there any inthusiasm for his case among the Orthodox ?

Which Orthodox? The Orthodox are not one Church, they are multiple Churches, some in communion with each other, others not (sometimes due to politics).

I doubt that most Orthodox have ever heard of him.

Secondly, his initiative (as much as I admire his chutzpah for it) does not satisfy Orthodox understanding of communion between churches.

A restatement of the Zoghby Initiative:

• I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
• I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

The Achilles heel in it is that the See of Rome is heterodox, so the proposal is ‘premature’. What Kyr Elias proposed would have been perfectly acceptable if it were not so.

As it is, the proposal is just wishful thinking.

:tsktsk: so sad :tsktsk:

 

[Hesychios]

Hello brother David,

:tsktsk: so sad :tsktsk:

Orthodox means ‘right opinion’, heterodox means ‘another opinion’. Everyone thinks they are orthodox. If they didn’t, they would adopt another opinion which they discover is more correct.

I use the term heterodox because I feel that it does not convey the same negative connotation that ‘heresy’ does, and perhaps is not such a strong one. (You may disagree, but at least I have given it some thought and tried to make some kind of accommodation.)

I think on some things you and I would agree, but in other things to you I would be heterodox, and to me you would be. I believe that this is the only mature way to be able to discuss our differences, we have to use some kind of terminology that describes our positions and I have settled on this.

I am sorry that it offends you, it was not my intention.

But as it stands the See of Rome (and all particular churches who are in communion with it under the conditions stipulated by Rome), is heterodox in the view of the Orthodox. There isn’t much anyone can do about it, not actually saying this is like the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. It is what it is and we cannot pretend otherwise, regardless of what kind of language we use to describe it.

 

[bpbasilphx]

So we are to believe that Ted Kennedy’s marriage to Joan Bennett, witnessed by Francis Cardinal Spellman, was somehow so defective that it would be invalid, despite their being accepted as a married couple, living together for years, filing joint tax returns, and having several children?

Then who can know WHO is “validly married” except for God Himself?

This is one reason why I’m not the only one to observe that a declaration of nullity is so often nothing more than a legal fiction.

At least the Orthodox discipline acknowledges reality (in this case, that a totally valid marriage had broken down beyond repair and reconciliation)–and would grant an ecclesiastical divorce to Joan on grounds of Ted’s numerous philanderings.

 

[1holycatholic]

So we are to believe that Ted Kennedy’s marriage to Joan Bennett, witnessed by Francis Cardinal Spellman, was somehow so defective that it would be invalid, despite their being accepted as a married couple, living together for years, filing joint tax returns, and having several children?

Then who can know WHO is “validly married” except for God Himself?

This is one reason why I’m not the only one to observe that a declaration of nullity is so often nothing more than a legal fiction.

At least the Orthodox discipline acknowledges reality (in this case, that a totally valid marriage had broken down beyond repair and reconciliation)–and would grant an ecclesiastical divorce to Joan on grounds of Ted’s numerous philanderings.

The length of time they were together, whether they filed joint tax returns etc. are all irrelevant, as is everything else that happened after the fact.

Marital infidelity, in and of itself, is not grounds for an annulment.

The Church does not have the authority to grant an “Ecclesiastical Divorce.”

 

[bpbasilphx]

The length of time they were together, whether they filed joint tax returns etc. are all irrelevant, as is everything else that happened after the fact.

Marital infidelity, in and of itself, is not grounds for an annulment.

The Church does not have the authority to grant an “Ecclesiastical Divorce.”

The Orthodox Church does.

 

[ciero]

So we are to believe that Ted Kennedy’s marriage to Joan Bennett, witnessed by Francis Cardinal Spellman, was somehow so defective that it would be invalid, despite their being accepted as a married couple, living together for years, filing joint tax returns, and having several children?

Then who can know WHO is “validly married” except for God Himself?

This is one reason why I’m not the only one to observe that a declaration of nullity is so often nothing more than a legal fiction.

At least the Orthodox discipline acknowledges reality (in this case, that a totally valid marriage had broken down beyond repair and reconciliation)–and would grant an ecclesiastical divorce to Joan on grounds of Ted’s numerous philanderings.

Very good point Your Grace!!

 

[josephdaniel29]

The Church does not have the authority to grant an “Ecclesiastical Divorce.”

Sure it does.

See Pauline Privilege and Petrine Privilege.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[1holycatholic]

Sure it does.

See Pauline Privilege and Petrine Privilege.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Neither of those have anything to do with a Sacramental marriage.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Neither of those have anything to do with a Sacramental marriage.

More false legalistic maneuvering to justify your hypocrisy.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[SyroMalankara]

More false legalistic maneuvering to justify your hypocrisy.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Pauline privilege only applies to two non-baptized individuals - I don’t think either Latin Byzantine, Alexandrian, Chaldean, Antiochian, or Armenian Christianity considers unbaptized to be in Sacramental Union.

The same applies to Petrine Privilege - a marriage between a baptized and non-baptized individual is not a Sacramental Union - it is called a ‘Natural Marriage’ in Latin canon law, and would probably not take place in most Eastern jurisdictions (outside of the marriages of royalty, which are sometimes accorded uncanonical exceptions for some odd reason)…

 

[system]

Thanks for the video link. I wanted to watch this but Ionly have an antenna on my TV, and living in Canada, CBS is not a station I can get without cable.
Reply With Quote

 

[mardukm]

Dear 1holycatholic,

The Church does not have the authority to grant an “Ecclesiastical Divorce.”

From my understanding, it is called “ecclesiastical divorce” to distinguish it from divorce per se, which is not permitted by God.

“Ecclesiastical divorce” is divorce or separation permitted by the authority of the Church. In the concept, it is recognized that divorce is not normative. It is practically identical to the notion behind the “Pauline privilege.” Note that when St. Paul describes the Pauline privilege, he distinguishes between what Jesus taught about divorce, and what he (Paul) teaches about divorce.

I believe you are confusing the concept of ecclesiastical divorce, on the one hand, and remarriage, on the other. Ecclesiastical divorce is permitted, and I believe, a holy thing, when two people can no longer live with each other.

The issue is not whether ecclesiastical divorce is acceptable, but whether remarriage is acceptable. I do believe the Catholic Church has the most perfect and ideal teaching on divorce and remarriage, as well she should. But I don’t think we can deny the value of remarriage wholesale in some circumstances.

The Coptic Orthodox ideal is morally attractive. A second or third “marriage” is clearly distinguished as not ideal. In fact, the Prayer of Matrimony is actually excluded from ceremonies of second or third “marriages.” I think it is similar in other Oriental Churches. Like the Catholic Church, every OO Church has an explicit teaching on the indissolubility of marriage (which, IIRC, is not likewise among the EO Churches).

Also, I agree with brother josephdaniel that the Pauline and Petrine privileges are indeed “ecclesiastical divorces.”

Finally, as an Oriental, I’d like to say that I fully appreciate and understand the difference between ecclesiastical divorce and annulment. The two concepts are certainly not the same, though the ends may be the same. Not distinguishing between the two is like failing to distinguish between murder and self-defense.

Blessings,
Marduk