Orthodox and Divorce

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

The Orthodox allow their faithful to divorce and re-marry. From a Catholic perspective, I thought this would make them heretics. But instead, they are still considered schismastic.

I must be missing somthing in my understanding. Can a Catholic divorce and re-marry and still be considered Catholic?

What does it take to make somebody a heretic?

P.S. I’m not wishing my Orthodox friends into the realm of heresy… I’m just trying to learn more.

 

[Alexius]

I must be missing something in my understanding. Can a Catholic divorce and re-marry and still be considered Catholic?

What does it take to make somebody a heretic?

P.S. I’m not wishing my Orthodox friends into the realm of heresy… I’m just trying to learn more.

Annulment are a loophole that are used frequently in the US to avoid the command against divorce. A Catholic may not receive a civil divorce and then remarry and still receive Communion. They must receive an annulment first…

Orthodox view marriage as serious. It is a “mystery” and is meant to be a covenant to last into eternity. It is not to be taken lighten. Orthodox follow Christ’s command regarding divorce. It is forbidden except in rare circumstances. These would be specifically adultery. If a divorce takes place, one must repent sincerely. If one desires a remarriage, then the service consists of a repentence and confession–very serious indeed. It is the same idea as annulments, but it is harder to receive (by miles) and is not hidden in legal loopholes like annulments are…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Would it be fair to say that “annulments” and “divorce” are one and the same?

 

[PaulDupre]

Would it be fair to say that “annulments” and “divorce” are one and the same?

No, not at all.

A divorce is the dissolution of a valid marriage. There is no such thing in the Catholic Church.

An annulment in the Catholic Church, as in civil law, is the declaration that a valid marriage never took place. Some of the impediments to a valid marriage in the Church are similar to those in civil law.

1. a marriage is invalid if one or more of the parties lacked the capacity to freely consent (too young, mental defect, etc.)
2. a marriage is invalid if either of the parties was not free to marry (i.e.: still married to someone else who is alive).
3. a marriage is invalid if it was entered into fraudulently or if one of the parties did not intend to honor the marriage covenant (i.e.: did not intend to consumate the marriage, did not intend to be open to the bearing of children, etc.).
4. a marriage is invalid if it was forced or coerced.
5. In the church, a marriage between a baptised person and a non-baptised person, or a marriage in a non-Christian religion may be judged to be invalid (as was my marriage to a Mormon).

These are the most common reasons for a declaration of nullity of marriage, though there may be more. Any canon lawyers here?

Paul

 

[Alexius]

No, not at all.

A divorce is the dissolution of a valid marriage. There is no such thing in the Catholic Church.

An annulment in the Catholic Church, as in civil law, is the declaration that a valid marriage never took place. Some of the impediments to a valid marriage in the Church are similar to those in civil law.

1. a marriage is invalid if one or more of the parties lacked the capacity to freely consent (too young, mental defect, etc.)
2. a marriage is invalid if either of the parties was not free to marry (i.e.: still married to someone else who is alive).
3. a marriage is invalid if it was entered into fraudulently or if one of the parties did not intend to honor the marriage covenant (i.e.: did not intend to consumate the marriage, did not intend to be open to the bearing of children, etc.).
4. a marriage is invalid if it was forced or coerced.
5. In the church, a marriage between a baptised person and a non-baptised person, or a marriage in a non-Christian religion may be judged to be invalid (as was my marriage to a Mormon).

These are the most common reasons for a declaration of nullity of marriage, though there may be more. Any canon lawyers here?

Paul

I would say that in the US though, it is a lot easier to receive an annulment . It is rather common aswell. Also, it is rather presumptuous to say that a marriage never took place when it indeed did. It rather reminds me of the Calvinistic belief that if one loses their faith, then they never had it. Rather hard to say at the very least…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would say that in the US though, it is a lot easier to receive an annulment . It is rather common aswell. Also, it is rather presumptuous to say that a marriage never took place when it indeed did. It rather reminds me of the Calvinistic belief that if one loses their faith, then they never had it. Rather hard to say at the very least…

Well, or so it seems to you. I don’t know that those who preside over the tribunals knowingly “say a marriage never took place when it indeed did.” I am not sure I could even say Ted Kennedy’s annulment was bogus, though it’s high on my suspicious list. I have known people who had an extremely difficult time getting one, and people who couldn’t get one at all.

But I’m not an expert. I do recall there was a previous thread in which some felt annullments were easy, whereas there were others who argued, persuasively to me, that while there might have been an earlier period of laxity following VII, it’s not that way now. Certainly, there may be variations from place to place and, given the differences in bishops in the U.S., I would expect variations. But my guess is that those are evening out.

My impression of the Orthodox view is:
a. Adultery is a slam-dunk basis.
b. Everything else is a matter of whether the marriage is truly a marriage in the sense the Orthodox Church sees marriage; a holy union in which each party is a helper in the salvation of the other, and in which the parties are truly united in a spiritual way. In the cases in which it is not, or perhaps once was but has since, in effect, dissolved de facto, so that it may no longer truly be described as a marriage, then the Church may, out of compassion, allow divorce and remarriage, in recognition of the sinfulness of man.
c. As near as I can tell, there can be no fourth marriage, no matter what.

Of course, an Orthodox might define it better.

If I’m right about the Orthodox view of divorce, or if I’m even close, it seems to me the difference is that the Catholic Church is more absolute, not about civil divorce, which might be condoned for various reasons, but about remarriage. Except in a very limited set of circumstances, remarriage after a valid marriage is simply impossible. However, the Catholic Church looks more closely at the validity of the marriage at the beginning; in other words, “was it truly valid to start with?” The Orthodox Church seems to look more closely at the validity of the marriage midstream, whether the original marriage was valid or not. In other words “Maybe your marriage was valid when you entered into it, but is it still real?” It’s more a pastoral thing than a juridical thing.

Again, some Orthodox scholar might make it clearer than that. But, to be frank, there is a point at which I get lost in Orthodox thinking. It often seems to go unclear at a point. But I suspect it’s not at all unclear to an Orthodox. It’s just a different way of thinking about things. Latin ways of thinking and Eastern ways of thinking are just not the same.

 

[PaulDupre]

Also, it is rather presumptuous to say that a marriage never took place when it indeed did. It rather reminds me of the Calvinistic belief that if one loses their faith, then they never had it.

You don’t get it. If the elements of a valid marriage did not exist, then a marriage did not take place.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say a 40 year-old man pays another man to give him his daughter in marriage. The girl is only 11 years old. In the country where they live, it is legal for an 11 year-old girl to marry with her parents’ permission. The girl is terrified and begs her father not to make her go through with it. The girl’s father beats her, threatens her with death and otherwise coerces her to go through the ceremony. Finally, out of sheer terror, she goes through the ceremony.

In this example, there is no marriage even though a ceremony was performed by a preacher with a license to perform marriages. The attempted marriage was invalid because:

1. the girl, due to her young age, lacked the capacity to freely consent to the marriage.
2. the marriage was coerced through violence and threats of violence.

Any attempted marriage that suffers from these or the other impediments I outlined before is not a marriage at all.

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[XtusVictor]

Annulment are a loophole that are used frequently in the US to avoid the command against divorce. A Catholic may not receive a civil divorce and then remarry and still receive Communion. They must receive an annulment first…

The Catholic teaching on marriage and the practice of annulment strives to respect the teaching of Christ in the gospels against divorce.

In order for a sacrament to take place a host of conditions must be present. An annulment is a legal judgment of the Church that the conditions for a sacramental marriage were not met.

Conditions for a sacramental marriage are:

Freedom to marry:
*not already married to someone else
*not in religious vows or ordained
*not in a state of coersion

Capable of Commitment:
*emotionally/psychologically capable
*understand the meaning of the sacrament
*physical capacity for marital act

Right Intension:
*intention to remain faithful
*intention to enter permanent marriage
*intension to be open to children

There may be conditions I have forgotten but you get the idea. Annulments are granted based on the absence of at least one of these conditions at the time of the marriage. Later developments in a marriage are not considered.

As you can see this is a well thought through and limited remedy only applicable in certain circumstances. It is not a loop hole and it is not “Catholic divorce.” Perhaps the reader has also learned to disregard posters like Alexius who have little or no understanding of Catholic matters.

 

[Alexius]

I apologize for disappearing. This thread got pushed to the second page…Thank you all for your responses to my objections…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Volodymyr]

The Orthodox position is that the Church was given the authority to bind and to loose and that there are certain people who must be unbound from a terrible marriage whether physical torture, infidelity. This marriage no longer exists. Orthodox Church has not such a juridical view of marriage as a treaty or a contract, but as a Holy Mystery and gift. Orthodox ecclesial divorce recognizes that a marriage has occurred and now does not exist, thus does not question legitimacy of children from such a marriage. Catolic marriage annulation on other position, destroys a marriage by proving it doesn’t really exist and puts children of such a marriage in very difficult position. Christ gave the Church this authority to loose, and it is wise of Church to use this power to help her children.

Also Church prefers to have her children living in marriages, even in second or third (although as above said RR aux arcs, never a fourth) thinking that a gift of marriage in Church is better than fornication and loneliness. This also was advice to St. Paul to such widows to seek second marriage.

 

[PaulDupre]

Orthodox ecclesial divorce recognizes that a marriage has occurred and now does not exist, thus does not question legitimacy of children from such a marriage. Catolic marriage annulation on other position, destroys a marriage by proving it doesn’t really exist and puts children of such a marriage in very difficult position.

Annulment does not make children illegitimate. In Catholicism there is no concept of legitimacy or illegitimacy of children. The parents are always the parents, whether their attempted marriage was valid or not.

All children are a gift from God, no matter the circumstances of their birth.

Merry Christmas,
Paul

 

[Volodymyr]

A

In Catholicism there is no concept of legitimacy or illegitimacy of children. The parents are always the parents, whether their attempted marriage was valid or not.

All children are a gift from God, no matter the circumstances of their birth.

Dear friend Paul, I think this above is a rose-glass view of Catolic canon law. Perhaps I am confused, but for Catolics there is what is called “Defect of Birth” which is some way of calling being illegitimate. Read below and see if this is what different from your opinion:
The Defect of Birth

(ILLEGITIMACY)

A canonical impediment to ordination. When used in this connection, the word illegitimate has, in canon law, a well-defined meaning, which is: “born out of lawful wedlock”. Illegitimate birth is an impediment to the reception of orders, and inhibits the exercise of the functions of orders already received. It is a canonical impediment, because established and laid down in the canon law as a hindrance to entering the clerical state

 

[1ke]

I see no one has answered your question and instead deflected it by bringing up the nullity process-- which is in no way relevant to your question.

So, here is the answer to the question you asked:

The Orthodox allow their faithful to divorce and re-marry. From a Catholic perspective, I thought this would make them heretics. But instead, they are still considered schismastic.

To be a heretic one must first be a Catholic under the jurisdiction of Catholic Canon Law-- none of the Orthodox born into that religion are Catholics, therefore they cannot be heretics.

Schismatics are those who refuse submission to the Pope-- the Orthodox are schismatics. They have valid Holy Orders and valid Sacraments.

Their **beliefs **that deny a Catholic Truth are heretical beliefs, but the **people **as individuals are **NOT **heretics because they are not Catholics.

To be fully reunited with the Catholic Church, they would have to make a profession of faith that they believe all the Catholic Church teaches and holds.

I must be missing somthing in my understanding. Can a Catholic divorce and re-marry and still be considered Catholic?

Catholics cannot divorce and remarry. Anyone who does is still a Catholic by virtue of their baptism, but they are a Catholic committing a mortal sin until and unless they correct the situation.

What does it take to make somebody a heretic?

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;

There is a canonical process to be followed if one is going to formally be charged with and/or convicted of heresy.

 

[1ke]

Would it be fair to say that “annulments” and “divorce” are one and the same?

No.

 

[Mickey]

Schismatics are those who refuse submission to the Pope-- the Orthodox are schismatics.

Just a side note. Many would consider the Roman Catholic Church as the schismatic Church since she separated Herself from the other four Patriachates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

Regarding the divorce question:
The Orthodox Church considers that the Sacrament of marriage cannot be undone. However, a divorce can be granted through ekonomia.

If my understanding is correct, the Catholic annulment claims that the sacrament of marriage never happened. How can this be?

 

[1ke]

Just a side note. Many would consider the Roman Catholic Church as the schismatic Church since she separated Herself from the other four Patriachates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

However, the OP was asking how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox, not how they view themselves or Catholics.

Regarding the divorce question:
The Orthodox Church considers that the Sacrament of marriage cannot be undone. However, a divorce can be granted through ekonomia.

If my understanding is correct, the Catholic annulment claims that the sacrament of marriage never happened. How can this be?

Please start a thread on the Liturgy & Sacraments thread if you want to discuss the details of a decree of nullity.

 

[1ke]

The Orthodox Church seems to look more closely at the validity of the marriage midstream, whether the original marriage was valid or not. In other words “Maybe your marriage was valid when you entered into it, but is it still real?” It’s more a pastoral thing than a juridical thing.

The key here is the minister of the Sacrament.

The Catholic Church teaches that the **couple ** is the minister of the Sacrament to each other-- hence there CAN be defect of consent or intent of the *ministers of the Sacrament *and consequently no Sacrament. That is what the nullity process determines.

OTOH, the Orthodox consider the minister of the Sacrament of Marriage to be the PRIEST. Therefore, validity cannot be questioned in the same way, because you cannot have defect of consent or intent of the minister of the Sacrament-- the priest confers the Sacrament on the couple, therefore any defect would have to be on the part of the priest himself.

 

[1ke]

Dear friend Paul, I think this above is a rose-glass view of Catolic canon law. Perhaps I am confused,

Illegitimacy refers ONLY to a child born entirely outside of wedlock, not one born of a marriage later found to be invalid.

Here are the relevant Canons from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1061 §3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary.

§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.

Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.

Can. 1140 As regards canonical effects, legitimated children are equal in all things to legitimate ones unless the law has expressly provided otherwise.

but for Catolics there is what is called “Defect of Birth” which is some way of calling being illegitimate. Read below and see if this is what different from your opinion:
The Defect of Birth

As noted above, illegitimacy means born outside of wedlock.

Secondly, New Advent-- while a good source for general reference-- does not contain the current code of canon law regarding the requirements of Holy Order.

They can be found here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Illegitimacy refers ONLY to a child born entirely outside of wedlock,

Not wanting to get banned, I won’t draw any conclusions regarding whether Ted Kennedy is, therefore, a “self made man”.

 

[Mickey]

The Catholic Church teaches that the **couple **is the minister of the Sacrament to each other

I always found this to be rather odd. The Roman Catholic priest administers (through holy orders) all sacraments except the sacrament of marriage where the couple administer to eachother.