Orthodox and Divorce

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

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.

Just to throw a spanner in the works… it’s not just marriage. I think the only sacraments that is required to be adminstered by a priest is Rreconciliation, Holy Eucharist and Vocations. The following is taken from Frank Sheed’s book, “Theology for Beginners”…

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, 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. (No priest is permissible in exception circumstances, eg: a desert island etc.)

 

[1ke]

Just to throw a spanner in the works… it’s not just marriage. I think the only sacraments that is required to be adminstered by a priest is Rreconciliation, Holy Eucharist and Vocations. The following is taken from Frank Sheed’s book, “Theology for Beginners”…

Five of the seven are only valid if admistered by one who has received Holy Orders:

Eucharist (priest-- he validly consecrates the Eucharist, others may distribute it)
Confirmation (bishop or a priest-designee)
Anointing of the Sick (priest)
Reconciliation (priest)
Holy Orders (bishop)

Baptism has as it’s ordinary minister the priest or deacon. However, as you stated, in an emergency anyone can baptize.

The bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

 

[PaulDupre]

Don’t forget that every validly baptized Christian bears the Common Priesthood of the Baptized.

Paul

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

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.

Development of doctrine?

When did the present set up on annullments get started?

I find it interesting this insistence on legitimacy. If you find out that you’re baptism was invalid (say, done once immersion in the name of Jesus by a Mormon), you have to be baptized. But an invalid marriage makes you legitimate. Not consistent.

Question: since some tribunals dish them out like candy, if the marriage was really valid (a post somewhere claimed 90% of those appealled to Rome are overturned), then if someone remarries with the annullment, are they in mortal sin.

What if they get the annullment and remarry. Former spouse then decides to appeal and the annullment is then overturned. What then to the second marriage?

 

[StMarina303ad]

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.

The difference between an Eclesiastical Divorce (given by the Orthodox Church) and an Annulement (given by the Catholic Church) are the name and from what point it becomes effective.

Both are the Church declaring the marriage is “No Longer Valid”, Catholics saying from the inception of the marriage forward it is “No Longer Valid” and the Orthodox Church saying from the point of the divorce forward it is “No Longer Valid”.

And actually, in practice, Annulments are handed out more frequently in the Catholic Church than Eclesiastical Divorces are given in the Orthodox Church.

Marriage is intended to be until death, but Christ gave room for exceptions to this: Matt. 19:9 - Catholics use those exceptions to “declare” that the marriage was never a valid marriage (yet somehow the children born outside of wedlock are not illegit…kinda like trying getting an egg without a chicken or other bird, huh?) anyway, the Orthodox Church uses that exception just Christ indicated…from the beginning divorce was not so, but due to the hardness of your hearts…when a marriage no longer exists with a couple, the Church in her economia allows that couple to divorce and remarry (after Confession - since it is a sin, but not one that Jesus and His Blood cannot overcome).

I have to tell you, after studying Catholic Annulements and the process and specifically what can be allowed to cause a marriage to be declared annuled, that if I was married in the Catholic Church, I’d never ever feel safe that I was truly married.

Once someone is married in the Catholic Church by a priest through the Sacrament of Marriage with witnesses, it can at anytime be revoked - the Catholic Church claiming that the marriage never existed, let’s say - your husband (or who you thought was your husband, I should say) had a batchelor party the night before and got buzzed/a little drunk and was still a little (although so slightly that neither you nor the priest noticed) tipsy, then 19 years later after 8 children he has an affair and divorces you, the Catholic Church can claim that your marriage is annuled…you were never married in the Church’s eyes to begin with because being a little buzzed/drunk at the time of the wedding ceromony causes it to be invalid from the very beginning of the marriage - should the husband (or wife) at sometime in the future want it to be free from that marriage obligation.

Picture a woman in a wedding gown, after her wedding in the Catholic Church, outside with a daisy, pulling the flower off piece by piece saying, “I am married”, “I’m not married”, “I am married”, etc., etc. She’ll be doing it her entire life…always wondering. Who can live like that?

At least, if/when I ever get married, in the Orthodox Church I know that once married in the Church, I am married. If in the future, my husband has an affair and divorces me, so be it, but I was married.