Orthodox remarriages

[carnes88]

Not true with respect to Eastern Catholics.

It is very true, let me elaborate. For centuries after the various Church Unions the Byzantine Catholic Churches continued the practice of permitting remarriage after the granting of an ecclesiastical divorce. [with appropriate penance etc.] And although it is not the present practice in the CCEO, because we believe the minister of marriage is the priest or bishop, to grant a decree of nullity logically would call into question the minister rather than the receivers of the Mystery. We do not, as Byzantine Catholics, have a division between the Holy Mysteries and the various objects used in the Holy Mysteries, or thos objects used in both public and private piety.

First of all, we should recognize that such a decree is not an annullment. It is a divorce, the ending of a marriage that was once perfectly valid. So there was nothing deficient in the minister who performed the wedding - a valid marriage, but humans wrecked it by sin.

Indeed, it seems that the minister of the Sacrament is key to explaining why divorce should be permitted by the Catholic Church in the Eastern Rite but not in the West. In the West, the priest is only a witness to the Sacrament. The minister of the sacrament is the married couple themselves, and through their ministry, they are joined inseparably by God.

In the East, the Church confers marriage rather than just witnessing it. The priest, acting in the person of the Church, is the minister of the Mystery, not the married couple. (Cf. Paul Evdokimov, The Sacrament of Love) And the Church has something which the married couple does not - the power of binding and loosing. “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven”. If the Church confers a marriage in Christ’s name, then they can dissolve it by the authority of the keys. On the other hand, if the Church only witnesses a marriage, then it does not come from them. The Church sanctified it, but it was not Hers to give - and therefore not Hers to break. Divorce in the Western Rite is therefore invalid.

This by no means confers any superiority to the East because we are ontologically capable of divorcing and remarrying. We also have an abhorrence to legalism; we ask not what is permissible but rather what is holy. Divorce is a sin. I quote extensively from the Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras of Sinope, who argues that divorce is a violation of Christ’s command that marriage be indissoluble, and therefore a sin, but not an ontological impossibility, and therefore something which is permitted out of economia, the Church’s compassion for humanity in its weakness.

 

[RyanBlack]

It is very true, let me elaborate. For centuries after the various Church Unions the Byzantine Catholic Churches continued the practice of permitting remarriage after the granting of an ecclesiastical divorce. [with appropriate penance etc.] And although it is not the present practice in the CCEO, because we believe the minister of marriage is the priest or bishop, to grant a decree of nullity logically would call into question the minister rather than the receivers of the Mystery. We do not, as Byzantine Catholics, have a division between the Holy Mysteries and the various objects used in the Holy Mysteries, or thos objects used in both public and private piety.

First of all, we should recognize that such a decree is not an annullment. It is a divorce, the ending of a marriage that was once perfectly valid. So there was nothing deficient in the minister who performed the wedding - a valid marriage, but humans wrecked it by sin.

Indeed, it seems that the minister of the Sacrament is key to explaining why divorce should be permitted by the Catholic Church in the Eastern Rite but not in the West. In the West, the priest is only a witness to the Sacrament. The minister of the sacrament is the married couple themselves, and through their ministry, they are joined inseparably by God.

In the East, the Church confers marriage rather than just witnessing it. The priest, acting in the person of the Church, is the minister of the Mystery, not the married couple. (Cf. Paul Evdokimov, The Sacrament of Love) And the Church has something which the married couple does not - the power of binding and loosing. “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven”. If the Church confers a marriage in Christ’s name, then they can dissolve it by the authority of the keys. On the other hand, if the Church only witnesses a marriage, then it does not come from them. The Church sanctified it, but it was not Hers to give - and therefore not Hers to break. Divorce in the Western Rite is therefore invalid.

This by no means confers any superiority to the East because we are ontologically capable of divorcing and remarrying. We also have an abhorrence to legalism; we ask not what is permissible but rather what is holy. Divorce is a sin. I quote extensively from the Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras of Sinope, who argues that divorce is a violation of Christ’s command that marriage be indissoluble, and therefore a sin, but not an ontological impossibility, and therefore something which is permitted out of economia, the Church’s compassion for humanity in its weakness.

The plain fact of the matter is that, in spite of the Eastern theology of marriage, decrees of nullity are issued for Eastern Catholics, just as they are for Latin Catholics, therefore your claim that it is impossible for Eastern Catholics to get one is not true.

 

[carnes88]

The plain fact of the matter is that, in spite of the Eastern theology of marriage, decrees of nullity are issued for Eastern Catholics, just as they are for Latin Catholics, therefore your claim that it is impossible for Eastern Catholics to get one is not true.

Which is why our Eparchy calls them what they rightly are, ecclesiastical divorces. And I’m sure the Melkite’s would strongly disagree with you.

 

[RyanBlack]

Which is why our Eparchy calls them what they rightly are, ecclesiastical divorces. And I’m sure the Melkite’s would strongly disagree with you.

There’s nothing I’ve said to disagree with–unless one wishes to engage in the futile exercise of arguing with facts. It is a matter of fact that Eastern Catholic Churches issue decrees of nullity. The plain fact of this matter renders incorrect your claim that it is impossible for Eastern Catholics to obtain an annulment. The matter of whether it is consistent with Eastern theology of marriage is a separate question from whether decrees of nullity for Eastern Catholics are in fact issued.

 

[carnes88]

There’s nothing I’ve said to disagree with–unless one wishes to engage in the futile exercise of arguing with facts. It is a matter of fact that Eastern Catholic Churches issue decrees of nullity. The plain fact of this matter renders incorrect your claim that it is impossible for Eastern Catholics to obtain an annulment. The matter of whether it is consistent with Eastern theology of marriage is a separate question from whether decrees of nullity for Eastern Catholics are in fact issued.

As I said our eparchy calls them ecclesiastical divorces, which is exactly what they are.
You live in Houston, if you need clarification I suggest that you talk to Fr. Elias Rafaj.

 

[carnes88]

Yes they may call them annulments, but we must look at them as ecclesiastical divorces. Eastern Catholics had an ecclesiastical divorces until they was made to change the terminology in the 1950s, before then they were regarded as ecclesiastical divorces.

 

[RyanBlack]

As I said our eparchy calls them ecclesiastical divorces, which is exactly what they are.
You live in Houston, if you need clarification I suggest that you talk to Fr. Elias Rafaj.

I know Fr. Elias quite well–he is my pastor. However, I’m not in need of clarification. I understand the theological differences. However, the reality is that the CCEO has so Latinized our law that the Latin practice of decrees of nullity is what we have.