Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

[Isa_Almisry]

“I charge you,” said he, "to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another man’s wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart, then you will sin; and if, in like manner, you think other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked deed, he works death for himself.

Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man." I said to him, “Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions.” “Say on,” said he. And I said to him, “Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?”

And he said to me, “As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.” And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?” And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.”

And I said to him, “What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?” And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented…In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. –The Shepherd of Hermas 4:1-10

A reason why it didn’t make it into the canon.

 

[peso73]

BUT, all that being said, didn’t the Lord give His church His authority to bind and loose, and if He did, then isn’t the church allowed to loose those ties that bind?
In which case, both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches could do whatever they want as far as allowing divorce and remarriage or annulment or whatever, right?

Sorry, I know I am not as learned as you all, but I do enjoy learning and thinking about these issues, can one of my Catholic or separated Orthodox brethern out there address this thought, I think it is relative to the thread, after all one side says of the other, this practice is “of men”, yet as I said, Christ gave His authority to “men” (the bishops, successors of the apostles) right?
Isn’t the entire church, bible, and all, “of men”? What makes it special is that we believe the Lord inspired the writers of scripture, the ecumenical councils, etc…So…binding and loosing? Only applicable in certain circumstances? Enlighten me :newidea: please.
Right now I am living as “brother and sister” with my civil wife and we have a son, it is not that much fun, but as I believe as I am sure we all do, that marriage is once and for all, we are trying to work out our problems before we take the plunge, being roman catholic…it’s serious stuff! :hypno:

 

[VARC]

BUT, all that being said, didn’t the Lord give His church His authority to bind and loose, and if He did, then isn’t the church allowed to loose those ties that bind?
In which case, both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches could do whatever they want as far as allowing divorce and remarriage or annulment or whatever, right?

Sorry, I know I am not as learned as you all, but I do enjoy learning and thinking about these issues, can one of my Catholic or separated Orthodox brethern out there address this thought, I think it is relative to the thread, after all one side says of the other, this practice is “of men”, yet as I said, Christ gave His authority to “men” (the bishops, successors of the apostles) right?
Isn’t the entire church, bible, and all, “of men”? What makes it special is that we believe the Lord inspired the writers of scripture, the ecumenical councils, etc…So…binding and loosing? Only applicable in certain circumstances? Enlighten me :newidea: please.
Right now I am living as “brother and sister” with my civil wife and we have a son, it is not that much fun, but as I believe as I am sure we all do, that marriage is once and for all, we are trying to work out our problems before we take the plunge, being roman catholic…it’s serious stuff! :hypno:

I’m not an expert but I’ll give you my opinion.

I the think idea that the bishops of the church can bind and loose the bond of marriage, is a novel idea with no basis in tradition and is contrary to the plain meaning of Matt 5:31

Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches allow divorce and remarriage. They just have a different attitude about it.

The Orthodox see a broken marriage that cannot be reconciled for serious reasons such as abandonment, abuse, adultery, etc. They do not disolve the marriage but recognize that the marriage has already been disolved and act to help the innocent party. Recognizing human weakness, they extend compassion to the innocent party by allowing him/her to remarry with a penitential ceremony. This act of mercy is very much in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus.

Catholics will declare a marriage invalid many years after the couple was pronounced man and wife by a catholic preist for such arbitrary reasons such as a lack of understanding of the full implications of marriage. They will tell the children mommy and daddy were never married. They will allow both parties to re-marry, even marry the “other” man/woman, without acknowleging the previous union. And they will pride themselves with keeping the commandments of God unlike those sinful orthodox. This act of legalism is very much in harmony with the Corban of the pharisees.

 

[VARC]

BUT, all that being said, didn’t the Lord give His church His authority to bind and loose, and if He did, then isn’t the church allowed to loose those ties that bind?
In which case, both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches could do whatever they want as far as allowing divorce and remarriage or annulment or whatever, right?

QUOTE]

I have never heard it put it that way. I guess that a catholic could look at it that way. But they would probably say that they can’t loose marriage or else they won’t jump through hoops to justify the annulment method. I don’t think the Orthodox Church views this situation as having anything to do with church authority but rather having everything to do with compassion for Her members.

Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches allow divorce and remarriage. They just have a different attitude about it.

The Orthodox see a broken marriage that cannot be reconciled for serious reasons such as abandonment, abuse, adultery, etc. They do not disolve the marriage but recognize that the marriage has already been disolved and act to help the innocent party. Recognizing human weakness, they extend compassion to the innocent party by allowing him/her to remarry with a penitential ceremony. This act of mercy is very much in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus.

Catholics will declare a marriage invalid many years after the couple was pronounced man and wife by a catholic preist for such arbitrary reasons such as a lack of understanding of the full implications of marriage. They will tell the children mommy and daddy were never married. They will allow both parties to re-marry, even marry the “other” man/woman, without acknowleging the previous union. And they will pride themselves with keeping the commandments of God unlike those sinful orthodox. This act of legalism is very much in harmony with the Corban of the pharisees.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BUT, all that being said, didn’t the Lord give His church His authority to bind and loose, and if He did, then isn’t the church allowed to loose those ties that bind?
In which case, both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches could do whatever they want as far as allowing divorce and remarriage or annulment or whatever, right?

Sorry, I know I am not as learned as you all, but I do enjoy learning and thinking about these issues, can one of my Catholic or separated Orthodox brethern out there address this thought, I think it is relative to the thread, after all one side says of the other, this practice is “of men”, yet as I said, Christ gave His authority to “men” (the bishops, successors of the apostles) right?
Isn’t the entire church, bible, and all, “of men”? What makes it special is that we believe the Lord inspired the writers of scripture, the ecumenical councils, etc…So…binding and loosing? Only applicable in certain circumstances? Enlighten me :newidea: please.
Right now I am living as “brother and sister” with my civil wife and we have a son, it is not that much fun, but as I believe as I am sure we all do, that marriage is once and for all, we are trying to work out our problems before we take the plunge, being roman catholic…it’s serious stuff! :hypno:

Binding and Loosing doesnt apply in this case, that is only applicable when it comes to defining doctrine and forgiving sins.

Severing the Marriage bond cannot be done by the Church, just like how the Church cannot undo or sever a Baptism, Confirmation, or Holy Orders, and other things like the inability to ordain women.

 

[VARC]

Severing the Marriage bond cannot be done by the Church, just like how the Church cannot undo or sever a Baptism, Confirmation, or Holy Orders, and other things like the inability to ordain women.

Not true. The RCC “undoes” Holy Orders when it defrocks a preist.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Not true. The RCC “undoes” Holy Orders when it defrocks a preist.

Not entirely true, I think. Their theology says he is still a priest, just forbidden to exercise it.

In the Orthodox Church, another difference. A defrocked priest is laicized. Since the priesthood is not his personal property, once he has been laicized, and ceases to act in stead of the bishop, he has no power, status or authority anymore. Rome says he still has the “power to confect the Eucharist,” but may not.

 

[peso73]

ahh yes, I forgot…
I guess I knew that if I would have thought about it…and who it was that said about our RCC priests still being priests is correct…so no out there…
I don’t know, it does seem the Orthodox stance is more merciful, yet also seems to contradict the bible and ECF writings that have been tossed out there, and the Catholic stance has always struck me as a loophole to “get away with” divorce, outside of the VERY rare situations where it could and should be implemented, I would venture to say the mass majority of annulments are a bunch of !#%$*@#!
That is what has bothered me about our religion, its impossible to follow perfectly, but if you don’t try you’re gonna fry…yet was raised to believe and tried but couldn’t shake it…kinda stuck. Hopefully God will have mercy on us and on the whole world…
:byzsoc:

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox see a broken marriage that cannot be reconciled for serious reasons such as abandonment, abuse, adultery, etc. They do not disolve the marriage but recognize that the marriage has already been disolved and act to help the innocent party. Recognizing human weakness, they extend compassion to the innocent party by allowing him/her to remarry with a penitential ceremony. This act of mercy is very much in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus.

Catholics will declare a marriage invalid many years after the couple was pronounced man and wife by a catholic preist for such arbitrary reasons such as a lack of understanding of the full implications of marriage. They will tell the children mommy and daddy were never married. They will allow both parties to re-marry, even marry the “other” man/woman, without acknowleging the previous union. And they will pride themselves with keeping the commandments of God unlike those sinful orthodox. This act of legalism is very much in harmony with the Corban of the pharisees.

Yes!

 

[Mickey]

I don’t know, it does seem the Orthodox stance is more merciful, yet also seems to contradict the bible and ECF writings that have been tossed out there,

Mercy, love, compassion, and forgiveness, **NEVER **contradicts Sacred Scripture and ECF writings.

 

[Mickey]

Severing the Marriage bond cannot be done by the Church, just like how the Church cannot undo or sever a Baptism, Confirmation, or Holy Orders, and other things like the inability to ordain women.

Yet the RCC says that She can erase the sacrament of Holy Matrimony based on reasons such as “lack of knowledge”. That is disturbing.

 

[peso73]

Mercy, love, compassion, and forgiveness, **NEVER **contradicts Sacred Scripture and ECF writings.

But how do you get away from scripture, etc…stating if you get married then divorced and married again you and your new partner are adulterers? The bible seems very clear on that, and NOT very merciful. Although our God is supposed to be Love and Mercy itself, this is not the only place in the bible that scripture doesn’t take a very merciful standpoint…I think we should acknowledge our religion is not really ALL about mercy, after all, one only can recieve this mercy is one repents and intends to sin no more, in the face of the knowledge that our future sin is inevidable…uch:
I feel unless you take the standpoint our RCC rejects but that I suggested, that as Jesus gave His apostles, and the bishops in succession the right to bind and loose,"…what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth you loose in Heaven" they, your bishops (except for the fact that my idea is considered inapplicable to “loosing” folks from sacraments or adherance to doctine from our RCC view) could indeed “Loose” those ties that bind, and thereby make divorce and re-marriage acceptable within the Orthodox community as it apparantly is…

 

[peso73]

Yet the RCC says that She can erase the sacrament of Holy Matrimony based on reasons such as “lack of knowledge”. That is disturbing.

Yes, very!!!

 

[Fuerza]

Yet the RCC says that She can erase the sacrament of Holy Matrimony based on reasons such as “lack of knowledge”. That is disturbing.

Mickey,

I know that you will disagree, but the Church is not erasing a sacrament when it declares a marriage null. It is saying that the sacrament was invalid and therefore never existed. A sacramental marriage cannot be undone and annulments are not always granted. If they were, there would not today be an Anglican Church.

As I’m sure you are aware, according to Catholic theology 3 things must be present for a sacrament to be valid:

1. Proper form
2. Proper matter
3. Proper intent

If any one of those three is missing, the sacrament is invalid and therefore non-existent. Let’s say for example that a protestant wanted to convert to Catholicism. When reviewing his documents, it is discovered that his pastor baptized him in the name of Kraft, Macaroni. and Cheese. Such a baptism would be declared invalid, and I’m pretty sure that the Orthodox wouldn’t recognize it either. If someone were to go to confession without the intention to truly repent, that confession would likewise be considered invalid, even if the priest used the proper form of absolution and the penitent confesses every single sin that he committed since the Chicago Bulls were actually a decent team.

Marriage is a sacrament just like confession and baptism, and therefore subject to the same rules. If a person enters without the intention of making a lifelong commitment, while already married to someone else, under duress, etc…, the sacrament cannot be considered to have truly occured and therefore the “marriage” can and should be declared null.

Also keep in mind that unless some glaringly obvious impediment becomes public knowledge, no marriage is investigated for nullity until requested by one of the partners, which occurs after a civil divorce has been obtained. The reason the Church waits until a divorce has been obtained is because before that point it is hoped that the couple may work out their differences, in which case, since all lawful marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise, there is no need to investigate. (was that a run-on?)

For the most part your posts are sincere and from what I’ve seen you do not deliberately try to distort Catholic doctrine. Please trust me when I say that we do not believe a valid sacrament can be erased.

To VARC,

Although I believe you have already been corrected, the Church does not “undo” Holy Orders. It merely orders the priest not to exercise his normal functions. I must ask, since it seems that you have already made up your mind about converting to Orthodoxy, why do you still feel the need to bash the Catholic faith?

 

[Mickey]

I feel unless you take the standpoint our RCC rejects but that I suggested, that as Jesus gave His apostles, and the bishops in succession the right to bind and loose,"…what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth you loose in Heaven" they, your bishops (except for the fact that my idea is considered inapplicable to “loosing” folks from sacraments or adherance to doctine from our RCC view) could indeed “Loose” those ties that bind, and thereby make divorce and re-marriage acceptable within the Orthodox community as it apparantly is…

Yes. And that is a part of it. There is also an exception in the Gospel of Matthew (although RC interpretation discounts this). However, we must look at the whole picture. The Orthodox Church is not a divorce mill. Every effort is made to save the marriage through pastoral counseling. But alas, these efforts will sometimes fail because of our fallen human nature. When this tragic failure of the marriage bond ocurrs, the Orthodox Church “may” grant an Ecclesiatical divorce. When/if this ocurrs, should the Church not allow a person to re-marry? The Church is not pharisaical and legalistic. The Church is not an institution of condemnation. Jesus Christ came for the sinners. Jesus Christ forgives. Jesus Christ is all merciful. The second marriage ceremony is penitential in nature.

Peace and blessings to you,
Mickey

 

[Alexios]

But Mickey, everyone is pointing out the difference to you. The difference is that from a Catholic Christian point of view, a marriage can never end in anything but the death of one spouse. Marriages cannot be dissolved. Divorce is not possible.

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, marriage can, indeed, be dissolved for a number of reasons.

An Orthodox divorce is just that: a divorce; a dissolving of a marriage that truly existed.

A Catholic annulment is a statement that a marriage never existed. It is properly termed a Decree of Nullity. For one or more various reasons, a marriage NEVER actually occurred because, for example, a man hid the fact from his “wife” that he never intended to have children, or something like that.

Now, we are in no disagreement that annulments these days are far too easy to get and oftentimes the ecclesiastical courts make a mockery of marriage. There are probably quite a few couples who are legitimately married but have nevertheless been issued a Decree of Nullity. That’s no one’s faults but the lax practice of court tribunals.

This hasn’t always been the case. One year in the 1930s there was a total of something like 13 annulments granted by the Church in the U.S. in that entire year. But it’s another possibility that so few people understand what actual marriage is in our corrupt society that perhaps the number of Decrees of Nullity isn’t really too far off; there may be many people who believe themselves to be married but actually are not due to any number of reasons.

 

[Mickey]

I know that you will disagree, but the Church is not erasing a sacrament when it declares a marriage null.

But in essence, that is what is happening.

It is saying that the sacrament was invalid and therefore never existed.

I know. But it is an odd declaration when a 20 year marriage including children is nullified for reasons such as “lack of knowledge”.

A sacramental marriage cannot be undone and annulments are not always granted.

But it is undone! And very few annulments are denied.

Let’s say for example that a protestant wanted to convert to Catholicism. When reviewing his documents, it is discovered that his pastor baptized him in the name of Kraft, Macaroni. and Cheese. Such a baptism would be declared invalid, and I’m pretty sure that the Orthodox wouldn’t recognize it either.

I do not like this analogy. A protestant baptism that was not perfomed in the name of the Holy Trinity, is not the same as retroactively erasing the sacrament of Holy Matrimony for trivial reasons.

If someone were to go to confession without the intention to truly repent, that confession would likewise be considered invalid

Another bad analogy. This is an issue of conscience. Only God can read hearts.

Marriage is a sacrament just like confession and baptism, and therefore subject to the same rules.

The sacraments are not about “rules”. The sacraments are God’s gift to humanity. The sacraments are about love, mercy, compassion, repentance, and forgiveness.

Also keep in mind that unless some glaringly obvious impediment becomes public knowledge, no marriage is investigated for nullity until requested by one of the partners, which occurs after a civil divorce has been obtained.

Correct.

The reason the Church waits until a divorce has been obtained is because before that point it is hoped that the couple may work out their differences

And let us pray that reconciliation is the outcome.

For the most part your posts are sincere and from what I’ve seen you do not deliberately try to distort Catholic doctrine. Please trust me when I say that we do not believe a valid sacrament can be erased.

Thank you Fuerza. I do not intend to deliberately distort the annulment concept. As a one time Roman Catholic, I helped to convince a very close friend of mine to seek and obtain an annulment. But it is difficult to see tens of thousands of annulments in America alone be granted for sometimes very trivial reasons by declaring that the marriage never occurred or was not valid to begin with–especially when children are involved. I think it is tragic to have to tell a child that their mommy and daddy were never really validly married.

Peace and blessings to you,
Mickey

 

[peso73]

But Mickey, everyone is pointing out the difference to you. The difference is that from a Catholic Christian point of view, a marriage can never end in anything but the death of one spouse. Marriages cannot be dissolved. Divorce is not possible.

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, marriage can, indeed, be dissolved for a number of reasons.

An Orthodox divorce is just that: a divorce; a dissolving of a marriage that truly existed.

A Catholic annulment is a statement that a marriage never existed. It is properly termed a Decree of Nullity. For one or more various reasons, a marriage NEVER actually occurred because, for example, a man hid the fact from his “wife” that he never intended to have children, or something like that.

Now, we are in no disagreement that annulments these days are far too easy to get and oftentimes the ecclesiastical courts make a mockery of marriage. There are probably quite a few couples who are legitimately married but have nevertheless been issued a Decree of Nullity. That’s no one’s faults but the lax practice of court tribunals.

This hasn’t always been the case. One year in the 1930s there was a total of something like 13 annulments granted by the Church in the U.S. in that entire year. But it’s another possibility that so few people understand what actual marriage is in our corrupt society that perhaps the number of Decrees of Nullity isn’t really too far off; there may be many people who believe themselves to be married but actually are not due to any number of reasons.

Yes, Alexios, Mickey doesn’t seem to acknowledge the difference between annulment and marriage, but I am glad you pointed out in the same post the difference between the church’s # of annulments granted now and in the 30s…that is why I feel even though our annulment thing is legit at it’s core, and in fact, NOT the same thing as divorce, it has become, at least in this day and age, functionally the equivalent…
As far as the validity of the initial sacrament, I don’t know, I think in reality, if the annulment tribunals were being truly orthodox in their catholicism, the mass majority of divorced couples approaching the tribunal, would be sent away, with a “tough bananas!”
No one can understand the true implications of marriage, as far as how it will effect their futures, although at the time they usually think they do…
And after they would be sent away, annulments denied rightly, they would cease to be catholics, because how many people would really live in celibacy, while their mate is off living their life with intimate companionship, or accept back a spouse that had sex with another, and forgive and move on, I know it does happen, but if the tribunals were hardcore, c’mon, the “official” #s of members of the Catholic Church would go down, down, down…
:crying:

 

[Mickey]

But Mickey, everyone is pointing out the difference to you. The difference is that from a Catholic Christian point of view, a marriage can never end in anything but the death of one spouse. Marriages cannot be dissolved. Divorce is not possible.

Sorry my friend. No one has proposed a convincing case to justify the annulment process (in my opinion). The annulment dissolves the marriage by declaring that it never occurred.

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, marriage can, indeed, be dissolved for a number of reasons.

This has been covered extensively. The Holy Orthodox Church may grant an Ecclesiatical divorce for serious reasons and if pastoral counseling fails.

An Orthodox divorce is just that: a divorce; a dissolving of a marriage that truly existed.

An Ecclesiastical divorce recognizes the tragic pain of the fallen human condition. The Holy Orthodox Church treats her sheep with love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness.

A Catholic annulment is a statement that a marriage never existed.

Yeah, I know.

It is properly termed a Decree of Nullity.

I know.

For one or more various reasons, a marriage NEVER actually occurred because, for example, a man hid the fact from his “wife” that he never intended to have children, or something like that.

What if this was truly the case at the time of marriage. But then the husband changes his mind and they have children. 20 years later the husband finds a new girlfriend and applies for an annulment because at the time of marriage he was opposed to having children. Will the annulment be granted? Do you not see the problems with this process?

Now, we are in no disagreement that annulments these days are far too easy to get and oftentimes the ecclesiastical courts make a mockery of marriage. There are probably quite a few couples who are legitimately married but have nevertheless been issued a Decree of Nullity. That’s no one’s faults but the lax practice of court tribunals.

It is a broken legalistic process.

This hasn’t always been the case. One year in the 1930s there was a total of something like 13 annulments granted by the Church in the U.S. in that entire year. But it’s another possibility that so few people understand what actual marriage is in our corrupt society that perhaps the number of Decrees of Nullity isn’t really too far off; there may be many people who believe themselves to be married but actually are not due to any number of reasons.

Utter chaos!

 

[Mickey]

Yes, Alexios, Mickey doesn’t seem to acknowledge the difference between annulment and marriage

Mickey understands the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. But he cannot seem to wrap his mind around the retroactive erasure of said sacrament.