Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

[VARC]

I found this statement on a catholic parish website.

Will my children be illegitimate if my marriage is annulled?

Answer: NO! This is a grave misconception. The marital status of the parents does not affect the status of the children. All children are created in God’s image and have equal status in the church. Neither civil law nor church law considers the children of an annulled marriage illegitimate. Nor does the annulment imply that the children were not the fruit of a genuine human love. Annulment is simply a decision on the circumstances surrounding a marriage that could prevent that marriage from being a sacramental marriage.

It looks like catholics want to have their cake and eat it too. No marraige ever existed but the children aren’t illegitimate. Do any catholics want to defend this or would you like to disown this statement.

 

[prodromos]

This is quite extraordinary. To see Catholics condemning what was a practice of their Church for centuries In fact it was such a non issue in the Catholic Church that when Cardinal Humbert placed the Papal Bull of Excommunication upon the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054, it did not even rate a mention among the long list of charges directed at Patriarch Michael and all who followed him.

The Orthodox Church can trace the Churches recognition of the failure of sacramental marriages to long before the schism. She continues to uphold the same tradition, permitting remarriage after divorce at the discretion of the bishop (it is not always permitted). Since she continues to uphold the practice of the undivided Church, it is most odd for modern Catholics to accuse us of having changed and left the teaching of the Church.

John

 

[Mickey]

You have the facts. Now you are responsible for the knowledge.

Ronald,

The annulment process is one of many reasons I enetered into communion with the one, holy , catholic and apostolic Church–the Holy Orthodox Church. I have never heard of an annulment being refused for any reason (though I suppose you could find some cases). All priests I have ever spoken to have reiterated Joseph’s experiences explaining that no annulment is refused. An annulment is a legalistic process by which a couple can justify the nullity of the marriage under the guise of making the sacrament appear as if it had never happened---------ludicrous! In the long run, I much more appreciate the Orthodox process of granting a canonical divorce after serious spiritual counseling. If counseling fails, the Church recognizes our human weakness with love, mercy, and forgiveness. This is the Christian way. I am happy that you feel at home in the Roman Catholic Church and are able to be obedient to Her teachings. I am at great peace within Holy Orthodoxy. And yes, as you say, I have thge facts, and I am responsible for the knowledge. And so I will defend Holy Orthodoxy whenever those, such as yourself attack Her with false accusations—it is my responsibility to defend Christ’s Church.

It is good that you have only had one wife—me too. But do not attempt to judge others when your sins are countless.
We all have the log.

The most wretched of sinners,
Mickey

 

[Mickey]

But the Catholic NAB renders the verse more accurately:

I have never known the NAB to render anything more accurately!

 

[Mickey]

He knows we are weak, but He does not condone or approve sin,

Of course not. But he cloaked Himself with humanity for the sinners–he was all about love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. He was especially harsh on the legalism of the pharisees!

Your “compassion” is nothing more than the typical progressive license. That is the same argument that many make to approve homosexuality, sodomy and homosexual marriage.

I suppose you think they should be condemned to hell also? Are you for real? I cannot recall Jesus Christ’s teaching on compassion as a “typical progressive license”.

Will the Orthodox churches soon recognize homosexuality and homosexual marriages because “He knows that we are weak and does not condemn us with legalistic proclamations”?

I suppose that Holy Orthodoxy would say that they recognize these spiritual illnesses. You have changed the subject and you have no point.

The law of logical non-contradiction requires it.

Oh boy, here we go. Scholasticism at it’s best!

God has compassion on those who REPENT of sinful behaviors. His compassion does not condone sin, sexual sin resulting from lust or otherwise.

He forgives the sin of those who repent. Can you get that through your scholastic legalistic fog?!?

Readers, choose which church you will follow, the one that follows our Lord’s commandments, or the one that flouts them in the name of a false “compassion”.

This is not a prosyletization contest Ron. The readers here are quite intelligent and are not going to convert because of an internet forum.

 

[Mickey]

It looks like catholics want to have their cake and eat it too. No marraige ever existed but the children aren’t illegitimate. Do any catholics want to defend this or would you like to disown this statement.

Amen. The double-talk gets so thick sometimes, that new definitions are created to explain the old ones. It increases at geometric progressions!!!

 

[Mickey]

This is quite extraordinary. To see Catholics condemning what was a practice of their Church for centuries In fact it was such a non issue in the Catholic Church that when Cardinal Humbert placed the Papal Bull of Excommunication upon the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054, it did not even rate a mention among the long list of charges directed at Patriarch Michael and all who followed him.

The Orthodox Church can trace the Churches recognition of the failure of sacramental marriages to long before the schism. She continues to uphold the same tradition, permitting remarriage after divorce at the discretion of the bishop (it is not always permitted). Since she continues to uphold the practice of the undivided Church, it is most odd for modern Catholics to accuse us of having changed and left the teaching of the Church.

Indeed!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Oh my! Are you saying that Jesus Christ will not forgive the sinner of a grave sin?

Now I’m outta here!

He will, BUT NOT if the individual has no intention to stop.
If you are living in an adulterous relationship you cant be forgiven if you have no intention to stop sharing a bed.

I agree it’s a grave sin to divorce, just as it’s a grave sin to lie about the existence of a marriage in the first place but through the Church we have the opportunity to repent, confess our sins and be forgiven. Why is the case of this sin different than others?

NOBODY is supposed to lie about the existence of a marriage, if they do THEY are in grave sin themselves. If a valid marriage didnt take place then it didnt take place, you dont seem to get it and I dont know how much more I can try to explain it.

It goes back to my example of a contract, if a contract for a job requires a person to be at least 18 years old to sign and a 17 year old signs then the contract was never valid. It doesnt matter if that 17 year old spent time doing the job, the contract was never valid.

God Himself made a exception for our weakness by choosing to become Incarnate for our sake. I’m not sure this attitude is what Christ intended.

That is not a sufficient answer. With that you could excuse almost any sin under the excuse “God is merciful”.

Christ Himself makes an exception to divorce.

Of the 4 times divorce and remarriage are expressly forbidden in the New Testament, only in Matthew does the “except” clause exist. Given the other 3 times dont mention this “except” clause should raise a red flag.

Next after carefully looking into the “except” clause you will see it is not saying divorce and remarriage are acceptable due to adultery but rather is talking about something else, the marriage being unlawful.

So it’s not a blanket rule, God can’t contradict Himself, so if Christ is willing to make an exception why can’t the Church, that is the Body of Christ make an exception as well?

There is no “exception” that is the point, what is worse is that this “exception” Protestants and Orthodox point to is often interpreted beyond actual adultery and used to excuse divorce all together.

I found this statement on a catholic parish website.

Will my children be illegitimate if my marriage is annulled?

Answer: NO! This is a grave misconception. The marital status of the parents does not affect the status of the children. All children are created in God’s image and have equal status in the church. Neither civil law nor church law considers the children of an annulled marriage illegitimate. Nor does the annulment imply that the children were not the fruit of a genuine human love. Annulment is simply a decision on the circumstances surrounding a marriage that could prevent that marriage from being a sacramental marriage.

It looks like catholics want to have their cake and eat it too. No marraige ever existed but the children aren’t illegitimate. Do any catholics want to defend this or would you like to disown this statement.

Illegitimacy only comes about when couples knowingly engage in adultery and have children. An annulment isnt the same as adultery because the couples (or at least one) acted in good faith.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is a look at Mat 19 with the “except” clause: 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Here is a interlinear Bible which shows what words are used.

The term “marital unfaithfulness” in Greek is " porneia ".
The term for “adultery” in Greek is " moichao ".

These are NOT the same word. Many people are interpreting that except clause to read “except for adultery…commits adultery” but the word is not the same. Adultery (“moichao”) means someone who is married having relations with someone who is not their spouse…but that is NOT the term used in “except for”, thus the passage is not saying you can divorce if one spouse is caught in adultery.

The term “porneia” also appears in the context of marriage in 1 Cor 7:2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
Here in the Corinthian church there was lots of “porneia” going on, yet Paul is clear a husband must not divorce his wife. NO exceptions.

So why does Matthew give this “except for”?Matthew 1: 18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. …
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
Matthew is the only gospel to record this situation with Joseph. There were two stages of marriage at that time, one was being pledged to marry and the second was moving in together. This was a situation of porneia and was grounds to break off the marriage from being consumated. This is the exception Jesus was talking about in Matthew.

 

[roncriss]

Then you are living in a make-believe world. I know that annulments have been granted for this reason. In a perfect world, every marriage is forever. But this is not a perfect world, and pretending that a sacrament never ocurred does not make it more palatable than council, repentance, mercy, and forgiveness.

When I was a Catholic in communion with Rome practicing apologetics, I always found annulments as one of the most difficult concepts to defend.

First, are you in such a marriage? That would bias your view and would explain why you can’t understand what Jesus commanded in plain words and what St Paul reiterated.

But, I’ll bite, provide us with evidence of a single case where an annulment was granted for “irreconcilable differences”. I bet you can’t.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Matthew is the only gospel to record this situation with Joseph. There were two stages of marriage at that time, one was being pledged to marry and the second was moving in together. This was a situation of porneia and was grounds to break off the marriage from being consumated. This is the exception Jesus was talking about in Matthew.

Let’s not forget that Joseph still lived under the Jewish Torah Law. Just as polygamous marriages were acceptable due to the hardness of men’s hearts, so was divorce. Jesus corrected that and demands a higher calling for Christians.

The betrothal was considered a binding contract. It was this betrothal that Joseph sought to break quietly. He was not actually married to Mary at the time. If he had been finding her pregnant would not have been an issue, obviously.

Ron

 

[VARC]

Illegitimacy only comes about when couples knowingly engage in adultery and have children. An annulment isnt the same as adultery because the couples (or at least one) acted in good faith.

Whenever a catholic is caught in a contradiction, the easy way out is to redifine the term. But that is unacceptable.

Illegitiamte children are those born out of wedlock. They are also called bastard children. So, catholic dude, your attempt to have it both ways exposes the hypocracy of your position. According to the teaching of the roman catholic church, when an anulment is granted it means that a marriage never existed at all. It follows that the children were born at out wedlock and are bastards. Either admit that or retract your assertions about annulments not being the equilvalent to divorce.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Mickey,

You must distinguish the difference between an Annulment and a Divorce because the difference is very clear.
Pretend marriage was like a written contract:

• A divorce would be equivalent to tearing up the contract for whatever reason. It was a fully binding contract, but you tore it up so that you could be free (even to enter into another contract).
• An Annulment occurs if it is found something prevented the contract from becoming valid IN THE FIRST place. For example if it requires the signer be 18 years old and the person who signs is only 17, then the contract NEVER was valid. If the contract is found to be valid, then it is BINDING forever. (it can never be torn up).

Even if you disagree with the Catholic Church you must recognize the CONCEPT is very very different.

Hmmm. Let’s compare below.

Where does this “limit” come from?

If you think the concept of an annulment and a divorce are the same then you are missing the key distinction. In one the marriage did take place and was torn apart, in the other a marriage never took place. Using terms like “legalistic” dont really have any effect on this issue because there is inherently a legal (canonical) sense about marriage. Even your “limit” of 3 has a legal sense about it.

**[1] **I have never heard of a limit on annulments and I dont see why such a limit would exist, all an annulment means is that the marriage was found to never have existed.

[2] Yes you can marry after an annulment because an annulment is an indication you never were validly married.

**[3] **You dont appear to understand what an annulment is. The Church investigates the marriage to see if something prevented a valid marriage from occurring:

• IF the Church determines that the marriage was valid then NO annulment takes place. The Church says that couple is validly married and BOUND for LIFE. (Unlike divorce which severs a valid marriage)
• IF the Church finds something that made the marriage invalid, then an annulment IS issued. An annulment simply means the Church has determined that a valid marriage never took place.
  You can only be married to one person at a time, and only can separate from them if they die. You can technically get married as many times as you want as long as it is to one person at a time and that each previous spouse dies (dissolving each marriage).
  **
  ****[4] **Yes, the concept always existed. From the very beginning God’s plan was:Mark 10:
  2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
  3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
  4They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
What the Orthodox are doing by allowing divorce is flatly condemned by Jesus right here in plain language. What God has joined let no man separate…anyone who divorces and marries another commits adultery.

It doesnt matter how much pleading, how much pain or how much sadness because Jesus said “what God has joined let no man separate”. To divorce and remarry is to be put in a perpetual state of adultery and there is nothing “merciful” or Christlike about this.

You cant use the term “legalistic” as a shield and contrast it to your “merciful” and “failed efforts” divorce. The phrase “irreconcilable differences” doesnt mean anything specifically, that isnt grounds for an annulment. And the money is not the issue either, King Henry VIII had plenty, but the Church determined his marriage was valid.

Sooo, you create a legal fiction that the two have not become one flesh (and of course, that leaves the issue of the that non-existent union of flesh), and it’s all all right. It’s just like the Pharisees declaring something “korban.”

I know about the stipulation that the children of an annulled marriage are not illegitimate, but how so? You are at pains to show that the annullment means no marriage existed. So how can a non existent marriage legitimize anyone?

As for Henry, it was less his money and more Catherine’s uncle, the emperor beseiging Rome, that had to do with the “validity” of Henry’s marriage.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Mickey,

You have many misconceptions about Catholic practice and Scripture. Please cite sources from Scripture or the Eastern Fathers where these are cited as reasons for divorce. I already quoted for you Jesus, St Paul, and Clement stating that no re-marriage is allowed while the spouse is living. The ecclesiastical approval of divorce is a post-Schism innovation of Orthodoxy which cannot be supported by Scripture or authentic tradition.

We all need God’s mercy, but we don’t knowingly disobey His commandments and justify the continuing practice of adultery with that in mind. Are you in this sort of re-marriage? Is that why you defend it?

The only reason for granting an annulment of a Catholic marriage is that it was defective and illegitimate for some reason, from the start. No, they do not grant annulments for “irreconcilable differences”. But the Orthodox do.

Ron

At least in the Latin Archdiocese of Chicago, you cannot even apply for an annullment until the divorce is final. Why?

I will concede your argument when you come up with a couple that realizes their marriage is invalid, get an annullment, and THEN divorce.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello

I have never seen literature from Holy Orthodoxy that claims you are permitted two divorces. In other words, I can marry once and if there are valid reasons, I can obtain an Ecclesiatical divorce and marry a second time. If my second wife reposes, I may marry a third time–and that is all.

Mickey,

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Joseph,

So our Lord and St Paul were wrong and should have granted an exception for bad judgement? So you married a woman who was already married? Maybe you have a personal reason for ignoring Scripture?

Ron

You seem to be jumping the gun.

Maybe she got her annullment. The priest said he never failed. So all’s right with the world.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“Personal experience” doesnt cut it here, you dont know the actual details behind any of those annulments so you cant go around saying it is guaranteed or “any marriage” can get annulled. Further if someone in the Catholic Church is abusing his authority by handing out annulments he will have to answer to God because he is in fact sinning gravely.

Catholics are NOT making an exception for human weakness, what is gravely sinful is always gravely sinful. An annulment is not a guarantee, if the Church determines the marriage was valid then that couple is bound for life, there are no “exceptions” here.

Again, you cant compare your own “personal experience” with the fact the Orthodox Church is openly allowing divorce and remarriage (a grave sin explicitly condemned by Jesus).

And the annullment tribunal is openly doing the same, just denying it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“Personal experience” doesnt cut it here, you dont know the actual details behind any of those annulments so you cant go around saying it is guaranteed or “any marriage” can get annulled. Further if someone in the Catholic Church is abusing his authority by handing out annulments he will have to answer to God because he is in fact sinning gravely.

Catholics are NOT making an exception for human weakness, what is gravely sinful is always gravely sinful. An annulment is not a guarantee, if the Church determines the marriage was valid then that couple is bound for life, there are no “exceptions” here.

Again, you cant compare your own “personal experience” with the fact the Orthodox Church is openly allowing divorce and remarriage (a grave sin explicitly condemned by Jesus).

And the annullment tribunal is openly doing the same, just denying it. Moreover, they are quite OK with it, in contrast to the Orthodox who face a years’ excommunication for a divorce, even if the innocent party.

 

[VARC]

But, I’ll bite, provide us with evidence of a single case where an annulment was granted for “irreconcilable differences”. I bet you can’t.

Ron

The catholic church grants over 60000 annulments a year in the US alone. Surely you are not under the illusion that 120000 catholics a year are marrying their cousin. The catholic church hands out annulments for the same dubious reasons that courts grant no fault divorce including:

Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.

Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.

It truly is a fancy legalistic way to get a catholic divorce.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That is a fualty translation. The Greek word here translated as “marital unfaithfulness” is actually the Greek word “porneia”, rendered as “fornication” in the faulty Protestant translations relied on by english-speaking Orthodox.

I believe a few Orthodox speak Greek.

Protestants pretend that this contradicts Christ’s clear injunction and allows the very thing He speaks against, an adulterous marriage. But the Catholic NAB renders the verse more accurately:

Matthew 5:31
30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
31 "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’
32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

In other words Jesus forbids all divorce. Clearly He is not talking about adultery because He says that whoever divorces or marries a woman CAUSES her to commit adultery. That porneia does not mean “adultery” is evident by the fact that a separate greek word MEANING adultery appears together with it in the same passage.

St Clement of Alexandria, who certainly knew the greek language better than your protestant sources, as I have quoted to you two times already, interprets porneia as a bigamous marriage, one that is illegitimate from the inception. In other words no legitimate marriage at all, one that would be null and recognized as such by a Catholic tribunal and resulting in an annullment.

The Catholic Church’s doctrine follows the Lord’s commandment, Scripture and the Fathers as is evident here, while Orthodoxy seeks to evade the clear words of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 7
8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): 7 a wife should not separate from her husband
11 --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Note: Paul specifically states this is “from the Lord”. The Scripture is clear. Orthodox defy it.

(I will post separately an article I wrote on this topic)

Ron

Have I missed you quoting verse 15?

But if the unbeliever [spouse] departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.

Is that the basis of the man made Pauline privilege, which dissolves a marriage?