Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

[prodromos]

Recent Catholic newlyweds in Nth America should probably avoid having sexual relations as it seems that there is no way they can be sure if they have been truly married or not. It would be better for them to err on the side of caution it would seem, so as to avoid the guilt and complications of having lived in sin for they time they ‘thought’ they were married, as well as the heartbreak it would cause for any children their ‘supposed marriage’ produced when their marriage is finally found to have been non existent.

It must be truly awful for Catholics in Nth America to not know if they are really married or not.

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, Joseph. I didn’t define the word “porneia”. The Greeks did that themselves, as was shown by the words of the St Clement of Alexandria. Now who are you going to trust to define an ancient Greek word here? A 2nd Century Greek father who SPOKE ancient Greek, or a 17th Century Protestant translator? You do know, of course, that English-speaking Orthodox for the most part use the KJV or a derivative, don’t you?

The so-called “Petrine Priveledge” or, more properly the “Pauline Priveledge” stems from St Paul’s words and applies only to a marriage between a Christian and an un-baptized pagan. We return once again to Paul’s words in his epistle to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 7
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.
12 To the rest 8 I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;
13 and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy.
15 If the unbeliever separates, 9 however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace.

Note that this refers to a secular or pagan marriage between a Christian and an un-baptized pagan. Let’s remember our context here. Don’t try to distract. We are discussing the fact that the Orthodox Church allows the divorce and re-marriage of two baptized Christians in a legitimate sacramental and Christian marriage. I refer you again to verses 10 thru 11.

No one here has advocated the recognition of secular or pagan marriages as legitimate.

Ron

You church does. It’s canon law states that a marriage with a non-Christian needs a dispensation (is that in your NT too?), with which it is a “valid” marriage. Btw the dispensation was the legal reason why Henry didn’t get his annullment: to get married Rome had to give a dispensation, on the basis that Catherine’s marriage to his brother wasn’t consumated rolleyes. Her dowry was also an issue.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

so what about the couple converting to your church, the one having been divorced and remarried, and producing children. You say that they are living in adultery. Say that they stop. Their children, according to you, are still the issue of adultery.

Babe Ruth’s second marriage is a perfect example of your reasoning. A month or so after his wife was killed in a house fire, he married his mistress of many years, no problem. According to Orthodox canon, he would have been forbidden (and the Antiochean archdiocese has just reiterated that here).

 

[roncriss]

That’s a typical Protestant argument. You disagree with their interpretation of Scripture and they acuse you of disagreeing with God. It’s a tactic used to play on peoples emotions and has no place in rational debate.

As to Christ’s commandment and the Pauline privilege Christ made no distinction as to who was married so according to your logic St Paul is advocating violating Christ’s commandment. Surely your not saying that are you?

I’m sorry, but you are the one accepting the un-scriptural protestant argument, not to mention their faulty translation of porneia. In this case you think the Greek St Clement lacks understanding of Greek while the English Protestant got it right. As usual the Orthodox side with the Protestants, even against a fellow Easterner!

Words have meanings. I accept the obvious meaning of Christ’s words, which are re-iterated by St Paul. You’d rather explain them away and ask for “compassion” when you knowingly violate His commandments.

I have no idea what you mean suggesting that Christ made no distinction between married and un-married. No, St Paul did not advocate the violation Christ’s commandment not to divorce. He simply did not recognize a pagan marriage as a sacramental or binding one. Is this distinction difficult for you?

It is the Orthodox (and Protestants, btw) who want to do so and cop the excuse of “its economy, we are too weak to actually follow Christ’s hard words!”

I would ask you to explain the following verses, but I expect you will evade them yet again. I’m used to the same tactic in debates with Protestants:

1 Corinthians 7
10 To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine but the Lord’s: a wife must not be separated from her husband-
11 or if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband-and a husband must not divorce his wife.

What part of this do you not understand? Tell me how St Paul doesn’t mean what he says. Like Protestants you want to pick and choose which verses to take literally. No, I think you understand these words, but can’t bring yourself to admit it.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

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.

You are cofusing a secular divorce with one that breaks a bond created by God. A secular court has no ability to annul a Catholic marriage, or an Orthodox one for that matter.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

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?

We already discussed this verse. And, yes, St Paul was a man, so in that sense you might call his exception from secualr marriages to pagans “man-made”. Last I checked the Orthodox did not accept secular marriages as sacramental. But maybe they do now.

Between you and me I think St Paul was divinely inspired when he wrote these letters. I’ll stick with him if you don’t mind. You Orthodox can aray yourselves against his judgement as you do the Lord’s. Then cry “economia!”

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Recent Catholic newlyweds in Nth America should probably avoid having sexual relations as it seems that there is no way they can be sure if they have been truly married or not. It would be better for them to err on the side of caution it would seem, so as to avoid the guilt and complications of having lived in sin for they time they ‘thought’ they were married, as well as the heartbreak it would cause for any children their ‘supposed marriage’ produced when their marriage is finally found to have been non existent.

It must be truly awful for Catholics in Nth America to not know if they are really married or not.

John

John,

LOL! The Orthodox are advocating multiple adulterous marriages with the excuse of economia and you think CATHOLICS should abstain from sex?! Where is your “compassion”?

Ron

 

[roncriss]

so what about the couple converting to your church, the one having been divorced and remarried, and producing children. You say that they are living in adultery. Say that they stop. Their children, according to you, are still the issue of adultery.

Babe Ruth’s second marriage is a perfect example of your reasoning. A month or so after his wife was killed in a house fire, he married his mistress of many years, no problem. According to Orthodox canon, he would have been forbidden (and the Antiochean archdiocese has just reiterated that here).

When your spouse dies you are free to marry. That’s not adultery.

Yes, we say that people should stop committing adultery. Our church does not bless it in the sacrament of marriage as the Orthodox do, with the excuse of human weakness.

Let me explain. When you marry a woman in a sacramental marriage God joins the two of you together. You can’t simply go to a secular court, have some judge un-do what God has done to retract that sacrament, grab another woman or two and call that marriage. What makes you think God blesses adultery as marriage? What other sins would you have God bless in the name of economia?

Ron

 

[VARC]

John,

LOL! The Orthodox are advocating multiple adulterous marriages with the excuse of economia and you think CATHOLICS should abstain from sex?! Where is your “compassion”?

Ron

His point was if catholic marriage can be annulled on the basis that there is a “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”, then every marriage is suspect.

I’ve been married for almost four years and I still lack the understanding of the FULL implications of marriage. What young person can meet this standard? It makes all marriages, especially of the young, suspect of invaildity.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You are cofusing a secular divorce with one that breaks a bond created by God. A secular court has no ability to annul a Catholic marriage, or an Orthodox one for that matter.

Ron

According to your CHURCH’s rules (in Chicago, at least) you cannot get that annullment by your CHURCH until you get your civl divorce.

If anyone is confused, it is your archdiocese here.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We already discussed this verse. And, yes, St Paul was a man, so in that sense you might call his exception from secualr marriages to pagans “man-made”. Last I checked the Orthodox did not accept secular marriages as sacramental. But maybe they do now.

I’m only applying your canons.

Between you and me I think St Paul was divinely inspired when he wrote these letters. I’ll stick with him if you don’t mind. You Orthodox can aray yourselves against his judgement as you do the Lord’s. Then cry “economia!”

Cry korban, and nullify God’s commandments and covenants.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

John,

LOL! The Orthodox are advocating multiple adulterous marriages with the excuse of economia and you think CATHOLICS should abstain from sex?! Where is your “compassion”?

No, we’re not advocation multiple adulterous marriages. Just honesty.

You’re advocating the free license with the excuse of annulment. As prodromos states, no one is safe from an annullment: they ask you those questions before marriage, and yet some “invalid” marriages get through. Of course, this is only conveniently found when the couple divorces.

 

[prodromos]

Let me explain. When you marry a woman in a sacramental marriage God joins the two of you together. You can’t simply go to a secular court, have some judge un-do what God has done to retract that sacrament, grab another woman or two and call that marriage.

What exactly makes a sacramental marriage? After all, in the Catholic Church it is the man and woman who are the ministers of the sacrament, the priest or deacon only being a witness, so if the Catholic Church recognises baptisms performed outside the Church (even by a non believer if their intent is to perform a Christian baptism) why would it not recognise as sacramental, marriages performed outside the Church?

You also have not responded to the fact of the allowance of remarriage after divorce in the undivided Church. The practice was never condemned then, it didn’t even rate a mention on the Bull of Excommunication in 1054, so why is it an issue today? You condemn the traditional practice of your own Church.

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

When your spouse dies you are free to marry. That’s not adultery.

So you have to only wait till your spouse dies to legimize your decades long affair. What a reaffirmation of the sanctity of marriage? Or is that sanctimony?

Yes, we say that people should stop committing adultery. Our church does not bless it in the sacrament of marriage as the Orthodox do, with the excuse of human weakness.

You side steppped the issue. I said they stopped. Their children, according to you, are still bastards.

Let me explain. When you marry a woman in a sacramental marriage God joins the two of you together. You can’t simply go to a secular court, have some judge un-do what God has done to retract that sacrament, grab another woman or two and call that marriage. What makes you think God blesses adultery as marriage? What other sins would you have God bless in the name of economia?

No, you have to have some judge un-do it, THEN you go to your local tribunal to have the priest un-do it. And that you call unmarried. What makes you think God blesses hypocrisy as marriage? Plenty of “invalid” marriages find their “invalidity” after an adulterous affair, which happily the church blesses after denying the first marrige existed. David could do no better with Uriah’s wife.

 

[VARC]

. David could do no better with Uriah’s wife.

Amen. According to catholic teaching, David’s marriage to Bathsheba was a legitimate, God blessed marriage.

 

[prodromos]

What Ron fails to understand is that the bishops have the power of binding and loosing, not the power of pretending something wasn’t real in the first place.

John

 

[prodromos]

Amen. According to catholic teaching, David’s marriage to Bathsheba was a legitimate, God blessed marriage.

I don’t know that I would go as far as claiming that Catholics recognise the union of an adulterous relationship freed from stigma by the murder of the woman’s husband by her lover. Let’s not go overboard here.

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Btw, the idea of porneia having nothing to do with adultery, I posted the lexical universe of this word.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3151339&highlight=harlotry#post3151339

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What Ron fails to understand is that the bishops have the power of binding and loosing, not the power of pretending something wasn’t real in the first place.

John

An interesting twist.

“Bless me father, for I have sinned, but it really wasn’t a sin, so annull it.”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

But “born out of wedlock”** is a polite way of saying** a couple was caught in fornication or adultery. A marriage is assumed valid unless sufficient grounds are found to render it null, thus at least one of the spouses, if not both, are in good faith and not fornicating or committing adultery.

Hmmm. Let’s compare below.

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.

You refuse to realize the very concept of an annulment so your accusing me of a legal fiction.
Like the rest of the Orthodox in this thread you are refusing to recognize the distiction between marriage and divorce as I explained in the contract example I have posted at least twice. On top of this I have shown from Scripture that divorce is not allowed and yet this has been brusehd off by the Orthodox.

In the end regardless of what you think of Catholicism the FACT stands that the Orthodox openly and explicitly allow divorce.

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

False. Your tribunal sees that the contract is valid and proceeds to tear it up. The Catholic tribunal checks, if it finds something that demonstrates the contract was never validly entered into they declare it null and void…IF they find no such evidence then the marriage STANDS as valid and binding for life. There is NO SUCH THING as a marriage being found valid and thus binding for life in Orthodox teaching.

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.

**What do you mean a year’s excommunication for a divorce? **Excommunication puts that person outside the Church by definition and they have lost their salvation by definition.

so what about the couple converting to your church, the one having been divorced and remarried, and producing children. You say that they are living in adultery. Say that they stop. Their children, according to you, are still the issue of adultery.

It all depends on the situation. If the person who was divorced and remarried was never a Christian then that divorce falls under the Pauline privilege of 1 Cor 7. If at least one of the people in the couple was already validly married to someone else then the Church would say this current couple can live under the same roof, but cannot have marital relations (if they do that would be adultery).

Babe Ruth’s second marriage is a perfect example of your reasoning. A month or so after his wife was killed in a house fire, he married his mistress of many years, no problem. According to Orthodox canon, he would have been forbidden (and the Antiochean archdiocese has just reiterated that here).

You are confusing issues here. If Ruth had a mistress then by definition he was living in a state of mortal sin of adultery, he was not married to his mistress at that time.

If Ruth’s wife died, then Ruth is free to remarry ANYONE who is also free to marry. If his former mistress is free the Ruth can make her his genuine wife.