Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

[VARC]

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.

.

This is classic double talk. Bastard children are children that were not born to a husband and wife. They are born outside the institution of marriage. If a marriage is annulled, you are saying that no marriage ever existed. Therefore, whether they were in good faith or not, the children are illegitmate because the parents were never married. According to you, those children cannot ever say that their parents were married only that their parents *thought *they were married but really were not and that my friend makes them bastards.

You are not allowed to redefine terms in the English language just to accomodate your religious views. Just face up to the implications of your beliefs and stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

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.

 

[prodromos]

**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.

After confessing certain sins, have you never been told that you may not receive Holy Communion for a certain period of time as penance? Wow! The Catholic Church has become even more lax than I thought.
The Canons of the Church are very specific on how long one must wait before being allowed to receive Holy Communion after having committed (and repented of) certain sins. These Canons are the product of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which I was previously under the impression you Catholics upheld also. I am surprised at what I am discovering from you about Catholicism.

John

 

[prodromos]

I’m curious. Is it the actual teaching of the Catholic Church that the Orthodox Church actually errs in permitting some people to remarry after divorce? Is there a Papal encyclical or a statement from one of your Lateran councils which condemns the Orthodox practice, or is this just the pontifications of some laity wannabee apologists who actually speak contrary to the teaching of their Church

I ask this because the practice was not condemned any time prior to the schism despite it having been practices for centuries, nor was it condemned at the time of the schism in 1054. Now the way you people present it, the Orthodox practice is abominable and worthy of the strongest censure, yet it was the practice in the undivided Church for centuries which you claim to be the Catholic Church.

So where is it? Where are the official proclamations of your Church with regards to the Orthodox (and Catholic, prior to the schism) practice of permitting remarriage after a divorce?

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

From another thread. The discussion is about a couple whose marriage is held null because one of them failed to get their annulment:

Again, that would be an issue best discerned through prayer with their priest. In a one bedroom apartment, probably an issue. In a 4 bedroom house, probably not.

And again, this would be individual. Yes for some separation, legal & physical, would be best and for others not. If there are children, “brother and sister” may be a better solution than breaking apart the household. This is not something to undertake lightly, or without the counsel of a priest, by any means.

And, still others would ignore the Church and continue to live as spouses. But, we aren’t talking about them. We are talking about those who sincerely want to live out the Church’s teaching.

However, again, there is NO one answer.

And, I would not make a blanket statement.

This anullment “solution” gets more and more interesting.

Also from the same thread, same poster:

Can you be a little more specific in what you are wanting to know?

The “living as brother and sister arrangement” goes back at least to Mary and Joseph. And, there is plenty of evidence from the early church of married men who became priests living with their wife in continence.

So, I’m not sure what you are asking.

I’ve seen lots of assertion on this set up on the Early Church, but no EVIDENCE from the Early Church, except its condemning the practice (btw it was one of the main issues between Rome and the Celtic Church, leading to the former’s supression of the latter).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The idea is divorce is a serious matter, which ruptures communion, and has the practical effect that the innocent party (the guilty don’t have the option) are estopped from rushing into a second marriage (which would increase the odds of a secnd disaster).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Assumed valid. Sooo if we went poking around some of these marriages, we could no doubt find some invalid marriages where the spouses want to remain married. Why should we limit our concern to invalid marriages to those who want to get out of them, invalid or not?

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.

We sorta see marriage and divorce as antonyms.

When I have time, I’ll have to see your claimed examples.

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.

False. Your tribunal is given a torn up contract (remember, you have to get a divorce before you can even apply for an annullment), and seeks to see an escape clause.

I’ll believe your take when someone has the right and responsibility to examen the contracts and declare them invalid, independent of what the spouses want.

Of course there is such a thing as a marriage being found valid and thus binding for life in Orthodox teaching. We call them marriages.

What you describe above is divorce sanctioned by anullment.

**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.

Not necessarily. Read your penetentials.

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).

So you fake marriage. What an affirmation of its sanctity!

Marriage just comes down to sex? Pretty narrow definition, as few if any married couples I know engage in it 24/7.

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.

And with the wave of the hand, all’s right with the world. Does Ruth have to bother confessing first? After all, now it’s with his genuine wife. Is there a clause like the children of annulled marriages, that adulterers have their adultery annulled when they get married?

Btw, according to Orthodox canon, the adulterers are not free to marry anyone, and in particular are not free to marry each other. Ever.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This is classic double talk. Bastard children are children that were not born to a husband and wife. They are born outside the institution of marriage. If a marriage is annulled, you are saying that no marriage ever existed. Therefore, whether they were in good faith or not, the children are illegitimate because the parents were never married. According to you, those children cannot ever say that their parents were married only that their parents *thought *they were married but really were not and that my friend makes them bastards.

You are not allowed to redefine terms in the English language just to accommodate your religious views. Just face up to the implications of your beliefs and stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I dont know much about canon law but here is what I found on the Vatican Canon Law webpage:
Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.
Putative means that at least one was acting in good faith but that the marriage was found to be invalid. This is basically what I have been saying.

Im not “redefining” terms, the Church itself defines terms like “illegitimate”, not secular dictionaries.

Even if Canon law were to say they were illegitimate that status has no bearing on their souls, and it in no way is the green light for divorce like the Orthodox have done.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

After confessing certain sins, have you never been told that you may not receive Holy Communion for a certain period of time as penance? Wow! The Catholic Church has become even more lax than I thought.
The Canons of the Church are very specific on how long one must wait before being allowed to receive Holy Communion after having committed (and repented of) certain sins. These Canons are the product of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which I was previously under the impression you Catholics upheld also. I am surprised at what I am discovering from you about Catholicism.
John

I have never heard the term “excommunication” applied to such a situation, THAT is what I was concerned about because that was what that last post said. Excommunication, from what I understand, means that person is presently LIVING in a state of grave sin, and on top of that it is grave enough that they are not allowed to receive the Sacraments in the normal fashion. As long as the excommunication stands that soul is in jeopardy. Excommunication is NOT the same as a strict penance not allowing you to receive Communion for a period of time. Penance means your soul is not in jeopardy because you have already sufficiently repented.

Further the idea of the “innocent” party getting punished here doesnt make sense at all. I have never ever heard of an innocent person being deprived of the Sacraments.

I’m curious. Is it the actual teaching of the Catholic Church that the Orthodox Church actually errs in permitting some people to remarry after divorce? Is there a Papal encyclical or a statement from one of your Lateran councils which condemns the Orthodox practice, or is this just the pontifications of some laity wannabee apologists who actually speak contrary to the teaching of their Church

I ask this because the practice was not condemned any time prior to the schism despite it having been practices for centuries, nor was it condemned at the time of the schism in 1054. Now the way you people present it, the Orthodox practice is abominable and worthy of the strongest censure, yet it was the practice in the undivided Church for centuries which you claim to be the Catholic Church.

So where is it? Where are the official proclamations of your Church with regards to the Orthodox (and Catholic, prior to the schism) practice of permitting remarriage after a divorce?
John

If I had to guess here I would think the Orthodox used to not allow divorce and remarriage, thus I dont think it has been done for centuries prior to the schism.
It is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that Sacramental Marriage, which is between to Christians, cannot be dissolved, even by adultery. CANON VlI.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
(Trent, Session 24)
Also, the Council of Florence which the EO were present at said:A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual.
There are probably other decrees out there that someone could post, as well as many Early Church Fathers who explicitly condemned divorce.

From another thread. The discussion is about a couple whose marriage is held null because one of them failed to get their annulment:

This annulment “solution” gets more and more interesting.

Also from the same thread, same poster:

The answer there appears to be pretty clear, the current marriage described is invalid because one of the spouses is already married to another and there was no annulment issued. At that point the couple can live under the same roof for the benefit of the children under that roof, but they cannot engage in marital relations.

I’ve seen lots of assertion on this set up on the Early Church, but no EVIDENCE from the Early Church, except its condemning the practice (btw it was one of the main issues between Rome and the Celtic Church, leading to the former’s supression of the latter).

What do you mean “no evidence”, the person just quoted how Mary and Joseph lived as “brother and sister” and given the Early Church Fathers didnt allow divorce means it is your side that has some explaining to do.

The idea is divorce is a serious matter, which ruptures communion, and has the practical effect that the innocent party (the guilty don’t have the option) are estopped from rushing into a second marriage (which would increase the odds of a second disaster).

Why does the “innocent” party not get to receive the other Sacraments like the Eucharist? If there is a “danger” of rushing into a “second disaster” then the laws should state simply that a certain period of time must elapse between marriages, rather than depriving the innocent party the Sacrametns all together.

 

[VARC]

I dont know much about canon law but here is what I found on the Vatican Canon Law webpage:
Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.
Putative means that at least one was acting in good faith but that the marriage was found to be invalid. This is basically what I have been saying.

Im not “redefining” terms, the Church itself defines terms like “illegitimate”, not secular dictionaries.

Even if Canon law were to say they were illegitimate that status has no bearing on their souls, and it in no way is the green light for divorce like the Orthodox have done.

Ah I see. The pope of Rome was given the keys to redefine the English language in Canon Law. Okay fine. Well to the rest of the English speaking world, you are saying that they are bastard children because, as you tell them, their parents were never married.

And I’m not using this as a justification for Orthodox practice. I was only demonstrating the double talk of catholics. The idea that “secular” dictionaries have no part in defining the English language is laughable. There is no limit to the revisionism, historical, scientific, and now linguistic, that some catholics will practice to accomodate their religious views.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Assumed valid. Sooo if we went poking around some of these marriages, we could no doubt find some invalid marriages where the spouses want to remain married. Why should we limit our concern to invalid marriages to those who want to get out of them, invalid or not?

What are you talking about?

We sorta see marriage and divorce as antonyms.

Regardless, it is a grave sin.

False. Your tribunal is given a torn up contract (remember, you have to get a divorce before you can even apply for an annullment), and seeks to see an escape clause.

No. A “torn up contract” is clearly in reference to a valid contract which you didnt feel like adhering to. If the contract is INvalid then tearing it up makes no sense. The Church is not concerned with the secular civil authorities here, if the secular civil authorities refused to grant a secular divorice that has no bearing on whether a marriage is valid or invalid.

I’ll believe your take when someone has the right and responsibility to examen the contracts and declare them invalid, independent of what the spouses want.

That IS how the annulment process is set up, the Catholic Church officials are to take an objective look at the situation and if they find evidence the marriage was invalid then they say so, if they determine it was valid they say so.

Of course there is such a thing as a marriage being found valid and thus binding for life in Orthodox teaching. We call them marriages.

False. The whole point of divorce is the Orthodox taking a valid marriage and severing it.

What you describe above is divorce sanctioned by anullment.

False. As I said if the Catholic Church officials determine the marriage was valid then no annulment can be issued, it is valid and the couple is bound for life.

Not necessarily. Read your penetentials.

Excommunication means the person is living in unrepentant sin and the sin is grave enough that they cant partake in the Sacraments, even the Sacrament of Penance, apart from meeting with the local Bishop for reconciliation.

So you fake marriage. What an affirmation of its sanctity!

Marriage just comes down to sex? Pretty narrow definition, as few if any married couples I know engage in it 24/7.

There is no “faking” because the marriage doesnt exist, the only reason why the couple will remain under the same roof is for the financial and parental welfare of the children. It does not sound like an enjoyable situation to be in.

And with the wave of the hand, all’s right with the world. Does Ruth have to bother confessing first? After all, now it’s with his genuine wife. Is there a clause like the children of annulled marriages, that adulterers have their adultery annulled when they get married?

Ruth would have to go to Confession for his adultery, there is nothing “wave of the hand” or “all right” about that.

As for your “adultery annulled” that doesnt make sense. Adultery is a mortal sin that must be repented of, and there is nothing annullable about it.

Btw, according to Orthodox canon, the adulterers are not free to marry anyone, and in particular are not free to marry each other. Ever.

Why are they “not free” if the divorce took place? The only logical answer would be because they are still united to their original spouse.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ah I see. The pope of Rome was given the keys to redefine the English language in Canon Law. Okay fine. Well to the rest of the English speaking world, you are saying that they are bastard children because, as you tell them, their parents were never married.

LOL. You cant give Webster’s secular dictionary more authority than the Church’s definition. The “rest of the English speaking world” has no authority in Church matters.

And I’m not using this as a justification for Orthodox practice. I was only demonstrating the double talk of catholics. The idea that “secular” dictionaries have no part in defining the English language is laughable. There is no limit to the revisionism, historical, scientific, and now linguistic, that some catholics will practice to accomodate their religious views.

In the end you are shooting yourself in the foot because if Webster’s dictionary and the whole world decided to define “marriage” as a union between two men, two women, a man and dog, etc then YOU would be stuck accepting their definition.

You are putting secular authorities above religious ones. Marriage, divorce, adultery, legitimacy, etc all have religious components to them, to say that only Webster has the authority to define them is unacceptable and will come back to bite you.

 

[VARC]

LOL. You cant give Webster’s secular dictionary more authority than the Church’s definition. The “rest of the English speaking world” has no authority in Church matters.

In the end you are shooting yourself in the foot because if Webster’s dictionary and the whole world decided to define “marriage” as a union between two men, two women, a man and dog, etc then YOU would be stuck accepting their definition.

You’ve just shot yourself in the foot with this bad example. Marriage has always been defined as the union of man and woman. To change that is to redefine the term. Which is exactly what you have done with the term “illegitimate children”. It was always defined as children outside of wedlock and you have redefined it to accomodate your religion. You are no better than the secularists that redefine terms(such as marriage),rewrite history, and distort science to fit their ideology

Catholics are overly concerned with authority. If the pope says now 1+1+4 that doesn’t make it so. The terms have already been defined and no one, not the pope nor "Webster’s"nor the gay marriage lobby can come along and change the previous understanding of a term.

 

[VARC]

Sorry, 1+1=4

 

[dvdjs]

If the pope says now 1+1+4 that doesn’t make it so.

No kidding. I am sure that that will be a revelation to, approximately, no one.

Catholics are overly concerned with authority

My guess would be just the opposite.

 

[prodromos]

I dont know much about canon law but here is what I found on the Vatican Canon Law webpage:
Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.
Putative means that at least one was acting in good faith but that the marriage was found to be invalid. This is basically what I have been saying.

So in the case where both parties were are at fault for their marriage being ‘invalid’, their children would be considered illegitimate?

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What are you talking about?

I’m talking about some authority investigating marriages, a post Cana as it were, to see if the marriages were valid. Under the present system, and present Latin canon law, annullments are limited to only those who want to get their marriages annulled.

To make this crystal clear: not all divorced couples have their marriages annulled, but ALL annulled marriages have ended in divorce.

Why is that? If whether a marriage is invalid or not does not depend on what the couple wants, why should the jurisdiction of the marriage tribunal attach only when the couple wants it to? If, for some reason, someone finds out that the bride, for instance, tricked her boyfriend into marrying her by saying she is pregnant, or he married her in the secret hope that her bachelor uncle’s fortune would be willed her way: why can’t this third party go and intervene with this knowledge and have the marriage annullled? Why should the subsequent fact that their motives and means at the time of marriage may have been fraudulent, but with time they really have fallen in love, matter? After all, annulllment depends only on what was the circumstances at the time of marriage, not the years of validation that follow.

Regardless, it is a grave sin.

Adultery, or marriage?

No. A “torn up contract” is clearly in reference to a valid contract which you didnt feel like adhering to. If the contract is INvalid then tearing it up makes no sense. The Church is not concerned with the secular civil authorities here, if the secular civil authorities refused to grant a secular divorice that has no bearing on whether a marriage is valid or invalid.

yes, and NO marriage appears in the tribunal unless the couple (or at least one) doesn’t feel like adhering to.

Under all the rules of the tribunal I’ve seen, if the secular authorities won’t grant a divorce, you can’t start the anullment process. Soooo, how you going to find out if your marriage is valid or invalid.

Btw, what if the couple thinks their marriage MIGHT be invalid. Does the tribunal take the case just to be sure, if the couple have every intention of staying together, and “regularizing” it?

That IS how the annulment process is set up, the Catholic Church officials are to take an objective look at the situation and if they find evidence the marriage was invalid then they say so, if they determine it was valid they say so.

No, as I pointed out, they only deal with contracts that have already been torn up. If they could independently examin ANY contract (in contract law, an intervenor can do so to examin the validity of any contract), then you would have a point.

False. The whole point of divorce is the Orthodox taking a valid marriage and severing it.

That is why divorce does not equal marriage.

False. As I said if the Catholic Church officials determine the marriage was valid then no annulment can be issued, it is valid and the couple is bound for life.

What of all those anullments overturned by the Rota?

Excommunication means the person is living in unrepentant sin and the sin is grave enough that they cant partake in the Sacraments, even the Sacrament of Penance, apart from meeting with the local Bishop for reconciliation.

Call it penance then.

There is no “faking” because the marriage doesnt exist, the only reason why the couple will remain under the same roof is for the financial and parental welfare of the children. It does not sound like an enjoyable situation to be in.

The marriage doesn’t exist.

They live as if did.

Faking.

Good way to show the children how to make a marriage a TOTAL lie.

Ruth would have to go to Confession for his adultery, there is nothing “wave of the hand” or “all right” about that.

I’m rather curious how he could squeeze in a month the penance for all those years of adultery, in time for the remarriage.

As for your “adultery annulled” that doesnt make sense. Adultery is a mortal sin that must be repented of, and there is nothing annullable about it.

You’re right. Annullment doesn’t make sense. And the canon on the children is logically inconsistent.

Why are they “not free” if the divorce took place? The only logical answer would be because they are still united to their original spouse.

In a sense they are, even after death. Your canon on the illegitimacy of children of an anulled marriage is a clumsy grappling with that fact.

 

[Mickey]

First, are you in such a marriage?

No. But that is really none of your business.

provide us with evidence of a single case where an annulment was granted for “irreconcilable differences”.

You want me to start naming names on the internet? Get real.

 

[Mickey]

Vatican, Sep. 17, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Marriage tribunals in some countries are abusing Church laws regarding annulments, a leading Vatican authority has charged.
Tribunals in some countries (notably the United States) are quick to provide annulments on uncertain grounds, while in other countries the faithful find it difficult to pursue even clear-cut cases of nullity. That was the testimony of Joaquin Llobel, a canon-law instructor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and a member of the tribunal for the Apostolic Signatura.

It is scandalous. The couple says “I do” and “until death do us part” and then years later after some children they find out that they can appeal to the Roman Catholic Church to declare that they were never really married at all!

 

[Mickey]

In order to apply for an annulment, you must already have a civil divorce. (Valerie Dillon, Family Life Director of the archdiocese of Indianapolis).

---

---