Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

[Mickey]

As for the catholics…I find the annulment procedure to be utterly reprehensible.

Ron is correct when he says that there isn’t a “no fault” annulment that can be granted. However, annulments are granted on the grounds that one of the spouses lacks "knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage ". This condition could invalidate almost every marriage in the church even my own. It is the condition that nullifies most of the 60,000 invalid unions per year in the U.S. alone. It is beyond naive to say that 120000 catholics marry their cousin every year.

Here is a typical outrageous scenario:

After 15 years of marriage, a man decides he is no longer happy with wife and starts an adulterous relationship with secrteary. After he divorces her and leaves his children, he states that before he got married he didn’t really know what he was getting into. Because he lacked the “knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage”, a panel of canon lawyers declares that he was never truly married, his ‘union’ with his ‘wife’ was fornication, and their children are illegitimate. And now he is free to marry anyone he wants including the homewrecking secretary.

While the orthodox christian is praying for forgiveness at his 2nd wedding, the catholic goes to his 2nd wedding with his head held high while the ceremony alludes to a pure and blessed union.

I can see the image of the publican and the pharisee

Orthodox: God have mercy on me a sinner
Catholic: Thank you, Lord, for allowing me to keep your commandments concerning marriage by having your church declaring my previous union fraudulent(CORBAN). Thanks be to you that I’m not like that sinful orthdox who divorces and remarries.

It’s utterly dispicable but happens all the time because the RCC declares marriages null for lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage. The hypocracy is disgusting.

Yes VARC–but if I may add a correction to your post. The marriage will be declared null and void, but the RCC will not consider the children to be illegitimate. Hence the confusion for the offspring of the nullified marriage. How can children ever understand the dichotomy of being legitimate offspring of a union that never happened?!?

 

[VARC]

Yes VARC–but if I may add a correction to your post. The marriage will be declared null and void, but the RCC will not consider the children to be illegitimate. Hence the confusion for the offspring of the nullified marriage. How can children ever understand the dichotomy of being legitimate offspring of a union that never happened?!?

I’m not to prepared to let them have it both ways. When they claim that they are not calling those children bastards then I’m going to call them on their double talk. They must choose one or the other. If they won’t, they are being fundamentally dishonest and I’m going to point that out.

 

[Mickey]

I’m not to prepared to let them have it both ways. When they claim that they are not calling those children bastards then I’m going to call them on their double talk. They must choose one or the other. If they won’t, they are being fundamentally dishonest and I’m going to point that out.

I understand.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, well. Honesty:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12465

I have a question on the philosophy behind the Church’s policy on annulment. I am a convert to the Catholic Church, 5 years ago. A good friend of mine followed me into the Church two years ago. She has always struggled with her marriage. Her three children are in college or beyond. Shortly after entering the Church she counselled with our priest and told me afterwards that the circumstances of her marriage are classic grounds for a declaration of nullity ( I have read two books on the subject and various other essays) She was date raped and manipulated her present husband into marriage by having sex with him and he married her due to guilt (he was and still is a strong Protestant Christian) and she was supposedly psychologically unstable due to the rape etc. so her consent is questionable. She seemed so excited at this news and eager to apply for an “annulment”. I told her she could not do that. The church only investigated marriages that had ended in divorce. She ignored me, sure I was wrong

.

Step 1.

She recently was propositioned by an attractive man at work. She was tempted

Step 2.

but admirably resisted. But the next time her husband was mean to her, 2 weeks later, she wanted a separation.

Step 3.

Less than a month later she met with our priest to file papers for an “annulment”.

Step 4.

I told her, again, she could not file unless there had been a divorce. I do not want her to divorce her husband.

Isn’t this admirable sentiment what is harped on? That marriage is forever. See below.

After meeting with our priest she told me she has met with a lawyer and is going to divorce her husband.

Step 5b

When I asked her why she was not giving the separation a chance to see if they could work out her marriage she said “Because the church will not investigate my marriage unless I am divorced first”

Step 5a

So she is divorcing her husband in order to get an annulment!

good affirmation of the indissolibility of marriage.

This just can’t be right! Can it?

I guess it can.

All of our Protestant friends are scandalized!

they should be.

Originally Posted by Br. Rich SFO
Why on earth would someone want to seek an Annulment to a Marriage they are still actively involved in?

Because both she and her husband believe very strongly that marriage is forever. But, she wants out of the marriage and does not want to violate her belief that divorce is not acceptable.

B-I-N-G-O

Therefore, she believed that if it was found that their marriage really wasn’t a true marriage in the eyes of God b/c the Church declared it null, it would free her to go through a divorce as a mere ratification of how her marriage was viewed by God.

Ah, a tangled web we weave…

I understand the whole idea of extending healing and grace to people whose marriages have ended in divorce but I do not understand the philosophical reasons that make it ok to declare a marriage null after a divorce but not seek a divorce in order to have the marriaged declared null.I agree that the latter is wrong. But why, philosophically?

yes, why?..

Divorce is a matter of civil law. A Church annulment has to do with whether or not a sacramental marriage has taken place. I don’t know why you are so concerned about whether or not she gets a divorce when the matter of annulment is so much more important. She does indeed have reason to have the marriage annulled by the Church. If she has college-age children, she has had more than ample time to “work out her marriage.” If she has decided that she wants the marriage annulled, the choice is hers to make.

Actually no, I thought the whole idea was it had nothing to do with the couple’s choice.

She’s not up at night worried if her marriage is valid or not. She wants out. And the anullment is her “out.”

The padre assumes that she has been working her marriage out, simply by the fact that she has college age children. And what does that matter anyway. The validity is only at the moment of “I do.” All those years of validation don’t count.

You say that you do not want her to divorce her husband, This boggles my mind. You are not the one who has lived in that unhappy marriage all those years. You ask “Why on earth would someone want to seek *an annulment to *a marriage they are still actively involved in?” Because she is still living with him does not mean that she is happy about the situation. You mentioned that she has always struggled with the marriage—That’s why!!!

You say that you do not want her to divorce her husband, This boggles my mind. You are not the one who has lived in that unhappy marriage all those years. You ask “Why on earth would someone want to seek *a dissolution of *a marriage they are still actively involved in?” Because she is still living with him does not mean that she is happy about the situation. You mentioned that she has always struggled with the marriage—That’s why!

see any difference? I’ve seen the latter used to justify divorce innumerous times.

That your Protestant friends are scandalized is surprising when one considers that most Protestant churches accept divorce for any reason and don’t consider marriage to be a sacrament in the first place.

And yet they have the sense to see something wrong. Not all Protestants are modernists.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Was Christ illegitimate? Mary was as yet unmarried. You are thinking in worldly categories.

Ron

All laws that I have ever seen have a presumption that the husband fathered his wifes children, and are therefore legitimate.

Most (although not all ) presume the marriage is consumated.

as best you can fit a UNIQUE and ONE OF A KIND occurance in the legal scheme of things, Christ was certainly legitimate, hence the geneology tracing Him through Joseph.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Mickey,

Why you left the true Church is your business and responsibility. But it explains why you feel such a need to justify Orthodox errors such as this one. The problem with your logic here is not that I have judged anything. The problem is that Christ and St Paul have commanded and the Orthodox ignore the commandments.

Korban.

For your information I have met several people who left the Church, some joining the Orthodox Church because of the convenience, or have hard feelings for the Church while remaining in it, because they were not granted an annulment. So much for basing your understanding on hearsay. No, not all who request them receive annulments. Whether some tribunals are lax is irrelvant anyway. What matters is doctrine and whether it is trueor not. You complain about Catholics getting annulments while accepting the Orthodox practice which, contrary to Christ’s mandate, recognizes divorce and re-marriage:

“32 But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The plain and simple meaning of these words is obvious as are Paul’s:

If they were so plain and simple and obvious, you would not have to mistranslate them.

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.

I know you understand the clear implications of these words, deny them as you might. I can’t make it any clearer than they can. The Lord does not even allow one divorce, let alone two. I judge no one. Christ’s words are the judge in this case. I only submit to them.

Do you swear by the altar, or the gift on it.

I made the leap in the other direction, to the Catholic Church. Not because of this, but for much greater reasons, primarily the Orthodox tendency to ethnic nationalism, control of the church by the nations they reside in (the Russian Church was flooded with KGB priests and bishops who were little more than tools of the commies, for example) and because I discovered that the Fathers recognized the Pope as necessary head of the Church.

The Fathers would be suprised to hear that.

I know a number of Orthodox who lived in Poland and Slovakia. You can share stories.

Ethnic nationalism, hmmmm. Like Archbishop Ireland?

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High”
(Maximus the Confessor,Opuscula)

Uh, the Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened after St. Maximus’ martyrdom. Was this in some appartition?

It also anathematized Pope Honorius. The Fifth struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs. The Fourth disregarded Pope Leo and sat and retried Dioscoros, and wrote its own symbol of Faith (while examining his, and praising it AFTER it passed the Orthodoxy text). The Third was run by Pope St. Cyril, of Alexandria: Pope Celestine had “deposed” Nestorius, but the Council tried him anyway. Pope Damasus had no imput in the Second, nor Pope Sylvester at the First.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Nice dodge. I’m thinking in worldy categories because illegitimacy is a worldly issue. Christ was not the product of fornication. The incarnation was a miracle. According to you, couples whose marriages have been annulled were never married. Therefore, whether they knew it or not,they were commiting fornication. Those children being the product of fornication are bastard children.

I’m really kind of surprised that you guys are resisting the unavoidable conclusion of your annulments. Do you feel guilty for saying that those children are bastards?

Maybe that’s the connection:

They declare a marriage no marriage, and its children still legitimate.

IT’S A MIRACLE!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Clement, who most certainly understood what the Greek word “porneia” meant, considering it was his native tongue, said it meant bigamy.

Among the Fathers, marriage with the widowed is termed “bigamy,” but you seemed to have dropped this meaning.

I find it interesting to depend on Clement, since your church dropped him from the calendar some 3 cent.s ago, for one thing for “eroneous” teaching.

I’ve already posted the myriad of meaning/lexical universe of “porneia,” and invalid marriage is not one of them.

The Orthodox apparently prefer the Protestant (mis) translation as it effectively allows virtually any divorce and re-marriage. It is difficult to understand why, if it is OK two times to divorce and re-marry after unfaithfulness, that it would not be OK an infinite number of times.

The Orthodox of Greece, Russia, Romania, Serbia, etc. have very few Protestants to speak of, and we don’t use their translations. Yet we have the same teaching on this.

As for the three times rule, I think St. Basil likens a third marriage as resembling a pig. If you screwed up in your life choices 3x, the Church wants to save you (and any potential spouse or children) from yourself.

(I see no limit of three specificed by Jesus or Paul. I know of some Baptist communities where 5 marriages is the norm) The point is that if Jesus is stating that any “unfaithfulness” or sex outside of marriage allows divorce then virtually all divorces would be approved and Jesus’ words would be rendered meaningless. He would, in effect, be more liberal than the Romans and the Jews of the time.

No, for men divorce was more liberal than the US, and in Rome it was more so. The idea of limiting it to adultery was quite restrictive.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

.
Marriage has NOT always been defined the same way. The fact polygamy existed in ancient OT times and still exists with pagan nations today means marriage has not always been defined the same way. If you went to an arab nation and checked the dictionary I would assure you marriage in that dictionary includes multiple wives at the same time.

More importantly, you have avoided the main issue of this thread, divorce, and in attempt to derail the thread have introduced this illegitimacy thing. The fact is even if the Catholic Church said those children were illegitimate doesnt change anything regarding the divorce issue. The illegitimate child’s salvation is not affected.

The legitimacy debate is a side issue and does NOT change the fact the concept of an annulment still exists.

 

[VARC]

.
Marriage has NOT always been defined the same way. The fact polygamy existed in ancient OT times and still exists with pagan nations today means marriage has not always been defined the same way. If you went to an arab nation and checked the dictionary I would assure you marriage in that dictionary includes multiple wives at the same time.

B]

I’m sorry, let me clarify. In Christianity, it has always been understood as the union of a man and a woman. Just like christians have always understood illegitimacy as children outside of wedlock. But the past understanding of terms means nothing to you. The pope can tell you up is down and down is up and you’ll agree.

 

[VARC]

It is dishonest to say that the parents were fornicators who were never married and then turn around and tell the kids “don’t worry you’re not illegitimate”. That’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Something you obiviously don’t have a problem doing.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Note, everyone. He did not provide a single shred of evidence for a Catholic marriage tribunal annulling a marriage for “irreconcilable differences”. It simply doesn’t happen because such an annullment would be easily overturned.

Ron

If they ever got that far.

How long did the Kennedy one take? How many years? How many people have the stamina and resources to fight it all the way to Rome? Your proof is a paper tiger.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As for the catholics…I find the annulment procedure to be utterly reprehensible.

Ron is correct when he says that there isn’t a “no fault” annulment that can be granted. However, annulments are granted on the grounds that one of the spouses lacks "knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage ". This condition could invalidate almost every marriage in the church even my own. It is the condition that nullifies most of the 60,000 invalid unions per year in the U.S. alone. It is beyond naive to say that 120000 catholics marry their cousin every year.

Here is a typical outrageous scenario:

After 15 years of marriage, a man decides he is no longer happy with wife and starts an adulterous relationship with secrteary. After he divorces her and leaves his children, he states that before he got married he didn’t really know what he was getting into. Because he lacked the “knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage”, a panel of canon lawyers declares that he was never truly married, his ‘union’ with his ‘wife’ was fornication, and their children are illegitimate. And now he is free to marry anyone he wants including the homewrecking secretary.

While the orthodox christian is praying for forgiveness at his 2nd wedding, the catholic goes to his 2nd wedding with his head held high while the ceremony alludes to a pure and blessed union.

I can see the image of the publican and the pharisee

Orthodox: God have mercy on me a sinner
Catholic: Thank you, Lord, for allowing me to keep your commandments concerning marriage by having your church declaring my previous union fraudulent(CORBAN). Thanks be to you that I’m not like that sinful orthdox who divorces and remarries.

It’s utterly dispicable but happens all the time because the RCC declares marriages null for lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage. The hypocracy is disgusting.

I can’t top the eloquence of your parable.

I am quite disturbed that someone doesn’t see anything soul destroying about going through 9 anullments, since it’s “canonical.” Since it’s permitted, it must be good.

 

[VARC]

.
Marriage has NOT always been defined the same way. The fact polygamy existed in ancient OT times and still exists with pagan nations today means marriage has not always been defined the same way. If you went to an arab nation and checked the dictionary I would assure you marriage in that dictionary includes multiple wives at the same time.

More importantly, you have avoided the main issue of this thread, divorce, and in attempt to derail the thread have introduced this illegitimacy thing. The fact is even if the Catholic Church said those children were illegitimate doesnt change anything regarding the divorce issue. The illegitimate child’s salvation is not affected.

The legitimacy debate is a side issue and does NOT change the fact the concept of an annulment still exists.

I’m sorry, let me clarify. In Christianity, it has always been understood as the union of a man and a woman. Just like christians have always understood illegitimacy as children outside of wedlock. But the past understanding of terms means nothing to you.

So do you believe that these children were actually born inside a marriage? Of course you don’t. So stop fumbling around with the definitions and who has the authority to write them and just face up to what you’re saying.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Orthodox: God have mercy on me a sinner
Catholic: Thank you, Lord, for allowing me to keep your commandments concerning marriage by having your church declaring my previous union fraudulent(CORBAN). Thanks be to you that I’m not like that sinful orthdox who divorces and remarries.

Wow that caused chills to run down my spine.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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

Yes, because if they were at fault means they deliberately attempted to get married knowing they were not allowed to and thus they were engaging in unlawful relations.

As I already said however, the illegitimacy thing is a side issue, even if the Catholic Church were to say all children were illegitimate doesnt mean anything in regards to their salvation. And it is not like children of divorced Orthodox parents are better off socially, so lets not go there.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

Sure because all Catholic marriages are assumed valid unless something arises later to call into question the validity.

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

You cant introduce the terms “divorce” to the case of annulments because you are talking about different things. A divorce could only ever happen on the civil level, and that has no bearing in God’s eyes on the Sacramental nature of the marriage.

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.

A person CAN want and seek to see if their marriage can be annulled (checked and found invalid) if something arises to question the validity. What they have no control over is the facts, if it is found valid then they are bound regardless of what they want.

Im not sure about the third party thing, and that is questionable considering he has to judge the person’s heart subjectively. So given that I would say the most a third party could do is bring up the issue, but it would have to be one of the spouses that initiate the inquiry into an annulment.

As for the people falling in love later on, that doesnt change anything because the marriage was invalid to begin with.

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

If one spouse suspects problems they can have the Church look into it, that is fine, that however does not change the fact the spouse has no control over the facts.

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.

That is a totally separate subject and just leading towards more confusion here. The Church is never ever bound by what secular authorities do, if secular authorities all of the sudden forbade civil divorce that does not mean the Church cant determine if a marriage was invalid or not.

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?

I dont know the answer, a tribunal might not even be necessary if they have the intention to stay together, in that case I would assume there would be a regularization process, similar to a conditional Baptism.

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.

You are setting up a false characterization of putting the civil authorities one step above the Church and I dont have the time or energy to keep correcting you.

That is why divorce does not equal marriage.

Divorce equals deliberately severed marriage. And in Scripture and Tradition divorce equals grave sin.

What of all those anullments overturned by the Rota?

I dont know what Rota is, but I would guess it is a higher authority in the Church. If I am right then the higher authority’s ruling takes precedence.

It would be very similar to an ordination that a bishop later claimed was invalid but then a Patriarch came in and looked over the issue and said was valid, in that case the Patriarch’s claim overturns the original Bishop’s claim.

Call it penance then.

Thats fine, I just wanted to clear up the fact excommunication means something very different.

Further, I have yet to see convincing reasoning why the “innocent” party must undergo a penance for something they are not guilty of, that doesnt make sense.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

The DONT “live as if it did” in the sense they share a bed, they are NOT allowed to share a bed. And as I already made it clear it does NOT sound like an enjoyable situation to be in, it would only be fore the financial and social welfare of the children.

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

This is totally off topic and yet EO continue to bring up issues like these to create confusion and spam.

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.

Ridiculous and spam. I wont put up with it. You and other EO in here have a bad habit of flooding threads with off topic information and spinning bogus issues to the point the thread is full of irrelevant information that people have to wade through.

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. 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.

This is a typical one sided conversation where the Catholic is trying hard to stay calm and defend the Truth in a logical and fair manner and the other individuals want to avoid answering, introduce irrelevant topics, and respond by attacking the Catholic Church instead of addressing the question addressed to them.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’m sorry, let me clarify. In Christianity, it has always been understood as the union of a man and a woman. Just like christians have always understood illegitimacy as children outside of wedlock. But the past understanding of terms means nothing to you.

So do you believe that these children were actually born inside a marriage? Of course you don’t. So stop fumbling around with the definitions and who has the authority to write them and just face up to what you’re saying.

Just like Christians have always understood illegitimacy? LETS SEE the Christian DICTIONARY you are getting your historical information about. At that point you run into huge problems because in Christianity the CHURCH defines such terms.

And dont go down the “Christians have always understood” road because divorce was never acceptable in Scripture or Tradition, yet it is with the EO.

And I will say it again, your illegitimacy argument is to derail the main issue of the Orthodox allowing divorce, it is a classical tactic to avoid having to answer for your own position by keeping attention off of it.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yeah why stop at 3? If the orthodox granted annulments, you could have 10 marriages and just go back and find a reason to invalidate 9 of them. All without a shread of repentance. Can anyone say “Corban”

Amazing, look at this double standard. You refuse to answer the magical number 3 question and spin it into a Catholic problem and accuse us of Corban. ANSWER the magical number 3 and stop the spamming of this thread. And an “answer” of “because Orthodox are merciful” DOESNT cut it.

Up till now I have not commented on the orthodox practice eclesiastical divorce. I think that its tragic but at least the orthodox christian who gets a divorce recognizes his/her sin. They are excommunicated for a period and must do pennace. If they are are granted a second marriage, their previous sin of divorce is at least confessed and prayers of pennace are in the marriage ceremony itself.

What you think DOES NOT affect doctrine. If divorce is forbidden by Jesus it is forbidden. Any sin can be allowed with the “I think its tragic BUT” mentality.

Jesus said he who marries the divorced man or woman commits adultery, there is no “second marriage”.

The bishops of the orthodox church will have to answer to God for allowing the divorcee to remarry and they are well aware of it. Their answer will be:

“We were making an accomodation for human weakness. We told him/her that it was wrong, punished them, and commanded that they confess their sin and pray for forgiveness. We took measures so that this accomadation was not abused such as, not allowing it a 2nd time and denying this accomodation to the guilty party. Lord have mercy on us if this was wrong as we had mercy on the victim of adultery.”

You have GOT to be KIDDING ME. At that rate the Bishop can make an “accommodation” for any sin. Jesus never made accommodation for divorce, and that is precisely because it results in a state of perpetual adultery with the next spouse because the original bond cannot be severed.

You never ever build doctrine on “accommodating for human weakness”.

And whats this “not allowing it a SECOND time”? If it is wrong then it should be NOT allowed the FIRST TIME. That is being consistent in theology and logic.

It is up to God to judge the bishops for their action. But at least they are being honest

That is not honesty, it is acting in direct violation of Scripture and Tradition.

At that rate you could allow abortion if the mother felt she didnt want the child and call that “accommodation to human weakness” as well.

But as for the catholics…

LOL. You have said NOTHING but the “illegitimacy” side issue.