Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

[Alexios]

It’s not merciful or compassionate to lead Christians into error thinking they can be divorced. That’s quite the opposite.

 

[roncriss]

Isa, you’re still not making a dent in the Catholic argument. For a marriage to be valid it the parties not only have to give and receive consent but have to consummate the marriage. Thus the “dissolving” of a “marriage” between two baptized persons who have not consummated a marriage. Supernatural marriages (marriages between baptized Christians) can never be dissolved, just as we have been stating. An unconsummated marriage is not valid.

What are you confused about?

They think a marriage between brother and sister is legit (they have yet to deny it, so they must accept it). What do you expect? Logic? Don’t hold your breath. Orthodox doctrine is, as I said earlier, reactionary. Whatever the Church believes, they go the opposite direction. No regard for Scripture. Their little rebellion against Mamma is more important than their pride, as these fellows demonstrate routinely. They may have convinced themselves, but no disinterested observer would be fooled by any such tactics. They are merely trolling, as is evident by their presence on a Catholic board. You are wasting your time trying to reason with them. Now they can go cry to the Moderator since I hurt their tender feelings.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Hey, do any of you know what these folks mean by “Corban” in this thread? …and I agree with Alexios (?) Isa has not made a point invalidating annulments as far as saying that they are IN FACT the same as a divorce, because an annulment is not the same as a divorce :tsktsk: , HOWEVER, Varc and Isa and the rest ARE totally on base in that the annulment institution as it functions in todays day and age at least, is TOTALLY the same in effect as divorce , it is a loophole for divorce except for the most rare of circumstances …sooo…it is in and of itself NOT the same as a divorce…but in REALITY it is totally used for a way for us catholics to divorce and not have to arrange for our ex to have an unfortuneate “accident” to allow us to move on…
That is all there is too it!
YES, my separated Orthodox brethern, the annulment process as it is used probably 99% of the time is a total joke and hypocritical and a load of STUFF uch: , but having said that HOW does your church reconcile divorce and remarrige with the very clear words of scripture ??? Oh, I agree it would be more merciful and compassionate to allow for this, BUT the bible seems to take a less merciful and compassionate standpoint; PLEASE, 2 things: answer the ? re: how can you allow divorce and remarrige in the face of scripture, and WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CORBAN? :banghead:

We admitted long ago that the process is often abused. But what we are defending here is Catholic doctrine, not the failure of the tribunals to always live up to it. Let’s see if they finally answer the question. Their argument is that since Christ is so mercifiul He will nullify His own commandment concerning divorce and re-marriage. The Orthodox position is all about not following the Gospel because, gosh, its just too darned hard, so God will just (they say) ignore the fact that they ignore His words.

Ron

 

[VARC]

Oh, I agree it would be more merciful and compassionate to allow for this, BUT the bible seems to take a less merciful and compassionate standpoint; PLEASE, 2 things: answer the ? re: how can you allow divorce and remarrige in the face of scripture, and WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CORBAN? :banghead:

We are calling the annulment tribunals Corban because we see a disturbing similarity between how the pharisees justified their sin against honoring parents with the tradition of Corban and how the Roman Catholics justify their sin of pretending marriages don’t exist with their tradition of annulment tribunals.

As I have not been catechized or received by the Orthodox Church, it is not proper for me to answer this question. Since I am happily married to my first wife and I never intend to get divorced, I don’t really dwell on the Orthodox position. I am much more concrened with the hypocritical attitude of the Roman Catholics regarding this issue. However I will explain, why I don’t have much problem with the Orthodox position.

1. There is some biblical precedent for allowing a spouse to get a divorce in the “Pauline priveledge”.

St. Paul allows a spouse to divorce and remarry simply because the wife/husband is a pagan. It is reasonable to assume that St. Paul would allow the same as merciful pastoral prudence
if the spouse was acting like a pagan by beating her like a dog and shrugging off the church when commanded to stop

1. The emphasis of the Gospel is mercy, not law.

In the case of divorce, the Orthodox Church is at a crossroads of mercy and law. A battered wife or an abandoned husband is an innocent victim. Since human beings are weak, demanding obedience to the letter of the law causes further harm to these christians. The Orthodox err on the side of mercy instead law. I think that is a better position to be in on Judgement Day.

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
Luke 11

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Matt 7

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy
Matt 5

 

[roncriss]

You know, we have gotten somewhere in this discussion. Originally the Orthodox tried to deny that they allow divorce and re-marriage for anything other than adultery. Then they tried to suggest that they did not allow a third marriage unless the spouse died. Apparently now they have given up those falsehoods in the face of quotes from Orthodox bishops and priests to the contrary, and admissions that they allow divorce and re-marriage for many reasons, such as “incompatibility”, dissolution of the marriage, etc. Now their only argument is to deny that any marriage can be illegitimate, even between a brother and sister. Now all they can do is attack the concept of any marriage being illegitimate and misrepresent the Catholic annulment process as a divorce.

The fact that they no longer defend the Orthodox process as scriptural and feel the need to misrepresent the Catholic position shows at least some advancement in understanding. Though they willfully refuse to accept logic otherwise.

Ron

 

[VARC]

We admitted long ago that the process is often abused. But what we are defending here is Catholic doctrine, not the failure of the tribunals to always live up to it.
Ron

Roncriss was only too happy to throw this in Mickey’s face…

"Its called the “Orthodox Church”, not “Mickey’s Church”

The bishops of the Roman Catholic including the Pope, are the ones responsible for this “mockery of marriage”!!! They are the people in charge “ecclesiatical courts” that void the marriages of tens of thousands of marriages every year for “lack of knowledge”. Civil society has no control over the process. You call it an abuse, but the bishop’s who run your church call it diocsean policy. And the pope, who has the authority to stop these “abuses”, has watched this from the Vatican for decades and has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop it. His silence is passive approval of this “abuse”.

 

[roncriss]

Found the following Orthodox canons online:

The Mystery of Marriage

The Church’s vision of marriage is as an icon of the Trinitarian life of God Himself. In such a union, human love and desire for companionship become a love pervaded and sanctified by Divine Grace. God unites in body and spirit, heart and mind. Love unites in such a way that two lives become one life in perfect harmony. Such love implies a relationship in marriage that is total in character. To live up to its high calling, the Christian family must be firmly established in the faith. See: On Marriage, Encyclical Letter, Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America, 1976.

The priest must make sincere and determined efforts through preaching and teaching to make his parishioners aware that the Mystery of Marriage takes place within the context of the total life of the parish.

The rector must seek to know who among his parishioners intend to marry and must make himself available for guidance and advice. His responsibilities include instructing the couple on the Orthodox Christian teaching of marriage. This should take place well before wedding plans are made so that the couple may understand and follow the Church’s teaching and discipline on the Mystery of Marriage.

Counseling and teaching should include the following:
• Procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage; nevertheless, marriage presupposes a desire to have children. The couple should pray for God to grant them the blessings of childbirth and wise nurturing of the family.
• “Let marriage be held in honor, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4). Sexual union is one of the blessings of marriage. The priest should remind the couple that they belong to each other. Couples may abstain from sexual union for a season by mutual consent, but should be made aware that refraining entirely from this act may result in unnecessary difficulties in their marriage.

The priest should make known to his faithful that before setting a date, renting a hall, or considering any activity related to the social aspect of the marriage day, a couple planning marriage must first seek the blessing, guidance, and advice of their parish priest.

The couple must respect the seasons, times, and days during which marriage may be blessed. The priest must also uphold the teaching of the Church in regard to these things. The most appropriate time for a wedding is Sunday, following the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

Marriages are not to be celebrated on:
• evenings before Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year,
• Saturday evenings throughout the year,
• evenings of the twelve Great Feasts or patronal feast of the parish,
• during the course of all the fasts,
• the Great Forty Day Fast, Apostles’ Fast, Dormition Fast, and Nativity Fast,
• from Sunday of Meatfare to the Sunday of Cheesefare,
• during the course of Bright Week,
• from the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord (Dec. 25) through the Feast of the Synaxis of St. John the Baptist (Jan. 7),
• on the evening and day of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist (Aug. 29), and
• on the evening and day of the Elevation of the Cross (Sept. 14).

Because marriages are normally celebrated on Sunday after the Divine Liturgy, the request to hold the ceremony on a Saturday requires a written petition for consent to the diocesan hierarch by the rector of the church where the marriage is to be performed.
The couple must be exhorted to attend the Divine Liturgy on the following Sunday so that the marriage can be sealed by the reception of the Holy Eucharist.
If permission is given for a Saturday wedding, it shall be celebrated no later than a time of day established by the hierarch so that the priest may serve the Vigil or Vesper service.

The ritual of the marriage ceremony is to be celebrated in an Orthodox Church building. Halls, gardens, and other places are not appropriate.

The priest, as a pastor of souls, must also be available to counsel those already married, who are experiencing difficulties in their married status.

The priest is responsible for entering into the metrical book the required information.

cont…

 

[roncriss]

Orthodox canons

cont…

A. Mixed Marriages
A mixed marriage is a marriage between an Orthodox Christian and a non-Orthodox Christian who is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who confesses the unique Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Church tolerates this because of her pastoral concern and love for the faithful. Thus, a mixed marriage is not the norm, but is permitted in the hope that the non-Orthodox spouse will seek entrance into the Church.

A petition for a mixed marriage must be submitted to the diocesan hierarch for his blessing.

In a mixed marriage, the Orthodox partner should not consent to have children of the union baptized outside the Orthodox Church as a pre-marriage agreement.

Toleration of a mixed marriage does not extend to marriage between an Orthodox Christian and a non-Christian person, such as a Christian Scientist, Jehovah’s Witness, Jew, Mormon, Moslem, Unitarian, etc.

Active participation on non-Orthodox clergy in this service, as in all the mysteries of the Orthodox Church, is not allowed. Conversely, Orthodox clergy may not participate in Non-Orthodox services and rites.

B. Second Marriage and Marriage Between Divorced Persons

The Orthodox norm for those who marry is one marriage. A second marriage is tolerated under certain conditions. A third marriage is extended under certain precise circumstances.

The Church does not grant divorces. However, it recognizes that because of human weaknesses and sin marriages sometimes disintegrate and are ended by civil decree (divorce).

In her mercy and wisdom, the Church may grant permission to remarry through the diocesan hierarch. Petition is made to the hierarch through the parish priest. A clear statement of repentance from the divorced party, whether or not he/she is considered the culpable one in the divorce, and a clear statement that the reason he/she desires to enter a second marriage is that it is considered necessary for his/her salvation is to be addressed to the diocesan hierarch through the parish priest. (See: Synodal Affirmations on Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and Sanctity of Life, Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America, Tenth All-American Council, 1992, page 5.)

Under no circumstances can there be a fourth marriage.

The Order of Service:
• If one party of the marriage is being married for the first time (even if that person is not Orthodox), the order of the first marriage is used.
• If both the partners are divorced and/or widowed, the order for the second marriage is used.

C. Marriage Outside of the Orthodox Church
Orthodox Christians who marry outside the Orthodox Church thereby exclude their marital life from the life of the Church, exclude themselves from participation in the Holy Eucharist, and therefore exclude themselves from full membership in the Church.

Such persons, after a period of penance, may be restored to Eucharistic fellowship by recommendation from the priest and on the approval of the hierarch.

Normally, such an act of restoration includes the confirmation of the marriage through a rite approved by the hierarch.

Priests are reminded that converts to Holy Orthodoxy are not to be remarried when they embrace the Orthodox faith. See: On Marriage, Encyclical.

aggreen.net/canons/canons.html

 

[roncriss]

Now I find the following admission from Orthodox canon law very interesting:

“The Church does not grant divorces. However, it recognizes that because of human weaknesses and sin marriages sometimes disintegrate and are ended by civil decree (divorce).”

In other words there is according to them no such thing as an illegitimate marriage. They recognize that the Orthodox Church does not grant divorce. But they believe the state can do what the Orthodox Church cannot! End a legitimate marriage! If this were not the case they would, of course, be conducting bigamous marriages.

Hmmmm. Come to think of it, if our Orthodox brethren are correct, even bigamous marriages must be valid since there is no such thing, they tell us, as an invalid marriage. So a person could be married multiple times and the Orthodox would consider these marriages not adulterous, but legitimate!

Oh, what a tangled web!

Ron

 

[roncriss]

Considering this further, since Orthodox do not believe there is any such thing as an illegitimate marriage, and that the state has power to determine the married state or not, as it were, they would be forced to accept even a marriage between two men as valid as long as the state allows it is so. To suggest otherwise would be an admission that some marriages are indeed null and would be correctly determined such by a Catholic tribunal.

Ron

 

[roncriss]

In the case of divorce, the Orthodox Church is at a crossroads of mercy and law. A battered wife or an abandoned husband is an innocent victim. Since human beings are weak, demanding obedience to the letter of the law causes further harm to these christians. The Orthodox err on the side of mercy instead law. I think that is a better position to be in on Judgement Day.

And what is this “letter of law” they refer to? The Gospel commandments of Christ and Paul. Translation: The Orthodox err on the side of mercy instead of following the commandments of Christ. They think it is merciful to disobey Christ.

No, I think it is a better position on judgement day to have followed Christ’s commandments, not disobeyed them and still expect mercy.

John 14
23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

Ron

 

[VARC]

There are two points I have been making in this thread.

The first and most important, is that Roman Catholics have no moral authority to tell anyone not to divorce and remarry because they do the same thing under the dispicable disguise of the annulment tribunal. They are hypocrites, who embrace the leaven of the pharisees, when they point their fingers at the orthodox and cry “sinner!!!”. And like a battered wife, they defend the Roman Church by saying that the annulment tribunals are legitimate but are “abused”. But that doesn’t hold water. The persons responsible for the tribunals are the bishops of the catholic church themselves including their infallible head. They have full knowledge that this is going on but they don’t do anything to stop it because the “abuse” is the official policy the dioceses. So the blame lies squarely on them. So it is beyond ridiculous to hear them say…“The Orthodox err on the side of mercy instead of following the commandments of Christ.” As if their own catholic church is following the commandments of Christ. That is the pot calling the kettle black and it is abominable hypocracy.

The second issue is the current Orthodox position versus the former Catholic position. I think this is a moot argument because the catholics have abandoned their former practice despite the denial of that truth by some on this thread. But if roncriss and company wish to live in years past and pretend that the policy of the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t changed then I would still be uncomfortable with their position. I will elaborate later…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ok I looked up “Corban” online to see what you, Isa, etc, mean by it (I had never heard of it ) ,but it said it means the sacrifices in the Jewish religion…how are you using it in the (extremely long, drawn out, circular, yet somehow inescapeable) context of this thread? In other words, what do you mean when you are saying “we recognize corban when we see it?”

P.S. I am at home on dissablity for right now, it’s none of my business really, but what’s your guys’ excuse? Are you getting paid for this?

I’m on line a lot, as part of the job (teaching).

as for corban:

St. Mark, chapter 7

1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa,

Ah, I see the difference now. Catholics believe that Christian marriage is a sacrament. You consider the marriage by a justice of the peace between pagans to be a equal to a Christian marriage. Here is something else we agree with Paul on, but disagree with Orthodox development.

I’ve been to a wedding, officiated by a priest of yours, with the blessing of the cardinal here, joining a baptized Christian and a non-Christian.

At the Cathedral where I was married, the priest married a non-Christian to a parishoner, or at least intended to.

Many of the parishners left the Cathedral and told the metropolitan they wouldn’t return until the priest was defrocked.

Your canon law allows the marriage to a pagan or non-Christian. Ours does not (something we also have in common with St. Paul, I Corinthians 7:39, versus your position).

You recognize baptism by pagans, as Prodromos pointed out. Why not their marriages? After all, you allow marriage to non-Christians.

I was married in a Shinto temple, my wife and I agnostics, and it was blessed by a Buddhist priest. Come to think of it, when I was Orthodox there was no suggestion that we have a Christian marriage. But when we joined the Catholic Church we had to regularize our marriage with a Christian ceremony at the same time we made a profession of faith.

If you were agnostic, and married by a Buddhist priest, in a Shinto temple, how were you Orthodox?

And if you weren’t Orthodox, who would the Orthodox worry about ceremony? If fact, you could NOT have an Orthodox wedding, according to canon.

Here is another example of where the Orthodox are not in accord with Scripture apparently. Thanks for pointing this out.

Just stating what your canons state, which are not in accord with Scripture.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You answered your own question. It was officiated by a priest. Therfore it was a Christian ceremony, a sacrament.

…to a non-Christian. You answered your own question above.

 

[Alexios]

Look, I’m not signing on to Roncriss’s rather antagonistic posts, I just wanted to clarify that. But we do agree in substance.

VARC, we’ve already discussed the Pauline Privilege. A marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is a natural marriage, is not supernatural, and can be dissolved.

 

[VARC]

VARC, we’ve already discussed the Pauline Privilege. A marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is a natural marriage, is not supernatural, and can be dissolved.

And…?

 

[VARC]

VARC, we’ve already discussed the Pauline Privilege. A marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is a natural marriage, is not supernatural, and can be dissolved.

And?
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you are responding to.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I would like to expand on your point because I think it was an important point in demonstrating the hypocracy of the RCC…So back to Isa’s point. Of the 57,000 annulments granted in 2006, how may do you think were granted against the protests of both spouses? Not One. The annulment tribunal is an On-Demand marriage nullifier… But the RCC only applies those standards when one or both of the parties desires to end the marriage. This is called their “pastoral approach”.

More importantly, how many were granted over the objection of one party?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa, you’re still not making a dent in the Catholic argument.

What argument?

That’s the thing with legal fictions: they’re postulated, not argued.

For a marriage to be valid it the parties not only have to give and receive consent but have to consummate the marriage. Thus the “dissolving” of a “marriage” between two baptized persons who have not consummated a marriage. Supernatural marriages (marriages between baptized Christians) can never be dissolved, just as we have been stating. An unconsummated marriage is not valid.

What are you confused about?

Nothing. That’s why I don’t buy the Corban mantra.

Btw, in Orthodoxy once the Church has pronounced you man and wife, you are married, consumation or not (cf. Matthew 1:18). Of course, that brings out the dfference: in Orthodoxy the Church marries you (the bishop’s blessing which St. Ignatius writes about), you don’t marry yourselves.