Tha Patristic support for marriage annulments

[Hesychios]

Greetings all,
Does anyone know of Patristic support for the Roman Catholic practice of granting annulments?

Is it possible to get an historical background to the practice, Papal Bulls or Encyclicals, Conciliar decrees?

Thanks
Michael

 

[elvisman]

Saying the the Catholic Church “grants” annulments is like saying that sending somebody to prison eliminates the effects of their crime.
The Church makes “Declarations of Nullity”, which is not the same as “granting an annulment”.
The declaration states that a sacramental marriage never took place because of one reason or another - coersion, for example.
Another example would be a couple that I know of who, in a drunken state in Las Vegas, thought it would be fun to get married. They had known each other for only a few hours. They realized their mistake when the effects of the alcohol wore off. Albeit stupid and irresponsible, this could hardly be considered a sacramental marriage.

 

[Mickey]

St. Ambrose
There is hardly anything more deadly than being married to one who is a stranger to the faith, where the passions of lust and dissension and the evils of sacrilege are inflamed. Since the marriage ceremony ought to be sanctified by the priestly veiling and blessing, how can that be called a marriage ceremony where there is no agreement in faith?

Pope St. Leo the Great
And so a wife is different from a concubine, even as a bondwoman from a freewoman. For which reason also the Apostle in order to show the difference of these persons quotes from Genesis, where it is said to Abraham, ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.’ And hence, since the marriage tie was from the beginning so constituted as apart from the joining of the sexes to symbolize the mystic union of Christ and His Church, it is undoubted that that woman has no part in matrimony, in whose case it is shown that the mystery of marriage has not taken place.

 

[Hesychios]

Slava Isusu Christu!

Hello Mickey,

St. Ambrose
There is hardly anything more deadly than being married to one who is a stranger to the faith, where the passions of lust and dissension and the evils of sacrilege are inflamed. Since the marriage ceremony ought to be sanctified by the priestly veiling and blessing, how can that be called a marriage ceremony where there is no agreement in faith?

Pope St. Leo the Great
And so a wife is different from a concubine, even as a bondwoman from a freewoman. For which reason also the Apostle in order to show the difference of these persons quotes from Genesis, where it is said to Abraham, ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.’ And hence, since the marriage tie was from the beginning so constituted as apart from the joining of the sexes to symbolize the mystic union of Christ and His Church, it is undoubted that that woman has no part in matrimony, in whose case it is shown that the mystery of marriage has not taken place.

This is disturbing. Are we equating modern marriage with concubinage? Concubines are like girlfriends, aren’t they? Isn’t this more like admonition to give up ones extramarital relationship? Or perhaps forbidding polygamy?

I don’t see anything here that justifies annulling a marriage promised before the witness of a priest. Likewise I know of many cases where a non-Catholic spouse promises to raise the children as Roman Catholics, yet these quotes (if interpreted in the way you suggest) would seem to qualify them for a declaration of nullity automatically. Am I missing something here?

There must be (hopefully) more evidence than this.

Michael

 

[kleary]

Slava Isusu Christu!

Hello Mickey,
This is disturbing. Are we equating modern marriage with concubinage? Concubines are like girlfriends, aren’t they? Isn’t this more like admonition to give up ones extramarital relationship? Or perhaps forbidding polygamy?

I don’t see anything here that justifies annulling a marriage promised before the witness of a priest. Likewise I know of many cases where a non-Catholic spouse promises to raise the children as Roman Catholics, yet these quotes (if interpreted in the way you suggest) would seem to qualify them for a declaration of nullity automatically. Am I missing something here?

There must be (hopefully) more evidence than this.

Michael

Actually you are going more into the quotes than the small piece of evidence you asked for in them.

The quotes just show a small part of what was believed at that time to make a marriage “invalid”.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Greetings all,
Does anyone know of Patristic support for the Roman Catholic practice of granting annulments?

Is it possible to get an historical background to the practice, Papal Bulls or Encyclicals, Conciliar decrees?

Thanks
Michael

Is it possible to solder a piece of wood to a piece of iron? No it is not.

Therefore, using that same thought, is it possible for someone under pressure to marry due to a current pregnancy, to validly marry the father, even though the only reason it is done is to “legitimaze” the baby?

The answer is NO. If they do however it is null and void. I am a living example. My parents were married due to my conception. 13 years later the marriage was annulled. They hid the pregnancy from the Diocese and were married because they were pressured into marriage due to the pregnancy.

Ken

 

[Eden]

Essentially what you would be looking for is evidence that the Early Church Fathers viewed valid marriages as indissoluable, but also made the distinction that invalid marriages were possible and null:
Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp:

" Flee wicked arts; but all the more discourse regarding them. Speak to my sisters, that they love in our Lord, and that their husbands be sufficient for them in the flesh and spirit. Then, again, charge my brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they love their wives, as our Lord His Church. If any man is able in power to continue in purity, to the honour of the flesh of our Lord, let him continue so without boasting; if he boasts, he is undone; if he become known apart from the bishop, he has destroyed himself. It is becoming, therefore, to men and women who marry, that they marry with the counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in our Lord, and not in lust. Let everything, therefore, be [done] for the honour of God."

When a marriage is not “in our Lord” or “for the honor of God”, the marriage is not valid, hence null.
St. Ambrose:

“There is hardly anything more deadly than being married to one who is a stranger to the faith,where the passions of lust and dissension and the evils of sacrilege are inflamed.Since the marriage ceremony ought to be sanctified by the priestly veiling and blessing,how can that be called a marriage ceremony where there is no agreement in faith?”

Again this describes how lust and sacrilege in a marriage ceremony does not lead to a valid marriage. I see that Mickey already listed this example though.

And I don’t understand why the quote from Pope St. Leo the Great was disturbing. It clearly states that there are circumstances in which “the mystery of marriage has not taken place”.

I don’t know what further evidence you would need.

 

[Hesychios]

When a marriage is not “in our Lord” or “for the honor of God”, the marriage is not valid, hence null.

Is it not also the case that marriages between two non-Catholics in their own tradition are considered valid and indissoluable? I do not see consistancy here.

*“There is hardly anything more deadly than being married to one who is a stranger to the faith,where the passions of lust and dissension and the evils of sacrilege are inflamed.Since the marriage ceremony ought to be sanctified by the priestly veiling and blessing,how can that be called a marriage ceremony where there is no agreement in faith?” St Ambrose of Milan *

I like this quote, but I do not see it as a justification for annulments. I think in context most marriages in his day were civil ceremonies in the Roman courts, and mixed marriages were common. There are many prominant examples of this, including the mother of St Constantine, Helen married to a Pagan, and the mother of St Augustine, Monica, likewise. Some Church fathers were preaching against the practice entering into mixed marriages (although priests were routinely blessing these marriages), not necessarily preaching to dissolve commitments already blessed by a priest. Christianity was now on the rise, and the push was on to see these Pagans make a commitment to the Christian Faith through baptism before being allowed to marry a Christian.

And I don’t understand why the quote from Pope St. Leo the Great was disturbing. It clearly states that there are circumstances in which “the mystery of marriage has not taken place”.

I have no problem with the quote from St leo. The quote is actually preaching on the practice of having concubines (as in “kept women”) and adulterous relationships. What disturbs me is how it is misapplied to support declaring marriages promised before a priest somehow deficient. The only possible way that interpretation can be made from this quote is to equate a wife with a concubine.

I don’t know what further evidence you would need.

What evidence I have seen thus far is slim to none, actually.

 

[Hesychios]

Greetings all,

Can anyone tell me which Dicastery has responsibility for the anullment process?

Are there any records of when the anullment process was first formalized or regulated? Some Council perhaps?

Thanks,
Michael