OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 08:06:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Help this Catholic understand Orthodoxy when it comes to divorce and remarriage  (Read 2194 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« on: April 07, 2013, 03:05:22 PM »

I suspect this has been asked many times over, regarding an explanation of the teachings of Orthodoxy on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.  Based upon this explanation, the teaching is fairly easy to grasp.  http://www.antiochian.org/1123706833

However, what is not so easy for me to grasp as a Catholic is the justification for this teaching from Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.  I recognize Orthodox Christians don't always use the same terms as we do, but you should be able to get my meaning nonetheless. 

So, any info on how this came to be allowed and what the authoritative justification for it has been, would be appreciated. 

Thanks in advance. 

Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,990


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2013, 03:21:03 PM »

What, specifically?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2013, 03:26:28 PM »

What, specifically?

Sorry if I was not clear.

What is the justification, either from the Bible, or teachings of the Fathers passed down through the Orthodox Church, that Orthodoxy uses to explain her teachings on allowing divorce and remarriage?  Catholics would use the terms Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.  An Orthodox Christian on another forum recommended this website: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm, so I am reading through that right now.  From just glancing through it once, it does not appear that there is much justification for divorce and remarriage from the Church Fathers, but rather the concept of economia.  Though, to be fair, it does cite St. Basil as saying that a man cheated on by his wife would be pardoned for remarriage, so I suppose that is something. 

I'm curious what else is out there on the subject. 


Thanks,
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 03:33:26 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
KBN1
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 888



« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2013, 03:43:00 PM »

This article may be helpful:

http://www.stgeorgegoc.org/divorceChurchHistory.html

Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2013, 03:50:38 PM »


Thank you!
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,990


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2013, 04:22:45 PM »

The following is "just" my opinion. It is my honest opinion.

There was probably no divorce among the earliest Christians.

There was probably divorce among early Christians, even as early as the 'Apostolic Age', but no remarriage.

Today, both the OC and the RCC permit divorce and remarriage under economia, the same way that divorce was probably initially introduced. RCC practices divorce under form of annulment, which, by definition, carries no technical limit for (re-)marriage afterwards.

Could be wrong, but that's how the tale reads to me. Not making any dogmatic statements. And certainly not saying divorced and remarried are "unorthodox".
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 04:26:45 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,255


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2013, 07:01:12 PM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 07:02:00 PM by LBK » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2013, 09:03:00 PM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Annulment - Divorce: samie same....
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 09:03:37 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2013, 07:53:33 AM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
I've seen that some Vatican approved translations have taken to "translating" it as "invalid marriage" or some such nonsense.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2013, 01:12:50 AM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
This. I would add that physical abuse also can be a legitimate reason for divorce, but I think that today it is outrageous the number of divorces and the selfish reasons for them.
Logged
Cidalia73
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic looking to Orthodoxy
Posts: 6



« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2014, 11:20:42 AM »

Quote
Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

I'm also struggling with this, and it's the only reason I have not converted from RC to Orthodox. I don't see annulment and divorce as the same.  With a divorce, you're still recognizing a sacramental marriage existed.  With annulment, you're stating there was no marriage (it was invalid).  I myself am in this situation now and will be going through the annulment process.  Contrary to what a lot of people think, the RCC does not grant every applicant a decree of nullity.  I don't believe every marriage is sacramental.  In my case, my ex did not view marriage as a sacrament (that should have been a warning), he later stated that he had felt "pressured" to get married, he lied about being open to children (fraud), and did not disclose a mental/sexual issue involving an obsession with incest and underaged girls.  It wasn't until after he was arrested for molestation of minors (who were relatives of his) that it came to light that he had molested a 9-year-old cousin when he was 14.  Had I known.... you get the idea.  I wouldn't want someone insisting there was a valid marriage in my case, when he committed blatant fraud on many counts.

I also can't reconcile accepting a first marriage as a sacrament in every case and then allowing a second marriage.  My mind still tells me, if it's a valid marriage, then a second marriage, per Christ's words, is adultery.  I do think the RC Church can be overly strict in its application of the law (I've heard of people being wrongfully denied annulment...like a woman who married a man who turned out to be gay...I would appeal that), but, as hard as it is, they seem to be attempting to uphold Christ's words.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 11:21:06 AM by Cidalia73 » Logged
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2014, 11:42:03 AM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

I've read this to be 'infidelity' instead of sexual immorality.  Correct me if I am wrong but couldn't infidelity be used to describe other acts that goes against the marriage bond such as abuse or abandonment etc?
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,102


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2014, 11:47:14 AM »

Quote
Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

I'm also struggling with this, and it's the only reason I have not converted from RC to Orthodox. I don't see annulment and divorce as the same.  With a divorce, you're still recognizing a sacramental marriage existed.  With annulment, you're stating there was no marriage (it was invalid).  I myself am in this situation now and will be going through the annulment process.  Contrary to what a lot of people think, the RCC does not grant every applicant a decree of nullity.  I don't believe every marriage is sacramental.  In my case, my ex did not view marriage as a sacrament (that should have been a warning), he later stated that he had felt "pressured" to get married, he lied about being open to children (fraud), and did not disclose a mental/sexual issue involving an obsession with incest and underaged girls.  It wasn't until after he was arrested for molestation of minors (who were relatives of his) that it came to light that he had molested a 9-year-old cousin when he was 14.  Had I known.... you get the idea.  I wouldn't want someone insisting there was a valid marriage in my case, when he committed blatant fraud on many counts.

I also can't reconcile accepting a first marriage as a sacrament in every case and then allowing a second marriage.  My mind still tells me, if it's a valid marriage, then a second marriage, per Christ's words, is adultery.  I do think the RC Church can be overly strict in its application of the law (I've heard of people being wrongfully denied annulment...like a woman who married a man who turned out to be gay...I would appeal that), but, as hard as it is, they seem to be attempting to uphold Christ's words.

I don't believe we believe in annulment.  God creates the marriage through a priest.  In Catholicism it depends on the parties intention.  Not so with us. 

Our general teaching is that Christ, like Moses and Paul, recognized that divorce was a sin, as is remarriage.  But even so, sometimes it is necessary because of the hardness of our hearts to prevent worse sins, because it is better to marry than to burn.   So the church sometimes tolerates these sins by granting an ecclesiastical divorce and permitting a second or third marriage (but no more) according to a penitential rite which recognizes that this shouldn't really be, but it is necessary here and we have to make the best of it. 

If you can grasp that kind of thinking about situations, then you understand what Orthodoxy is all about. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2014, 12:02:42 PM »

Quote
Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

I'm also struggling with this, and it's the only reason I have not converted from RC to Orthodox. I don't see annulment and divorce as the same.  With a divorce, you're still recognizing a sacramental marriage existed.  With annulment, you're stating there was no marriage (it was invalid).  I myself am in this situation now and will be going through the annulment process.  Contrary to what a lot of people think, the RCC does not grant every applicant a decree of nullity.  I don't believe every marriage is sacramental.  In my case, my ex did not view marriage as a sacrament (that should have been a warning), he later stated that he had felt "pressured" to get married, he lied about being open to children (fraud), and did not disclose a mental/sexual issue involving an obsession with incest and underaged girls.  It wasn't until after he was arrested for molestation of minors (who were relatives of his) that it came to light that he had molested a 9-year-old cousin when he was 14.  Had I known.... you get the idea.  I wouldn't want someone insisting there was a valid marriage in my case, when he committed blatant fraud on many counts.

I also can't reconcile accepting a first marriage as a sacrament in every case and then allowing a second marriage.  My mind still tells me, if it's a valid marriage, then a second marriage, per Christ's words, is adultery.  I do think the RC Church can be overly strict in its application of the law (I've heard of people being wrongfully denied annulment...like a woman who married a man who turned out to be gay...I would appeal that), but, as hard as it is, they seem to be attempting to uphold Christ's words.
They're making Corban, nothing more.

As for your case, did you find out your ex didn't believe marriage was a sacrament before or after you married him?

And Lord have mercy on you!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cidalia73
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic looking to Orthodoxy
Posts: 6



« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2014, 10:13:53 AM »

Quote
Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

I'm also struggling with this, and it's the only reason I have not converted from RC to Orthodox. I don't see annulment and divorce as the same.  With a divorce, you're still recognizing a sacramental marriage existed.  With annulment, you're stating there was no marriage (it was invalid).  I myself am in this situation now and will be going through the annulment process.  Contrary to what a lot of people think, the RCC does not grant every applicant a decree of nullity.  I don't believe every marriage is sacramental.  In my case, my ex did not view marriage as a sacrament (that should have been a warning), he later stated that he had felt "pressured" to get married, he lied about being open to children (fraud), and did not disclose a mental/sexual issue involving an obsession with incest and underaged girls.  It wasn't until after he was arrested for molestation of minors (who were relatives of his) that it came to light that he had molested a 9-year-old cousin when he was 14.  Had I known.... you get the idea.  I wouldn't want someone insisting there was a valid marriage in my case, when he committed blatant fraud on many counts.

I also can't reconcile accepting a first marriage as a sacrament in every case and then allowing a second marriage.  My mind still tells me, if it's a valid marriage, then a second marriage, per Christ's words, is adultery.  I do think the RC Church can be overly strict in its application of the law (I've heard of people being wrongfully denied annulment...like a woman who married a man who turned out to be gay...I would appeal that), but, as hard as it is, they seem to be attempting to uphold Christ's words.
They're making Corban, nothing more.

As for your case, did you find out your ex didn't believe marriage was a sacrament before or after you married him?

And Lord have mercy on you!

I apologize for the very delayed reply.  Had a few very busy days.

I'm still trying to understand the whole "Corban" thing.  Google was not much help in this context.

As for my case, I didn't find out in so many words that my ex didn't believe in marriage as a sacrament before I married him.  However, had I been wiser, I could have figured as much considering he preferred to "just live together" and that, when the marriage option was brought up, he couldn't care less if it happened in a church or city hall.  After we split, he once told me, because I refused to get back together with him, "I thought you believed marriage was til death" ...the focus being on MY belief in marriage.  I told him God could not have intended for me to be yoked with a sexual deviant, and had I known, there is no way I would have married him.

 Roll Eyes



Logged
Cidalia73
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic looking to Orthodoxy
Posts: 6



« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2014, 10:18:12 AM »


I'm still trying to understand the whole "Corban" thing.  Google was not much help in this context.

I think I get the Corban reference now.  Disregard.  Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2014, 10:32:31 AM »

Quote
Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

I'm also struggling with this, and it's the only reason I have not converted from RC to Orthodox. I don't see annulment and divorce as the same.  With a divorce, you're still recognizing a sacramental marriage existed.  With annulment, you're stating there was no marriage (it was invalid).  I myself am in this situation now and will be going through the annulment process.  Contrary to what a lot of people think, the RCC does not grant every applicant a decree of nullity.  I don't believe every marriage is sacramental.  In my case, my ex did not view marriage as a sacrament (that should have been a warning), he later stated that he had felt "pressured" to get married, he lied about being open to children (fraud), and did not disclose a mental/sexual issue involving an obsession with incest and underaged girls.  It wasn't until after he was arrested for molestation of minors (who were relatives of his) that it came to light that he had molested a 9-year-old cousin when he was 14.  Had I known.... you get the idea.  I wouldn't want someone insisting there was a valid marriage in my case, when he committed blatant fraud on many counts.

I also can't reconcile accepting a first marriage as a sacrament in every case and then allowing a second marriage.  My mind still tells me, if it's a valid marriage, then a second marriage, per Christ's words, is adultery.  I do think the RC Church can be overly strict in its application of the law (I've heard of people being wrongfully denied annulment...like a woman who married a man who turned out to be gay...I would appeal that), but, as hard as it is, they seem to be attempting to uphold Christ's words.
They're making Corban, nothing more.

As for your case, did you find out your ex didn't believe marriage was a sacrament before or after you married him?

And Lord have mercy on you!

I apologize for the very delayed reply.  Had a few very busy days.

I'm still trying to understand the whole "Corban" thing.  Google was not much help in this context.

As for my case, I didn't find out in so many words that my ex didn't believe in marriage as a sacrament before I married him.  However, had I been wiser, I could have figured as much considering he preferred to "just live together" and that, when the marriage option was brought up, he couldn't care less if it happened in a church or city hall.  After we split, he once told me, because I refused to get back together with him, "I thought you believed marriage was til death" ...the focus being on MY belief in marriage.  I told him God could not have intended for me to be yoked with a sexual deviant, and had I known, there is no way I would have married him.
 Roll Eyes
I don't think we can conclude on God's exact intentions here (He, after all, ordered the Prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute).  I bring this up only because such thinking pervades the process of making Corban.
(in my own case, my son once asked me if God knows evertything, and wants only good for you, why did He make me marry his mother.  I asked him if I didn't marry his mother, would his brother and he be here.  "No," he said.  "They you have your answer" I replied).

You may not have married him, but many-too many-would.

The Church allows divorce for precisely the reason you allude to: you can't believe enough in marriage for both of you.  Even if you could, what would that leave to the other spouse?  That fact that he would attempt to manipulate you so (I also know what it is like to be on the receiving end of that), to turn your faithfulness against you, proves that he killed the marriage, and if you stayed in it, you would rot with the corpse.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2014, 10:33:16 AM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

Not at all. Two different concepts.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2014, 10:36:00 AM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

Not at all. Two different concepts.
yes, hypocrisy and truth.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2014, 11:39:02 AM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2014, 11:39:58 AM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Completely correct

Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

Not at all. Two different concepts.
yes, hypocrisy and truth.

Completely correct
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 11:40:33 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2014, 01:09:52 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".

Excellent analogy.  The annulment process is a joke.  So, two people are happily married for 5 years have 3 kids but at 8 years into the marriage decide it won't work out.  Oh ok, give me $2,000 and we'll pretend your marriage never happened.  It's a joke even amongst most Catholics. 
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2014, 01:27:22 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".

Excellent analogy.  The annulment process is a joke.  So, two people are happily married for 5 years have 3 kids but at 8 years into the marriage decide it won't work out.  Oh ok, give me $2,000 and we'll pretend your marriage never happened.  It's a joke even amongst most Catholics.  

The theology is sound. How it is applied in practice may be called into question. Allowing remarriarge and divorce (apart from adultery) on the other hand, is a sin.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 01:28:41 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2014, 01:40:05 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".

Excellent analogy.  The annulment process is a joke.  So, two people are happily married for 5 years have 3 kids but at 8 years into the marriage decide it won't work out.  Oh ok, give me $2,000 and we'll pretend your marriage never happened.  It's a joke even amongst most Catholics.  

The theology is sound. How it is applied in practice may be called into question. Allowing remarriarge and divorce (apart from adultery) on the other hand, is a sin.

How is the theology sound?  Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.  It's just divorce the Catholic way.  Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 01:41:14 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2014, 01:57:29 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".

Excellent analogy.  The annulment process is a joke.  So, two people are happily married for 5 years have 3 kids but at 8 years into the marriage decide it won't work out.  Oh ok, give me $2,000 and we'll pretend your marriage never happened.  It's a joke even amongst most Catholics.  

The theology is sound. How it is applied in practice may be called into question. Allowing remarriarge and divorce (apart from adultery) on the other hand, is a sin.

How is the theology sound?  Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.  It's just divorce the Catholic way.  Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

To be fair, the theology, for Roman Catholics, is sound: valid and licit sacramental marriages are indissoluble, while marriages which are annulled can be annulled only because they were not valid to begin with.  To talk about pretending the children don't exist is to introduce an issue which isn't immediately relevant to the question of a marriage's validity: whether or not there are children involved doesn't say a thing about the validity of the marriage (children can come into existence without marriage).   

But you bring up a good point which Roman Catholics ignore in their quest to preserve their faithfulness to manual theology: for so many "marriages" to be demonstrated by the Church to have never been valid to begin with is an admission that the Church has failed and is failing in its mission, in what a Church is supposed to do.  While they focus on being consistent with their understanding of the NT teaching on marriage and criticising us for laxity, they conveniently neglect addressing the problem of having raised generations of Roman Catholics who seem incapable of contracting a valid marriage on their own theological terms unless it is by sheer luck.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2014, 02:00:08 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".
yes, it is amazing that these couples find out that they weren't married after they (or one of them) file for divorce.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2014, 02:00:40 PM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Completely correct

Annulment - Divorce: samie same....

Not at all. Two different concepts.
yes, hypocrisy and truth.

Completely correct
glad you admit it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2014, 02:01:34 PM »

I suspect this has been asked many times over, regarding an explanation of the teachings of Orthodoxy on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.  Based upon this explanation, the teaching is fairly easy to grasp.  http://www.antiochian.org/1123706833

However, what is not so easy for me to grasp as a Catholic is the justification for this teaching from Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.  I recognize Orthodox Christians don't always use the same terms as we do, but you should be able to get my meaning nonetheless. 

So, any info on how this came to be allowed and what the authoritative justification for it has been, would be appreciated. 

Thanks in advance. 


The Catholic synods of Vannes' in 465 and of Compiegne in 756  allowed the husband of a wife who has been unfaithful to marry again in her lifetime.(Canons 16 and 19). I don't see where Rome objected?
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2014, 02:03:24 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".

Excellent analogy.  The annulment process is a joke.  So, two people are happily married for 5 years have 3 kids but at 8 years into the marriage decide it won't work out.  Oh ok, give me $2,000 and we'll pretend your marriage never happened.  It's a joke even amongst most Catholics.  

The theology is sound. How it is applied in practice may be called into question. Allowing remarriarge and divorce (apart from adultery) on the other hand, is a sin.

How is the theology sound?

An annulment, is a finding by a Church tribunal that ON THE DAY VOWS WERE EXCHANGED at least some essential element for a valid marriage was lacking, such as, one of the parties did not intend lifelong fidelity to the other person or excluded children entirely. Another example would be that one of the parties was incapable of marriage (due to some constitutional weakness, such as mental illness or some psychological condition that prevented making the marital commitment - gross immaturity, homosexuality, etc.).

None of these conditions are assumed they must be proven. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot. It is a reasoned judgment that one never existed, and as such is capable of human error. If the tribunal is fastidious to Church law and theology and the couple and their witnesses are honest, the decision can be followed in good-faith, including a new marriage. If someone is ABUSING the process through deceit, however, it would be a very grave sin for that person


Quote
Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled

Indeed

Quote
but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Hence why I said how its is applied in practice may be called into question.

Quote
 It's just divorce the Catholic way.
Nope, its an annulment. Divorce (apart from adultery) is a sin.
Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2014, 02:04:29 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".

Excellent analogy.  The annulment process is a joke.  So, two people are happily married for 5 years have 3 kids but at 8 years into the marriage decide it won't work out.  Oh ok, give me $2,000 and we'll pretend your marriage never happened.  It's a joke even amongst most Catholics.  

The theology is sound. How it is applied in practice may be called into question. Allowing remarriarge and divorce (apart from adultery) on the other hand, is a sin.

How is the theology sound?  Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.  It's just divorce the Catholic way.  Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

To be fair, the theology, for Roman Catholics, is sound: valid and licit sacramental marriages are indissoluble, while marriages which are annulled can be annulled only because they were not valid to begin with.  To talk about pretending the children don't exist is to introduce an issue which isn't immediately relevant to the question of a marriage's validity: whether or not there are children involved doesn't say a thing about the validity of the marriage (children can come into existence without marriage).   

But you bring up a good point which Roman Catholics ignore in their quest to preserve their faithfulness to manual theology: for so many "marriages" to be demonstrated by the Church to have never been valid to begin with is an admission that the Church has failed and is failing in its mission, in what a Church is supposed to do.  While they focus on being consistent with their understanding of the NT teaching on marriage and criticising us for laxity, they conveniently neglect addressing the problem of having raised generations of Roman Catholics who seem incapable of contracting a valid marriage on their own theological terms unless it is by sheer luck.   
yes, having looked at the questions etc. they ask for an annulment, the question sticks in my mind why don't they ask these questions before they marry them, and apply the scrutiny of whether it is a valid marriage then?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2014, 02:09:12 PM »

Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.


I wasn't referring to children when I said a future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event.  I am referring to marriages that are valid but later fall apart only to be declared invalid so they can remarry.  Spousal abuse, 5 years after the DAY THE VOWS WERE EXCHANGED, DOES NOT invalidate a marriage.  If so many marriages really were lacking that is a serious problem not even just among the faithful but the clergy.  
Intent has a lot to do with the validity as well (in addition to form and matter) and it makes a mockery of matrimony to say so many never really existed.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 02:12:39 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,398



« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2014, 02:10:27 PM »


I'm still trying to understand the whole "Corban" thing.  Google was not much help in this context.

I think I get the Corban reference now.  Disregard.  Smiley

Corban should be the Eucharist. Corban is the Semitic way of saying Eucharist.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2014, 02:14:13 PM »

yes, having looked at the questions etc. they ask for an annulment...

Are those available online somewhere?

Quote
...the question sticks in my mind why don't they ask these questions before they marry them, and apply the scrutiny of whether it is a valid marriage then?

Maybe that would get in the way of the NFP training.  Can't have them using condoms now.  Tongue

Seriously, though, what on earth happens during the mandatory pre-marital counseling that still leaves open the possibility that two people cannot contract a valid marriage?  

Annulments are sound theology on paper, but paper never gets married.  When you see it play out in real life, it's quite a ridiculous fiction.  And it's not even infallible, so even when you're sure, you can never really be sure.    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2014, 02:14:38 PM »

Annulment always reminded me of Protestants that trumpet "Once saved, always saved", but then if someone apostasizes, they say, "well, he was never saved to begin with".

Excellent analogy.  The annulment process is a joke.  So, two people are happily married for 5 years have 3 kids but at 8 years into the marriage decide it won't work out.  Oh ok, give me $2,000 and we'll pretend your marriage never happened.  It's a joke even amongst most Catholics.  

The theology is sound. How it is applied in practice may be called into question. Allowing remarriarge and divorce (apart from adultery) on the other hand, is a sin.

How is the theology sound?

An annulment, is a finding by a Church tribunal that ON THE DAY VOWS WERE EXCHANGED at least some essential element for a valid marriage was lacking, such as, one of the parties did not intend lifelong fidelity to the other person or excluded children entirely. Another example would be that one of the parties was incapable of marriage (due to some constitutional weakness, such as mental illness or some psychological condition that prevented making the marital commitment - gross immaturity, homosexuality, etc.).
Things which can be found before they say "I do."

the homosexuality is interesting: I've known couples where one or both are homosexual, but they marry because they want children etc. (this was before the US lost its mind on redefining marriage).  Should I report them to the marriage tribunal to break up the marriage and separate them?  I know other couples where there was an impediment-to whom should I report them so that their marriages can be broken up?
None of these conditions are assumed they must be proven. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot. It is a reasoned judgment that one never existed, and as such is capable of human error. If the tribunal is fastidious to Church law and theology and the couple and their witnesses are honest, the decision can be followed in good-faith, including a new marriage. If someone is ABUSING the process through deceit, however, it would be a very grave sin for that person
what about the guy whose marriage is dissolved "wrongfully" and remarries?

Quote
Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled

Indeed
Such as-and I mean in reality, not Jesuitry's bag of tricks.
Quote
but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Hence why I said how its is applied in practice may be called into question.
Its practice calls into question the theory upon which it is based.
Quote
 It's just divorce the Catholic way.
Nope, its an annulment. Divorce (apart from adultery) is a sin.
Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.
yes it does: their parents were not married.  I've known such children, and that is how they see it.  And they calling their church on it correctly.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2014, 02:15:46 PM »


I'm still trying to understand the whole "Corban" thing.  Google was not much help in this context.

I think I get the Corban reference now.  Disregard.  Smiley

Corban should be the Eucharist. Corban is the Semitic way of saying Eucharist.

That's not how Isa meant it.  Cf. Mark 7.11.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2014, 02:19:56 PM »

the homosexuality is interesting: I've known couples where one or both are homosexual, but they marry because they want children etc. (this was before the US lost its mind on redefining marriage).  Should I report them to the marriage tribunal to break up the marriage and separate them?  I know other couples where there was an impediment-to whom should I report them so that their marriages can be broken up?

This is an interesting question, and I would like to hear Roman Catholics address it.  If someone is aware of a "marriage" in which they know for a fact there was some impediment which would invalidate it from the start, are they required to report it to the local diocesan marriage tribunal to have it annulled even if the couple in question does not want that?  If that is not required, what is the justification for allowing an invalid marriage to continue as if valid and allowing the couple to continue living in sin? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2014, 02:24:10 PM »

Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.


I wasn't referring to children when I said a future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event.  I am referring to marriages that are valid but later fall apart only to be declared invalid so they can remarry.  Spousal abuse, 5 years after the DAY THE VOWS WERE EXCHANGED, DOES NOT invalidate a marriage.  If so many marriages really were lacking that is a serious problem not even just among the faithful but the clergy.  
Intent has a lot to do with the validity as well (in addition to form and matter) and it makes a mockery of matrimony to say so many never really existed.

Juts because vows are exchanged does not mean a marriage is realized. Even homosexuals exchange vows. Many other things point to a marriage never existing. Consult canon law for what you have problems with.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 02:24:58 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2014, 02:27:59 PM »

Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.


I wasn't referring to children when I said a future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event.  I am referring to marriages that are valid but later fall apart only to be declared invalid so they can remarry.  Spousal abuse, 5 years after the DAY THE VOWS WERE EXCHANGED, DOES NOT invalidate a marriage.  If so many marriages really were lacking that is a serious problem not even just among the faithful but the clergy. 
Intent has a lot to do with the validity as well (in addition to form and matter) and it makes a mockery of matrimony to say so many never really existed.

Juts because vows are exchanged does not mean a marriage is realized. Even homosexuals exchange vows. Many other things point to a marriage never existing. Consult canon law for what you have problems with.

I don't need to, I'm asking you.  What do the vows have to do with it?  I capitalized them to mock you. 
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2014, 02:32:12 PM »

Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.


I wasn't referring to children when I said a future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event.  I am referring to marriages that are valid but later fall apart only to be declared invalid so they can remarry.  Spousal abuse, 5 years after the DAY THE VOWS WERE EXCHANGED, DOES NOT invalidate a marriage.  If so many marriages really were lacking that is a serious problem not even just among the faithful but the clergy.  
Intent has a lot to do with the validity as well (in addition to form and matter) and it makes a mockery of matrimony to say so many never really existed.

Juts because vows are exchanged does not mean a marriage is realized. Even homosexuals exchange vows. Many other things point to a marriage never existing. Consult canon law for what you have problems with.
I don't have a problem with anything-except all this Corban.

I know these couples with canonical impediments. Should I report them?  If I don't, do the couple magically become married because the relevant information is being withheld from the Corban, er, Marriage Tribunal?

I know people who get annulments because they married because she was pregnant.  I know that they sometimes ask that question-in fact one of the marriages I'm thinking of is just such a case-except that it turned out to be a false pregnancy-: the priest asked this before the marriage, and they lied.  They are "living in sin" (because, according to your rules, their marriage isn't real) for over twenty years now.  Should I tell the parish priest so that he can excommunicate them?

What if a couple married in such a circumstance: can their marriage become valid with time, or is it doomed at the beginning?  What if they renewed their vows but thereby contracted a valid marriage unknown to them.  What then?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2014, 02:35:57 PM »

An annulment, is a finding by a Church tribunal that ON THE DAY VOWS WERE EXCHANGED at least some essential element for a valid marriage was lacking, such as, one of the parties did not intend lifelong fidelity to the other person or excluded children entirely. Another example would be that one of the parties was incapable of marriage (due to some constitutional weakness, such as mental illness or some psychological condition that prevented making the marital commitment - gross immaturity, homosexuality, etc.).
Things which can be found before they say "I do."

the homosexuality is interesting: I've known couples where one or both are homosexual, but they marry because they want children etc. (this was before the US lost its mind on redefining marriage).  Should I report them to the marriage tribunal to break up the marriage and separate them?  I know other couples where there was an impediment-to whom should I report them so that their marriages can be broken up?

In my opinion yes you should but then again I am not a canon lawyer. They would know best.

Quote
None of these conditions are assumed they must be proven. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot. It is a reasoned judgment that one never existed, and as such is capable of human error. If the tribunal is fastidious to Church law and theology and the couple and their witnesses are honest, the decision can be followed in good-faith, including a new marriage. If someone is ABUSING the process through deceit, however, it would be a very grave sin for that person

what about the guy whose marriage is dissolved "wrongfully" and remarries?

A marriage is not dissolved, nothing can dissolve a marriage. If a decree of nullity is issued incorrectly, and the other person gets married again, he is guilty of no sin but his second marriage is not sacramental either. The people who issued the wrong decree of nullity bare the sin and will account to God.

Quote
Quote
Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled

Indeed
Such as-and I mean in reality, not Jesuitry's bag of tricks.
Quote
but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Hence why I said how its is applied in practice may be called into question.
Its practice calls into question the theory upon which it is based.
No, its practice calls into question the practitioners.

Quote
Quote
 It's just divorce the Catholic way.
Nope, its an annulment. Divorce (apart from adultery) is a sin.
Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.
yes it does: their parents were not married.  I've known such children, and that is how they see it.  And they calling their church on it correctly.

It does not. Sad thing but the opinion of the children does not affect the truth of the situation, that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2014, 02:38:23 PM »

Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.


I wasn't referring to children when I said a future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event.  I am referring to marriages that are valid but later fall apart only to be declared invalid so they can remarry.  Spousal abuse, 5 years after the DAY THE VOWS WERE EXCHANGED, DOES NOT invalidate a marriage.  If so many marriages really were lacking that is a serious problem not even just among the faithful but the clergy. 
Intent has a lot to do with the validity as well (in addition to form and matter) and it makes a mockery of matrimony to say so many never really existed.

Juts because vows are exchanged does not mean a marriage is realized. Even homosexuals exchange vows. Many other things point to a marriage never existing. Consult canon law for what you have problems with.

I don't need to, I'm asking you.  What do the vows have to do with it?  I capitalized them to mock you. 

Umm yeah you do, this is the area of canon lawyers. I only know the basic theology behind it. Like I said, many thing point to a marriage not existing.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2014, 02:41:57 PM »

Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.


I wasn't referring to children when I said a future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event.  I am referring to marriages that are valid but later fall apart only to be declared invalid so they can remarry.  Spousal abuse, 5 years after the DAY THE VOWS WERE EXCHANGED, DOES NOT invalidate a marriage.  If so many marriages really were lacking that is a serious problem not even just among the faithful but the clergy.  
Intent has a lot to do with the validity as well (in addition to form and matter) and it makes a mockery of matrimony to say so many never really existed.

Juts because vows are exchanged does not mean a marriage is realized. Even homosexuals exchange vows. Many other things point to a marriage never existing. Consult canon law for what you have problems with.
I don't have a problem with anything-except all this Corban.

I know these couples with canonical impediments. Should I report them?  If I don't, do the couple magically become married because the relevant information is being withheld from the Corban, er, Marriage Tribunal?

I know people who get annulments because they married because she was pregnant.  I know that they sometimes ask that question-in fact one of the marriages I'm thinking of is just such a case-except that it turned out to be a false pregnancy-: the priest asked this before the marriage, and they lied.  They are "living in sin" (because, according to your rules, their marriage isn't real) for over twenty years now.  Should I tell the parish priest so that he can excommunicate them?

What if a couple married in such a circumstance: can their marriage become valid with time, or is it doomed at the beginning?  What if they renewed their vows but thereby contracted a valid marriage unknown to them.  What then?

Lol You should go to CAF and ask such questions as there are resident priests and canon lawyers there. You will gladly receive the answers for your questions Smiley
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2014, 02:47:05 PM »

Anytime a doctrine requires a lawyer to explain it, I am suspicious.  Wink
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2014, 02:55:25 PM »

An annulment, is a finding by a Church tribunal that ON THE DAY VOWS WERE EXCHANGED at least some essential element for a valid marriage was lacking, such as, one of the parties did not intend lifelong fidelity to the other person or excluded children entirely. Another example would be that one of the parties was incapable of marriage (due to some constitutional weakness, such as mental illness or some psychological condition that prevented making the marital commitment - gross immaturity, homosexuality, etc.).
Things which can be found before they say "I do."

the homosexuality is interesting: I've known couples where one or both are homosexual, but they marry because they want children etc. (this was before the US lost its mind on redefining marriage).  Should I report them to the marriage tribunal to break up the marriage and separate them?  I know other couples where there was an impediment-to whom should I report them so that their marriages can be broken up?

In my opinion yes you should but then again I am not a canon lawyer. They would know best.
Define "best."
Quote
None of these conditions are assumed they must be proven. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot. It is a reasoned judgment that one never existed, and as such is capable of human error. If the tribunal is fastidious to Church law and theology and the couple and their witnesses are honest, the decision can be followed in good-faith, including a new marriage. If someone is ABUSING the process through deceit, however, it would be a very grave sin for that person

what about the guy whose marriage is dissolved "wrongfully" and remarries?
A marriage is not dissolved, nothing can dissolve a marriage. If a decree of nullity is issued incorrectly, and the other person gets married again, he is guilty of no sin but his second marriage is not sacramental either. The people who issued the wrong decree of nullity bare the sin and will account to God.
I wonder what percentage of the Vatican's marriages are "invalid."  Like what "ex cathedra" means, it seems it cannot tell us.

Quote
Quote
Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled

Indeed
Such as-and I mean in reality, not Jesuitry's bag of tricks.
I notice you didn't answer this.
Quote
but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Hence why I said how its is applied in practice may be called into question.
Its practice calls into question the theory upon which it is based.
No, its practice calls into question the practitioners.
and this is how the blind follow the blind into the ditch.
Quote
Quote
 It's just divorce the Catholic way.
Nope, its an annulment. Divorce (apart from adultery) is a sin.
Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.
yes it does: their parents were not married.  I've known such children, and that is how they see it.  And they calling their church on it correctly.

It does not. Sad thing but the opinion of the children does not affect the truth of the situation
That is true: but I was only showing the cherry of hurt that your Corban factories put on their souffle of sanctimony.  The disingenuous sop you offer doesn't take away the bitter taste.
that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate
no, the opinion of the Corban factory does not affect the truth of the situation that at the time of the child's birth, his parents weren't married.

And, given that the separation of canonical marriage from civil marriage (in some places-in some places the church still has exclusive control of the marriage of its members), you can't depend on the excuse that "at least they were civilly married," as in many cases civil marriage doesn't exist and isn't involved.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2014, 02:56:05 PM »

Anytime a doctrine requires a lawyer to explain it, I am suspicious.  Wink
Indeed!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2014, 02:58:23 PM »

Excuse me, I made an error.

Divorce is not allowed, even in cases of adultery.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2014, 03:00:19 PM »

Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.


I wasn't referring to children when I said a future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event.  I am referring to marriages that are valid but later fall apart only to be declared invalid so they can remarry.  Spousal abuse, 5 years after the DAY THE VOWS WERE EXCHANGED, DOES NOT invalidate a marriage.  If so many marriages really were lacking that is a serious problem not even just among the faithful but the clergy.  
Intent has a lot to do with the validity as well (in addition to form and matter) and it makes a mockery of matrimony to say so many never really existed.

Juts because vows are exchanged does not mean a marriage is realized. Even homosexuals exchange vows. Many other things point to a marriage never existing. Consult canon law for what you have problems with.
I don't have a problem with anything-except all this Corban.

I know these couples with canonical impediments. Should I report them?  If I don't, do the couple magically become married because the relevant information is being withheld from the Corban, er, Marriage Tribunal?

I know people who get annulments because they married because she was pregnant.  I know that they sometimes ask that question-in fact one of the marriages I'm thinking of is just such a case-except that it turned out to be a false pregnancy-: the priest asked this before the marriage, and they lied.  They are "living in sin" (because, according to your rules, their marriage isn't real) for over twenty years now.  Should I tell the parish priest so that he can excommunicate them?

What if a couple married in such a circumstance: can their marriage become valid with time, or is it doomed at the beginning?  What if they renewed their vows but thereby contracted a valid marriage unknown to them.  What then?

Lol You should go to CAF and ask such questions as there are resident priests and canon lawyers there. You will gladly receive the answers for your questions Smiley
Oh no I won't. They don't like answering questions, and I got banned for raising them. (see the linked thread above).




Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #47 on: May 21, 2014, 03:01:01 PM »

Excuse me, I made an error.

Divorce is not allowed, even in cases of adultery.
don't worry, the error is on your ecclesiastical community, not you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,371



« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2014, 03:03:08 PM »

Anytime a doctrine requires a lawyer to explain it, I am suspicious.  Wink
Indeed!

No matter how often it is explained that the Orthodox approach to divorce is not "one size fits all" or legalistic, but rather pastoral, nobody listens. It seems to require a paradigm shift.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2014, 03:03:31 PM »

I wonder what percentage of the Vatican's marriages are "invalid."  Like what "ex cathedra" means, it seems it cannot tell us.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/kasper-interview-popefrancis-vatican

Quote
http://Kasper: That’s a real problem. I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid. Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament presupposes faith.
Seems like the Vatican is looking at 50% being valid vs invalid.  Perhaps they should include a coin toss in the ceremony that could assist in providing guidance on the validity of the marriage.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:04:34 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2014, 03:08:53 PM »

I wonder what percentage of the Vatican's marriages are "invalid."  Like what "ex cathedra" means, it seems it cannot tell us.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/kasper-interview-popefrancis-vatican

Quote
http://Kasper: That’s a real problem. I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid. Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament presupposes faith.
Seems like the Vatican is looking at 50% being valid vs invalid.  Perhaps they should include a coin toss in the ceremony that could assist in providing guidance on the validity of the marriage.

The coin would apparently give them a better chance than the priest would.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:09:06 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2014, 03:17:56 PM »

Look The Fathers know best :

Justin Martyr

"In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has-this to say: 'If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.' And, 'Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.' According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts"
First Apology 15

Ambrose

"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another."
Abraham 1:7:59 [387 CE].


Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is still her husband still and she may not take another"

Letters 55:3 [396 CE].

"Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives"
Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [398 CE].


Augustine

"Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: 'Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,' undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery"

Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [419 CE].

"A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication"


« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:19:32 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2014, 03:25:34 PM »

Ah.  What quote mine did you trawl?

Look The Fathers know best :

Justin Martyr

"In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has-this to say: 'If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.' And, 'Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.' According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts"
First Apology 15

Ambrose

"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another."
Abraham 1:7:59 [387 CE].


Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is still her husband still and she may not take another"

Letters 55:3 [396 CE].

"Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives"
Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [398 CE].


Augustine

"Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: 'Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,' undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery"

Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [419 CE].

"A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication"
St. Justin doesn't help you.  Jerome's distaste of marriage-"even the blood of martyrdom does not remove the stain of marriage" harms your case, as does Augustine's interesting views.  Does your quote trawl catch St. Basil?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #53 on: May 21, 2014, 03:31:56 PM »

Ah.  What quote mine did you trawl?

Look The Fathers know best :

Justin Martyr

"In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has-this to say: 'If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.' And, 'Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.' According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts"
First Apology 15

Ambrose

"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another."
Abraham 1:7:59 [387 CE].


Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is still her husband still and she may not take another"

Letters 55:3 [396 CE].

"Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives"
Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [398 CE].


Augustine

"Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: 'Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,' undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery"

Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [419 CE].

"A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication"
St. Justin doesn't help you.
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching, that you can remarry, to bed.

 
Quote
Jerome's distaste of marriage-"even the blood of martyrdom does not remove the stain of marriage" harms your case

Nope it only confirms the indissolubility of marriage by using hyperbole. Perfect catholic teaching.

Quote
as does Augustine's interesting views.
LOL  getting desperate now aren't we? You know Augustine is one of the main sources of the Catholic view on divorce. Nevermind your contentless "rebuttal".
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:34:35 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #54 on: May 21, 2014, 03:34:26 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #55 on: May 21, 2014, 03:36:05 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #56 on: May 21, 2014, 03:37:04 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

How on earth did you get that from his comment?
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,398



« Reply #57 on: May 21, 2014, 03:38:58 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:42:19 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #58 on: May 21, 2014, 03:39:25 PM »

St. Justin doesn't help you.
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching, that you can remarry, to bed.
only if you have been seduced to wash down that wedding cake of Corban with some Vatican Kool-Aid.

Quote
Jerome's distaste of marriage-"even the blood of martyrdom does not remove the stain of marriage" harms your case

Nope it only confirms the indissolubility of marriage by using hyperbole. Perfect catholic teaching.
so you admit that marriage being a "stain" is perfect Vatican teaching.  Btw, Jerome wasn't talking about the issue of divorce when he was expounded on his vile views of it.

Quote
as does Augustine's interesting views.
LOL  getting desperate now aren't we?

Getting? You're always desperate.
You know Augustine is one of the main sources of the Catholic view on divorce.
I know he gave the Vatican its view.  The Catholic view is another story.
Nevermind you content less "rebuttal".
Can you put more syntax into that sentence so it makes some intelligible sense?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2014, 03:40:41 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

How on earth did you get that from his comment?
Vatican logic, where things do not say what they say, and things aren't what they are.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2014, 03:48:43 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

How on earth did you get that from his comment?
Vatican logic, where things do not say what they say, and things aren't what they are.

 Cheesy  Now all we need are some Canon Lawyers and a subcommittee to denounce my questioning of Wandile as heretical.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2014, 03:55:58 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:57:25 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,102


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2014, 03:58:37 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...

Why is it different then with adultery?  Does that devalidify the sacrament in a way that nothing else does?
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2014, 03:59:33 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

How on earth did you get that from his comment?

I assumed his attack on our church was, as past experience normally tells, a concession. I might be wrong on him admitting
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #64 on: May 21, 2014, 04:02:08 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...

Why is it different then with adultery?  Does that devalidify the sacrament in a way that nothing else does?

it is not


Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is still her husband still and she may not take another
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,102


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #65 on: May 21, 2014, 04:02:59 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...

Why is it different then with adultery?  Does that devalidify the sacrament in a way that nothing else does?

it is not


Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is still her husband still and she may not take another

Then why is divorce permitted?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #66 on: May 21, 2014, 04:10:30 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...
Scenario: man cheats on his wife, who eventually leaves him and shacks up with another man.  The husband "settles down" with one of his mistress. They do not get a divorce because they are "good catholics."
Years later, the wife is declared dead (although identification is not sure).  The husband then goes to the Vatican's church with the mistress he has been living with and gets marry, good in full standing.  That's the Vatican way, and fully valid under its rules.

Eastern Orthodoxy, however, would not marry them, because the canons forbid marrying a couple which started out as an affair in a previous marriage.  The Antiochian Archdiocese a few years reiterated that, requiring priests who are marrying a couple in which remarriage is the case, to first determine if the couple before him is an affair they want to legitimize. The rules of Eastern Orthodox today (and always) don't allow that.

But you are welcome to your Corban cake with sanctimony filling and hypocrisy frosting.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #67 on: May 21, 2014, 04:13:25 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...

Why is it different then with adultery?  Does that devalidify the sacrament in a way that nothing else does?

it is not


Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is still her husband still and she may not take another
"be he sodomite" wonder what the original said, given that the word sodomite wasn't coined until nearly a milleium after St. Jerome.

Seems that your Jerome doesn't buy your "reasons for annullment."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #68 on: May 21, 2014, 04:15:30 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...

Why is it different then with adultery?  Does that devalidify the sacrament in a way that nothing else does?
question is how the consumation is mightier than the priest's blessing in making it a sacrament.

btw, I've been told that if the marriage is consumated wearing a condom, that it doesn't become a sacrament. Wonder if that works if it is just the pill.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 04:17:11 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,398



« Reply #69 on: May 21, 2014, 04:17:46 PM »

Quote
He actually does. He puts the heretical teaching of orthodoxy that you can remarry to bed.
I don't see any of them making allowances for annullments either...

Lol so you admit they call modern orthodoxy's practice into question?

I can cherrypick quotes from Vatican II and Denzinger that make it seem that modern Catholicism's practice is put in to question also. Sedes do this often. I don't see what that proves about the 'truth' of either of those things.

Your methods of argumentation have become petty, Wandile. If something like marriage is the only thing you can use to put down Orthodoxy and elevate Roman Catholicism then you might as well just give up.

The quotes are explicit, plain and simple. Put them into the paragraph context, book context or even historical context and the meanings will not change You may not divorce and may not remarry as long as your partner is alive.

But alas the Eastern Orthodox today ...

Quote from: Matthew 23:23
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,102


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #70 on: May 21, 2014, 04:25:11 PM »

The simple fact is that, on this point, the RCC has enshrined and explicated a misunderstanding of Christs teaching as well as that of St. Jerome.  We, as Orthodox, retain the teaching as expounded by Moses and fulfilled by the words of Christ, as well as alluded to by Paul.  Divorce is a sin but is tolerated in extreme cases to prevent greater sin.  Remarriage is a sin but is tolerated in certain cases to prevent greater sin.  What would Jesus do?  I think we know.  I think that the hierarchy, including the Pope, have realized the fruits of this error and are seeking to do what they can to correct it without losing too much face.  We, as Orthodox, should hold their hand and help them as they take this small step to turn away from an error which has infected their noble communion.   But alas, there are some who are "more Catholic than the Pope" and who say, our tradition right or wrong.  They will not be happy with us, either.  And there are some among us who delight in the blindness of our brethren and pass them by when they are wounded on the road.   These, too, shall have their reward.   Let us be good Samaritans to the Catholics in this plight and perhaps they will seek our counsel in others.   
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #71 on: May 21, 2014, 04:27:59 PM »

The simple fact is that, on this point, the RCC has enshrined and explicated a misunderstanding of Christs teaching as well as that of St. Jerome.  We, as Orthodox, retain the teaching as expounded by Moses and fulfilled by the words of Christ, as well as alluded to by Paul.  Divorce is a sin but is tolerated in extreme cases to prevent greater sin.  Remarriage is a sin but is tolerated in certain cases to prevent greater sin.  What would Jesus do?  I think we know.  I think that the hierarchy, including the Pope, have realized the fruits of this error and are seeking to do what they can to correct it without losing too much face.  We, as Orthodox, should hold their hand and help them as they take this small step to turn away from an error which has infected their noble communion.   But alas, there are some who are "more Catholic than the Pope" and who say, our tradition right or wrong.  They will not be happy with us, either.  And there are some among us who delight in the blindness of our brethren and pass them by when they are wounded on the road.   These, too, shall have their reward.   Let us be good Samaritans to the Catholics in this plight and perhaps they will seek our counsel in others.  
On some thread here (and elsewhere) when it was said that reunion was blocked because the Vatican's faithful had a problem with the Orthodox view of divorce and remarriage and on contraception, I pointed out that most of the Vatican's flock have already come over to the Orthodox understanding on these matters.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 04:28:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #72 on: May 21, 2014, 04:30:18 PM »


btw, I've been told that if the marriage is consumated wearing a condom, that it doesn't become a sacrament. Wonder if that works if it is just the pill.

I find this hard to believe but imagine it would probably hold water in front of a tribunal.  My sister tried to use the fact that the priest who married them was nearing senility as a reason why the marriage was invalid.  I don't think it prevailed but the mere fact her priest said it could work is astounding.  But, it's all astounding to an Orthodox.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 04:30:46 PM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #73 on: May 21, 2014, 04:32:35 PM »


btw, I've been told that if the marriage is consumated wearing a condom, that it doesn't become a sacrament. Wonder if that works if it is just the pill.

I find this hard to believe but imagine it would probably hold water in front of a tribunal.  My sister tried to use the fact that the priest who married them was nearing senility as a reason why the marriage was invalid.  I don't think it prevailed but the mere fact her priest said it could work is astounding.  But, it's all astounding to an Orthodox.
yes, the fact that they are searching for evidence for a conclusion already reached should give them pause.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 643


« Reply #74 on: May 21, 2014, 04:35:24 PM »


btw, I've been told that if the marriage is consumated wearing a condom, that it doesn't become a sacrament. Wonder if that works if it is just the pill.

I find this hard to believe but imagine it would probably hold water in front of a tribunal.  My sister tried to use the fact that the priest who married them was nearing senility as a reason why the marriage was invalid.  I don't think it prevailed but the mere fact her priest said it could work is astounding.  But, it's all astounding to an Orthodox.
yes, the fact that they are searching for evidence for a conclusion already reached should give them pause.

Exactly.  In fact, I think that's the entire basis for the annulment industry the RCC has going.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,962


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #75 on: May 21, 2014, 04:38:13 PM »

Excuse me, I made an error.

Divorce is not allowed, even in cases of adultery.

You made two.  One, divorce is not a sin, it is remarriage without a declaration of nullify that is the sin.  Two, divorce/separation is not only allowed but in some cases necessary and encouraged.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #76 on: May 21, 2014, 06:19:07 PM »

Excuse me, I made an error.

Divorce is not allowed, even in cases of adultery.

You made two.  One, divorce is not a sin, it is remarriage without a declaration of nullify that is the sin.  Two, divorce/separation is not only allowed but in some cases necessary and encouraged.

As long as divorce in the proper sense does not do away with the sacrament as according to our theology, nothing can undo a sacramental marriage bar death. Hence the phraseology being employed I.e. Separate or to put away. Even when such terms are used among the fathers, its is still strongly taught that the sacrament exists and thus remarriage is not permitted lest one commits adultery.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 06:21:46 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,962


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #77 on: May 21, 2014, 08:42:18 PM »

yes, having looked at the questions etc. they ask for an annulment...

Are those available online somewhere?

Quote
...the question sticks in my mind why don't they ask these questions before they marry them, and apply the scrutiny of whether it is a valid marriage then?

Maybe that would get in the way of the NFP training.  Can't have them using condoms now.  Tongue

Seriously, though, what on earth happens during the mandatory pre-marital counseling that still leaves open the possibility that two people cannot contract a valid marriage?  

Annulments are sound theology on paper, but paper never gets married.  When you see it play out in real life, it's quite a ridiculous fiction.  And it's not even infallible, so even when you're sure, you can never really be sure.    

They do ask these questions, or at least they are supposed to.  In my own case, since my wife was Presbyterian and we were young(21/22) the sessions with the priest were pretty intense.  However, not everybody does their job I suppose.

Even with good counseling, do not forget sometimes people know how to answer the questions with no intention of living in marriage as God requires.  Lying and deception are an issue.  I have a good friend who married a girl who along with her parents hid her serious mental illness.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,962


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #78 on: May 21, 2014, 08:54:17 PM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
I've seen that some Vatican approved translations have taken to "translating" it as "invalid marriage" or some such nonsense.
That would be: "unless the marriage is unlawful" in the RNAB, which is one of the meanings of porneia.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #79 on: May 21, 2014, 09:48:30 PM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
I've seen that some Vatican approved translations have taken to "translating" it as "invalid marriage" or some such nonsense.
That would be: "unless the marriage is unlawful" in the RNAB, which is one of the meanings of porneia.

Two examples, one in my family and the other a very close friend:
example one, My neice was married sacramentally for some years had on child and because of mental anquish had to divorce her husband.  My new nephew also once married two children also divorced met my neice an got married by a female minister on a golf course later was able to get an annulment from the church.  Both parties spouses are still living, both were in a sacramental marriage and divorced and then annulled.
example two, My neighbor had no children was sacramentally married for a time, wife divorced him for another man, he then met another woman with two kids, married in a Lutheran church, and later blessed by the Catholic church.

Like is said before divorce/annulment samie same.... 
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,625



« Reply #80 on: May 21, 2014, 10:16:40 PM »

Wandile, you basically have no room to talk, because at Florence, when the issue of divorce was brought up, the Greeks explained that this was an ancient practice derived from the canons of the fathers, and the Latins contented themselves with this explanation, not pressing this issue any further. This is why the issue of divorce was not brought up at all in the official documents of Florence, and the union was considered by the Latins to have been made, even though the Greeks had not been asked to change the practice of divorce and remarriage (which you arrogantly, stupidly and ignorantly have called heretical).
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 10:18:26 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 340



« Reply #81 on: May 21, 2014, 10:51:47 PM »

My question is: is there anywhere in Holy Tradition where the Sacrament of Marriage is understood as being performed by the couple, not the priest? Because if not (and I strongly suspect not), then the basis for declaring marriages invalid falls away in almost all cases.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 10:52:00 PM by Regnare » Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,625



« Reply #82 on: May 21, 2014, 11:05:26 PM »

My question is: is there anywhere in Holy Tradition where the Sacrament of Marriage is understood as being performed by the couple, not the priest? Because if not (and I strongly suspect not), then the basis for declaring marriages invalid falls away in almost all cases.

Even if such an example could be found, I think it still involves a very questionable understanding of sacraments. What if a man did not understand that priesthood is an eternal ontological mark upon the soul at the time of ordination or perhaps had doubts as to whether he should be a priest? Would his ordination then be invalid and all sacraments performed by him save baptism null and void? What if a man did not fully understand baptism at the time of his baptism? Could the baptism be annulled?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
homedad76
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 207



« Reply #83 on: May 21, 2014, 11:23:34 PM »

The way I interpret the Orthodox view vs the Catholic view is that both see divorce as a sin but the Orthodox refuse to make it an almost unforgiveable one like the Catholic church does.  Technically the Catholic Church does not annul marriages they declare a marriage null which is not the same thing.  It is just that the tribunal process has become a rubber stamp in recent years.  But it wasn't long ago that even if your spouse beat you or cheated on you you were basically excommunicated if you divorced them and married someone else.  Their absolutism having backed them into a corner the tribunal system (which is granted infallibility through the Pope) has largely become a blank check declaring pretty much any reason a valid reason to declare a marriage having never existed.

I know this is likely an oversimplification but it boils it down to the basics I hope.
Logged

"However hard I try, I find it impossible to construct anything greater than these three words, 'Love one another' —only to the end, and without exceptions: then all is justified and life is illumined, whereas otherwise it is an abomination and a burden."

—Mother Maria of Paris
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #84 on: May 21, 2014, 11:51:54 PM »

Divorce is certainly permitted in certain circumstances, according to Christ Himself:

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
I've seen that some Vatican approved translations have taken to "translating" it as "invalid marriage" or some such nonsense.
That would be: "unless the marriage is unlawful" in the RNAB, which is one of the meanings of porneia.
Not according to Bauer and TDNT, it's not.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 11:54:45 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,632



« Reply #85 on: May 22, 2014, 12:06:18 AM »

I honestly find the Latin practice of annulment to be incredibly offensive and repugnant most of the time. "Oh, that wasn't ever a real marriage, it was a putative marriage for all of those years because of X."

And the idea that the sacrament of marriage ends with one partner's death (allowing the surviving partner to enter into a new one, of course) is something I find pretty unsatisfying.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #86 on: May 22, 2014, 02:25:18 AM »

Wandile, you basically have no room to talk, because at Florence, when the issue of divorce was brought up, the Greeks explained that this was an ancient practice derived from the canons of the fathers, and the Latins contented themselves with this explanation, not pressing this issue any further. This is why the issue of divorce was not brought up at all in the official documents of Florence, and the union was considered by the Latins to have been made, even though the Greeks had not been asked to change the practice of divorce and remarriage (which you arrogantly, stupidly and ignorantly have called heretical).

Arrogantly and stupidly? I think not

The Council of Trent made a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v:

"If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema"

 and in canon vii:

"If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema"

 The formula prescribed by Urban VIII for easterners contains the following :

"Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 02:34:06 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,625



« Reply #87 on: May 22, 2014, 02:43:07 AM »

Wandile, you basically have no room to talk, because at Florence, when the issue of divorce was brought up, the Greeks explained that this was an ancient practice derived from the canons of the fathers, and the Latins contented themselves with this explanation, not pressing this issue any further. This is why the issue of divorce was not brought up at all in the official documents of Florence, and the union was considered by the Latins to have been made, even though the Greeks had not been asked to change the practice of divorce and remarriage (which you arrogantly, stupidly and ignorantly have called heretical).

Arrogantly and stupidly? I think not

The Council of Trent made a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v:

"If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema"

 and in canon vii:

"If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema"

 The formula prescribed by Urban VIII for easterners contains the following :

"Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

So it is your contention that the Pope at Florence willingly entered into communion with heretics. Of course, you are a believer in the erroneous doctrine of magisterial positivism, so I can see why any contradictions between supposedly infallible Florence and supposedly infallible Trent would not bother you, as all of theology is for you a moving target.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Auryn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic converting to Orthodox
Posts: 79



« Reply #88 on: May 22, 2014, 02:48:34 AM »

Well, apparently 50 percent of marriages are invalid according to Pope Francis.  So, there's that.   Sad
I guess that's why there are 50,000 annulments given out in the US alone per year, as compared to 900 in one year WORLDWIDE back before Vatican II.  
As for people saying you gotta pay for annulments.  I didn't have to pay anything for mine.
Logged

If there is prayer, the soul lives; without prayer, there is no spiritual life. + St. Theophan the Recluse +
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #89 on: May 22, 2014, 02:51:41 AM »

Wandile, you basically have no room to talk, because at Florence, when the issue of divorce was brought up, the Greeks explained that this was an ancient practice derived from the canons of the fathers, and the Latins contented themselves with this explanation, not pressing this issue any further. This is why the issue of divorce was not brought up at all in the official documents of Florence, and the union was considered by the Latins to have been made, even though the Greeks had not been asked to change the practice of divorce and remarriage (which you arrogantly, stupidly and ignorantly have called heretical).

Arrogantly and stupidly? I think not

The Council of Trent made a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v:

"If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema"

 and in canon vii:

"If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema"

 The formula prescribed by Urban VIII for easterners contains the following :

"Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

So it is your contention that the Pope at Florence willingly entered into communion with heretics. Of course, you are a believer in the erroneous doctrine of magisterial positivism, so I can see why any contradictions between supposedly infallible Florence and supposedly infallible Trent would not bother you, as all of theology is for you a moving target.

What a stupid comment. There is no contradiction. Rather, before Florence the latins already held the theology expressed at Trent. They didn't change at Florence. All they did was let it go as it really didn't seem to be a deal breaker for them. Such issued are easily fixed over time. Issues like papal supremacy and filioque however, are another story.

Trust that even after the union, the Latins would have brought up marriage once the dust has settled for Thomistic and Augustinian theology had taken sway on the catholic thought. Reunion was the councils primary objective. They wanted it as soon as possible but trust that the Latins would never let the marriage issue go. In fact the decree we speak of (which was made a mere century after Florence)  was already softened for the Greeks so as to not be too offensive but yet still speak truth.  
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:24:07 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 22, 2014, 02:57:56 AM »

Arrogantly and stupidly? I think not

The Council of Trent made a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v:

"If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema"

 and in canon vii:

"If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema"

 The formula prescribed by Urban VIII for easterners contains the following :

"Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

So it is your contention that the Pope at Florence willingly entered into communion with heretics. Of course, you are a believer in the erroneous doctrine of magisterial positivism, so I can see why any contradictions between supposedly infallible Florence and supposedly infallible Trent would not bother you, as all of theology is for you a moving target.

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #91 on: May 22, 2014, 03:25:27 AM »

[
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:29:44 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #92 on: May 22, 2014, 03:28:49 AM »

 Smiley
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:30:33 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,625



« Reply #93 on: May 22, 2014, 04:05:12 AM »

What a stupid comment. There is no contradiction. Rather, before Florence the latins already held the theology expressed at Trent. They didn't change at Florence. All they did was let it go as it really didn't seem to be a deal breaker for them.

In fact, as it turns out, I suppose that the indissolubility of marriage has been the perennial teaching of the Latins, except when it has not been the perennial teaching of the Latins. Pope Stephen II (the first Frankish Pope) taught, against the teachings of his predecessors, that marriages with slaves could be dissolved. Pope Celestine III declared that marriage could be dissolved if one party ever became heretical. Pope Innocent III involved himself in a theological contradiction. Though he annulled Pope Celestine's position on marriage, he nevertheless taught that the spiritual bond which binds a bishop to his diocese is a greater bond than the carnal bond which binds man and wife, such that God alone could loose the former, and that the Pope, as God's representative, was also entitled to be able to do the same by divine authority. This of course, has the corollary that the lesser bond marriage could also be dissolved by the Pope.

Such issues are easily fixed over time. Issues like papal supremacy and filioque on the other hand, are another story.

Trust that even after the union, the Latins would have brought up marriage once the dust has settled for Thomistic and Augustinian theology had taken sway on the catholic thought.

Now that is a pretty "stupid comment" if I've ever seen one. What basis in reality do you have for such a speculative assertion?

Reunion was the councils primary objective. They wanted it as soon as possible...

So you are telling me that the Latins were being duplicitous. No wonder the Three Eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem in 1443 condemned the Council of Florence, calling it the "lawless Council of Florence".

...but trust that the Latins would never let the marriage issue go.

Except when their infallible popes taught in decretals that marriage was in fact a dissoluble bond.

In fact the decree we speak of (which was made a mere century after Florence)  was already softened for the Greeks so as to not be too offensive but yet still speak truth.

The dogmatic canons of Trent were most assuredly intended for the reformers, who were arguing from other sources that the marital bond may be dissolved (who knows, perhaps they were even quoting the above-mentioned popes).

The fact is though that The East already has a rather good canonical basis for its current practice concerning divorce. We already see from canon 9 of St. Basil that a man can dismiss his wife and take another on account of fornication. He also makes the case that this in principle could apply equally to women, although custom does not support this. Furthermore, as St. Basil teaches in canon 4, trigamy is itself not marriage, and is rather limited fornication. Nevertheless, he teaches in canon 50 that though third marriages are a defilement, we do not publicly condemn those who have contracted them, as they are better than unrestrained fornication. We see then that there is already a basis in canon law for recognizing by oikonomia the marriages contracted by those who have divorced, even though such marriages like third marriages may in principle be unlawful.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 04:31:17 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #94 on: May 22, 2014, 08:51:08 AM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #95 on: May 22, 2014, 09:10:09 AM »

Wandile, you basically have no room to talk, because at Florence, when the issue of divorce was brought up, the Greeks explained that this was an ancient practice derived from the canons of the fathers, and the Latins contented themselves with this explanation, not pressing this issue any further. This is why the issue of divorce was not brought up at all in the official documents of Florence, and the union was considered by the Latins to have been made, even though the Greeks had not been asked to change the practice of divorce and remarriage (which you arrogantly, stupidly and ignorantly have called heretical).

Arrogantly and stupidly? I think not

The Council of Trent made a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v:

"If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema"

 and in canon vii:

"If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema"

 The formula prescribed by Urban VIII for easterners contains the following :

"Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

So it is your contention that the Pope at Florence willingly entered into communion with heretics. Of course, you are a believer in the erroneous doctrine of magisterial positivism, so I can see why any contradictions between supposedly infallible Florence and supposedly infallible Trent would not bother you, as all of theology is for you a moving target.

What a stupid comment. There is no contradiction. Rather, before Florence the latins already held the theology expressed at Trent. They didn't change at Florence. All they did was let it go as it really didn't seem to be a deal breaker for them. Such issued are easily fixed over time. Issues like papal supremacy and filioque however, are another story.

Trust that even after the union, the Latins would have brought up marriage once the dust has settled for Thomistic and Augustinian theology had taken sway on the catholic thought. Reunion was the councils primary objective. They wanted it as soon as possible but trust that the Latins would never let the marriage issue go. In fact the decree we speak of (which was made a mere century after Florence)  was already softened for the Greeks so as to not be too offensive but yet still speak truth.  

If I understand your post, I would have hoped that any disagreements regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony would have been resolve prior to and not after a union, if one ever takes place.  I would think that as an Orthodox Christian I would hope that all the "T's" were crossed and the "I's" dotted before any union, or talk of union.   The Anathema clause by Trent (a purely western council not binding for the East by any stretch ) would have prevented any "softening" to placate the Greeks at least in my opinion....IOW, why change or modify your beliefs merely to gain the affection of the Eastern Church, if what you consider the truth being the truth?
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #96 on: May 22, 2014, 09:23:58 AM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know. 
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,371



« Reply #97 on: May 22, 2014, 09:24:04 AM »

...Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers...

In a nutshell. ISTM.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #98 on: May 22, 2014, 09:53:03 AM »

Wandile, you basically have no room to talk, because at Florence, when the issue of divorce was brought up, the Greeks explained that this was an ancient practice derived from the canons of the fathers, and the Latins contented themselves with this explanation, not pressing this issue any further. This is why the issue of divorce was not brought up at all in the official documents of Florence, and the union was considered by the Latins to have been made, even though the Greeks had not been asked to change the practice of divorce and remarriage (which you arrogantly, stupidly and ignorantly have called heretical).

Arrogantly and stupidly? I think not

The Council of Trent made a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v:

"If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema"

 and in canon vii:

"If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema"

 The formula prescribed by Urban VIII for easterners contains the following :

"Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

So it is your contention that the Pope at Florence willingly entered into communion with heretics. Of course, you are a believer in the erroneous doctrine of magisterial positivism, so I can see why any contradictions between supposedly infallible Florence and supposedly infallible Trent would not bother you, as all of theology is for you a moving target.
"magisterial positivism"? Is this a new term?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #99 on: May 22, 2014, 09:54:51 AM »

Wandile, you basically have no room to talk, because at Florence, when the issue of divorce was brought up, the Greeks explained that this was an ancient practice derived from the canons of the fathers, and the Latins contented themselves with this explanation, not pressing this issue any further. This is why the issue of divorce was not brought up at all in the official documents of Florence, and the union was considered by the Latins to have been made, even though the Greeks had not been asked to change the practice of divorce and remarriage (which you arrogantly, stupidly and ignorantly have called heretical).

Arrogantly and stupidly? I think not

The Council of Trent made a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v:

"If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema"

 and in canon vii:

"If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema"

 The formula prescribed by Urban VIII for easterners contains the following :

"Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

So it is your contention that the Pope at Florence willingly entered into communion with heretics. Of course, you are a believer in the erroneous doctrine of magisterial positivism, so I can see why any contradictions between supposedly infallible Florence and supposedly infallible Trent would not bother you, as all of theology is for you a moving target.

What a stupid comment. There is no contradiction. Rather, before Florence the latins already held the theology expressed at Trent. They didn't change at Florence. All they did was let it go as it really didn't seem to be a deal breaker for them. Such issued are easily fixed over time. Issues like papal supremacy and filioque however, are another story.

Trust that even after the union, the Latins would have brought up marriage once the dust has settled for Thomistic and Augustinian theology had taken sway on the catholic thought. Reunion was the councils primary objective. They wanted it as soon as possible but trust that the Latins would never let the marriage issue go. In fact the decree we speak of (which was made a mere century after Florence)  was already softened for the Greeks so as to not be too offensive but yet still speak truth.  
IOW, they were playing bait and switch, as they do in any "union."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #100 on: May 22, 2014, 10:00:55 AM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know. 
actually, anullments are worse, in that they declare marriage a farce.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,632



« Reply #101 on: May 22, 2014, 11:46:05 AM »

...Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers...

In a nutshell. ISTM.

Yeah, every case I've seen or heard of amounts to de facto divorce, with the only real difference being a legal loophole to avoid saying it was a real divorce (since it wasn't a real marriage! It's so clever).
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,371



« Reply #102 on: May 22, 2014, 12:18:14 PM »

...Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers...

In a nutshell. ISTM.

Yeah, every case I've seen or heard of amounts to de facto divorce, with the only real difference being a legal loophole to avoid saying it was a real divorce (since it wasn't a real marriage! It's so clever).

Exactly.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #103 on: July 30, 2014, 01:29:18 PM »

Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church (2014)
Edited by Robert Dodaro.

Quote
In this volume five Cardinals of the Church, and four other scholars, respond to the call issued by Cardinal Walter Kasper for the Church to harmonize "fidelity and mercy in its pastoral practice with civilly remarried, divorced people".
....
This book also examines the Eastern Orthodox practice of oikonomia (understood as "mercy" implying "toleration") in cases of remarriage after divorce and in the context of the vexed question of Eucharistic communion. It traces the centuries long history of Catholic resistance to this convention, revealing serious theological and canonical difficulties inherent in past and current Orthodox Church practice....
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #104 on: July 30, 2014, 02:07:31 PM »

Quote
This book also examines the Eastern Orthodox practice of oikonomia (understood as "mercy" implying "toleration") in cases of remarriage after divorce and in the context of the vexed question of Eucharistic communion. It traces the centuries long history of Catholic resistance to this convention, revealing serious theological and canonical difficulties inherent in past and current Orthodox Church practice....

This ought to be good.  Even Cardinals I respect for their orthodoxy have basic, fundamental misunderstandings of Orthodox doctrine and practice, basic misunderstandings easily corrected by emailing a first-year seminarian, yet they run with it anyway to further their own agenda ad intra.  Let's see what they will come up with now to shore up the troops. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,632



« Reply #105 on: July 30, 2014, 02:12:32 PM »

Quote
This book also examines the Eastern Orthodox practice of oikonomia (understood as "mercy" implying "toleration") in cases of remarriage after divorce and in the context of the vexed question of Eucharistic communion. It traces the centuries long history of Catholic resistance to this convention, revealing serious theological and canonical difficulties inherent in past and current Orthodox Church practice....

This ought to be good.  Even Cardinals I respect for their orthodoxy have basic, fundamental misunderstandings of Orthodox doctrine and practice, basic misunderstandings easily corrected by emailing a first-year seminarian, yet they run with it anyway to further their own agenda ad intra.  Let's see what they will come up with now to shore up the troops. 

Lol, exactly my thoughts when reading that part. I look forward to more educated Catholic hierarchs effectively saying our remarriage is just canonical concubinage and trying to apply that to their situation. Should turn out well.
Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #106 on: September 01, 2014, 10:30:47 AM »

Scenario: man cheats on his wife, who eventually leaves him and shacks up with another man.  The husband "settles down" with one of his mistress. They do not get a divorce because they are "good catholics."
Years later, the wife is declared dead (although identification is not sure).  The husband then goes to the Vatican's church with the mistress he has been living with and gets marry, good in full standing.  That's the Vatican way, and fully valid under its rules.

Actually, no.  Both in this case would be guilty of grave sin.  Neither would be thought of as "good Catholics".  And, if pre-marital preparation was done properly (the lack of doing so is the major problem with Catholic marriages today), the previous affair would be discovered and the marriage likely not allowed as it would be seen as the husband not having true contrition for his previous affair since he now desired to marry the same woman whom he cheated on his wife with in the first place. 
Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #107 on: September 01, 2014, 10:35:05 AM »

yes, having looked at the questions etc. they ask for an annulment...

Are those available online somewhere?

Quote
...the question sticks in my mind why don't they ask these questions before they marry them, and apply the scrutiny of whether it is a valid marriage then?

Maybe that would get in the way of the NFP training.  Can't have them using condoms now.  Tongue

Seriously, though, what on earth happens during the mandatory pre-marital counseling that still leaves open the possibility that two people cannot contract a valid marriage?  

Annulments are sound theology on paper, but paper never gets married.  When you see it play out in real life, it's quite a ridiculous fiction.  And it's not even infallible, so even when you're sure, you can never really be sure.    

They do ask these questions, or at least they are supposed to.  In my own case, since my wife was Presbyterian and we were young(21/22) the sessions with the priest were pretty intense.  However, not everybody does their job I suppose.

Even with good counseling, do not forget sometimes people know how to answer the questions with no intention of living in marriage as God requires.  Lying and deception are an issue.  I have a good friend who married a girl who along with her parents hid her serious mental illness.

You bring up good points.  The process that is put in place by the Church is often not followed, or people simply lie to get through it.  Under some false sense of being "pastoral" these issues are not pushed in any meaningful way by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  Frankly, its hard to come to the conclusion that the process or understanding of marriage is the problem when those are the very things which are not being followed properly. 
Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #108 on: September 01, 2014, 10:43:47 AM »

Well, apparently 50 percent of marriages are invalid according to Pope Francis.  So, there's that.   Sad
I guess that's why there are 50,000 annulments given out in the US alone per year, as compared to 900 in one year WORLDWIDE back before Vatican II.  
As for people saying you gotta pay for annulments.  I didn't have to pay anything for mine.


First of all, I think the 50% comment on the part of the Pope is a bit ridiculous.  However, in an age where the process of marriage preparation was largely ignored and many people were never properly catechized, it would not at all be surprising to me that many people entered into marriage without the intent and knowledge necessary for the sacrament.  Can anyone honestly look at the state of catechesis in the Catholic Church, or the state of following Canon Law, over the past 50 years and believe otherwise? 

Secondly, you are correct.  The idea that one simply donates money and gets a declaration of nullity is ridiculous. 
Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #109 on: September 01, 2014, 10:51:29 AM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know. 

Unless there is something in your example that you are not telling us, that couple would not have grounds for a declaration of nullity. 

I think a distinction needs to be made between whether or not the process is correct, and whether or not the process is actually followed properly.  The process not being followed properly does not equate to the process itself being flawed. 
Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #110 on: September 01, 2014, 10:54:39 AM »

Quote
This book also examines the Eastern Orthodox practice of oikonomia (understood as "mercy" implying "toleration") in cases of remarriage after divorce and in the context of the vexed question of Eucharistic communion. It traces the centuries long history of Catholic resistance to this convention, revealing serious theological and canonical difficulties inherent in past and current Orthodox Church practice....

This ought to be good.  Even Cardinals I respect for their orthodoxy have basic, fundamental misunderstandings of Orthodox doctrine and practice, basic misunderstandings easily corrected by emailing a first-year seminarian, yet they run with it anyway to further their own agenda ad intra.  Let's see what they will come up with now to shore up the troops. 

Perhaps you will like this one better.  A group of Catholic theologians, mostly Dominican Friars, recently put out an article on the topic of Divorce and Remarriage that examines the issue.  http://nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-assessment.pdf

Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #111 on: September 01, 2014, 11:24:25 AM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know.  

Unless there is something in your example that you are not telling us, that couple would not have grounds for a declaration of nullity.  

I think a distinction needs to be made between whether or not the process is correct, and whether or not the process is actually followed properly.  The process not being followed properly does not equate to the process itself being flawed.  

I can only go on what I see.  My niece and nephew, both Roman Catholics had previous marriages in the RC church and had children.  One divorced her husband because of abuse.  Not sure exactly why my nephew divorced his wife.  But, their remarriage was blessed by the church.
I attended my niece's first wedding and it was beautiful and they were both in love.  Sacramentally, the marriage was in RC terms 'valid'.  My guess is that if I were Catholic I would have to believe that this sacramental element some how left the body of this marriage when the marriage went south.  I guess its like a magical moment.  So, there was a sacrament at, during and right after the marriage, but in the ebb of time this sacrament diminished or evaporated ?   This is soooooo  legalistic in nature , somewhat alien in Orthodox thinking.
 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 11:25:18 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #112 on: September 01, 2014, 11:26:28 AM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know. 

Unless there is something in your example that you are not telling us, that couple would not have grounds for a declaration of nullity. 

I think a distinction needs to be made between whether or not the process is correct, and whether or not the process is actually followed properly.  The process not being followed properly does not equate to the process itself being flawed. 
but flawlessly following a flawed processes is still flawed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #113 on: September 01, 2014, 11:33:53 AM »

yes, having looked at the questions etc. they ask for an annulment...

Are those available online somewhere?

Quote
...the question sticks in my mind why don't they ask these questions before they marry them, and apply the scrutiny of whether it is a valid marriage then?

Maybe that would get in the way of the NFP training.  Can't have them using condoms now.  Tongue

Seriously, though, what on earth happens during the mandatory pre-marital counseling that still leaves open the possibility that two people cannot contract a valid marriage?  

Annulments are sound theology on paper, but paper never gets married.  When you see it play out in real life, it's quite a ridiculous fiction.  And it's not even infallible, so even when you're sure, you can never really be sure.    

They do ask these questions, or at least they are supposed to.  In my own case, since my wife was Presbyterian and we were young(21/22) the sessions with the priest were pretty intense.  However, not everybody does their job I suppose.

Even with good counseling, do not forget sometimes people know how to answer the questions with no intention of living in marriage as God requires.  Lying and deception are an issue.  I have a good friend who married a girl who along with her parents hid her serious mental illness.

You bring up good points.  The process that is put in place by the Church is often not followed, or people simply lie to get through it.  Under some false sense of being "pastoral" these issues are not pushed in any meaningful way by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  Frankly, its hard to come to the conclusion that the process or understanding of marriage is the problem when those are the very things which are not being followed properly. 
not when "misunderstanding" of marriage qualifies in the system to annul it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #114 on: September 01, 2014, 12:37:43 PM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know.  

Unless there is something in your example that you are not telling us, that couple would not have grounds for a declaration of nullity.  

I think a distinction needs to be made between whether or not the process is correct, and whether or not the process is actually followed properly.  The process not being followed properly does not equate to the process itself being flawed.  
but flawlessly following a flawed processes is still flawed.

True, presuming you are correct in your analysis of the process.  I started this thread with a sincere intent to understand Orthodox teaching on the subject of marriage and divorce.  The point of my comment above is that throwing out examples of when a process has not been followed correctly as proof that the the process itself is flawed does not work.  I'm pretty sure that it would not be too difficult for me to find examples of times where Orthodox Canon Law has not been followed correctly, but it would hardly be fair for me to trot those out as examples of why Orthodox practice is wrong.  
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 12:47:20 PM by jwinch2 » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #115 on: September 01, 2014, 01:24:01 PM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know.  

Unless there is something in your example that you are not telling us, that couple would not have grounds for a declaration of nullity.  

I think a distinction needs to be made between whether or not the process is correct, and whether or not the process is actually followed properly.  The process not being followed properly does not equate to the process itself being flawed.  
but flawlessly following a flawed processes is still flawed.

True, presuming you are correct in your analysis of the process.  I started this thread with a sincere intent to understand Orthodox teaching on the subject of marriage and divorce.  The point of my comment above is that throwing out examples of when a process has not been followed correctly as proof that the the process itself is flawed does not work.  I'm pretty sure that it would not be too difficult for me to find examples of times where Orthodox Canon Law has not been followed correctly, but it would hardly be fair for me to trot those out as examples of why Orthodox practice is wrong.  

Then help us understand the crux of your inquiry.  Knowing our understanding on marriage and divorce, what would that do for you?  Is it a matter of interest where you put this in your memory bank or are their other more subjective reasons?  I would suggest going onto the OCA website and query subjects on the matter of marriage.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 01:27:32 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
jwinch2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 142


« Reply #116 on: September 01, 2014, 02:29:00 PM »

Then help us understand the crux of your inquiry.  Knowing our understanding on marriage and divorce, what would that do for you?  Is it a matter of interest where you put this in your memory bank or are their other more subjective reasons?  I would suggest going onto the OCA website and query subjects on the matter of marriage.

I explained the crux of my inquiry in my op as well as subsequent posts.  I have read the teaching of the Orthodox Church on marriage, my question was specific to the genesis of that teaching from the Bible or Tradition.  Again, this can be seen at the beginning of the thread. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #117 on: September 01, 2014, 02:33:50 PM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know.  

Unless there is something in your example that you are not telling us, that couple would not have grounds for a declaration of nullity.  

I think a distinction needs to be made between whether or not the process is correct, and whether or not the process is actually followed properly.  The process not being followed properly does not equate to the process itself being flawed.  
but flawlessly following a flawed processes is still flawed.

True, presuming you are correct in your analysis of the process.  I started this thread with a sincere intent to understand Orthodox teaching on the subject of marriage and divorce.  The point of my comment above is that throwing out examples of when a process has not been followed correctly as proof that the the process itself is flawed does not work.  I'm pretty sure that it would not be too difficult for me to find examples of times where Orthodox Canon Law has not been followed correctly, but it would hardly be fair for me to trot those out as examples of why Orthodox practice is wrong.  
that the process of marriage has not been followed correctly is the work of the Corban factories a/k/a the Marriage tribunals.  I do not know of Orthodox canons designed to unring a bell.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #118 on: September 01, 2014, 02:47:50 PM »

An annulment, is a finding by a Church tribunal that ON THE DAY VOWS WERE EXCHANGED at least some essential element for a valid marriage was lacking, such as, one of the parties did not intend lifelong fidelity to the other person or excluded children entirely. Another example would be that one of the parties was incapable of marriage (due to some constitutional weakness, such as mental illness or some psychological condition that prevented making the marital commitment - gross immaturity, homosexuality, etc.).
Things which can be found before they say "I do."

the homosexuality is interesting: I've known couples where one or both are homosexual, but they marry because they want children etc. (this was before the US lost its mind on redefining marriage).  Should I report them to the marriage tribunal to break up the marriage and separate them?  I know other couples where there was an impediment-to whom should I report them so that their marriages can be broken up?

In my opinion yes you should but then again I am not a canon lawyer. They would know best.
LOL. The fact that they came up with this Corban monstrosity proves that they don't know what they are doing.

None of these conditions are assumed they must be proven. A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot. It is a reasoned judgment that one never existed, and as such is capable of human error. If the tribunal is fastidious to Church law and theology and the couple and their witnesses are honest, the decision can be followed in good-faith, including a new marriage. If someone is ABUSING the process through deceit, however, it would be a very grave sin for that person

what about the guy whose marriage is dissolved "wrongfully" and remarries?

A marriage is not dissolved, nothing can dissolve a marriage. If a decree of nullity is issued incorrectly, and the other person gets married again, he is guilty of no sin but his second marriage is not sacramental either. The people who issued the wrong decree of nullity bare the sin and will account to God.
this tautological gibberish neither answers nor solves anything.  And yes, the unwitting bigamist is guilty of sin-at the very least a sin "of ignorance."

Quote
Obviously some marriages may be validly annulled

Indeed
Such as-and I mean in reality, not Jesuitry's bag of tricks.
Quote
but to say so many marriages were never real marriages would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Hence why I said how its is applied in practice may be called into question.
Its practice calls into question the theory upon which it is based.
No, its practice calls into question the practitioners.

Quote
Quote
 It's just divorce the Catholic way.
Nope, its an annulment. Divorce (apart from adultery) is a sin.
Quote
Do you pretend that those children don't exist either?  Are they illegitimate?  A future event does not retroactively invalidate a past event. It's absurd.

Canon law states that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate. An annulment DOES NOT retroactively affect a child's legitimacy.
yes it does: their parents were not married.  I've known such children, and that is how they see it.  And they calling their church on it correctly.

It does not. Sad thing but the opinion of the children does not affect the truth of the situation, that at the time of the child’s birth, they were born of a legal marriage in civil law and a putative marriage in canon law (which means that everyone thought in good faith that the marriage was valid). So at the moment of the child's birth, he or she was civilly and canonically legitimate
and made illegitimate ex post facto per Corban.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #119 on: September 01, 2014, 02:50:01 PM »

Lol You should go to CAF and ask such questions as there are resident priests and canon lawyers there. You will gladly receive the answers for your questions Smiley
No, they ban you because they have no answers, and I ask uncomfortable questions they not only don't like being asked, but are embarrassed at having no answers-at least any that make any sense.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,303


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #120 on: September 01, 2014, 03:02:32 PM »

I'm still curious about the basis for the whole annulment thing. I see Catholics trot out Church Father quotes that seem to condemn divorce and remarriage, but I don't see anywhere that annulments are permitted. The same quotes that appear to condemn divorce would seem to condemn annulments.  Unless, of course, you are merely using annulments as a loophole to escape the canon law and the lawyers that follow in close pursuit.

Very perplexing and requires jumping through hoops and dodging 'bullets'.   An annulments is granted provided it is proven that a Sacramental marriage 'never' existed.  So, a couple getting married in the church, has a sacramental marriage, love each other to bits, have children, remain faithful for many years, then suddenly things change and the marriage for what ever reason turns soar.  All methods of mending this marriage fails, and the option to divorce or get an annulment is the final solution.  This is not the an exceptional example.  So, following this reasoning, and after much investigatory work by the church the couple is awarded an annulment.  What this tells me is that, with all the love and affection and the raising of children, the ultimate answer was that "a sacramental marriage" never existed....How can anyone say this and keep a straight face about it after what they have gone through.  So, the couple had God within this marriage while the marriage was good or sacramental, and when it went south , this sacramental marriage went south with it?  I'm confused, what I am saying is that this 'sacramental' element can be used as a lever to deconstruct this marriage and make it null and void.   I've heard it said in many Catholic circles that annulments are the Catholic version of divorce.....I really can not disagree with them too much on this....since the end results are pretty much the same.   Then again, it may have everything to do with the ceremony itself where in the OC the priest marries the couple and in the RCC the two individuals marry each other......  but what do I know.  

Unless there is something in your example that you are not telling us, that couple would not have grounds for a declaration of nullity.  

I think a distinction needs to be made between whether or not the process is correct, and whether or not the process is actually followed properly.  The process not being followed properly does not equate to the process itself being flawed.  
but flawlessly following a flawed processes is still flawed.

True, presuming you are correct in your analysis of the process.  I started this thread with a sincere intent to understand Orthodox teaching on the subject of marriage and divorce.  The point of my comment above is that throwing out examples of when a process has not been followed correctly as proof that the the process itself is flawed does not work.  I'm pretty sure that it would not be too difficult for me to find examples of times where Orthodox Canon Law has not been followed correctly, but it would hardly be fair for me to trot those out as examples of why Orthodox practice is wrong.  

The problem with the Catholic Code of Canon Law is that it has continually undergone revisions since 1917. How can a group of canon lawyers in the RCC even think of changing ancient Holy Canons? Does not this action bring upon the RCC certain anathemas?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.462 seconds with 148 queries.