OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 09:47:40 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 2148 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


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: 1,131


@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: 1,131


@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: 1,619



« 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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« 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: 1,134


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: 1,134


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: 3,357



« 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: 4,607



« 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: 3,357



« 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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


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: 4,607



« 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: 1,134


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: 1,134


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: 10,232


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 0.161 seconds with 58 queries.