Author Topic: Help this Catholic understand Orthodoxy when it comes to divorce and remarriage  (Read 3894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jwinch2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
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. 


Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,418
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek
What, specifically?
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.

Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

Offline jwinch2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
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 »

Offline KBN1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 888


Offline NicholasMyra

  • Avowed denominationalist
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,418
  • Nepsis or Sepsis™
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian+Greek
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 »
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.

Πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς
Τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,539
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
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 »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,404
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
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 »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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.
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

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
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.

Offline Cidalia73

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
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 »

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 786
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?

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
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. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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!
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

Offline Cidalia73

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
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.

 ::)




Offline Cidalia73

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8

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.  :)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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.
 ::)
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.
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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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.
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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.
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

Offline TheTrisagion

  • The cat is back and its better than ever!
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,197
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
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".
Guys! They're not intercoursing. It's just an unfortunate angle.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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 »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 786
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. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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 »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 786
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 »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,745
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
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.   
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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.
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

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
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?

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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.
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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?
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

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 786
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 »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,489
  • St. John the Merciful
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA

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.  :)

Corban should be the Eucharist. Corban is the Semitic way of saying Eucharist.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,745
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
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.  :P

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.    
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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.
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

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,745
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands

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.  :)

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

That's not how Isa meant it.  Cf. Mark 7.11.
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,745
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
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? 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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 »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Hamartolos

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 786
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. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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?
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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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.
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,549
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
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 :)
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline TheTrisagion

  • The cat is back and its better than ever!
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,197
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Anytime a doctrine requires a lawyer to explain it, I am suspicious.  ;)
Guys! They're not intercoursing. It's just an unfortunate angle.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
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.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,143
Anytime a doctrine requires a lawyer to explain it, I am suspicious.  ;)
Indeed!
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