OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 04:28:06 AM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Annulments" (RCism) vs Divorce (Orthodoxy)  (Read 5742 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« on: August 16, 2005, 01:54:57 PM »

I butted in to a discussion on another board (that drifted from "Lutherans" to Annulements in the RCC - no, threads never EVER drift on internet message boards).  Anyways, what is the historical practice in the Church on Divorce?  How long have "Annulments" existed in the RCC and what is their rational and explanation for not granting divorce?  Since I was 12 when my family converted (from evolving Evangelicalism - I only remember some type of liturgical metamorphisis, since I've been Orthodox most of my years that I can remember), I don't have much of a prior faith to compare to.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2005, 02:38:22 PM »

The Latins technically have divorce, they just enforce the theological norm of monogamy. The Church, both east and west, has always professed the ideal of only one Marriage in one's life time; but both east and west have realized that this Ideal can be difficult to uphold; accordingly, if the Latins to issue a divorce, remarriage is prohibited. Our solution was to allow Divorce and Remarriage (or remarriage after being widowed), but only by economy and with penance. The Latin Church took a different approach, the modified the theology of marriage to be more temporal allowing marriage after the death of a spouse with no ramifications and introduced the annulment as a means of 'divorce' without technically having to allow second marriages, for in theory the first never occured. Annulments started out only in the case that either the marriage was not consumated or there was some obvious canonical impediment that underminded the marriage (e.g. marriage with a non-Christian), as time went on the definition of 'canonical impediments' expanded until now it can include almost anything, including something like 'incompatability.' The greatest problem with this is that technically, once one is granted an annulment they were never married, making any sexual relations that occured during the 'marriage' nothing short of fornication; however, I have never heard this difficulity fully addressed by the Latin canonists.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2005, 02:52:12 PM »

Thanks, GiC.  Do you know if any timeframes of when this happened?  As far as multiple marriages (up to 3 in Orthodoxy) for praxis/Economy/leniency, I was aware of that, but not the RC canonical/theological arguements, historical praxis and timeframes.
Logged
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2005, 03:04:37 PM »

An annulment means the marriage never existsed, that it was prohibited by a canonical impediment. There are many impediments, such as, if one partner never intended to have children, then the marriage would not exist for the bond of marriage is for reproduction and "married love" as Catholic theologians put it. There have been much abuses put into the annulments, though, so that marriage isn't as indissoluble because one party can say that they didn't use enough discretion (like, nowadays in the US, let's say two unmarried people are going to have a child together, but they rush to get married so that the child would not be born illegitimate; that's grounds for an annulment).

Now, Catholics do not issue divorces. If a person gets civilly divorced, then that person is still married in the eyes of the Church and it is a sin to get remarried.

Here's an article on it: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1002.asp
Logged
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2005, 03:09:37 PM »

Quote
The greatest problem with this is that technically, once one is granted an annulment they were never married, making any sexual relations that occured during the 'marriage' nothing short of fornication; however, I have never heard this difficulity fully addressed by the Latin canonists.

It's quite easy to address. Assuming the person believed their marriage was real, it would be no sin because it does not fulfill one of the three conditions for mortal sin: they didn't have full knowledge. And since they though their marriage was real, they would have to consummate it: therefore, they didn't have full consent either.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2005, 04:19:03 PM »

It's quite easy to address. Assuming the person believed their marriage was real, it would be no sin because it does not fulfill one of the three conditions for mortal sin: they didn't have full knowledge. And since they though their marriage was real, they would have to consummate it: therefore, they didn't have full consent either.

Then it's a venial sin (which requires neither knowledge nor consent), I don't view this classification as particularly relevant, it's still fornication (I understand the relevance in Latin Soteriology, but that issue is a different thread entirely).

However, beyond that, these sexual relations do not have to be fornication (a 'grave sin,' whether it is mortal or venial), they are made fornication by the annulment, which (I believe in most circumstances) has to be requested by at least one of the spouses. The requesting of the annulment (as well as the granting of it) is something done with both knowledge and consent and it is turning these sexual relations (or more technically, declaring them to have always been) fornication (again, a 'grave sin'). So while it may be argued that there was neither knowledge or consent in the initial act themselves, the act which actually makes these acts sinful (i.e. out of wedlock) is the annulment, which, in the Latin Church, is not latae sententiae. Thus, as the annulment is not automatic, but requires both a request and canonical deliberation, one is knowingly and with full consent granting or requesting an annulment, and thus making these sexual relations fornication. Thus, you have a grave sin (causing either yourself or another to fall into a 'grave sin,' i.e. fornication), as well as consent and knowledge; adding these three together you get a mortal sin; though perhaps it would be more accurate to ascribe this mortal sin to the act of procuring (or granting) an annulment, rather than the fornication itself.

The concept of annulment is not entirely foreign to the Eastern Church, though it is usually enforced against the will of those invalidly married. The best example I can think of this is any marriage between an Orthodox Christian and a non-Orthodox; which canon 72 of Trullo declares to be impossible, and hence the Marriage never occured (i.e. the Marriage is Annuled), and the Orthodox involved is to undergo the penalty for fornication (even if the marriage was not consumated, because of the spiritual relationship invalidly entered into); now this is often overlooked by economy, but the principle still applies, and the canon is enforced if the marriage does not occur within an Orthodox Church (if the marriage is outside of an Orthodox Church, that generally means Economy was not granted before the fact, making the marriage invalid, requiring another ceremony (as we believe the Priest, not the couple, to be the minister of the Sacrament)).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2005, 04:28:44 PM »

So are you saying that the Orthodox have always had annulments like Catholics?  I still don't understand.  Is the concept of (up to) three marriages a recent praxis?  I realize the ideal is one and that multiple marriages is a rather modern concept, but I still don't think my question has been answered of historical development in East and West for Divorce vs Annulment.
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2005, 04:43:23 PM »

I don't think the Orthodox grantint economy here is entirely new.  I think the exile of St. John Chrysostomos had something to do with that. 
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2005, 04:48:19 PM »

I don't think the Orthodox grantint economy here is entirely new.ÂÂ  I think the exile of St. John Chrysostomos had something to do with that.ÂÂ  

Could you elaborate please?
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2005, 04:58:12 PM »

I think this is a case where the Anglican perspective might be illuminating.

ECUSA doesn't have the same sort of specific rules about validity of marriage that (say) the CofE does. The latter has these rules because parliament writes them; in the USA those rules are written by the states and thus a churchwide approach isn't really possible.

In ECUSA we don't at present make any distinctions between church and non-church weddings. The "ministers" of a wedding are the couple themselves; the priest merely blesses the marriage. (In actual practice, in most states he does "perform" the wedding because that's what state law requires, although this isn't necessary in states which have a "quaker wedding law".) This means that if you can't get a church wedding, it's because the church refuses to bless it.

Likewise, we generally don't distinguish between annulments and divorces. We used to, but the sentiment I get is that it was felt that the annulment process was simply legalization of divorce for those fortunate enough (and with the resources to pursue it) to fall into the right categories. Remarriages therefore take place through economy, and require the permission of the local bishop. ("Permission" means "consent to blessing the marriage.") Legitimacy of children is completely outside the purview of the church.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2005, 05:11:34 PM »

So are you saying that the Orthodox have always had annulments like Catholics?ÂÂ  I still don't understand.ÂÂ  Is the concept of (up to) three marriages a recent praxis?ÂÂ  I realize the ideal is one and that multiple marriages is a rather modern concept, but I still don't think my question has been answered of historical development in East and West for Divorce vs Annulment.

The concept of a limit of Three Marriages, by divorce, death, or anything else, dates from I believe the 10th Century, though I dont have the resources here at work to look it up for certain I believe it comes from one of the Constitutions of Emperor Leo the Wise; it was issued in exchange for him personally being allowed to enter into a fourth marriage (issued after his fourth marriage, of course).

We do not have the concept of an Annulment in the same way the Catholics do, but rather we have an 'annulment' for marriage in the way we have an 'annulment' for any sacrament that is not validly performed. For example, if an episcopal elevation is preformed without the consent of the Synod, it is automatically annuled, it never was valid. Likewise with Marriage, technically if both involved are not Orthodox Christians, the sacrament is invalid because the Sacrament can only be Given to the Orthodox (and for other reasons relating specifically to the sacramental theology of marriage); thus because the sacrament is invalid, the marriage is annuled, that is it never occured.

What is foreign to the Orthodox is the concept of a Scrament being annuled for anything other than a Problem with the Actual Preforming of the Sacrament itself (deposed priest, non-Orthodox Receiving Sacrament (except Baptism and Chrismation), et cetera). While not consumating the marriage, impotence, refusal of one spouse to have Children, insanity, et cetera may be regarded as reasons for a divorce, if the ceremony itself was validly celebrated (i.e. celebrated by a valid priest, between two Orthodox Christians, or One Orthodox Christian and one Heterodox with the prior Approval of the Bishop, couple of opposite sex, with the Priest intending to marry the Couple (lack of intent to marry by one of the two being married can be cause for divorce, but not annulment, as the priest is the minister of the sacrament)) an annulment is not possible. Because of this, the only time we really see an 'annulment' in the Orthodox Church today is if a couple is civilly married and civilly divorced without any ecclesiastical ceremony (though canons relating to fornication can still apply), or married and divorced BEFORE being received into the Church.

The beginnings of the modern notion of Annulment in the Latin Church can be traced to a Medieval development (Aquinas is the earliest source I know of) that makes the two people being married the ministers of the Sacrament, thus making a lack of intent to engage in the marriage by one of the spouses grounds for annulment or incompetance of one of the spouses to engage in the marriage grounds of annulment. Aquinas set the age of competance to marry at 14 (7 to engage, 21 to magage property...he liked factors of seven), eventually Latin Canonists would grant annulments based on the argument that one's mental competance was not what Aquinas would have regarded as the competance of a 14 year old. And in modern times, I've even heard the argument that by virtue of a marriage failing, at least one of the couple did not have the necessary mental competance, essentially arguing that EVERY Marriage can, without exception, be annuled. This is a difficulity that has arisen out of the notion that the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, which I do not believe has entirely escaped the errors of the donatists, making the Sacraments dependent on the human condition rather than the actions of the Holy Spirit.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2005, 05:27:15 PM »

Quote
For example, if an episcopal elevation is preformed without the consent of the Synod, it is automatically annuled, it never was valid.

In Catholicism it would be valid. It would just be illicit and you would be excommunicated.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2005, 06:27:40 PM »

Thank you very much GiC.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2005, 12:02:42 AM »

We do not have the concept of an Annulment in the same way the Catholics do, but rather we have an 'annulment' for marriage in the way we have an 'annulment' for any sacrament that is not validly performed.

... except that's exactly the basis of an annulment, more or less. To be precise, there are failures of form and failures of external conditions (if you really want to know the actual RC rules, start here).

Interestingly, NY state law distinguishes between annulments and being "void ab initio". I don't think anything is ever "automatically" annulled. The only thing that is automatic is the refusal to recognize something. For instance, in the episcopal elevation case, the refusal to recognize it is what in practice demonstrates its invalidity.

And in practice, it is the present state of no-fault divorce that allows the church to have these sorts of "annulments". This review of divorce law from California, for instance, does not list differences of religious faith as grounds for divorce; nor were they ever grounds for civil annulments in the USA. Therefore, in the USA church annulments of religiously invalid marriages were dead letters until it was possible to obtain civil divorces without cause, because the parties were not actually free to marry until a civil divorce were obtained.

I do not believe that the following statement is entirely true:

Quote
Preforming of the Sacrament itself (deposed priest, non-Orthodox Receiving Sacrament (except Baptism and Chrismation), et cetera). While not consumating the marriage, impotence, refusal of one spouse to have Children, insanity, et cetera may be regarded as reasons for a divorce, if the ceremony itself was validly celebrated (i.e. celebrated by a valid priest, between two Orthodox Christians, or One Orthodox Christian and one Heterodox with the prior Approval of the Bishop, couple of opposite sex, with the Priest intending to marry the Couple (lack of intent to marry by one of the two being married can be cause for divorce, but not annulment, as the priest is the minister of the sacrament)) an annulment is not possible.

The thing is, when one looks at the concrete grounds for annulment-- particularly those recognized in civil law-- the most important have to do with fraud or force. For instance: what if the bride is forced into marriage through the threat of violence? What would an Orthodox church actually do in such a case?

There was a passage at this point which was actually authored by GiC.

As far as the argument against the couple being the ministers, I don't think a strict opposition to this is plausible. One can argue that more than the couple are needed, but the participation of the couple is surely essential, and therefore, the real consent of the couple is in practice surely needed; otherwise, it would be possible to marry any random couple without respect to their intent.

I agree that the Roman practice of annulments is legalistic, but as ECUSA practice shows, one can have the theory without the annulments. Here, btw, is a summary of how it works. Also, it is true that some Orthodox churches do "grant" annulments, e.g. as referred to in these ACROD guidelines.

Annulments ought to be simply the certification (i.e., the official recognition) of a marriage that was defectively carried out. When such invalidity is recognized-- and everyone does so-- annulments are "granted", whether through formal means or not. The problem is with annulments which are used to legalize what are really divorces.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2005, 11:25:42 AM by Keble » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2005, 01:56:42 AM »

... except that's exactly the basis of an annulment, more or less. To be precise, there are failures of form and failures of external conditions (if you really want to know the actual RC rules, start here).

It's comprable, especially in the primitive form of annulments in the west, but issues of competance could not enter into the equation in the East, as the Priest is the minister of the Sacrament and even the Sacraments of a Sinful/Incompetant Priest are Valid.

Quote
Interestingly, NY state law distinguishes between annulments and being "void ab initio". I don't think anything is ever "automatically" annulled. The only thing that is automatic is the refusal to recognize something. For instance, in the episcopal elevation case, the refusal to recognize it is what in practice demonstrates its invalidity.

And in practice, it is the present state of no-fault divorce that allows the church to have these sorts of "annulments". This review of divorce law from California, for instance, does not list differences of religious faith as grounds for divorce; nor were they ever grounds for civil annulments in the USA. Therefore, in the USA church annulments of religiously invalid marriages were dead letters until it was possible to obtain civil divorces without cause, because the parties were not actually free to marry until a civil divorce were obtained.

In accordance with Byzantine Law and Custom, the Orthodox Church does not recognize the validity of either a civil marrage or divorce; while she generally respects local legal restrictions and processes relating to marriage only marriages preformed or divorces granted by the Church are regarded as valid; the fact that you have procured a civil divorce is no guarantee of receiving an ecclesiastical one...and if for some reason the Church grants a divorce, but the state refuses, the Church will still remarry you, if you so desire.

Quote
The thing is, when one looks at the concrete grounds for annulment-- particularly those recognized in civil law-- the most important have to do with fraud or force. For instance: what if the bride is forced into marriage through the threat of violence? What would an Orthodox church actually do in such a case?

She would grant a divorce, but not an annulment, because of our theological principle that the Priest is the Minister of the Sacrament, and thus regardless of the intent of the couple, if the service was preformed by a valid priest they were validly married.

Quote
Because of this, the only time we really see an 'annulment' in the Orthodox Church today is if a couple is civilly married and civilly divorced without any ecclesiastical ceremony (though canons relating to fornication can still apply), or married and divorced BEFORE being received into the Church.

In other words, if the Marriage was preformed by anyone other than a valid Orthodox Priest.

Quote
As far as the argument against the couple being the ministers, I don't think a strict opposition to this is plausible. One can argue that more than the couple are needed, but the participation of the couple is surely essential, and therefore, the real consent of the couple is in practice surely needed; otherwise, it would be possible to marry any random couple without respect to their intent.

Well there is some degree of consent, the couple does have to go through with the service; however, theoretically this is possible, and in the case of the parents wanting two of their children to marry there are many examples of it having happened (same thing happened in the west, however, in spite of the different theology, especially amongst the aristocracy where this kind of forced marriage was also found in the Roman Empire). In practice today, the consent of the Couple is almost always procured, and in certain slavic traditions the priest even asks the couple if they intend to before the ceremony starts, but the priest is the sole minister of the Sacrament and can theoretically celebrate it even against the will of those being married (as the several aforementioned cases involving children of the aristocracy illustrates).

Quote
I agree that the Roman practice of annulments is legalistic, but as ECUSA practice shows, one can have the theory without the annulments. Here, btw, is a summary of how it works. Also, it is true that some Orthodox churches do "grant" annulments, e.g. as referred to in these ACROD guidelines.

Annulments ought to be simply the certification (i.e., the official recognition) of a marriage that was defectively carried out. When such invalidity is recognized-- and everyone does so-- annulments are "granted", whether through formal means or not. The problem is with annulments which are used to legalize what are really divorces.

I admit that the ECUSA takes a far more honest approach to the issue, and probably a better approach than the Latins, though I do believe they are too lenient, which can lead to a diminishing of the reverence owed to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I find the ease with which the Orthodox Church allows second marriages worrisome, but many Protestant Churches go a step further and actually actively encourage it. Furthermore, considering the Orthodox Sacramental Theology of Marriage, with the Priest as the Minister of the Sacrament, I do not see how it would be possible to introduce annulments for anything other than Marriages celebrated outside the Church; the minister, not the couple, is the only person that could possibly invalidate the marriage, and only then if he is deposed, otherwise it would be donatism.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2005, 09:12:04 AM »

In accordance with Byzantine Law and Custom, the Orthodox Church does not recognize the validity of either a civil marrage or divorce; while she generally respects local legal restrictions and processes relating to marriage only marriages preformed or divorces granted by the Church are regarded as valid; the fact that you have procured a civil divorce is no guarantee of receiving an ecclesiastical one...and if for some reason the Church grants a divorce, but the state refuses, the Church will still remarry you, if you so desire.

That's not true, at least not universally. From the ACROD guidelines I linked to:

Quote
For the Sacramental union of a man and a woman to be proper in the eyes of the church the marriage must be performed in the Orthodox Church. For such a marriage to be sacramentally valid, the following must be adhered to:
...
  ÃƒÆ’‚ 2. A civil marriage license must be obtained from appropriate civil authorities.

Therefore, in the situation you give, there would be no church wedding because such a license could not be obtained.

I would add that I find your theory of marriage as legalistic in its way as you claim the Roman theory is (and I definitely agree that the latter has become bizarrely so). Part of this comes down to the old principle that "hard cases make bad law". In this age, most people get married willingly, and if they divorce, do so either because one partner is abusing the bound of marriage (through adultery, abandonment, or abuse), or because the commitment to continue the marriage fades (though no specific transgression is committed). The Roman model is too hard in the first case, and I think the Anglican model is perhaps too soft in the second. But it seems apparent that the Orthodox and Anglican handling of these cases, in practice, is essentially the same and relies entirely on pastoral sensitivity, economy, and maybe a bit of casuistry. In this light, the seemingly hard cases become easy. For example, if one is married for decades, one does consent; that is all.

Where the Orthodox legalism comes in is this notion that marriage only occurs within the church. In practice, it's simply a way of exerting church control over the weddings of its members. From a strictly theoretical view, it fails any test of objectivity. Marriage is the oldest sacrament, and predates any church as an organization. Marriages happen whether the church consents or not.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2005, 11:10:30 AM by Keble » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2005, 10:50:59 AM »

Therefore, in the situation you give, there would be no church wedding because such a license could not be obtained.

What you linked to were the guidelines of the Metropolitan Nicholas for his diocese, and are probably fairly standard throughout the United States, but are not Canons, Synodal Decrees, or Imperial Constitutions. As secular law regarding marriage is far more lenient than the canonical tradition of our Church, as it nearly always is, there is no reason not to insist on adhearing to it. However, by Novel 89 of Emperor Leo IV (the Wise) established an Ecclesiastical Marriage as the only valid Marriage in the Empire and granted all authority over the institution to the Church, this Imperial Constitution is regarded as an element of our Canonical Tradition, and hence the principle that the Church, not the State, maintains all actual authority over the institution. Most Orthodox Churches insist on receiving a Civil Marriage License before they will marry you, and a Civil Divorce before they will grant you a divorce, but if for some reason one of these are not granted, yet the Church believes it to be warrented, she has every right and authority to act contrary to the will of the State by the 89th Novel of Leo the Wise.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2005, 11:13:33 AM »

What you linked to were the guidelines of the Metropolitan Nicholas for his diocese, and are probably fairly standard throughout the United States, but are not Canons, Synodal Decrees, or Imperial Constitutions.

But that does not matter, because the rules I quoted are the rules that will actually be followed, and therefore, in practice, they are the canons for that archdiocese and are (I would imagine) actually synodal decrees for the synod of that archdiocese. You can't make the actual current judgements of an Orthodox church go away as you are trying to.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2005, 11:46:04 AM »

But that does not matter, because the rules I quoted are the rules that will actually be followed, and therefore, in practice, they are the canons for that archdiocese and are (I would imagine) actually synodal decrees for the synod of that archdiocese. You can't make the actual current judgements of an Orthodox church go away as you are trying to.

First, there is no synod of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese, the Hierarch of this Diocese, Metropolitan Nicholas, is a member of the Holy Synod of the Oecumenical Throne (if you want a synod that has promulgated similar guidelines, you can probably find something of the sort in the decrees of the Synod of the GOA, but again, they are guidelines for this Country, they are not Canons and do not Restrict the Bishops (since the GOA Bishops are not subject to the Eparchial Synod of the GOA but rather to the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople)). In the Orthodox Church, all marriages must be approved by the Bishop, thus every Bishop is free to make his own Personal guidelines regarding which Marriages he will give premission to and which one's he won't, but technically each case is decided on an individual basis.

What you reference are guidelines, they are the situations in which this Bishop will generally give premission to marry; most Bishops insist on a legal civil marriage, but as I said before, Novel 89 of Emperor Leo the Wise decrees that the Church is the sole authority on matters of the Institution of Marriage, she can Marry and grant Divorce as she sees fit and the state has neither the right nor the autority to make any decrees or decisions regarding the Institution of Marriage, which is why any Marriage outside the Church is invalid, for the state lacks both authority and competance in regard to the institution.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2005, 11:59:58 AM »

I'll admit I was bad in giving ACROD a promotion. On the other hand, you're being exceptionally legalistic now. I find plenty of people who say that the canons themselves are guidelines (though I think we're hanging a lot on a single word in doing so). Anyway, two points:

First, the distinctions that you are making are rather artificial. I don't see any evidence that there is the kind of hierarchy of rules/laws/canons/constitutions that one sees particularly in American churches. That notion is extremely Western, and as far as I can see the Orthodox generally have the flat undifferentiation typical of an imperial legacy.

Second, I don't think it's just ACROD. I expect that in actuality, Orthodox church marriage interlocks with civil marriage in exactly the way one sees in the rule I cited, except in some really exceptional cases that may exist nowhere on earth at this time except maybe in communist China and in North Korea. Your proxy claim for Orthodoxy to rule over marriage seems to be much like that of modern pretenders to various European crowns: empty when put to the test.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2005, 01:00:50 PM »

A little bit of a tangent, but how is the scripture where it says that if a man re-marries, he is living in sin addressed?  Referring me to a FAQ/QA if a good stock response is out there.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2005, 01:07:37 PM »

I'll admit I was bad in giving ACROD a promotion. On the other hand, you're being exceptionally legalistic now. I find plenty of people who say that the canons themselves are guidelines (though I think we're hanging a lot on a single word in doing so). Anyway, two points:

My expertise is Canon Law, we're talking about the Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church, so of course I'm going to be legalistic. We have fairly clear cut canons which we present as the ideal, and the Church is quite legalistic in her promulgating of Canons; however, where she is not legalistic is in the application, that tends to be far more pastoral.

Quote
First, the distinctions that you are making are rather artificial. I don't see any evidence that there is the kind of hierarchy of rules/laws/canons/constitutions that one sees particularly in American churches. That notion is extremely Western, and as far as I can see the Orthodox generally have the flat undifferentiation typical of an imperial legacy.

Actually we do have a hierarchy of authority in relation to the Canons, at the top is the Oecumenical Synods and the several Provincial Synods and Patristic Canons that were ratified by an Oecumenical Synod, then come the Imperial and Endimousa Synods (Imperial Constitutions accepted by the Church would fall into this category) as well as Early Patristic Canons (11th Century of Earlier, most of which are included in the Pedalion), then the Patriarchal Synods of the Autocephalous Churches (and there is a hierarchy here by order of the Churches in the Dyptics), then Later Patristic Canons not ratified by Synod. Whenever there is a debate on an issue of controversy, you will see this Hierarchy brought up, and even subdivided (e.g. certain Patristic Canons of Oecumenical Synods relegated to a secondary posistion behind the Actual Canons of the Oecumenical Synod (except for the Canons of St. Basil, which, beause of the Saint, carry a disproportionate level of authority), and similarly with the Ratified Local Synods being placed inbetween the Patristic Canons and Canons of the Oecumenical Synods (with Certain Synods, like those of Carthage, carrying somewhat less authority than most other Local Synods)).

Quote
Second, I don't think it's just ACROD. I expect that in actuality, Orthodox church marriage interlocks with civil marriage in exactly the way one sees in the rule I cited, except in some really exceptional cases that may exist nowhere on earth at this time except maybe in communist China and in North Korea. Your proxy claim for Orthodoxy to rule over marriage seems to be much like that of modern pretenders to various European crowns: empty when put to the test.

Of course we tend to insist on the civil legal formalities of marriage, there is no reason not to, as I said they are generally less restrictive than the ecclesiastical requirements and we don't go out of our way looking for difficulities, the Orthodox Chruch generally gets along quite well with the State. But with that said, the canonical tradition of the Church is clear, and the rights of the Church in this regard are independent of the laws of the states. Unlike in Protestantism, in Orthodoxy our Traditions and Ancient Synods are meaningful and, generally speaking, the older the More Authoritive; while you may not take the Imperial Constitutions seriously, rest assured our Bishops and Synods do.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2005, 01:41:56 PM »

My expertise is Canon Law, we're talking about the Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church, so of course I'm going to be legalistic. We have fairly clear cut canons which we present as the ideal, and the Church is quite legalistic in her promulgating of Canons; however, where she is not legalistic is in the application, that tends to be far more pastoral.


The issue here seems to be developing that the actual law-on-the-ground of Orthodoxy is really quite different from the high-and-lofty language of authority which you prefer to use.

Quote
Actually we do have a hierarchy of authority in relation to the Canons, at the top is the Oecumenical Synods and the several Provincial Synods and Patristic Canons that were ratified by an Oecumenical Synod, then come the Imperial and Endimousa Synods (Imperial Constitutions accepted by the Church would fall into this category) as well as Early Patristic Canons (11th Century of Earlier, most of which are included in the Pedalion), then the Patriarchal Synods of the Autocephalous Churches (and there is a hierarchy here by order of the Churches in the Dyptics), then Later Patristic Canons not ratified by Synod.

Well, as far as I can see these exist as a hierarchy of weight (as they would for Anglicans) rather than a hierarchy of authority. That is, it isn't like the system in the USA where the constitution absolutely overrules federal law, which absolutely overrules state constitutions, which absolutely overrule state laws. This, however, is a distraction which I don't intend to pursue further. The real problem is this:

Quote
Of course we tend to insist on the civil legal formalities of marriage, there is no reason not to, as I said they are generally less restrictive than the ecclesiastical requirements and we don't go out of our way looking for difficulities, the Orthodox Chruch generally gets along quite well with the State.

But the problem is that actual application of all this leads to common situations where the civil law is, in practice, stricter because it recognizes marriage more broadly. If a couple, one of them Orthodox, marries outside the church, and then the Orthodox partner repents and wishes to marry someone who is Orthodox, in practice the Orthodox church must treat this person as if he were already married, and must insist on a civil divorce. The church will concede to the civil judgement that, absent this divorce, the second marriage would be bigamous. And I say "must" not from a strictly legalistic viewpoint, but simply out of common sense.

Perhaps the church could fully regulate marriage in a society were all were presumed members of the church. It cannot do so in the USA because it cannot control the larger society's regulation of marriage. From a purely social perspective, the church cannot prevent marriage from happening outside the church.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2005, 01:43:07 PM by Keble » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2005, 01:57:31 PM »

A little bit of a tangent, but how is the scripture where it says that if a man re-marries, he is living in sin addressed?ÂÂ  Referring me to a FAQ/QA if a good stock response is out there.

I don't know of any FAQ's on the subject, but I think the best way to see how it is addressed is to read the Prayers for the Service of a Second Marriage (which is a distinct service from the First-Marriage Service, being essentially a slightly modified betrothal service); unfortunately I cannot find this service online, though I'm sure your priest has it (it's included with most collections that have the service for a First Marriage). Furthermore, the Canons do perscribe penance for those entering into a second marriage and do recognize that it is sinful, but tolerates it out of economy recognizing it to be preferable to fornication. Here are a few of the relevant canons.

Canon 4 of St. Basil:
Quote
As regards trigamy and polygamy we have decreed the same Canon as in the case of digamy (i.e., second marriage), analogously. For it is a year in the case of digamy, but two years for the others. As for those who are guilty of trigamy (i.e., a third marriage), they are excommunicated for the space of three years and often four years. For such a marriage is no longer to be called a marriage, but polygamy, or rather mitigated fornication. Wherefore the Lord told the Samaritaness who had had five husbands in succession, "and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband" (John 4:18), as being no longer themselves worthy when they have exceeded the measure of digamy to be called by the appellation of husband or wife. We have taken to the custom of condemning trigamists to five years’ excommunication not on the ground of any Canon but only on the ground of usage followed by those who have preceded us. But it behooves us not to exclude them entirely from the Church, but instead to entitle them to listening in some two years or three, and thereafter to permit them to be co-standers, though obliged to abstain from communion with that which is good (i.e., the Eucharist), and then after exhibiting some fruit of repentance, let them be restored to the status of persons entitled to communion.

Canon 50 of St. Basil:
Quote
There is no law as to third marriages, so that a third marriage is not subject to any law. We look upon such things as defilements of the Church, but we do not bring them to public trials, on the ground that they are preferable to lax fornication.

Canon 80 of St. Basil:
Quote
The Fathers passed over the question of polygamy (any marriage beyond the third) in silence, as something bestial and utterly foreign to the human race. But to us it presents itself as a worse sin than fornication. Wherefore it is reasonable to make such persons amenable to the Canons, and this means one year weeping and three years kneeling, then becoming admissible.

Canon 3 of the Synod of Neocaesarea:
Quote
As concerning those persons who become involved in a plurality of marriages, the length of sentence to which they are liable is clear as fixed, but their recantation and faith will avail to shorten the time.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2005, 02:04:51 PM »

Yes, I'm aware of the shortened, second service and of repentance/pennance.

Have any dates associated with the Canons?  And is this St. Basil the Great or another?  I'm arguing with RC's, so I want to be specific.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2005, 02:12:17 PM »

The issue here seems to be developing that the actual law-on-the-ground of Orthodoxy is really quite different from the high-and-lofty language of authority which you prefer to use.

In Orthodoxy the former is derived from the latter, and depend on the latter for all validity and authority.

federal law, which absolutely overrules state constitutions

Not exactly, but constitutional law is not the topic, so onto the issue at hand.

Quote
But the problem is that actual application of all this leads to common situations where the civil law is, in practice, stricter because it recognizes marriage more broadly. If a couple, one of them Orthodox, marries outside the church, and then the Orthodox partner repents and wishes to marry someone who is Orthodox, in practice the Orthodox church must treat this person as if he were already married, and must insist on a civil divorce. The church will concede to the civil judgement that, absent this divorce, the second marriage would be bigamous. And I say "must" not from a strictly legalistic viewpoint, but simply out of common sense.

Perhaps the church could fully regulate marriage in a society were all were presumed members of the church. It cannot do so in the USA because it cannot control the larger society's regulation of marriage. From a purely social perspective, the church cannot prevent marriage from happening outside the church.

In the situation you mention, while the Church may insist on the formality of a Civil Divorce, no Ecclesiastical Divorce would be necessary, for technically the first 'marriage' never occured and would be treated accordingly. For the 'second' marriage of the Individual concerned the Church would use the Marriage Service for a First Marriage, as it would technically be their first marriage (for the other 'marriage' was invalid), and would allow up to two more additional marriages (maximum of three). So while the Church may insist on the legal formalities being observed, for all purposes associated with Her administration and celebration of the sacrament She will assume that the first 'marriage' never occured.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2005, 02:17:47 PM »

Yes, I'm aware of the shortened, second service and of repentance/pennance.

Have any dates associated with the Canons?ÂÂ  And is this St. Basil the Great or another?ÂÂ  I'm arguing with RC's, so I want to be specific.

Concerning the time (A.D. 315) and authority of Neocaesarea, here is what is written in the Pedalion concerning it:

Quote
The holy and regional Council which was held in Neocaesarea, of Cappadocia, situated in the so-called Polemoniacus Pontus, according to Ptolemy and Pliny, convened in the year 315 after Christ, according to Dositheus and Milias, or, more to the point, in the same year, according to Dositheus and others, as the Council held in Ancyra, though not during the same season of the year, but a little later than the latter Council; but according to Milias, one year after the latter was held. It was attended, according to Dositheus (p. 876 of the Dodecabiblus), by twenty-three fathers, of whom the exarch was Vitalius, and who promulgated the present fifteen Canons concerning various matters, these Canons being necessary to the good order and proper constitution, or state, of the Church. They were definitely confirmed by c. II of the 6th Ec. C. (in Trullo), and indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and by c. I of the 7th; and by reason of this confirmation they become invested, so to speak, with virtually ecumenical power.

Concerning the Canons of St. Basil, yes it is St. Basil the Great; the Canons were compiled throughout his life (which is why some seem to repeat), so no exact date can be given, concerning their authority:
Quote
confirmed indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and c. I of the 7th, but by c. II of the 6th Ecumenical Council (in Trullo) definitely (that Council, in fact, borrowed many Canons of St. Basil and made them its own); and by virtue of this confirmation they acquire in a way an ecumenical force.


If the issue of the Authority of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod in Trullo comes up, here's an argument (with quotes, all of which were taken from Volume 14 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series) that the Synod in Trullo was regarded as an extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod by the fathers of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod (and that it was eventually accepted by a Pope of Rome) from another recent debate on this board:

Quote
But with that Said, in defence of the Synod in Trullo Session 4 of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod states:

Quote
There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod? Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ. These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine. But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons. And let no one doubt concerning them. For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting. For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons. They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?

And then in the first canon of the said Synod:


Quote
Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.


In light of the Statement in Session 4, there is no way this could not be construed as a promulgation of the Canons of the Synod in Trullo. Thus we see, that Nicea II both Decrees the Synod in Trullo to be an Extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, and then Promulgates the Canons in her Own Canons...Thus giving the Canons of Trullo the Same authority as the Canons of Nicea II...the Authority of Canons of an Oecumenical Synod.

Furthermore, though the Pope of Rome at the time of the Synod of Trullo did not sign the Canonical Decrees of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, they were eventually accepted by Pope Hadrian I, demonstrating an eventual acceptance of the Canons in the West, for in writing to Oecumenical Patriarch Tenasius he says, 'All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images [Canon 82 of Trullo].'

quod erat demonstrandum
« Last Edit: August 17, 2005, 02:29:16 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2005, 02:30:12 PM »

Thanks.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2005, 02:34:56 PM »

While I'm at it:

However, by Novel 89 of Emperor Leo IV (the Wise) established an Ecclesiastical Marriage as the only valid Marriage in the Empire and granted all authority over the institution to the Church, this Imperial Constitution is regarded as an element of our Canonical Tradition, and hence the principle that the Church, not the State, maintains all actual authority over the institution.

The Byzantine emperor has passed on with his empire, and any political claims he may have had on the New World were res nulla even as they were made. He had no power to give the church authority over marriages made in America.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2005, 02:46:21 PM »

While I'm at it:

The Byzantine emperor has passed on with his empire, and any political claims he may have had on the New World were res nulla even as they were made. He had no power to give the church authority over marriages made in America.

LOL, an Imperial Synod ratified that particular Novel, and yes Imperial Constitutions do carry ecclesiastical Authority. Just as the decrees of English Monarchs in former times were authoritive for the Church of England, and I'm sure there are still practices and rights derived from such decrees in the CoE. Furthermore, most Orthodox Christians in America are Subject to the Oecumenical Throne, which was an is an element of the Imperial Roman Government (which is why Constantinople has traditionally, and still does to some extent, maintained the Imperial Court after the Fall of the City), the Imperial Constitutions are still a part of Her Legal Tradition (as well as the Legal Tradition of the other Ancient Sees), and this particular principle is universally accepted within Orthodoxy.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2005, 02:47:59 PM »

In Orthodoxy the former is derived from the latter, and depend on the latter for all validity and authority.

Not exactly, but constitutional law is not the topic, so onto the issue at hand.

In the situation you mention, while the Church may insist on the formality of a Civil Divorce, no Ecclesiastical Divorce would be necessary, for technically the first 'marriage' never occured and would be treated accordingly.

But this is a pretense, in a way. The church does treat the marriage as having occurred by virtue of insisting on a civil divorce or annulment. Hence, the church cannot in reality control marriage; it can only regulate the church's participation in it (and by extension, the participation in the church of those who marry). An ecclesiastical divorce (or the refusal to "recognize" a prior marriage) function as gatekeepers to the rites ofthe church, but not as independent gatekeepers to marriage.

While I'm at it, I note the following list of grounds for an ecclesiastical divorce from a GOA parish in Florida:

Quote
The only ten valid grounds for an ecclesiastical divorce are:

1.) Evidence of force or coercion to marry, i.e. threat, blackmail, extortion, etc.
2.) Adultery or sexual perversion.
3.) Psychotic tendencies (maniacal tendencies, schizophrenia, etc.).
4.) Acts or threats against the physical well-being or life of the spouse.
5.) Lifetime sentence or incarceration of the spouse for more than seven years.
6.) Leaving the domicile for more than three years without the consent of the spouse, i.e. for purposes of travel, business, etc.
7.) Desertion or abandonment of the domicile by the spouse for more than three years.
8.) Coercing the wife to commit immoral acts of adultery.
9.) Denial of conjugal rights or impotence.
10.) Alcoholism, gambling, or squandering one's material resources at the expense of the family's well-being.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2005, 03:05:03 PM »

But this is a pretense, in a way. The church does treat the marriage as having occurred by virtue of insisting on a civil divorce or annulment. Hence, the church cannot in reality control marriage; it can only regulate the church's participation in it (and by extension, the participation in the church of those who marry). An ecclesiastical divorce (or the refusal to "recognize" a prior marriage) function as gatekeepers to the rites ofthe church, but not as independent gatekeepers to marriage.

The Church insists on fulfilling legal formalities, that doesn't mean she recognizes secular decrees on marriage as authoritive, you're making a large and unsubstantiated step. The Fact that in the situation that you mentioned before, the Church would allow Three Marriages, not including the civil 'marriage' should be all the evidence one needs to demonstrate that the Church does not recognize it as a marriage, for that is a VERY Strictly upheld rule. With this in mind, I really dont know where you're comming from or what more I can say to demonstrate that the humouring of secular protocol does not amount to a recognition of secular control over or involvement in marriage; marriage is a Sacrament, it is utterly absurd to claim that a Sacrament can be preformed by the local justice of the peace, which is essentially what the Church would be doing if she recognized a civil marriage. If an Orthodox person engages in a secular marriage, the Church considers them to be living in fornication.

Quote
While I'm at it, I note the following list of grounds for an ecclesiastical divorce from a GOA parish in Florida:

Yes, the list comes from an encyclical of Archbishop Iakovos on Marriage, which also included several other guidelines, from the 1970's...I have a full copy at home, but can't remember the exact date off the top of my head.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2005, 03:21:15 PM »

The Church insists on fulfilling legal formalities, that doesn't mean she recognizes secular decrees on marriage as authoritive, you're making a large and unsubstantiated step. The Fact that in the situation that you mentioned before, the Church would allow Three Marriages, not including the civil 'marriage' should be all the evidence one needs to demonstrate that the Church does not recognize it as a marriage, for that is a VERY Strictly upheld rule.

The point is that in one sense it isn't authoritative, but in another sense, it is ultimately authoritative.

What I'm saying is that the church does not have absolute control over marriage, and that it in fact concedes some level of control to the secular state. And it therefore arises that there are three states: properly married (both civilly and in church), unmarried (again, in the eyes of both), and civilly married only. People in the last state are not free to marry in the church, even if the church counts them unmarried. And objectively, they live as married people.

Having the emperor cede the power of marriage to the church is plausible as long as there is no marriage but in the church. But such a judgement is too recent to obtain any more. We now live as we lived before Constantine, and the rules of marriage from before that time are what apply. And that's not out of any ecclesiastical judgement, but simply reality.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2005, 03:32:16 PM »

The point is that in one sense it isn't authoritative, but in another sense, it is ultimately authoritative.

What I'm saying is that the church does not have absolute control over marriage, and that it in fact concedes some level of control to the secular state. And it therefore arises that there are three states: properly married (both civilly and in church), unmarried (again, in the eyes of both), and civilly married only. People in the last state are not free to marry in the church, even if the church counts them unmarried. And objectively, they live as married people.

Having the emperor cede the power of marriage to the church is plausible as long as there is no marriage but in the church. But such a judgement is too recent to obtain any more. We now live as we lived before Constantine, and the rules of marriage from before that time are what apply. And that's not out of any ecclesiastical judgement, but simply reality.

You are making the assumption that the Church won't do something simply because she doesn't need to currently. For example, consider the situation of an Orthodox Christian were to marry a non-Christian (a civil marriage, of course, since the Church does not allow marriage with non-Christians), and for one reason or another the State refused to grant a divorce when the person in question finally came to their senses. In this situation, it would be highly unlikely that the Church would deny this person marriage to another Orthodox Christian, even if the State refused to grant a Divorce; the state's posistion would probably simply be ignored. I guess one could refer to a 'civil marriage' as an 'invalid marriage,' but in the eyes of the Church, an invalid marriage is no marriage at all; the Orthodox Church even goes so far in the protection of this Sacrament as to require married Converts to the Faith (in the event that both spouses convert, at least) to be Married in the Orthodox Church, for she does not recognize the validity of their former 'marriage.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2005, 04:21:21 PM »

You are making the assumption that the Church won't do something simply because she doesn't need to currently.

Obviously in a place where Christian marriage is outlawed, matters would be different. The conclusion, therefore, is not that the church is free from any external contraint, but that praxis is indeed determined by circumstance.

Quote
[T]he Orthodox Church even goes so far in the protection of this Sacrament as to require married Converts to the Faith (in the event that both spouses convert, at least) to be Married in the Orthodox Church, for she does not recognize the validity of their former 'marriage.'

This is untrue. I quote from this OCA encyclical: "Pastors at the same time are reminded that converts to Orthodoxy are not to be remarried when they enter the Orthodox Church."
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2005, 05:12:28 PM »

This is untrue. I quote from this OCA encyclical: "Pastors at the same time are reminded that converts to Orthodoxy are not to be remarried when they enter the Orthodox Church."

Perhaps the OCA doesn't 're'marry converts, but it is a fairly standard practice in the GOA.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2005, 05:17:51 PM »

Perhaps the OCA doesn't 're'marry converts, but it is a fairly standard practice in the GOA.

It happens, but usually more at the request of the converts themselves. 
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2005, 11:11:26 AM »

Quote
This is untrue. I quote from this OCA encyclical: "Pastors at the same time are reminded that converts to Orthodoxy are not to be remarried when they enter the Orthodox Church."



The GOA practice is the exact opposite from this. My wife and I were required to be married in the church after our conversion, specifically because a marriage made outside of the Church  does not have the full spiritual support that a married couple needs.

Our case was not unusual, either, as other convert couples also were required to have their marriages re-done in the Church.

In fact in our parish 'regulations' it mentions that this is a requirement---you gotta be married in the Church, it's just the way it is. My understanding is that within the GOA, this is the practice to be followed by Decree Of The Powers That Be.

In fact, I have even seen people be denied reception of the Eucharist because the couple has not been married in the Church and the priest knew it.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2011, 04:40:45 PM »

Quote from: Wyatt
Quote from: ialmisry
Quote from: Wyatt
The Eastern Orthodox Church seems to be confused about the fact that a marriage cannot be put asunder by anything except death as Christ said, which is why the only way that a marriage can end is if it is found that it wasn't a marriage at all.
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has no appetite for Corban as the Vatican does.  Adultery puts asunder a marriage (which is why, for instance, many languages call it "marriage-breaking," as there is nothing adult about it at all.  Usually, it is quite childish. And the Church has the power of the keys, as Christ said, to deal with that.
Did Christ say no man can put asunder marriage or didn't He?
He didn't.  Another mistranslation of your Vulgate. He commands "Let no man seperate," like He commanded "thou shalt commit adultery."   Obviously, men (and women) can, and do, do it.  He says "don't:for your own good."

Quote from: Wyatt
To claim that anything can put asunder marriage when the explicit words of Christ say otherwise is ridiculous.
What is ludicrous is confusing St. Jerome's words for Christ's.  What is even more absurd is putting Corban in Christ's mouth.
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
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2011, 04:55:34 PM »

Isa, where are you quoting Wyatt from?  It's certainly not this thread.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2011, 05:03:54 PM »

Isa, where are you quoting Wyatt from?  It's certainly not this thread.

private thread
« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 05:23:41 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2011, 05:15:25 PM »

Quote from: Wyatt
Quote from: ialmisry
Quote from: Wyatt
The Eastern Orthodox Church seems to be confused about the fact that a marriage cannot be put asunder by anything except death as Christ said, which is why the only way that a marriage can end is if it is found that it wasn't a marriage at all.
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has no appetite for Corban as the Vatican does.  Adultery puts asunder a marriage (which is why, for instance, many languages call it "marriage-breaking," as there is nothing adult about it at all.  Usually, it is quite childish. And the Church has the power of the keys, as Christ said, to deal with that.
Did Christ say no man can put asunder marriage or didn't He?
He didn't.  Another mistranslation of your Vulgate. He commands "Let no man seperate," like He commanded "thou shalt commit adultery."   Obviously, men (and women) can, and do, do it.  He says "don't:for your own good."
asunder adv or adj : into parts <torn asunder>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asunder?show=0&t=1311714623

So once again, your attempt to discredit anything Latin as well as Church Fathers who held views contrary to your own has FAILED. To put asunder and to separate mean the exact same thing.

Quote from: Wyatt
To claim that anything can put asunder marriage when the explicit words of Christ say otherwise is ridiculous.
What is ludicrous is confusing St. Jerome's words for Christ's.  What is even more absurd is putting Corban in Christ's mouth.
I don't know what Corban is, but I know that Christ detested divorce. The Early Fathers of the Church also didn't approve of birth control either, and no one has yet definitively shown me a quote indicating otherwise from any Church Father.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 05:15:55 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2011, 05:21:44 PM »

Isa, where are you quoting Wyatt from?  It's certainly not this thread.
From a thread on the private fora.  It is my understanding that you cannot link to the private fora. (though I don't know of a rule against a private fora thread linking to a public fora thread, as I have done in the thread in question to this thread, and have seen numerous examples of the same).  The original thread has/had gotten rather explicite (thanks for moving it, btw), but the quoted content has none of that.  The quoted content also has veered a bit off from the OP in the original thread, and so I wanted to move it to a more germaine thread, without starting a new one (least of all a new private thread, as this has none of the material which landed the original thread in the privqate fora).  Have I misunderstood a rule?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2011, 05:25:33 PM »

The Early Fathers of the Church also didn't approve of birth control either, and no one has yet definitively shown me a quote indicating otherwise from any Church Father.

The early Church Fathers also did not approve of and totally forbade

1.  intercourse which had no intention of conceiving a child

2.  intercourse when there was no possibility of conceiving a child.

Which Church follows that teaching today?  Not one!
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2011, 05:27:35 PM »

Thread locked until I get clarification about something. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Tags: ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.164 seconds with 72 queries.