The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 238 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Neil,

Please close this thread if you feel it treads too close to the previously locked one.

I just wanted to make an oft overlooked point.

It is a false argument to compare the practice of ecclesiastical divorce by Orthodox to Catholic annulments, simply because the two are not related theologically. They may be used similarly in practice, but the theological reasons are not necessarily equal.

The theology of Catholic annulment can only be compared to the theology of Orthodox annulment (yes, it does exist).

Ecclesiastical divorce cannot be theologically compared to anything in Catholic practice as this is not something which Catholics practice (if they ever had).


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
The theology of Catholic annulment can only be compared to the theology of Orthodox annulment (yes, it does exist).

"The Orthodox Church does not have a process comparable to the Roman Catholic “annullment,” which ultimately determines that the relationship between a couple was, in fact, not a valid marriage."

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=138&SID=3

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Neil,

Please close this thread if you feel it treads too close to the previously locked one.

Michael, my brother,

If the discussion can be conducted civilly and with respect on both sides, it's welcome to continue. I'm willing to give it a chance; if it proves impossible, then we'll deal with it.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch has tribunals which declare both ecclesiastical divorce (which is not acceptable to the Catholic Church) and annulment of marriage (which requires the consent of the Patriarch) - the latter, if declared by the Syriac Tribunal, can be accepted by the Catholic Church as a valid declaration of nullity.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
The following is the Coptic Orthodox position:
Originally Posted by http://www.copticchurch.org/node/89
Copts observe seven canonical sacraments: Baptism, Christmation (Confirmation), Eucharist, Confession (Penance), Orders, Matrimony, and Unction of the sick. Baptism is performed few weeks after birth by immersing the whole body of the newborn into especially consecrated water three times. Confirmation is performed immediately after Baptism. Regular confession with a personal priest, called the father of confession, is necessary to receive the Eucharist. It is customary for a whole family to pick the same priest as a father of confession, thus, making of that priest a family counselor. Of all seven sacrements, only Matrimony cannot be performed during a fasting season. Polygamy is illegal, even if recognized by the civil law of the land. Divorce is not allowed except in the case of adultery, annulment due to bigamy, or other extreme circumstances, which must be reviewed by a special council of Bishops. Divorce can be requested by either husband or wife. Civil divorce is not recognized by the Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not have and does not mind any civil law of the land as long as it does not interfere with the Church's sacraments.


Also
Originally Posted by http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/coptic_1.shtml
:Marriage

Coptic marriages are monogamous.

Copts marry within the faith - non-Coptic partners are required to convert.

Copts undergo a ceremony of Betrothal in advance of marriage during which the couple exchange rings engraved with their partner's name; the betrothal is not a final commitment and can be renounced.

Divorce and remarriage is only permitted for the innocent party in cases of adultery or conversion, although this is currently (2008) a controversial issue after Egypt's Higher Civil Court ruled that Copts who had been through a civil divorce had the legal right to remarry.

Among Copts the annulment of conjugal unions had been permitted on the grounds of adultery, abandonment, obvious evidence of ill treatment, mental disability and impotence. Things changed radically after Shenouda III ascended to the Coptic Papacy. He promptly rejected divorce on any grounds except adultery and extremely cruel treatment.

Al Ahram, March 2008


Marriages can be annulled in cases of deceit, such as bigamy.

Last edited by Michael_Thoma; 01/24/10 11:45 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Eastern Orthodox canons recognize limited grounds for annulment, all of which revolve around impediments that would prevent a lawful marriage. The most common of these are (a) lack of free will; (b) consanguinity; (c) existence of a previous union not terminated by lawful divorce; and (d) inability to consummate the union.

Because the Orthodox Church sees marriage as a free and voluntary union of a man and a woman, any attempt to coerce one party or another into a marriage would invalidate that marriage. Age was considered an impediment to the extent that a young child would have neither the rational capacity nor the ability to oppose a forced marriage. Under Byzantine law, later carried over to the Slavs, that age was eight. I have no idea how that is interpreted today.

Consanguinity is more complex than under Roman canon law, in that it extends beyond blood to spiritual relationships. Thus, marriage between a person and a godparent is prohibited, as are marriages among in-laws.

Existence of a previous union would include betrothals, which are binding. For the Orthodox Church, too, a civil divorce may not be sufficient to terminate a marriage: the divorce would have to be for grounds recognized as valid by the Church, and the Church would have to determine who is the guilty party before giving permission for remarriage. Under both Byzantine and Slavic canons, it was not legitimate for two people to collude in procuring a divorce; i.e., a husband and wife could not merely agree to divorce because they no longer wished to be married--there was no recognition of causes such as "irreconcilable differences". Marriage to a person whose divorce has not been ratified by the Church is not valid, therefore can be annulled. Similarly, a person who has had more than three marriages may not (normally) be permitted to remarry in the Church, and a person who unknowing contracts such a marriage could have it annulled. However, there are numerous examples of people married four, five or even six times within the Church, albeit these were usually tsars, kings or princes with the ability to influence Church decisions.

The inability to consummate the union can be grounds for annulment, insofar as the Church does not recognize "platonic" marriages. However, infertility is not grounds for annulment but could be legitimate grounds for divorce--and normally was, particularly in the case of ruling princes, for raison d'etat.

Last edited by StuartK; 01/24/10 02:20 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by StuartK
Because the Orthodox Church sees marriage as a free and voluntary union of a man and a woman, any attempt to coerce one party or another into a marriage would invalidate that marriage.

Absolutely not! I am old now and still have old friends alive, Greeks mainly but I can think of two Russians, who were married without their choice by their parents. In many cases in this country this was done trans-nationally, i.e., an immigrant family here with a daughter would locate a family back in Greece with a son who desired to immigrate. The young spouses would not meet one another until a week or so before the wedding when he shipped into the country. These marriages were often not the choice of the spouses but they could NOT be annulled. The same goes for marriages which were arranged in childhood by the parents.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by StuartK
Existence of a previous union would include betrothals, which are binding.

Not entirely. In earlier days the months of betrothal were a time when the prospective bride and groom were allowed sexual intercourse, in order to determine if the bride were able to conceive (a very important factor in those days.) If she proved not to be fertile the betrothal would terminate.

The Church was never entirely happy with this pragmatic use of the betrothal period and now insists that betrothal amd crowning take place contemporaneously.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Stuart,

If you wish to speak about the matrimonial practices and legislation of your own Byzantine Catholic Church, I am all ears and happy to learn from you.

But if you wish to pontificate on the marriage practices of another Church, the Orthodox, I find that you make too many mistakes, and you erroneously conflate practices from the 5th century world of Byzantium with those of the 21st century and present the former as if they were modern practice. This only leads to confusion for your readers.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by StuartK
the Church does not recognize "platonic" marriages.


How does this fit with the first millennium practice of clergy observing exactly that (platonic marriages)? As we all know it was demanded of married clergy in the west to live platonically with their wives.

There are numerous saints in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism who in their hagiography are married but live as if they weren't. And of course in Orthodoxy, married couples are free to join separate monasteries. As far as I am aware if both parties (or even one partner) join monasteries it doesn't annul their marriage?



Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
Absolutely not! I am old now and still have old friends alive, Greeks mainly but I can think of two Russians, who were married without their choice by their parents.

Such unions would be canonically illicit. That does not mean that they did not occur, or that the Church would turn a blind eye to them. I can document everything I wrote, which is much more than you ever do, Father.

Quote
Not entirely. In earlier days the months of betrothal were a time when the prospective bride and groom were allowed sexual intercourse, in order to determine if the bride were able to conceive (a very important factor in those days.) If she proved not to be fertile the betrothal would terminate.

I suppose you can document that one, too? Or are you confusing Orthodox Russia with colonial New England, where "bundling" resulted in 60% of all first pregnancies being conceived out of wedlock?

Quote
How does this fit with the first millennium practice of clergy observing exactly that (platonic marriages)? As we all know it was demanded of married clergy in the west to live platonically with their wives.

We were, of course, discussing the Eastern Churches, so the praxis of the Western Church is not relevant. That said, it would appear that this requirement was never strictly enforced, and was in fact strongly condemned by the canons of the Council in Trullo (692), which, contrary to what is commonly believed, were eventually ratified by the Church of Rome. The final imposition of clerical celibacy in the 11th-12th century was significant in rejecting the possibility of any married man becoming either a priest or deacon, whether he lived in continence with his wife or not.

Quote
There are numerous saints in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism who in their hagiography are married but live as if they weren't.

Documentation, please. The Church as a rule was strongly opposed to sexless marriages--as was Saint Paul--and repeatedly states as much.

Quote
And of course in Orthodoxy, married couples are free to join separate monasteries.

Of course, such couples were not cohabiting, so it is irrelevant. Beyond that, it was far more normal for one spouse to enter a monastery, while the other remained in the world; this was considered grounds for divorce, and the person remaining secular was normally allowed to remarry. The principal exceptions were if a husband forced a wife into a convent (common among the upper classes), or if one spouse agreed to enter a monastery so that the other could remarry.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Ecclesiastical divorce cannot be theologically compared to anything in Catholic practice as this is not something which Catholics practice (if they ever had).

Did not the Catholic Church practise divorce and remarriage in the Eastern segment of the Catholic Church for many hundreds of years? The Catholic Bishops throughout the East allowed it -subject to the ultimate authority and oversight of the Supreme Pontiff. Rome allowed it.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Hieromonk Ambrose,

Stuart's point is very well taken. You do need to start sourcing your presentation of Orthodox theology and praxis. I ask that every poster do so, or make clear that they are giving a personal opinion.

Blessings!
John

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
The Orthodox may wish to consider the relevance and usefulness of their contributions here where we have a non-Orthodox man who is much better versed in our theology and traditions than we are. No matter what we write, it seems we are wrong and I cannot be bothered with the non-stop attitude of contradiction. My sincere apologies if this honest note offends..

Addendum: this message is not connected with the Administrator's note above since I had not seen his note at the time of writing.

Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 01/24/10 10:11 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
Did not the Catholic Church practise divorce and remarriage in the Eastern segment of the Catholic Church for many hundreds of years? The Catholic Bishops throughout the East allowed it -subject to the ultimate authority and oversight of the Supreme Pontiff. Rome allowed it.

One must understand that canons regarding divorce and remarriage in all Churches are matters of discipline. In the Unia, until 1917, the Holy See tended not to interfere in the matter, just as it tended not to interfere in the discipline of clerical celibacy.

The great exception, of course, was in North America, where, under pressure from Latin bishops intent on assimilating Roman Catholics into American culture, the Holy See attempted to impose Latin doctrine and discipline upon the Greek Catholics living here. And that in turn led to a major schism at the beginning of the 20th century. By 1917, however, the promulgation of the first Code of Canons for the Catholic Church imposed a common discipline on all, and Greek Catholics everywhere were required to subscribe to the Latin discipline regarding marriage--to the great deformation of the Tradition,

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5