www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope references Orthodox practice re: divorce

Pope references Orthodox practice re: divorce [catholicnews.com]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing that, Jaya.

It is interesting that he referenced it, but I would imagine that any chance of adopting the practice in the west would be impossible, because of the different theology regarding marriage, right?

In the West we consider that the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament, but in the East it is the Priest/Deacon... So I understand the Eastern practice as being the Church taking the liberty of giving something which it is entitled to give or remove.

But in Western theology I'm not sure that would work, as the couple are bound by a sacrament they gave to eachother...

Am I getting this wrong?

I think so. It's a matter more of the pastoral approach taken to reintegrating the remarried into the body of Christ. For the Eastern Churches, reintegration takes priority over the letter of the law, so, even though remarriage is considered adultery (under all circumstances), the Church recognizes certain second marriages as legitimate but not sacramental, and after an appropriate period of fasting, prayer and abstaining from the Eucharist, readmits the couple to communion.

On the other hand, the Latin Church places its conception of indissoluability (which ends with the death of one of the parties) over and above everything else, so that someone who remarries after a civil divorce, but before the other party dies, is given essentially two choices: to put his second spouse aside, or to abstain from communion until either he or his first spouse dies.

Because this is simply an intolerable situation (and always has been, as those of us who study history know), the modern Latin Church has developed the process of granting decrees of nullity, which simply state that (no matter how long or fruitful the union had been) no marriage ever existed, allowing both parties to remarry at will.

Pope Francis apparently recognizes how this approach has bred cynicism and contempt in a large portion of the laity, and is looking for a different approach that will be more humane, as well as more honest, and will bring back into the Church many who departed because of their marital situation.

Stuart, thanks for the clarification.

However, considering the Western theology of marriage, the idea of nullity is one that makes perfect sense, regardless of how it might be abused or raise cynicism.

I have a lot of trouble personally with the Orthodox practice, and I also see that declaring a marriage null is absurd most of the time. That said, the Latin Church releases priests from the rights and obligations of their ordination, in order to marry, despite marriage being generally understood as impossible for an ordained man to undertake, so divorce and remarriage is possibly not so great a leap for the Latins as it looks at first.

One should remember that, for the first thousand years or so, the Western Church did indeed grant divorces, and did allow people to remarry after them. In fact, the Western Church paid remarkably little attention to marriage at all until the 13th century, to the point of debating whether it was even a sacrament or not.

That's another aspect of the current RC system of annulments that just seems wrong. In many cases, the divorce was due to infidelity, and the offended partner was the one who took all the initiative and obtained the decree of nullity. The adulterous partner then has no impediment to remarrying in the Catholic Church, if he or she should choose to do so.

Now, this is what I call a step in the right direction!

Epiphanius,

Many annulment processes may arise from infidelity, but the reasoning behind them is that there was not valid contract in the first place, and it is only logical that this should affect both parties.

The argument that the Church already releases priests from their vows so that they may marry is quite a powerful one, I have often thought about it.

I don't see how. The "vows" of a priest to remain celibate are not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders, but an adjunct too it, whereas the pledge of permanent fidelity for life is an integral part of the reception of the sacrament of Marriage.

It's not about celibacy. It's about the fact that the sacrament of orders is a diriment impediment to matrimony. A priest can't marry; it is impossible. I do not know if this is impediment is considered to arise from divine law or from positive law. This, obviously, is the interesting question.

That is not true. Otherwise, the Church could not permit laicized priests (who retain their priestly character) to marry.

And there's the crux of the point: the Church cannot permit to marry people still bound to another by the sacrament of marriage.

And yet, so she does.

I would very much like to read where the Church has pronounced with any certainty on the nature of the impediment of orders to marriage. I realize we're all Easterney here and quite comfortable with non-definition, but this is my unreconstructed Romishness.

Aquinas (which may not be the best source for this forum, but is ideal if what you're doing is making the Roman case for Ecclesial Divorce) says that "...it is owing to the Church's ordinance that it is actually an impediment to marriage" but goes on to say that "since with the Greeks it is an impediment to the contracting of marriage, solely by virtue of order" as opposed to the Roman practice that confuses the matter with vows of celibacy contrary of themselves to marriage.

Mind you, I am not sure where this line of reasoning ends up, and I am by no means sure I want to make anything like a Roman case for Ecclesial Divorce. I'm just thinking.

Stewart, if by “Church” you are meaning the Orthodox Church, this is not the way of it. Please refer to the Hapgood Service Book...

On page 304, the Rite of a Second Marriage, you will see the two penitential prayers which replace “Bless them, O Lord our God...” and conclude the Rite of Betrothal.

After these two prayers what is the next thing you see on page 305?

“And the rest, as in the First Rite of Marriage, page 297”

And that takes us to the regular Rite of Crowning which includes the Crowning, the Dance of Isaiah, the Cup of Wine, the joyful elements of any wedding.

A second marriage is fully sacramental.

It occurs to me that you may be meaning the Catholic Church which "recognizes certain second marriages as legitimate but not sacramental."

That really startles me. I have not heard it before and I hope you will elucidate.