www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Annulments in the Eastern Rite

Dear Elizabeth Maria,

Let's not jump to find too many differences with the Catholic Church.

Let's remember that while there may be different perspectives in our churches as to the marriage ceremony itself, (I myself am Orthodox) *both* churches consider marriage one of the seven sacraments, and that is a profound bond of commonality in viewing the sanctity of marriage within the blessings of the Church.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Elizabeth Maria,

The Orthodox Church does permit divorce, but only under certain circumstance, much akin to the reasons for annulment. The only difference is the terminology. Annulment implies that the marriage never existed, which in a way can lead to having a stigma implied especially in the case of children that came from the annulled union. The Orthodox Church requires a tribunal (I have sat as the secretary of such in the past) and with all the same requirements required for the annulment. The bishop then must approve the final outcome of the proceedings.

This has been in the vain of the scripture, "whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven". It also has to be remembered that the divorced party is penalized sacramentally. In any forthcoming marriage ceremony, to remind all that this is not the first marriage, certain portions of the matrimonial service are not permitted, i.e. the crowning.

Finally, both the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church do have pastoral directives recognizing each others norms for marriage and divorce as binding and valid. Remember that divorce is looked upon as an economy of the weakness of man.

Maybe one of our sacramental theologians can explain it better. I am not professing to be an expert on this subject. My participation in matters of an ecclesastical tribunal were more for my background in canon law.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Charles,

I would just add to that list that the Eparchies of Newton of the Melkites and Stamford of the Ukrainians both have tribunals also.

Many years,

Neil

The Catholic Church has never condemned the Orthodox practice of �Church divorce� - loosely conceived - with right to remarry. The issue was raised at the Council of Florence, with Rome asserting the validity of the Eastern way. In the Counter-Reformation, Rome rejected the Protestant perspective on marriage, while being careful to affirm the Orthodox view.
Why, oh why, can�t Eastern Catholics follow the Byzantine Tradition?
(Oh, of course, then we would not be �Catholic.� Sheesh!!)

Father Anthony, in reference to Orthodox divorce said: <<Remember that divorce is looked upon as an economy of the weakness of man.>>

God did not invent divorce, but Moses allowed it (economia?) due to people's "hardness of heart". Christ says that Moses' allowance and the later 'liberalization' of divorce among many Jews was contrary to what was "in the beginning". Now Christians again settle for the Mosaic deviation?

Matthew 19:
"V.3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

So how would the Eastern Catholic churches and the Orthodox handle a case in which the marriage ceremony took place, but then it was discovered that the bride, the groom, or both, had not been, in fact, free to marry?

I have a question:

Let's say that "Peter" the American-Ruthenian married a girl from the Ukraine and after three years (and a kid) he finds out that the whole thing didn't work, so he requests an anullment. After some time, the authority of his BC Church refuses to accept it.

Can he then go to the Roman Catholic tribunals who would easily grant the anullment???

Mexican,

given your scenario, the Latin Church has no jurisdiction over the member of another Church. So the answer to your question is "no".

I think it is of utmost importance when discussing the issue of "ecclesiastical divorce" to clarify what "ecclesiastical divorce" is. It simply means that the temporal bonds of marriage have been dissolved (i.e. the couple are free from the obligation their state imposed upon them). It *does not* mean that their marriage is "over" in the strict sense of the word, for the Orthodox teach that marriage is eternal (cf. "Preserve Them, O Lord" by Fr. John Mack).

Allow me to give a comparison between East and West on this issue.

Since the Orthodox Church views sacramental marriage as eternal, it, strictly speaking, disallows any other marriages. The Catholic Church views the priesthood as eternal (as do the Orthodox), and strictly speaking, disallows the priest to marry after ordination. Yet the Orthodox Church grants a dispensation to dissolve the marriage temporally ("ecclesiastical divorce"), and enter into another marriage (albeit, un-sacramental), due to human weakness. The Catholic Church grants a dispensation to priests to get married, which after ordination cannot fulfill their vocation due to human weakness.

~

Some would say that the Orthodox who re-marry while they are still sacramentally married to their first spouse are committing the mortal sin of "bigamy."

However, with this logic we could also say that the priests who are granted the dispensation to marry after ordination are in mortal sin due to breaking canon 9 of Session 24 of the Council of Trent, which prohibits priests to marry after ordination.

The fact is, that while the law, itself, prohibits both an "economical" marriage and marriage after ordination, the Church can grant dispensations in both cases, all the while believing that neither the sacramental marriage or the priesthood is dissolved when the laws governing them are "dispensed" with.

In other words just as the sacramental marriage remains, but is un-exercised and holds no obligation to the couple in an ecclesiastical divorce, the priesthood remains, but is un-exercised and holds no obligation to the priest in a dispensation to marry. If the former is condemned as "bigamy" the other must be condemned as "heresy."

Pax tecum,

Adam

Dear Father Anthony:

Father Bless.

Thank you for the explanation. I have always been a little confused about ecclesiastical divorces and how they could occur when the Orthodox Church views marriage as being 'eternal.'

Is the second marriage ceremony not considered to be a sacramental marriage? If so, is the new couple only considered to have a 'temporary marriage' as Orthodox Catholic suggests?

Personally, if I were to get a divorce or my husband were to die, I would prefer to remain single. But here I have another question. In the Greek Orthodox Church I was told that there is this custom where new widows remain inside the house for one year and do not venture outside (except for the funeral). Therefore, the new widow would not receive any sacraments during that entire year. Is this perhaps only a local village custom?

Respectfully yours in Christ,
Elizabeth Maria

Thanks, Alice for stating that above. Considering my 44th wedding anniversary is approaching I feel I should share that I believe it was ...a sacramental marriage which, of course, the Catholic Church considers valid. We didn't just 'marry ourselves' as posted by Elizabeth Maria.

Many years,

Fondly

Mary Jo

Hello all,
Just a few points I would like to add.
In the Latin tradition it is certainly simplistic to say that the couple simply marry themselves. If that were so then it would not be necessary to do so in church. The couple are the ministers of this sacrament, in the same way as a baptized person can minister baptism on somebody else.
If, for example, I were to be stranded on a desert island with my fianc�e, and there were no opportunity for us to marry in church, then we could consider ourselves validly married, if we so desired, as long as other conditions were met, (i.e. a conscious and mature decision on the part of both parties etc.). This is also, I believe, the reason the Church considers a Muslim (manogomous) couple, or a budhist couple to be validly married, even though the marriage did not take place in a Christian Church.
Returning to the desert island scenario, should our valid marriage be blessed with children, I could validly baptise them, in the absence of a deacon or priest.
The Church, therefore, would never die out in that community.
If we happened to be saved, then our wedding would have to be registered in the parish registers, as would the baptisms, but not repeated.

Finally, in what concerns annulments, I think there has been some exageration here in the way annulments are seen. Abuses in the past notwhithstanding, an annulment is not a simple or easy thing to procure. It's basis is that since the couple are the ministers, so long as one of them was insincere in his/her intentions or vows, then the whole sacrament never happened. More or less in the same way that I can go to confession, and be absolved, but if I am not truly repentant then the sacrament had no effect.
I have a cousin who married several years ago, only to discover that his "wife" was not being faithful at the time nor had any intention to be in the future. This is clearly a cause for annulment, yet the process has been long and difficult, I would not be so quick to paint annulment as "another word for divorce" the two are very different.

Just out of curiosity: Considering the eastern tradition does not see the couple as the ministers of the sacrament of marriage, but the priest, and therefore does not allow for annulment, would a forced marriage be valid? Suppose a woman was blackmailed into marrying against her will, and the priest didn't know it, would the wedding be considered valid?
God bless,
Filipe

Very good question, Filipe!

And I have another question:

What about the case where two (non-Orthodox) Christians were married for the first time in a Baptist Church and then were divorced. If the woman in this case later fell in love with an Orthodox gentleman who had never been married, and converted to Orthodoxy, would her first marriage be considered the eternal marriage or even a sacramental marriage by the Orthodox Church?

(Note: The above actually happened.) The ecclesiastical court ruled that since it was the first marriage for the Orthodox gentleman, they granted an ecclesiastical divorce to the woman and allowed the couple to have the Crowning Service.

So in heaven, whose spouse will she be? Since she participated in the Crowning Service, is she now considered married eternally to the Orthodox gentleman?

I know, there is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven. But the Orthodox do hold that marriage is eternal. I guess we will recognize our spouses.

Second question:

Do the Byzantine also believe that marriage is eternal?

Lovingly in Christ,
Elizabeth Maria

Dear Elizabeth Maria,

I think one can push the "eternal marriage" thing too far!

Second and third marriages among the Orthodox and others are not unheard of, to be sure!

And in the next life, "they will neither marry nor be given in marriage."

If marriage were truly eternal, the Church would be complicit in sin when it crowned widows etc.

St Thomas More had two wives. His first wife died after five years of marriage, I believe.

He married his housekeeper who was his children's nanny and he learned to love her dearly!

I visited the (Anglican) church where both of his wives are interred in Chelsea, London.

They are interred together and there is a poem to both of them written by St Thomas More in stone at their common tomb.

It basically says that in the next life he won't know which wife to love more, as he will want to love either with as much love as he can!

Alex

Dear Elizabeth Maria,

At an Orthodox marriage retreat I once attended, a gentleman, whose wife had sadly died of cancer, and who had remarried, asked the same question about marriage in heaven. Being a convert, he too was confused...stating that he now loved his new wife even more than his old wife, and that he wanted to be with his new wife more than his old wife!

The response was, ofcourse, that he got it all wrong...we will not recognize marital states and friendships in Heaven...we will all be in another dimension of feeling, praising God, and being happy.

Somehow, this 'marriage is eternal' thing is being misconstrued. Marriage is considered an aid to our salvation on earth, but we cannot compare our earthly dimension and experiences to the eternal, which will be so different and incomprehensible to our limited human minds and existence.

With love in Christ,
Alice