www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "Divorced" orthodox married again converting?

I am trying to think of example when the Orthodox have annulments.

One obvious example is where one spouse was decived about the gender of the other.... such as when the groom discovers on his wedding night that the bride is really a groom also.

Marriage under complusion? Annulable these days but should it be? For most of Christian history, in both the West and the East, marriage under complusion has been a fact freely accepted by the Church. Many a bride has been forced to take her marriage vows before a priest or bishop because the parents see some financial or dynastic benefit in the forced marriage. The Church must have knowingly perfomed thousands of such marriages and certainly did not view them as qualifying for annulment because one partner lacked consent.

You are right.

If, for example, a Roman Catholic deacon should officiate at a marriage of a Roman Catholic and a Melkite Catholic, by Catholic Canon law this marriage would be not merely illicit but *invalid*.

I am in a rush and hope that someone else will supply the relevant canon law on this.

Father Ambrose, I wonder how many members of the RCC realize that we Orthodox feel the same way about the Rudder as some RCCs do about the code of canon law? In any case One member of a Spiritual Court (=RCC Marriage tribunal) in a Greek diocese in the state of Pennsylvania once told me that annulment would only used if the girl had literally been carried off "on horseback" against her will. Perhaps he was exaggerating, but this is one area where IN MY OPINION the EOC's approach to divorce and remarriage deals realistically with man's frail nature and allows him (IN MY OPINION) more of a chance for salvation. Any other case would be treated as divorce as it is in the real world. Whose canon law is better or right? Any one trying to make this claim is engaging in sheer triumphalism. I honestly feel that that the west is more rigid in its application of canon law than the east is. I think this softer approach of the east is something to be proud of and more useful in the salvation of souls, although I am sure strict constructionists of canon law would be bothered by the comment.

Father Ambrose:

Father bless!!

I think your example is off and therefore your conclusion is off, too.

Before a RC deacon can exercise his faculties to be the Church's official witness at a marriage, all the potential problems that might rise about validity and licity would have to be resolved long before he and the couple arrived in church for the ceremony.

If the man were Melkite, the deacon might have to secure permission from the Melkite bishop, if it were possible under the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches for him to do so. That's an area Father Serge might speak to.

On the other hand, if the man were RC, there would be no problem since the Latin Church allows a deacon to be the officiant for a wedding in the ordinary exercise of the faculties granted to him by ordination and by his bishop.

But either of these cases would be examined in the premarital process. I can say, from my own experience, that I signed enough documents and supplied enough documents prior to my own marriage that I thought I was signning my life away. And this was in my birth parish and my wife's birth parish. Both my children, as well, had to obtain all kinds of documentation to present to the priest who was/is to witness their marriages. And none of us had the extra step of two sui juris Churches having different approaches and Codes of Canon Law.

BOB

Who says it is only the bride who can be forced? Many a groom was dragged to the altar.

And we all know one case: Henry VIII was not crazy about marrying his brother's widow. But his father had a dynasty to look after, and so Henry was forced to say I do, though he didn't want to.

Then, one might ask, after all that documentation, how is it that any marriage found void, let alone the great numbers that are so found?

If the CEC is like that Orthodox on this matter, then there would be no possibility for a deacon to marry the couple anymore than it is possible for a priest to administer chrimation in the Latin rite.

As I have said such an act by a deacon would be in violation of Canon Law. The marriage would be invalid and require to be administed by a priest at a leter date. Whether an EC Bishop has the authority to override the Canons in these circumstances, I do not know. Maybe Father Serge can help out here?



You will see that I wrote, if one of the spouses were an Eastern Catholic. In spite of the RC affiliation of the other spouse the marriage is invalid.

The bottom line is that the Sacrament of Marriage cannot be administred, in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, by any clergy other than priests and bishops. Any attempt by lesser clergy or laypeople and the Holy Spirit stays at home that day. :-) No Sacrament occurs.

Father Serge may wish to add more details.

Father Ambrose is correct. As in the Orthodox Churches (and unlike in the Latin Church, where the cleric - priest or deacon - is witness to the marriage), Eastern Catholic laypersons are not the ministers of their marriage.

The priest is the minister of the Mystery and a deacon may not serve that role. A marriage between a Latin Catholic and an Eastern Catholic must be entered into before a priest.

Many years,

Neil

Rome has made it very clear Byzantine Rite marriages presided over by a Byzantine Rite Deacon are invalid.

We don't? That's news to me. I would just assume that they're entering into the fullness of the Faith just like any other convert from a non-Catholic background.

Forgive me for offering a differing viewpoint, Father, but I wouldn't have made a point of it if you had not in your first post attempted to push a certain vocabulary which seems to me just as contrary to the Mind of the Church as it seems consonant with that Mind to you.

Alexis

One would hope that. But it is not always the case.

As I was first encountering the east, I learned about this requirement from an imminent deacon. At least in the BCC, there had been a large quantity of annulments for this very reason when the RCC started using deacons for marriages.

It is not hard to find examples on this site of RCC clergy of all levels being ignorant of the rules or even the existence of eastern Catholics.

What always stumped me on this one is how the deacons were presiding over the marriages of two Catholics in the first place, as such marriages are supposed to occur at a Mass . . .


Oh, and while I'm at it, the requirement of a priest in the Western church is a fairly late development (13th century?). Even then, he was merely required to witness the vows. This came about because of instances in which couples had vanished and then disputed whether or not they had taken vows.

A new abuse followed, in which they the eager couple, who couldn't get parental permission, would break into the rectory, wake the priest, and exchange vows in front of the groggy priest before he came to his senses.

The Church used with its usual lightning speed, closing this loophole by requiring that the priest request the vows--in the late 20th century (1970s?).

hawk, still regretting that he didn't manage to take Fr. Makckin's class on marriage at Santa CLara

More than one couple now at the OCA church where I sometimes visit (I normally attend BCC) admit that they originally had intended to convert to Catholicism since they were not happy remaining Protestants but then found that in the CC due to their divorces and subsequent second marriages it would either be impossible to receive the sacraments or at least they would have to go through the marriage tribunal process and still might be denied (and I'm sure this process is quite difficult and stressful to go through, brings up all kind of unpleasant issues, necessitates communicating with and seeing ex-spouses, etc.). This is what led them to Orthodoxy, where they were received without question (or at least with no major difficulty) but now, admittedly, they wouldn't want to be anywhere else regardless of the marriage situation (though likely in the CC they would not be able to commune).

It is not required to communicate with or see an ex spouse for an anulment. What gave you that idea?
Stephanos I