www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Annulments and Divorce

Stuart --

I must say I find your response highly troubling inasmuch as I married an annulled woman last year, thinking that I was being obedient to the dictates and moral teaching of the Church. Now, in reading your post, I find myself wondering if I am a de facto adulterer for this remarriage.

What does one do when one finds out that the rules have been bent, sometimes quite radically, and yet one acted in compliance with the rules, thinking oneself to be acting as a good and obedient Catholic?

My other question would be this: what culpability do I have when I acted in trusting obedience to the Church, her moral teachings, and her leaders in this age?

Here's some good advice: Don't think so much.

My opinion only - I'm open to correction on this.

1. Nothing
2. 0.

First, I presume that you are sure that your spouse got an annulment in good faith. Just because other people may have been getting "noncompliant" annulments, doesn't mean that each one is. To use an analogy, once upon a time it was common for people to buy the office of bishop (that is, pay a fee to the king and he gets the other bishops to validly elevate you). But just because lots of bishoprics were bought unworthily does not mean that there were not good, properly elevated bishops.

Second, the action of the church (Christ's body, the assembled people of God in union with a successor to the apostles, who is also in union with the rest of the people of God and their shepherds) is by itself the sign of "authenticity".

To continue with the old-time bishop example, it is entirely possible that one priest in the diocese was very holy and that everyone thinks he "would have made a good bishop". However, various people bought the see and this priest died as a priest. This is, by definition, the sign that that priest was not authentically called to the episcopate, whereas the other people were. This is part of the mystery of God's dispensation. Now, the requirement at the bishop "rightly divide the word of truth" still remains, and it's likely that someone who got the office unworthily will run it unworthily, leading to all kinds of other problems. But nevertheless such a person is still accountable for his flock.

So in the end, I'd agree with Stuart.

Stuart, in Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium (381 pages) Pope Sergius III did approve the 4th marriage of Leo, but Leo was married to Zoe by an eastern parish priest. Leo also received dispensation from "accredited representatives of the three eastern Partiarchates - Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. (p164). And after Leo deposed Patriarch Nicholas his replacement Euthymius.


Prior to the Union of Uhzorod while subcarpathian Church was still Orthodox, remarriage was common among the people (and priests.) This was a period after the fall of Constantinople and the authority of the patriarchate was in disarray and undisciplined in the hinterlands. I don't know if they called it "annulment" or if it was accepted as is. The poor clerical training and undisciplined priesthood were two of the many reasons for the Union.

Fr Deacon Paul

OK... I know I'm slow :confused: A lot of interesting things have been mentioned in this thread; however, I still don't seem to understand how a RC annulment differs from a BC annulment (if there is such a thing)?

In the BC rite, do you still have to pay $$$ and go before a tribunal?

Thanks StuartK for the condensed history and PaulB for the history-in-context of Zakarpathia.

I just imagined that most ordinary people would be too busy in the fields and forests here working to have much time for affairs and such, and that the prospect of village gossip would more-or-less prevent that. My imagination, however, is probably more idealistic/romantic than realistic!

Promise,

You don't "buy" an annulment. If there is any cost, it would be to pay for salaries and expenses. RC dioceses have more paid staff so its probable that their expenses are much higher. I'm not aware that BC annulments require going before a tribunal; one's request it put in with your pastor. Part of the reason may be practical; our eparchies (dioceses) are geographically much larger and may require one to travel hundreds of miles.

JMJ1991 -

I tried to PM you but your account is either not yet active because you are new, it is disabled or you are over the limit of messages. As an older member of this forum, I ask you to PLEASE be patient as a new member of this forum. You can learn a lot about the beauty and diversity of the Catholic faith if you persevere.

Have you read Church documents on the Eastern Catholic churches? It seems like you would benefit from doing so. I recommend reading JPII's Apostolic Letter "Orientale Lumen", the Decrees on the Eastern Catholic Churches from Vatican II "Orientalium Ecclesiarum", and also reading the Articles Concerning the Union with the Roman Church - popularly known as the Union of Brest. All of these are available online. If you are not familiar wth them, they should be an eye-opener.

It is possible, for it does in fact exist, for separate churches to be in communion with one another while having different theology, traditions and practices. The Church is, after all, a mystery herself and like a family not all the members see eye-to-eye on all things yet the "family ties" endure thanks to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

So, read up some. Find an Eastern Catholic priest to talk to in your area and ask him questions. Listen. Learn. Come back with charity and talk to us some more.

Please pray for me. I will pray for you.