www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Cardinal who promoted divorce rebuked by Melkite Patriarch

Thanks but they were not intended as proof texts except that they are sacred scripture for both Catholic and Orthodox. I'm not a proof-text-approach guy. Scripture should not be used to prove but it must affirm and should confirm praxis.

I'm saying it's not semantics. The difference is material theologically.

Again, I'm asking that it not be looked at in the eyes of the world but within the scope of the church, through the words of Christ to Peter (Matthew 16:19) and the Apostles (Matthew 18:18 within the context), to bind and loose. For some considerations from a non-confessional viewpoint see annulments-differ-from-divorces [family.findlaw.com].

The two questions I especially ask (again) are:

What is the Orthodox praxis of annulment (more properly a decree of nullity)?

Ephesians 5:32 prompts me to ask: Can Christ and the church divorce?

Since the comparison here cannot pertain to papal infallibility I'm concluding that by the "too" you're referring to yourself.

Hardly a worthy (i.e. accurate and fair) appraisal of the Catholic Church. Again, for some considerations from a non-confessional viewpoint see annulments-differ-from-divorces [family.findlaw.com] .

Goodness, they are a commonly accepted foundation which are to be found in accord with correct praxis.

Not semantics. See link in this post on annulment/divorce summary. Sometimes "realistic" is a replacement for expediency or I goofed.


I'm not seeing how this pertains or if it is even worded accurately. Some specific verifiable reference would be helpful.

Scripture certainly is "from above" and my quoting it without commentary is no pronouncement. There are QUESTIONS that I have repeated and repeat again:

The two questions I especially ask (again) are:

What is the Orthodox praxis of annulment (more properly a decree of nullity)?

Ephesians 5:32 prompts me to ask: Can Christ and the church divorce?

Dear Father Deacon,

OK, may we begin with your explanation of the differenc between "annulment" and "divorce?"

I think that would be a great starting point.

Alex

Start with the link I gave above in two posts that mainly gives a civil law explanation:

" Again, for some considerations from a non-confessional viewpoint see how-marriage-annulments-differ-from-divorces [family.findlaw.com]."

It doesn't state the Catholic position accurately so I've edited the opening paragraph:

-----------------------------
Divorces and annulments both seem to have the same effect-- there is no marriage. However, they differ in how they treat the marriage. When people get a divorce, they are still recognized as having been married previously. An annulment, on the other hand, finds that the marriage never existed.
-----------------------------

The link gives some of the practical applications, the applied theology. But it is the foundational theology, Orthodox and Catholic, that should be compared and should be the determining factor. Answering the two questions that I posed and repeat here would contribute to that comparison.

What is the Orthodox praxis of annulment (more properly a decree of nullity)?

Ephesians 5:32 prompts me to ask: Can Christ and the church divorce?

Perhaps Brother Recluse can divest himself from the situation in Syria and come over here to provide an Orthodox response to this?

Alex

Also, it is quite legitimate to ask how the Church determines that a marriage never existed, especially marriages that have gone on for years and have produced children.

I understand the difference between divorce and annulment.

Marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and His Church. But is it an absolute reflection?

How does the Church deal with marriages that breakdown irretrievably?

From a social psychological point of view only, it would appear that the Church is issuing annulments "after the fact" of a marital breakdown and in many cases today, years after the sacrament was administered.

How can one ascertain that reasons given by persons in a marriage that has broken down regarding their "intentions" when they got married years before are legitimate? A marriage tribunal has only their word for it.

In reality, it is impossible to make that determination as it is, truly, after the fact of a marital breakdown.

In Canadian hockey, that is called "fast-sticking."

Forgive me, but your approaching this from quite the idealistic perspective.

The Orthodox praxis, as per Archbishop Kallistos Ware, is that a valid marriage can breakdown and that after repeated attempts to try and resolve the problems, the Church, after hearing a particular case, can annul the marriage. At no time is there any effort to try and absolutely "prove" the marriage didn't exist to begin with as, also according to the Scriptures, adultery severely impacts the marriage bond.

A second and also a third sacramental marriage is then allowed, but it has a distinct penitential tone.

Alex

People have children, sometimes many, even out of wedlock. Church tribunals issue a decree of nullity that a marriage had not taken place.

Can and should the Church do this?

That's a third question, the first two go unanswered.

Then why the prior post:

But I ask again:

What is the Orthodox praxis of annulment (more properly a decree of nullity)?

I'd say it is absolute but not total, perfect. Christ is God and the Church His most-pure spouse; that's unique. In baptism, as a comparison, we become christs, we put on Christ, and even with imparting a sphragis -- it's ontological. No sin or deficiency of ours, however, undoes the seal. As I've used the terms then, Baptism is absolute but not total in that we do not become a divine person, nor perfect in that we can be far from being, appearing or acting as christs.

Rome has expressed concern about the methodology employed by church tribunals in their granting of "annulments."

Should the church be doing this? Yes, it should. The question is to what extent does a psychological examination of a couple whose marriage has broken down establish criteria deemed legitimate by a tribunal?

And getting an annulment via a marriage tribunal in Ukraine is much more difficult than getting one in Philadelphia.

Would you, Father Deacon, ever question the actions of a marriage tribunal in granting annulments?

How is it possible for a couple married in Church and living together for years with children to get an annulment without causing scandal?

How can a marriage tribunal know with certainty that they did not intend to live as the Church teaches re: matrimony, especially if they only have their word for it now, many years later?

You seem to want to defend this process as being "infallible" so that to critique it is to somehow attack the Church.

Is that your position? Do you not think the marriage annulment process in the Catholic Church has become an "after the fact" matter?

Alex

I would say that when Moses brought the commandments down from the mountain, there was an early Jesuit with hand to chin deep in thought in the crowd. He was thinking, "you know, if we reflect on this, we can get around those commandments." The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Continuing my reply:

It investigates and finds that either the marriage bond is true or there is found an impediment to the marriage having taken place.

Does the tribunal not have the authority through the bishops, through Peter and the other Apostles from Christ?


Arguing from the premise that "it is impossible to make that determination" to the Mystery is the theological tail waging the dog. Look at the Church, the present and past scandalous behavior of clergy and people; surely "it is impossible to make [the] determination" that the Church is the Spotless Spouse of Christ.

I understand the term; I have no idea how it fits here.

Nothing to forgive: "idealistic"=theological

Alex, you have a penchant for making absolute statements that are imprecise to the point of inaccuracy; this can grind fruitful discussion to a halt. That "according to the Scriptures, adultery severely impacts the marriage bond" is only one interpretation of what is meant by πορνείᾳ (porneia) in Mat 19:9. Since it's brought up, here are two possible translations:

New American Bible: Matthew 19:9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

New Jerusalem Bible: Matthew 19:9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife -- I am not speaking of an illicit marriage -- and marries another, is guilty of adultery.'

No. But are YOU just critiquing or denying that the Church has the authority to find that a marriage is null? Reading these links should be of assistance: Declaration of nullity [en.wikipedia.org] and Annulment/Decree of Nullity [ewtn.com] .

I do not think it so; see above links for context and details.

Now how about answering my questions?

Thank you!

I haven't been much involved in this thread, but I had to respond when I saw ^^ this comment. To me the big problem is not, strictly speaking, the issuing of annulments and the subsequent remarrying, but rather that it is treated as a definitive (knowing infallibly, if you will) statement that a marriage didn't exist.

The "big problem" in this discussion is making statements that are incorrect, especially when information is given that is not utilized. One of the links I provided in my previous post (Annulment/Decree of Nullity [ewtn.com]) clearly says:


To further the discussion I invited you (and others) to answer my questions:

1.What is the Orthodox praxis of annulment (more properly a decree of nullity); that is, in addition to a divorce are there marriages that are "null" and recognized as such?

2.Ephesians 5:32 prompts me to ask: Can Christ and the church divorce?

3. Church tribunals issue a decree of nullity that a marriage had not taken place. Can and should the Church do this?