www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Divorce

Oops- sorry -I think that was my post that prompted the question. I think it depends upon which Orthodox church you belong to, but I'm not sure. My friend who had a "divorce" (her word and her priest's) and who was permitted to remarry within her church had circumstances that would make most Catholics ask: "Can't you get an annulment for THAT?" One thing I remember is that she and her fiancee had enter the marriage having discussed and agreed to having children, but when they were married he turned around and said he never wanted any children. And there was a lot more to the story. She was much younger than him when they married and he seemed to have problems with honesty.

Dear Anastasios,

As "sincere" as this post may be, I don't believe it adds positively to the discussion.

There are many emotions and opinions swirling around here that just don't need to be said. Offer it up to God, brother.

Logos Teen

Hi, Annie-SFO! From what I've been told, steadfast refusal to be open to the possibility of children is a definite impediment to valid sacramental marriage. Procreation (or at least openness to procreation) is one of the chief ends of marriage. If you deliberately won't procreate, then it's no dice--no marriage in the eyes of God and the Church.

In short: I bet your friend could have secured an annulment--even way back before Vatican II.

Blessings,

ZT

Dear Anastasios:

Your dad has a hard situation. Hard as the wood of the Cross. I don't at all mean to minimize his--or your--pain. But suffering is part of life...and integral to the Christian life.

I'm 52. I know several women only a few years my senior who are seriously ill. One is in the last stages of cancer. She is in constant excruciating pain. Another, a diabetic with many health problems, has just had her third open-heart surgery, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. No doubt you think 52 is old as the proverbial hills, but I think of myself and my contemporaries as still vibrant, so seeing friends my age dying agonizing deaths is pretty scary. I haven't yet faced anything like this, but I will. Suffering is inevitable. Most of us have to endure some pretty serious suffering at some time or other. It takes various forms, but it always comes eventually. How one handles it can make all the difference--with eternal consequences.

Perhaps you are right that your dad would not be eligible for an annulment. I don't know, obviously! But if he wouldn't qualify for annulment, and if he were to become Catholic, he would have to accept the Cross of celibacy. Yes, that is a hard thing, but Jesus never promised that the Christian life would be easy. It's not easy for any of us, believe me.

You say marriages break down sometimes through human sin...and it's unreasonable to expect the sundered parties to continue in celibacy thereafter, deprived of the comforts of spousely companionship. I say that sounds very compassionate. But there's just one problem. It has nothing to do with what Jesus commanded. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, in the NT about permissible remarriages for validly married spouses. Nothing. IOW, ihe view you espouse is unbiblical. It runs counter to both the spirit and the letter of Our Lord's command. You cannot turn Our Lord's emphatic statement of the indissolubility of marriage into just the opposite. That is what the Protestants have done, and the results have been devastating.

What Our Lord said about divorce is indeed a "hard saying." That's why it shocked the disciples! (It would hardly have shocked them if He'd really been providing them with a back-door loophole, as Moses and the rabbis had.)

But hard saying or not, it's what He said. I don't think we should turn Our Lord's words inside out and upside down. Hard as the commandment is, we're stuck with it. It's the Cross--an essential part of Christian discipleship.

Gotta run. God bless...

ZT

It seems some of the Latin Church members on this thread think they are correct and all the historic Eastern Churches and their interpretation of their own history and Tradition is wrong. A bold claim. I couldn't see myself doing likewise to the Latin Church, even if I disagreed with it. I have too much respect for its interpretation of its own Latin Tradition. I find such an approach rather humorous to say the least. Afterall, the Pope himself does not even make such a claim. In fact it was he who said the Eastern Churches are authentic interpreters of the Tradition they have recieved. Therefore, despite all the objections, the Eastern Churches with their Tradition intact, will continue uphold the same Tradition which has got them through the last two millenia. Only when Latins are willing to respect this Tradition (as does H.H. John Paul II) will we ever get any closer to unity.

In Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian

[I'm going to echo and appeal which was made earlier - please can we consider this thread closeed ?

As I see it, everyone is correctly hanging onto the teaching and traditions of their own Church - be it East or West.

As a result patience is getting a wee bittie frayed

Time for a breather perhaps ??

Anhelyna

Hello,

I forgot about this thread, and I hope no one minds that I am making this response at this late time. I want to comment about the statement someone said that the process of annulment is an instance wherein the Church exercises her power to bind and loose.

(This was stated after my one and only post that mentioned that the theological basis for ecclesiastical divorce and for annulment are different: ecclesiastical divorce is based on the power to bind and loose, while annulment is based on the indissolubility of marriage).

IMHO, the Church cannot bind what God has not bound, and it cannot loose what God has loosed. I think it was the Pope of Rome who once announced with regards to accepting females into the priesthood, that he does not have the authority to go against something that was established by God himself.

In this view, the power to bind and loose is not at all being used in the process of annulment. The Church in that process is not binding what is loosed, nor is it loosing what is bound. She is simply determining if something is ALREADY bound or if something is ALREADY loosed - namely, the marriage bond (or not). She is not imposing, by the action of annulment, that something be loosed which was bound, nor binding something that was not ALREADY previously bound by the Sacrament. Thus, the process of annulment, though I give ear to the fact that it can be abused, is still, in the long run, not an example of binding and loosing.

Marduk

Dear Marduk,

It is as you say ONLY if one agrees that a psychological report placed on a bishop's desk about the state of mind of two Catholics whose marriage has broken down can be considered grounds for an annulment.

The point is that the RC Church in the U.S. and elsewhere, as I understand, has eased up on a number of points and is granting "annulments."

This is truly the power to bind and loose since lay Catholics cannot remarry without such an annulment, which is a pronouncement by the Church that their marriage never occurred (excuse me while I clear my throat).

It is NOT an exercise, as you correctly state, of binding and loosing of a marriage that has legitimately taken place.

The RC Church says that it has no power to separate actual marriages.

That is why, when the RC Church in the U.S. grants what everyone else knows is an ecclesial divorce, it calls it an "annulment."

Another way of putting it is "having your cake and eating it too."

Alex

Alex, for the umpteenth time: An excessive number of annulments is an ABUSE. The answer to an abuse is to correct it. NPT to legitimize it by claiming it's just "Catholic divorce"--MUCH LESS to exploit as a means of legitimizing Orthodox divorce!

You asked before "by what authority" I can say that too many annulments = an abuse. Latin Trad provided the answer. When annulments are appealed to the Roman Rota, 95% of them are overturned. So, if you dispute my view, please take it up with the Roman Rota.

In the meantime, I'm petitioning the admin to let us have a head-banging-against-the-wall emoticon on this board. That'll give me a quick, easy way to respond to posts by you, William, and Lance.

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. William--If the "Latins on this board" (is Marduk a Latin now? ) are so high-handedly non-Eastern...and if tolerance of divorce/remarriage is so Inscrutably Eastern...can you perhaps explain to me why those quintessential Westerners, the Protestants, hold almost exactly the same view of divorce/remarriage as the Orthodox...and employ IDENTICAL REASONING to justify it? Sure, I know John Calvin wore a beard, and there's even a Protestant denomination called he Orthodox Presbyterian Church...but something tells me you won't find too many iconostases in said church, and I doubt Calvin was too fond of the Jesus Prayer. :lol:

O.k. Zoe, you asked for it. Since you like being on the attack and making allegations such as all the Eastern Churches have departed from the Gospel truth, how about us putting your views under some scrutiny for a change (since charitable dialogue is so foreign to you).

1. Why don't you explain to us what is your interpretive key which guarantees to you (and us all) that everytime the Fathers speak of dissolving a marriage or of "divorce" they are not really speaking of "dissolving a marriage" or "divorce" but really mean that the marriage is still valid and the partners are just separating from bed and board (as you claim)??? Where is the proof for your interpretation of these texts? You must have a lot of proof to be so sure and historically dogmatic on this. Please share it with us. I you do, then maybe we could ignore the statements which seem to directly contradict you and those others like "a husband is no longer a husband," etc.

2. Secondly, regarding those texts where some other Fathers speak against divorce, how are you so sure they are not speaking against civil divorce rather than Ecclesiastical ones??? Tertullian in the third century already clearly distinguished between just divorces and unjust ones. Therefore, again, based on your dogmatic-ness, you must have clear proof for this. Yet, from my reading, very few of the Fathers cited really support your full claims here (despite your sickening triumphalism).

3. Thirdly, besides reading twenty some odd qoutes of the Fathers collected for you by Catholic Answers and other anti-Orthodox apologists like James Likoudis, how many years have you spent researching this issue? Could you also please name the Orthodox authors you studied in order to ensure a fair an unbiased opinion in your research? Just curious.

Finally, despite all the pleas you have made that we are supporting moral collapse, you are missing the obvious. Divorce doesn't lead to moral collapse, just the opposite. The moral collapse comes first then the divorce. And once people have collapsed morally and rejected the gospel, it doesn't matter if you or the Pope in Rome holds a gun to their head insisting "you're still married" they are going to divorce and re-marry. Therefore your solution for moral collapse misses the mark.

You have repeatedly mis-represented what we have been saying as a defence of modern "no-fault" divorce, when you know quite well that all of us have gone to great pains to insist this is not what we are defending. I really don't appreciate you misrepresenting us this way.

Finally, you ignore a real dilema in your own Church. I once frequented very conservative Roman Catholic circles. For instance, the late Fr. John A. Hardon, who I had the honor of studying under, once made a very informitive statement. He said that when he asked the person responsible for annulments in Michigan what was the criteria for annulments in this Archdiocese, the reply came back to him quite bluntly: "who ever asks for an annulment is entitled to one!"

So in light of such abuse, and despite all the insults you've hurled at the Eastern Churches, any given Catholic in any given diocese, doesn't even know whether his own annulment is a legitimate one or just another abuse.

Not only this, but any given annulment is based on the subjective investigation of a bunch of fallible canon lawyers. After all, no one knows for sure if their annulment is legit or a result of human mistake. Rather than our Churches getting into such subjective, legalistic investigations, they followed a more direct path of granting or recognizing the dissolving of marriages to innocent parties. If this basis has been abused, it can be reformed without adopting your Chruch's legal gymnastics.

Finally, as far as your mantra about "God hating divorce" (of which I was one of the first to quote), Christ also said "Be perfect." Are you telling us that you, Zoe, are perfect? You must be if you insist that everything God said be followed to the tee. Yes He said it and the Eastern Churches echo this as a warning to all those who get married. But this does not mean what you are trying so hard to imply. God hates all sin. Are you saying that if we sin we have forfeited the Gospel as well? I know legalism is a card that gets played too often among Oriental Christians but this time your entire approach perfectly fits the bill. I say, if the shoes fit, wear 'em.

Other than that, I've enjoyed your posts on this thread. Keep up the good work and we're going to get you that gremlim you've been begging for. By the way, what part of Carolina are you from? I've relitives in Graham, Burlington and I think Lincolnton.

your brother trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

How many annulments are appealed to the Roman Rota?

What is an excessive number of annulments? If a marriage is null it is null. Given the status of our society it should not be surprising we have so many annulments. I believe quite a few people have faulty consent. Regarding the 95% overturn on appeal, one I would like to see the a citation or reference for this, two even if true it still means nothing. The only thing that can be deduced from this statistic is that only proper cases are accepted for appeal. How many declarations of nullity are appealed and under what circumstances? How do you or anyone else know that the number is excessive? Have you investigated the cases? If there are tribunal members saying they are giving them no matter what, sure that is an abuse, but simple numbers don't prove anything.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Dear Zoe,

And for the umpteenth time - I forgive you for you know not what you speak.

I'm not approving of divorce at all and I'm not making a comment on the Orthodox practice - it has no bearing on the lives of Eastern Catholics in any event.

I'm merely saying that what you call an abuse is an approved practice of the RC Church in the U.S. and elsewhere.

You CANNOT sit in judgement on your own bishops - you don't have the authority.

If you don't like the thousands of Catholic divorces, er, sorry, "Annulments" that are granted each year and call them an abuse - why do you remain with the Catholic Church?

As Mor Ephrem said, how many annulments are referred to the Rota in Rome?

If a Catholic received an annulment so he or she could remarry in the Church - why would they want to refer the decision to Rome? And I don't think the bishops who granted the annulment would then go to Rome and say, "But really, were we right in doing this?"

My point is that quoting copious Patristic texts from traditional Latin apologetic websites isn't the whole story for Catholicism on this or any other issue.

The actual praxis of the Church MUST, I repeat, MUST be included as well.

And so if you think your Church in the U.S. is heretical, then YOU, my dear, should take it up with the Rota.

Have a nice day, though

Alex

Better yet, why don't you show me the scores of ECFs who supposedly claim it's OK for validly married parties to NOT only divorce BUT remarry? That is the crux of the question--which you keep studiously avoiding for some reason. (I can't imagine why! )

And why don't both you and Alex stop the insults, which are a sure sign that you're well aware of the shallowness and weakness of your arguments?

If you were more confident of your positions, you wouldn't have to resort to such stuff.

Blessings,

ZT

Dear ZT:

I suspect that the lack of Christian charity in your own posts is what fuels a lack of charity in the posts of those who respond to you. If you were really confident of your own positions you would not be so rude towards others.

The primary rule of The Byzantine Forum is charity. Those who do not display charity in their posts will forfeit their posting privileges. Please contact me via pm before posting again.

Admin