www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Annulment of marriage in the East?

Christ is risen!
Truly he is risen!

Dear all,

Is there a concept of "annulment of marriage" in the Orthodox Church? I understand that Orthodoxy allows divorce, but is there any concept that a divorce can only be given if the marriage really wasn't valid to begin with? Thanks.

A sinner,

Adam

Ooooh this is going to get heated!!

I'll let the Easterners put their word in and support ecclesiastical divorces, etc...I really am not in the mood for this kind of debate!

So have at it, my Eastern brethren!

Logos Teen

Dear Adam,

Unlike some modern Catholic practices, (and I hope I'm not being condescending ) Orthodoxy doesn't pretend to "annul" marriages on the basis of psychological reports that the couple in question should never have been friends, let alone marriage partners . . .

The Orthodox Church will grant a dissolution of marriage on a case by case situation, under specific circumstances.

"Annulment" means the marriage never existed. And how can anyone really determine that absolutely?

"Divorce" is a later Protestant idea . . .

Marriage is a sacramental bond in Orthodoxy, if I'm not mistaken, but it can be dissolved.

For example, in both East and West, when a married person should receive monastic tonsure, that "dissolves" the marriage bond.

This was how western and eastern kings and emperors got rid of unwanted wives.

And from this arose the term "Get thee to a nunnery" which means "I want this marriage dissolved."

Alex

Christ is risen!
Truly he is risen!

Dear Alex,


After I posted my question here, I went searching for past posts dealing with "annulment" in the Eastern Church. I know, I know, I should have searched first .

Anyway, I found a really neat post from 2001, that spoke of the marriage being an eternal sacramental bond in the East that can never be dissolved. This is similar to the other sacraments. For example once we are baptized we are eternally God's children, in chrismation we are eternally prophet, priest, and king with Jesus, in Holy Confession sins are forgiven eternally, the grace we have received in Holy Eucharist is forever ours, the grace we receive in the Anointing of the Sick is forever ours, one who receives the sacrament of Holy Orders is forever a priest, and lastly one who is married is forever married.

Obviously, while we cannot remove the sacramental character of the sacraments (which are done in "time and eternity" “kairos” in the Greek, and not "time" alone ) we can through our own sin and disobedience remove ourselves from the grace these sacraments offer up. Only God could remove the sacramental seal that the sacraments eternally place on our souls, and God will never do that. Many of God's children through baptism and chrismation will never enjoy eternity and deification in the kingdom of God. They still have the grace of the sacraments they have received in a state of grace, although it does them no good for they didn't cooperate with the Holy Spirit in "enduring to the end."

Let us view the Eastern view of a "dissolution" of a sacramental marriage as the Western practice of the laicization of men in the priesthood and diaconate. In both cases (marriage and priesthood) the sacramental bond isn't erased. Although, the person(s) are relieved from the bonds of their sacrament without the sacrament being erased.

The priest while laicized from his office in the West, and allowed to be married is still "forever a priest." In the East the married couple may be released from their marriage bonds and allowed to be remarried (not re-crowned), if being with the spouse is no longer possible (e.g. homosexuality of one's spouse, disappearance, utter loss of faith, etc.) "economical bigamy" to use the term of the early church. In any case, the sacramental marriage bond remains between the couple who were crowned as eternally husband and wife. Just like other sacraments, Holy Matrimony is eternal but the couples may never get the benefit of it. These insights can be found in Fr. Joseph Raya's book, “Crowning: The Christian Marriage.”

I don't see the possibility of a "dissolution" of a marriage within Holy Orthodoxy. I see the allowance of "civil divorces" and release from the bonds and duties of Holy Matrimony, but never the end of the eternal sacramental marriage. Many emperors and kings may have wanted to dissolve the marriage by sending the wife to a nunnery, but like I said only God can dissolve a sacrament, and traditionally the Orthodox Church never dissolved any valid sacrament, including Holy Matrimony.

I don't see a doctrinal disagreement between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy on the point of divorce/annulment. Both churches agree that any valid sacramental marriage is indissoluble. The difference lies in the disciplinary manner in which the particular churches handle marriages which do not work. Whereas, Roman Catholicism "annuls" the marriage, Orthodoxy releases the participants from their marital duties and bonds, like Roman Catholicism does with priests without removing the sacramental bond of the sacrament. These differences stem from different understandings of the eternal aspect of the sacrament of marriage. I believe the Orthodox Catholic East holds the more ancient, apostolic, and scriptural understanding of Holy Matrimony. But it is no reason for me to leave Roman Catholicism for the East . . . yet . Have a nice day!

A sinner,

Adam

Dear Adam,

Monastic tonsure does indeed dissolve the marriage bond - and any other bonds, agreements, commitments of the past.

In terms of marriage being an enduring, eternal thing - I certainly believe that, but I doubt if it is something that is doctrinally binding.

The RC Church, for example, would NEVER allow for a second marriage for people who were validly married for the very reason you give with respect to marriage.

When the RC church issues an annulment, it is saying that the marriage in question "never took place" and so it is not a marriage.

My point is that in the American Catholic Church today where thousands of annulments are granted yearly and this on the basis of psychological reports - isn't the RC Church here being a tad hypocritical with respect to its own traditional stance on marriage and annulment?

And doesn't the Pope agree with me?

I remember reading the biography of a Russian Orthodox priest who was married with children.

His presbytera took up with another man and left him.

In the end, she contracted a civil divorce. The priest entered the monastic state - and that was that.

If those two, in the afterlife, will have some sort of "bond" - I don't think the priest who died a martyred saint will worry about it.

His great bond is with Christ and the Holy Trinity in the Communion of Saints!

Alex

Adam,

Nicely stated!

Martin

Dear Martin,

But idealistically and somewhat naively . . .

Alex

Adam wrote: "I believe the Orthodox Catholic East holds the more ancient, apostolic, and scriptural understanding of Holy Matrimony." It would seem so.

I have always felt somewhat uncomfortable about the Roman Catholic concept of annulment, and have worried about whether it is hypocritical....

HOWEVER, having said that, as one who has benefited from having received an annulment, my attitude has been, "the Church by its power and in its mercy has seen fit to declare my first marriage as not being valid sacramentally," which has permitted me to enter into a sacramental union with my current spouse (who had not previously been married). (Point of clarification: the Roman Church does not say that a marriage never existed, but rather that a SACRAMENTAL marriage never existed.)

Those in the Church who have seen fit to declare my first marriage as sacramentally invalid will have to answer to the Lord when they face him (may He be merciful).

Yes, Alex, "How may one with certaintude determine the criteria by which a marriage can be considered invalid from a sacramental standpoint?" Something I have pondered at length.

Also--doesn't the concept of the marriage bond lasting through eternity fly in the face of Jesus's words that, in heaven, the children of God do not take and are not taken in marriage? Just a question.

Martin

The real issue here is can those who are divorced marry (again) in the Church?

The Catholic answer is "no", unless the prior "marriage" is "annulled", meaning that it never really existed in a fully sacramental sense. If you have an un-anulled first marriage but are civilly divorced, you cannot remarry in the Catholic Church.

In the Orthodox Church the answer is "yes", provided that one has done the required penance/epitimia. Orthodox views the breakdown of marriages not as an indication of a lack of sacramental grace, but rather as a result of the sins of the parties to the marriage. Therefore the end of such a marriage does not mean that the prior marriage never existed, or that it never had sacramental grace -- it simply is an act of economia/discipline in permitting those who are divorced and have repented of their sin to remarry in the Church.


Brendan

Christ is risen!
Truly he is risen!

Dear Alex,

Yes, monastic tonsure would break all bonds of a marriage. All I was trying to say was that monastic tonsure doesn't destroy the "sacramental" bond of a marriage. We know that widows/widowers often don monastic tonsure after the death of their spouse. The eternal sacramental bond isn't destroyed by this, as you know. Monastic tonsure would relieve someone from the obligations of a marriage as the Church does when she allows married couples to "remarry." I think we agree. Sorry for not expressing myself better the first time .

A sinner,

Adam

Brendan,

I do think that I prefer the Orthodox theological perspective on this.

However, the Roman Church does judge that other sacraments (I'm guessing ALL sacraments) can be invalid if certain criteria are not met, even if they appear to have been validly administered.

Do the Orthodox churches share a similar view on the validity/invalidity of other sacraments?

Martin

Although I'm not a canon lawyer, I believe the rationale behind annuling a marriage in the Roman Church runs something like this: One or both of the parties were not properly predisposed to enter into a sacramental union, due to (fill in the blank). (I think it's the "fill in the blank" that Alex has a problem with!) (Come to think of it, are ANY parties in American/Western society predisposed to enter into a sacramental union?)

I'm guessing this perspective has a lot to do with the Roman Rite's theology on marriage; i.e., that the spouses are the actual ministers of the sacrament, as opposed to the priest crowning the couple in the Byzantine Rite.

(I bet you can guess that I know next to nothing about the theology of the sacrament of marriage--which is kind of scary, considering that I am a minister of the sacrament according to the canons of my Church!)

Martin

Martin --

No, Orthodox generally don't use external criteria to determine "validity" -- rather we look to the "internal" issue of whether the sacrament was performed in the Church as the critical indicator of whether it is recognized, as such, as being definitely grace-filled. It's possible that this difference in thinking has lent a different approach to the same pastoral problem in the Catholic Church as compared with the Orthodox Church.

Still, if the Catholic approach is based on the idea that the spouses are the respective ministers of the sacrament, it still strikes me as odd that an imperfection in their intention could invalidate the sacrament itself. Does the priest's intention matter, by comparison, when he is confecting the Eucharist? Not to undulyt critique, but it just strikes me as odd, that's all.

Brendan

Brendan,

Good point. I wonder if, in the Roman Church, a priest or deacon's ordination has been invalidated after the fact due to some previously unrevealed defect in the person ordained. I would think that such a thing would be rare or nonexistent.

Martin

Dear Brothers in Christ's Light,

A few points I'd like to add to the above discussion. As far as intention goes, in the Latin Church a priest must intend the bread and wine to change into the Body and Blood of Christ (whether he believes it or not doesn't effect the validity, according to them). The same goes for Baptism, Confirmation, Ordination, etc. As long as the priest/bishop(s) intend(s) to do what the Church has the power to do, it is valid.

So this is probably why they teach what they do on marriage. Since, in the Latin Church, husband and wife give the Sacrament to one another, their intentions must be proper. Whether I hold to this view or not, I think it is at least a consistent and justifiable approach (like most things the Latin Church teaches).

In contrast, for those who might be interested, I have copied an article onto my web-site by Greek Catholic Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby on this very issue. Its titled "Is Ecclesiastical Divorce Orthodox?" I'd be interested in hearing anyone's impression of Kyr Elias' article at the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]