Catholics and Orthodox on marriage, the differences

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, it would be a true marriage.

This surprises me, actually.... Are there any circumstances under which the Church would "annul" or recognize that a marriage had not truly taken place? Perhaps a better way to put it is, does the Church believe there any impediments to marriage in which cases a marriage would truly occur, even if the people went through the motions of receiving the sacrament?

What I meant was, if someone were coerced into taking the Eucharist, would that make it NOT the Body and Blood?

The man and the woman are an essential part of the sacrament of marriage, the uniting of the two, so the consent and the capability for the two persons to be able to enter into that union seems, from my perspective, a relevant factor - a factor which is not present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, when one receives the Eucharist, he receives what is the Body and Blood of Christ before and independent of whether he takes it, and his consent is not relevant - but, there is no "sacrament of marriage" separate from the uniting of the spouses themselves in the way the Eucharist exists separate from an individual receiving it, so it is a rather different situation.
Another comparison might be confession. If I go to confession, but deliberately withhold my sins or am deliberately not repentant (in my own heart - presumably if I revealed this to a priest he would not absolve me), the sacrament is "invalid," or at least it certainly does not have it's proper effect on me. In the same way, there may be certain conditions which would render two people from truly entering into a marriage/receiving the sacrament, even if they went through the motions of doing so.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Generally speaking, I have to agree with Matt. Assuming we are not talking about a non-priest posing as a priest or some such, a sacrament is sacred. And it's not going through the motions itself that is sacred; the sacrament itself is mystical, not mechanical. Yes, we may eat and drink the Body and Blood to our damnation. We may profane the sacrament by saying "Yes" with our lips and "No" in our hearts. But it's still a sacrament. Our profanation may lead to our personal judgement or condemnation - if a man knowingly has a second wife, for instance, but the sacrament has been performed. If he has profaned the sacrament, and she has not, and they have joined in conjugal union, then the sacrament has happened, and she is blameless and he stands condemned before God. Saying that the sacrament didn't happen, when she has been used, children born, etc, adds up to human condemnation of the innocent. Whatever the state does in terms of divorce or secular annulment of marriage is whatever people do in reaction to a wrong. But to say the sacrament didn't happen is to punish the wrong people.
My two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, we would agree that not going through it properly would have an adverse affect on the soul, but where I would ask where it says anywhere that any sacrament can be annulled?

I don't know where it says this...
However, I'm assuming that the Orthodox Church holds that there are necessary conditions for each sacrament (even if she doesn't necessarily get as detailed and legalistic about it as the RCC does). To go back to my first example, in the case of a convert who was previously "baptized" without proper form or into a denomination that has a severely distorted understanding of the Trinity, the RCC "rebaptizes" the person - my understanding is that under certain circumstances of this sort, the EOC does so as well (please correct me if I'm mistaken here). Obviously, nobody really talks about "annulments" of baptism, but it seems to me to be the same basic principle - i.e., there is the recognition that a baptism never really took place. From my perspective, there seems to at least be obvious potential cases where, despite a marriage ceremony having taken place, marriage did not truly occur. As such, to speak of "annulling the sacrament" may be somewhat misleading since, properly speaking, no sacrament took place to begin with...

Generally speaking, I have to agree with Matt. Assuming we are not talking about a non-priest posing as a priest or some such, a sacrament is sacred. And it's not going through the motions itself that is sacred; the sacrament itself is mystical, not mechanical. Yes, we may eat and drink the Body and Blood to our damnation. We may profane the sacrament by saying "Yes" with our lips and "No" in our hearts. But it's still a sacrament.

I think, for the most part, that I'm strongly inclined to agree with y'all on this point. However, I still find it very hard to accept the idea that a marriage takes place under any and all circumstances in which a man and woman stand before a priest while he performs the actions of the sacrament - even though one is not of a mental state to consent to what is going on, or there are serious impediments to their being joined (existing prior marriages, as in your example, or familial relationship), or one is acting under a state of coercion... In certain ways that actually seems to me to make the sacrament mechanical (in ways opposite to how the RCC's approach to annulments arguably makes it mechanical...).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't know where it says this...
However, I'm assuming that the Orthodox Church holds that there are necessary conditions for each sacrament (even if she doesn't necessarily get as detailed and legalistic about it as the RCC does). To go back to my first example, in the case of a convert who was previously "baptized" without proper form or into a denomination that has a severely distorted understanding of the Trinity, the RCC "rebaptizes" the person - my understanding is that under certain circumstances of this sort, the EOC does so as well (please correct me if I'm mistaken here). Obviously, nobody really talks about "annulments" of baptism, but it seems to me to be the same basic principle - i.e., there is the recognition that a baptism never really took place.
Sacraments can only be properly understood as happening within the Church. While the Orthodox Church may well accept the form of some baptisms performed outside the Church, it doesn't follow that we believe the sacrament has actually taken place. That is why some are received through Chrysmation, whereby the empty form of their former baptism is filled with grace through the Church. That is how I was received.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The problem Miles, is that your baptism example is about one that happened outside of the Church. The RC idea of annulments is concerning something within the Roman confession.

So we are not talking about filling what might be lacking outside of Orthodoxy, we are saying that a sacrament that happens within did not really occur.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sacraments can only be properly understood as happening within the Church. While the Orthodox Church may well accept the form of some baptisms performed outside the Church, it doesn't follow that we believe the sacrament has actually taken place. That is why some are received through Chrysmation, whereby the empty form of their former baptism is filled with grace through the Church. That is how I was received.


The problem Miles, is that your baptism example is about one that happened outside of the Church. The RC idea of annulments is concerning something within the Roman confession.

So we are not talking about filling what might be lacking outside of Orthodoxy, we are saying that a sacrament that happens within did not really occur.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood the Orthodox view to be like that of the RCC (i.e., that the sacrament of baptism can take place outside of the Church) - my mistake. Thanks for explaining.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Ah, okay. I misunderstood the Orthodox view to be like that of the RCC (i.e., that the sacrament of baptism can take place outside of the Church) - my mistake. Thanks for explaining.

is no problem. so I will just restate because I think it is important, are there any other sacraments within the RCC that can be annulled after the fact?
 
Upvote 0

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
is no problem. so I will just restate because I think it is important, are there any other sacraments within the RCC that can be annulled after the fact?

Yes (although the word "annul" isn't used), in the sense that they might be recognized to have been invalid (which is to say, not truly the sacrament). I have heard of a case in which people had to be rebaptized when it was discovered that the priest (within the Catholic Church) had been using an improper formula ("In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifyer," in the example I'm thinking of), and I suppose this could happen with any of the sacraments.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes (although the word "annul" isn't used), in the sense that they might be recognized to have been invalid (which is to say, not truly the sacrament). I have heard of a case in which people had to be rebaptized when it was discovered that the priest (within the Catholic Church) had been using an improper formula ("In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifyer," in the example I'm thinking of), and I suppose this could happen with any of the sacraments.
Are there any cases where a sacrament can be "annulled" (for a lack of a better word) in which the formula of the sacrament was correct?
 
Upvote 0

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are there any cases where a sacrament can be "annulled" (for a lack of a better word) in which the formula of the sacrament was correct?

(I suppose I really probably should avoid using the word "annul" outside of the case of matrimony since that isn't the terminology used and I don't want to cause confusion...) But, yes, there are other reasons why a sacrament may not be valid - improper matter, such as if someone used something than wheat bread or grape wine for the Eucharist or something besides water for baptism; as I mentioned before, obviously absolution would not have its proper effect if a person was deliberately withholding sins or wasn't contrite (though I'm not positive if that's considered an invalid sacrament so much as a misuse of the sacrament like receiving communion in a state of mortal sin); or there are the examples I've mentioned in the case of marriage itself, such as lack of free consent, improper intention on the part of the spouses entering the marriage (I think this is one where the whole thing starts to get really shady, at least in current practice....), or an already existing marriage and a number of other impediments for which reason they are not free or able to enter into marriage (I don't know enough about canon law and sacramental theology to say in detail what other situations would and wouldn't be an impediment of that sort) - these aren't matters of improper form, but I actually don't know what they would be described as.
 
Upvote 0

E.C.

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2007
13,746
1,267
✟134,199.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Until fairly recently in world history weren't most marriages coerced in that they were arranged by the parents? The idea of marrying for love is a fairly recent development.
It depends largely on the culture, but for the most part yes.

In mid 20th century Palestinian culture let's say you're a man who is interested in a lady. You tell your mother and she talks to her mother. They talk and decide that your two personalities would work well. The mothers talk to their husbands, and if the parents are in agreement than the two families get together for a meal (since this is Palestinians we're talking about it's a big feast) and introduce you to the lady. The two of you talk. The feast is over and everyone goes home. You tell your parents what you thought. She tells her parents what she thought. The two mothers talk. The parents conspire on whether there can be an engagement. If yes, you may meet with the girl at her house for tea or a meal in the company of one of her male relatives. That is a date. You may have several such dates. Things go well and the two of you decide to get married. Your parents discuss if it may happen or not. They say yes and in due time you are now happily married.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
(I suppose I really probably should avoid using the word "annul" outside of the case of matrimony since that isn't the terminology used and I don't want to cause confusion...) But, yes, there are other reasons why a sacrament may not be valid - improper matter, such as if someone used something than wheat bread or grape wine for the Eucharist or something besides water for baptism; as I mentioned before, obviously absolution would not have its proper effect if a person was deliberately withholding sins or wasn't contrite (though I'm not positive if that's considered an invalid sacrament so much as a misuse of the sacrament like receiving communion in a state of mortal sin); or there are the examples I've mentioned in the case of marriage itself, such as lack of free consent, improper intention on the part of the spouses entering the marriage (I think this is one where the whole thing starts to get really shady, at least in current practice....), or an already existing marriage and a number of other impediments for which reason they are not free or able to enter into marriage (I don't know enough about canon law and sacramental theology to say in detail what other situations would and wouldn't be an impediment of that sort) - these aren't matters of improper form, but I actually don't know what they would be described as.
Ok. So basically, the other times a sacrament is invalid are due to something not being done properly?

That's the confusing part to me about annulments. It seems to be a unique scenario in the Catholic Church (from an outside perspective). Even confession is still a valid sacrament even if they do not fully have the proper effect due to a lack of a contrite heart, etc. That is one of the reasons that we believe the sacrament occurred, and cannot be annulled as if it never happened. Granted, please take this as an observation from someone who isn't overly familiar with the various nuances of Catholicism. :)

From our perspective, if the sacrament was performed in the church in the proper form and manner, it is a valid sacrament. It may be illicit, such as in the case of confession with someone who is not contrite. It does not have the same effect - but it is still a valid sacrament.

The same thing occurs with the Eucharist. If a person does not come prepared and repentant to the chalice, it does not invalidate the sacrament; rather, the sacrament is detrimental to the insincere communicant rather than beneficial.

Please let me know if my wording of this is not clear :)


EDIT: There are some cases in which some Orthodox jurisdictions grant ecclesiastical divorce. I believe (though this is an assumption) that a forced marriage or an already existing marriage would be acceptable reasons for this to be granted. That said, we believe the sacrament still occurred. Also, the priest (I believe) must verify before a marriage that something like that does not occur.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
One finds out after the wedding that the other is gay, transgender, or a pedophile?

No, not per se. I mean a case "where one or both of the spouses did not intend to embrace all the goods of marriage: permanence, exclusivity or openness to children, for example," to quote this article http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-catholic-divorce-grounds-and-obstacles-to-annulments/ The section "Grounds for Nullity" addresses this - though what I have been referring to as a matter of intent they include as a matter of consent.
"There’s plenty of people out there who believe in divorce, but they say, ‘Oh, but that’s not going to happen to us.’ Well, that’s presumably a valid marriage with valid consent,” he said. “But if somebody says, ‘I believe in divorce and in terminating this marriage if it comes to that,’ well, that casts some serious doubts on the consent."
 
Upvote 0

MilesVitae

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2012
473
61
Massachusetts, New England
✟9,880.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ok. So basically, the other times a sacrament is invalid are due to something not being done properly?

Well, no, not necessarily - we do distinguish between validity and liceity. A sacrament could be celebrated in an illicit manner, in some way it is not supposed to be done, but still be valid. When it comes to validity I usually hear about valid form and matter - but it's not exactly a field of expertise for me, and I'm not able to articulate in full detail the RCC's understanding of validity vis a vis marriage.

That's the confusing part to me about annulments. It seems to be a unique scenario in the Catholic Church (from an outside perspective). Even confession is still a valid sacrament even if they do not fully have the proper effect due to a lack of a contrite heart, etc. That is one of the reasons that we believe the sacrament occurred, and cannot be annulled as if it never happened. Granted, please take this as an observation from someone who isn't overly familiar with the various nuances of Catholicism. :)

From our perspective, if the sacrament was performed in the church in the proper form and manner, it is a valid sacrament. It may be illicit, such as in the case of confession with someone who is not contrite. It does not have the same effect - but it is still a valid sacrament.

The same thing occurs with the Eucharist. If a person does not come prepared and repentant to the chalice, it does not invalidate the sacrament; rather, the sacrament is detrimental to the insincere communicant rather than beneficial.

Please let me know if my wording of this is not clear :)

No, I think understand, thanks :)


EDIT: There are some cases in which some Orthodox jurisdictions grant ecclesiastical divorce. I believe (though this is an assumption) that a forced marriage or an already existing marriage would be acceptable reasons for this to be granted. That said, we believe the sacrament still occurred. Also, the priest (I believe) must verify before a marriage that something like that does not occur.

Interesting. In such a case, do you know if the (innocent) spouses would then be free to remarry?
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes (although the word "annul" isn't used), in the sense that they might be recognized to have been invalid (which is to say, not truly the sacrament). I have heard of a case in which people had to be rebaptized when it was discovered that the priest (within the Catholic Church) had been using an improper formula ("In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifyer," in the example I'm thinking of), and I suppose this could happen with any of the sacraments.

but then what happens if that is found after the person has been communing? how can one who is communing with the resurrected Lord die with Him after that?

not trying to put you on the spot, but trying to show where it seems the legalism breaks down and trying to gain an understanding
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps if the marriage was never consummated one can say it can be annulled. After all, from scripture to the Father's to wedding service itself, we speak of the two becoming one flesh, that it's impermissible to put away a wife whose virginity you took away, etc. So if for some reason the procreate act never took place maybe an argument can be made.

In Orthodoxy the sacrament still takes place. An apostate can still come back to the faith and will never be rebaptised or re-chrismated, we don't say the chrismation never took place at that time. It up to the couple to cultivate the grace given but it's there for the taking. St Paul told Timothy to stir up the gift within him. Don't allow it to lie dormant or to flee. But the seal is there. St John Chrysostom speaks of the Christian mystery of marriage before an elaborate service was written. He gave instruction on how it should differ from their pagan counterparts otherwise it wouldn't be much of a benefit. Basically that's the problem we have today.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, not per se. I mean a case "where one or both of the spouses did not intend to embrace all the goods of marriage: permanence, exclusivity or openness to children, for example," to quote this article http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-catholic-divorce-grounds-and-obstacles-to-annulments/ The section "Grounds for Nullity" addresses this - though what I have been referring to as a matter of intent they include as a matter of consent.
Thank you for answering my question.
 
Upvote 0