A Catholic's argument against the Orthodox position on divorce

In real practice, however, annulments are issued as freely in Romanism as divorces are in the Church. There is nothing different in actuality, only in the words used to articulate the reasons that the Romans and the Church allow remarriage after failed marriages. My wife's sisters husband left her after over ten years because he developed romantic feelings for a female co-worker. His adultery earned him an annulment and remarriage in the West. Go figure.

Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline.

Click to expand...

This assertion is incorrect. Whether a member of the Roman Church accepts the authority of the Canons of the Council of Trullo, they still bear witness to the consensus of the East and the Papal representatives who were present. The Canon also fits with St. Basil's statements on the matter and Pope Gregory's direction to St. Boniface:

Canon 87
She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holyand divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: If a woman has become another man's, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled; and again, He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious. If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be weepers for a year, hearers for two years, prostrators for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation [if with tears they do penance].

Click to expand...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/boniface-letters.asp

14 Pope Gregory II Replies to Questions Put by Boniface (22 November 726)

Gregory, the servant of the servants of God, to Boniface, our most holy brother and colleague in the episcopate.

Your devout messenger Denual has brought us the welcome news that you are well and that, by the help of God, you are making progress in the work for which you were sent. He also delivered to us letters from you reporting that the field of the Lord which had long lain fallow and was overgrown with the [81] weeds of pagan customs has now been ploughed up and sown with the truth of the Gospel, producing an abundant harvest of souls.

in the same report you included a number of questions concerning the faith and teaching of the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church. This is a commendable practice, for here St. Peter the Apostle held his see and the episcopate had its beginning. And since you seek our advice on matters dealing with ecclesiastical discipline, we will state with all the authority of apostolic tradition what you must hold, though we speak not from our own insufficiency but relying on the grace of Him who opens the mouths of the dumb and makes eloquent the tongues of babes.

Your first question is: Within what degrees can marriage be solemnized? Our answer is that if the parties know themselves to be related by blood they should not marry; but since moderation weighs more with these savage people than strict legal duties, they should be allowed to marry after the fourth degree of consanguinity.

As to what a man shall do if his wife is unable through illness to allow him his marital rights, it would be better if he remained apart and practised continence. But since this is practicable only in the case of men of high ideals, the best course if he is unable to be continent would be for him to marry.[[1]]. Nevertheless, he should continue to support the woman who is sick, unless she has contracted the disease through her own fault.

If this is the level of scholarship within the RC church it leaves alot to be desired. Does the author of the original link explain why all the earliest cases of annullments in the west were reserved for royalty? And after that all references from the 12th century on deal with anulling marriages who were in the forbidden degreees of consanguinity.

I wonder how surprised will roman catholics be to find out that annullments never existed before the Carolingian Dynasty. King Lothair II possibly the earliest recorded case of an anullment needed to rid his wife who was sterile in order to marry his mistress who fathered him children. Without an anullment and a subsequent marriage to the mistress all his children were illegitimate and disqualified them as heirs to his throne.

The Orthodox position has always been the teaching of the Church. Even St. Hippolytus makes mention of it when he criticised the pope of his day for having ordained as clergy, laymen who were "twice and thrice married". In other word in 195 Ad there were laity in good standing having remarried twice and even thrice, but this would certainly disqualify them from holy orders.

And in the last thread, buzuxi brought up specific examples from the Fathers allowing for divorce in a case by case scenario. Just another example of Rome using poor history to defend their legalism.

And he said we have no see of Peter, I guess aside from Antioch......