Catholics and Orthodox on marriage, the differences

[Anhelyna]

Grounds for Annulment in the EC Church , as far as I know are the same as for the RC Church - certainly in the UK we do not have a marriage tribunal in the Eparchy - it's always handled by the Tribunals in the RC Dioceses.

 

[truefiction1]

Do any of you know of people in your parish that are divorced? I can only think of one in our parish, and his wife left him because of his faith.

It seems very unusual to hear about divorces occurring for anything other than really serious issues.

I know of some for sure. In retrospect I can clearly see, as an old man now, how absurdly terrible it is that these marriages failed and were ended by divorce. Lord have mercy.

 

[truefiction1]

A dear friend, who is Orthodox, just had her husband leave her for another woman. He was also Orthodox, but she says he has now left the Christian faith all together. I am just heart broken for her.

This happened to a female family member of mine also. Her Husband was granted an annulment of his first (Orthodox) ten+ year marriage by a Roman cleric, and went on to marry the woman he'd left his first wife for. I've learned from many weaknesses of my own that A couple must not fail in doing the hard work of staying with one another as they each learn how to overcome their deep personal woundedness. This is precisely the process by which the man and woman become one flesh. What this requires is an unshakeable resolve of complete faithfulness to one's matrimonial union. This shouldn't be confused with masochistic submission to the weaknesses of one's partner. Rather, it is a firm resolve in Love to do whatever it takes to assure that mutual healing and growth occur in this relationship that is above all relationships.

 

[LizaMarie]

This is an issue that I have been interested and struggled with for the past few years.
I have been married for 23 years and have two wonderful sons. This is my one and probably only marriage.
My husband (formally a Baptist) was married before and had grown children by the time we married. His first wife left him but he takes 50% of the blame. He had been divorced 2 years by the time we met and later married.(Both Baptists)
My dh was not attending church at the time we met but was interested in going back to church(Lutheran) with me.
We became involved in the pro-life, profamily movement and really started investigating RCC due to my own personal study on Apostolic succession, and their strong seamless prolife, profamily stance. Ironically I admired ,and still do, their stand on taking marriage seriously. It occurred to me that I (and my husband) could be living in adultery if we continue relations or in some cases even live together. I also had read some strict Evangelical fundamentalist pastors positions that said they refuse to marry anyone whose former spouse is still living.
When I married my husband, the confessional Lutheran churches(to which we belong) allow divorce and remarriage(for the abandoned party) in the case of: Adultery, or malicious desertion by an unbeliever(both point to scripture for support) However they also remarry the the one that left the marriage if sincere repentance and contrition is done.
Most liberal mainline churches will remarry divorces likely no problem.
The RCC requires the annulment process. In some ways I have to admit the annulment process seems the most fair as it takes to account what happened with both spouses. I mean a guy could say, "well my wife left me" but she may have had a valid reason for leaving! Like abuse, whatever(Not in my dh's case!) On the other hand, I really am super-intimidated by the idea of going back to 1972 for my husband, digging up records, baptismal records,locating witnesses, getting everyone all stirred up, ect. I am not bashing the annullment process. I realize we must taking divorce and the fact that Jesus said what God has joined together let no man separate seriously and we have not.

I actually found a 3rd group of Protestant churches that will not remarry anyone whose former spouse is still living.
One prominent Baptist pastor with that position is John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist church. He has an 11 point position paper online as to why the early Christians and the Bible always refused remarriage after divorce as long as one's former spouse is still living, however he will accept remarried/divorced into his church and considers them forgiven as long as they have sincere repentance, and their ongoing relations would not be considered adulterous. He also advises against separating and living singly to avoid adultery, as he says" A Union was formed and promises were made. It should not have been formed, but it was, and so God honors that promise and they should not separate, especially if there are young children." so they can join the church and be forgiven, but he will not marry them. So it is a past sin to be forgiven and repented of, if being baptized as a new believer.
As a poster above said, their current marriage in his church would be considered the final marriage, no remarriage after that.
If I knew 25 years ago what I know now, I would have possibly not married a divorced person. That makes me very sad to say, as I love my husband and sons.
Jesus Said "I hate divorce." The easy state of divorce today has ripped apart this country and has been one of the rotten fruits of the sexual revolution. Jesus was likely speaking to the loose state of divorce and remarriage in his time, as well both among the Gentiles and the Jews. It sure applies now!
The EO position in some ways seems to be the best one, but I also realize that there are those who say that any(Church) remarriage after divorce contradicts the Scriptures and has only contributed to the current state of our society.
There are also those who say that Christian loosening in that area has also cracked open the door to things like same sex marriage and cohabitation. I can't dispute that.
I don't know what the answer is, I really don't.
A RCC friend of ours has given us a number to call and a priest to speak to get the annullment process started but I'm balking because now I not sure I even want to be RCC anymore . Plus dh is not at all happy with, well, living like brother and sister for a couple of years.

 

[buzuxi02]

We all agree that divorce/ annullments are a travesty. What we have not discussed is how the bishops are not looking into the future to stop the inevitable.
That is they have not anticipated how more Orthodox are opting for civil marriages and living together first. They have not anticipated that most in the diaspora have no problem marrying non christians (think Telly Savalas, or Dukakis or Jamie Dimon etc) and could care less what the church says, infact the church bends to their will and looks the other way. What they have not anticipated and is coming our way is the secular laxed laity who will challenge the three marriage rule as inhumane and against the western values that they believe Christ was born for. All these synods know its coming yet they dont nip it in the bud starting yesterday.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do any of you know of people in your parish that are divorced? I can only think of one in our parish, and his wife left him because of his faith.

It seems very unusual to hear about divorces occurring for anything other than really serious issues.

yeah, I know of a few, but most were divorced before they came to the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A dear friend, who is Orthodox, just had her husband leave her for another woman. He was also Orthodox, but she says he has now left the Christian faith all together. I am just heart broken for her.

ugh, Lord have mercy!

 

[E.C.]

Unfortunately quite common among the newer generation of greeks.

Sometimes you gotta love Americanization

We all agree that divorce/ annullments are a travesty. What we have not discussed is how the bishops are not looking into the future to stop the inevitable.
That is they have not anticipated how more Orthodox are opting for civil marriages and living together first. They have not anticipated that most in the diaspora have no problem marrying non christians (think Telly Savalas, or Dukakis or Jamie Dimon etc) and could care less what the church says, infact the church bends to their will and looks the other way. What they have not anticipated and is coming our way is the secular laxed laity who will challenge the three marriage rule as inhumane and against the western values that they believe Christ was born for. All these synods know its coming yet they dont nip it in the bud starting yesterday.

It's difficult to preach about the sanctity of marriage and have it mean anything when the current generation, and Gen Xers, we're raised by free-loving hippies. Especially when one considers how much that ideology is constantly constantly glamorized. I like to believe that when the Baby Boomers finally lose their political power that the next will do better since we tend to try to emulate our grandparents (Greatest Generation) more than the Boomers.

Of course, if the Greeks, though really this applies to everyone, had encouraged their kids to be good Christians as much as they had to be doctors, bankers or lawyers than we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

We also live in a culture where sexual immorality is in our face almost 24/7. It comes oozing into our homes through the television set, the internet, and the radio. Then, we have parents who profess to be Christians, yet never (or only seldom) take their kids to church on Sunday because they're too busy working. Whatever happened to keeping the Sabbath holy?

 

[katherine2001]

Jesus said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).

You do allow divorce, it is just called an annulment, which pretends the couple was never married, even if it was a church wedding officiated by a priest. People who get an annulment (really a divorce) are allowed to remarry. I am sorry but if you are married by the church, you are married. Calling it an annulment doesn't change the fact that the marriage is being dissolved, which is what a divorce does.

 

[katherine2001]

When Orthodox marry, we know that a sacrament has occurred. When Latin Catholics marry, they can't be sure a sacrament has occurred, evidenced by the many marriages which have been annulled years, even decades later.

I agree. Unfortunately, annulments are allowed even when there are children born of the marriage. If there was never a marriage, the children are not legitimate. Also, I agree with you. I wonder what it is like to think you were married for years just to find out that they weren't. I guess that would mean that they have been guilty of fornication all those years they were living together and having sex outside marriage.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree. And again, the Eastern Catholics, who retain Eastern Orthodox-like marriage practices, don't have this sacramentology of the couple conferring the marriage upon one another as the Latins do, so it creates a weird situation for EC's looking for annulments. Didn't the priest at least mean to marry the two? Certainly it would be improper to accuse the priest of a 'malformed intention' or whatever excuse is usually given for granting annulments within the Roman Catholic Church. It's really odd, and has some disturbing implications.

 

[prodromos]

I agree. Unfortunately, annulments are allowed even when there are children born of the marriage. If there was never a marriage, the children are not legitimate.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the children are illegitimate, since in the eyes of the state their parents would have been married.

I am curious to know however, if the Catholic Church has limits on how many times a person can marry whether it be due to annulments or their having been widowed multiple times. I presume some sort of common sense prevails, but it would be interesting to see if there have been any pronouncements regarding this issue.

 

[MilesVitae]

You do allow divorce, it is just called an annulment, which pretends the couple was never married, even if it was a church wedding officiated by a priest. People who get an annulment (really a divorce) are allowed to remarry. I am sorry but if you are married by the church, you are married. Calling it an annulment doesn't change the fact that the marriage is being dissolved, which is what a divorce does.

I don't think the concept of annulments should be dismissed that easily. There are potential conditions at the time of the wedding which, it seems to me at least, are arguably impediments to the validity of the marriage. Obvious, if extreme and unusual, examples would be coercion, close familial relationship between the spouses, mental disturbance on the part of one of the spouses. In such cases, wouldn't an annulment be precisely what the RCC considers it to be, namely, the conclusion and recognition that the marriage never truly took place?
Obviously, though, there remains the question of what would truly count as such an impediment and whether most annulments in the RCC (in the States at least - I know of cases in which annulments have been appealed to and overturned by Rome) are based on good reasons....
And, of course, even if one were to grant that all the annulments were correct in terms of the RCC's various criteria for validity of the sacrament, outside of the kinds of obvious examples I mentioned above it would seem deeply problematic, destructive, and wrong to simply say "Okay, since, based on criteria which I never knew until now applied to my case, my marriage was not sacramentally valid, it's okay for me to leave my spouse of twenty years, whom I vowed to remain with for life, and with whom I've had 9 children - oh, and I can marry someone else now instead!" (sadly, a case I personally know....)

 

[rusmeister]

Hey, Miles, I appreciate your willingness to politely dialog, even if I think there is a gap between the extent of rightness I do see in your idea and the actual practice of the RCC.
If you keep this up, you'll eventually earn honorary membership in TAW...

 

[ArmyMatt]

In such cases, wouldn't an annulment be precisely what the RCC considers it to be, namely, the conclusion and recognition that the marriage never truly took place?

here is a question, would you ask that for any other sacrament?

 

[E.C.]

I am curious to know however, if the Catholic Church has limits on how many times a person can marry whether it be due to annulments or their having been widowed multiple times. I presume some sort of common sense prevails, but it would be interesting to see if there have been any pronouncements regarding this issue.

Annulment in the Roman Church is run out of the diocese and since dioceses don't talk to each other, except in the moving of priests, I imagine there may not be a limit much less an enforced one. After all how many times was Frank Sinatra married?

Annulment was a part of why my dad became Orthodox. The diocese was signing off annulments left and right, but through circumstances beyond his control it never made it beyond four priests in three different parishes in two separate dioceses.

 

[MilesVitae]

Hey, Miles, I appreciate your willingness to politely dialog, even if I think there is a gap between the extent of rightness I do see in your idea and the actual practice of the RCC.
If you keep this up, you'll eventually earn honorary membership in TAW...

Thank you =) You are a gentleman and scholar, sir.

 

[MilesVitae]

here is a question, would you ask that for any other sacrament?

Yes, I think so, unless I'm misunderstanding your question - although, there are, of course, factors present in the case of marriage not present with the other sacraments, so comparison may be a little difficult or flawed. In any case, an example might be baptism - both of our churches will rebaptize under certain circumstances, such as if "proper form" (not sure what y'all would call it) is lacking (i.e., baptism with some formula other than in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) or a sufficiently distorted understanding of the Trinity. Again, though, I'm not sure how good of a comparison this is, given the differences between the two sacraments...

If someone were coerced into marriage, would the Orthodox Church necessarily insist that it was a valid or true marriage to be treated in the same way as any normal marriage, or could it potentially recognize that, under the circumstances, a true marriage really did not take place at all?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, it would be a true marriage. What I meant was, if someone were coerced into taking the Eucharist, would that make it NOT the Body and Blood?