Orthodox View on Divorce?

[Nicene Pilgrim]

I'm a Traditional Catholic, though I was raised Novus Ordo, and I've become dissatisfied, and I'd say even disenfranchised from the Catholic Church. Most of my family isn't Catholic, and many of my friends are not as well. I've always debated with people about the Faith. Until recently, I entered these arguments with little knowledge of my own Church and with the certainty that what I believed had to be right, no matter what. Recently though, I've adopted the viewpoint that I shouldn't hold my faith to my own mind. If the Lord wills that I be somewhere else, then He'll show me where I need to be. I'm also planning on becoming a Priest, so I need to be certain that I believe in my Faith before I commit to the near 11 years of education required for it. I've become very interested in the Orthodox Church lately, and I'm not putting it past myself to begin visiting an Orthodox Church in my spare time and see if it's where God wants me. However, I major issue I've developed with the Catholic Church is the issue of Divorce. As many of you probably know, Pope Francis' recent writings have left the question of divorce, and the receiving of Communion without an annullment. Many, more progressive Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests have used this disarray to allow unlawfully divorced people to receive Communion as a result. This is on top of Pope Francis blaming all of the world's problems on "rigid" people such as myself. In short, what is the position of the Orthodox Church on Divorce? I've heard that Divorce is legal in the Orthodox Church, but as far as I can tell, that seems to be contrary to the Bible. Is there justification for this stance? Before I can even consider committing to the process of becoming Orthodox, I obviously need to clear up some hurdles. This is one of them. I apologize for my long winded sob-story, and hope this brings a fruitful discussion!

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's not legal. it is permissible under certain circumstances depending on the salvation of those involved. but always with prayer, penance, and discernment. divorce is a no-no for us, we just apply that pastorally.

 

[Nicene Pilgrim]

That sounds similar to the Catholic Church's stance. Divorce is only permissible if an annulment is declared afterwards, if the Church finds that something of a spiritual or personal nature prevented the marriage from being valid.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That sounds similar to the Catholic Church's stance. Divorce is only permissible if an annulment is declared afterwards, if the Church finds that something of a spiritual or personal nature prevented the marriage from being valid.

Hi Nicene Pilgrim, and welcome to CF and to TAW! We are glad to have you!

ArmyMatt can explain better, but it's not the same kind of thinking.

I don't want to criticize Catholicism, but to me it always seemed like a bit of a loophole - I wonder how common it is that people want to get an annulment and it is turned down? Every case I know of (admittedly I might not have a representative sampling) a reason was found and annulment/divorce was granted on a technicality.

In Orthodoxy, the thinking is different. I'm sure Matt can explain better, but it's more a matter of ... will the person's salvation suffer more be not being permitted a divorce?

I don't think I'll say anything more than that. But again, welcome to CF!

 

[prodromos]

I still can't get over the fact that Latin rite marriage is completely different to everyone else. Only in the Latin rite are the couple getting married also the celebrants. Because of this, the whole business of annulments seems to me to demonstrate strong indications of the heresy of Donatism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That sounds similar to the Catholic Church's stance. Divorce is only permissible if an annulment is declared afterwards, if the Church finds that something of a spiritual or personal nature prevented the marriage from being valid.

yeah, we reject the idea that the marriage can be annulled due to something happening during the service. the marriage did happen, and if a divorce happens, it is a grave sin. but the marriage was always valid.

 

[Nicene Pilgrim]

Hi Nicene Pilgrim, and welcome to CF and to TAW! We are glad to have you!

ArmyMatt can explain better, but it's not the same kind of thinking.

I don't want to criticize Catholicism, but to me it always seemed like a bit of a loophole - I wonder how common it is that people want to get an annulment and it is turned down? Every case I know of (admittedly I might not have a representative sampling) a reason was found and annulment/divorce was granted on a technicality.

In Orthodoxy, the thinking is different. I'm sure Matt can explain better, but it's more a matter of ... will the person's salvation suffer more be not being permitted a divorce?

I don't think I'll say anything more than that. But again, welcome to CF!

In my experience, an annulment is fairly difficult to achieve. I can see your point about it being a loophole. With the amount of divorce and annulment there probably is in terms of numbers, it seems kinda off that that many marriages would have some inherent problem to have not made them valid from the beginning.

 

[Nicene Pilgrim]

yeah, we reject the idea that the marriage can be annulled due to something happening during the service. the marriage did happen, and if a divorce happens, it is a grave sin. but the marriage was always valid.

That makes sense. Our idea of an annulment doesn't stem from something being wrong, at least in the service itself to my understanding. I'll have to look into it, but I've always been under the impression that the Church only allowed it if something between the couple themselves made it invalid. To me, that seems like a very bland answer by the Church, but I'll have to look up what the official stance is.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That makes sense. Our idea of an annulment doesn't stem from something being wrong, at least in the service itself to my understanding. I'll have to look into it, but I've always been under the impression that the Church only allowed it if something between the couple themselves made it invalid. To me, that seems like a very bland answer by the Church, but I'll have to look up what the official stance is.

it would be interesting to look up exactly how marriage could be annulled, seeing how it is a sacrament. because that does sound dangerously close to donatism as pondromos pointed out.

 

[Nicene Pilgrim]

it would be interesting to look up exactly how marriage could be annulled, seeing how it is a sacrament. because that does sound dangerously close to donatism as pondromos pointed out.

Here's what I found from a source that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) cites,

"'Annulment” is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic “declaration of nullity.” Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

For a Catholic marriage to be valid, it is required that: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they are capable of giving their consent to marry; (3) they freely exchange their consent; (4) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (5) they intend the good of each other; and (6) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by Church authority."

Also, could you explain what Donatism is? I've only vaguely heard of it at best.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Here's what I found from a source that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) cites,

"'Annulment” is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic “declaration of nullity.” Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

For a Catholic marriage to be valid, it is required that: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they are capable of giving their consent to marry; (3) they freely exchange their consent; (4) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (5) they intend the good of each other; and (6) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by Church authority."

Also, could you explain what Donatism is? I've only vaguely heard of it at best.

this begs the question though. if Catholics agree to marry knowing these requirements, how can someone judge after the fact that they were not met?

and Donatism is the heresy that says that the validity of the sacrament is based on the sanctity of the one doing it.

 

[prodromos]

it would be interesting to look up exactly how marriage could be annulled, seeing how it is a sacrament. because that does sound dangerously close to donatism as pondromos pointed out.

I'm curious to know who this "pondromos" fellow is

 

[Nicene Pilgrim]

this begs the question though. if Catholics agree to marry knowing these requirements, how can someone judge after the fact that they were not met?

and Donatism is the heresy that says that the validity of the sacrament is based on the sanctity of the one doing it.

That's a good point. It's always seemed like a pretty thorough process, but it does call to question how the process actually works. I don't see how a Tribune can just say what people were and were not thinking when they made their vows at the time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm curious to know who this "pondromos" fellow is

hahaha, sorry PROdromos

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's a good point. It's always seemed like a pretty thorough process, but it does call to question how the process actually works. I don't see how a Tribune can just say what people were and were not thinking when they made their vows at the time.

yeah, that definitely is problematic when you think about it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That's a good point. It's always seemed like a pretty thorough process, but it does call to question how the process actually works. I don't see how a Tribune can just say what people were and were not thinking when they made their vows at the time.

That seems to be a most common problem. Like I said, my representatives are from particular sets, but they seem to find it easy to say they found out later their spouse wanted to wait on children, or were selfish in a way that didn't want the good of their spouse. Some of the other reasons sometimes seem easily exploited too. I know psperwork and a petition and decisions are involved, they just always made it seem relatively easy.

But I'm on the outside looking in.

The actual truth is ... you can't force people to stay married (living together). You CAN legally shackle the one who has an uncommitted spouse. But do you then doom them to ongoing struggles with lust, perhaps? Or force them out of the Church? Bar them forever from the medicine of the Eucharist? Send them into despair from loneliness and poverty? Every case is different. It's not my place to comment on any of them. Ideally all marriages would be godly Christian ones and these questions would never come up. But they aren't, and they do ... so how does the Church respond for the sake of the souls entrusted to her? I'm making no argument for anything here, and refuse to cast a single stone. I'm only trying to point out that it's not simple.

Lord have mercy.

 

[LizaMarie]

n/m

 

[Maryslittleflower]

That sounds similar to the Catholic Church's stance. Divorce is only permissible if an annulment is declared afterwards, if the Church finds that something of a spiritual or personal nature prevented the marriage from being valid.

That is quite different... annulment means there never was a valid marriage. The Orthodox as far as I understand (any Orthodox posters please correct me if I'm wrong) believe that with certain actions like adultery, a valid marriage becomes dissolved and the couple can then remarry. Divorce is seen as a sin but remarriage is allowed in cases. The Catholic Church does not believe the marriage gets dissolved and the couple can separate for serious reasons but NOT remarry. Annulment is granted if there was something wrong with how they said their vows to begin with. Contrary to what people are saying in the media the Catholic Church is not changing this teaching under Pope Francis, no Pope can change an infallible teaching... even if there are discussions on certain topics.

Question to Orthodox posters: did I explain your teaching accurately?

 

[Maryslittleflower]

That's a good point. It's always seemed like a pretty thorough process, but it does call to question how the process actually works. I don't see how a Tribune can just say what people were and were not thinking when they made their vows at the time.

The people know what they meant though. For example if they didn't intend to have kids ever.. or lied on a huge topic

 

[Maryslittleflower]

this begs the question though. if Catholics agree to marry knowing these requirements, how can someone judge after the fact that they were not met?

and Donatism is the heresy that says that the validity of the sacrament is based on the sanctity of the one doing it.

This isn't about sanctity to us though but proper matter and form

If the couple is in a state of sin it's still valid