Vatican Tells Bishops Not To Reform Faster Than Pope Francis

[Apotheoun]

You are supposed to translate that to the common saying, dude. :sad2:

I prefer my translation. My translation helps keep the discussion moving.

 

  :dance5:

[Apotheoun]

Roman Catholics often think that Orthodox practice on issues related to marriage are lax compared to Roman Catholic standards, but that is not really the case in most Orthodox jurisdictions.

[Apotheoun]

For example, an Orthodox Christian who marries outside of the Church is not allowed to receive Holy Communion, and that is because in Orthodox theology the priest, and not the couple, is the minister of Holy Crowning, and so his blessing is necessary for the marriage to be a sacrament.

[4588686]

sexy sexy turtle

[Anastasia13]

But there is some way to get a divorce and remarry in Orthodoxy as I understand, so that a person can marry up to three times.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Light and Truth

[Apotheoun]

But there is some way to get a divorce and remarry in Orthodoxy as I understand, so that a person can marry up to three times.

Yes, just as the Catholic Church has an annulment process that allows a person to get remarried in the Catholic Church. In fact, an "ecclesiastical divorce" in the Orthodox Church operates in a way similar to an annulment in the Catholic Church, which is why I said that Pope Francis does not appear to know much about the Orthodox practice he was talking about using during his question and answer junket on the flight back to Rome from Brazil. 

 

Here is what an Orthodox priest friend told me:

(1) An Orthodox Christian couple who marries (first time included) outside the Orthodox Church is not allowed to take Holy Communion, because only an Orthodox priest can confer the Holy Mystery of Crowning upon an Orthodox Christian couple.

 

(2) If an Orthodox Christian couple gets a civil divorce, but without getting an "ecclesiastical divorce" from a Church marriage tribunal, and then one or the other of the spouses gets remarried (in a civil service or non-Orthodox religious service), the remarried party cannot take Holy Communion.

 

An "ecclesiastical divorce" in the Orthodox Church merely recognizes that the marriage in question has failed, and has spiritually died. To put it another way, the "ecclesiastical divorce decree" is like a death certificate, and just as a death certificate is not the cause of a person's death, so too the "ecclesiastical divorce decree" is not the cause of the death of the marriage; instead, the decree issued by the marriage tribunal simply certifies that a legitimate marriage has lost its basis and has dissolved itself.

[Aloysius]

it is possible that Pope Francis does know how the Orthodox divorce and remarriage system works, Apo, and if he doesn't I'm sure his statement will merely inspire this synod to include a study of how the Eastern Orthodox Churches do things as part of their decision making process, so I doubt they're going to overlook the way it actually works... as has been stated before on this thread, it is very likely that what he is seeking is a reform of the annulment/tribunal process.  Eastern Orthodoxy ecclesiastical divorces are given in cases of adultery, etc, for the party that was wronged, for instance, whereas the annulment process does not allow for that because it requires proof of something wrong at the time of marriage... it's possible that kind of concept might be cited and moved towards... as well as moving things away from the legalistic tribunals that have given rise to the phenomenon of canon lawyers who basically coach their clients into how they have to word things to get the annulment, because, due to the legalism of it, you have to word things precisely right to get it through.... the process doesn't favor an honest person coming to honestly confront past mistakes and throwing themselves before the mercy of Christ's Church... it favors people who get a good lawyer and know what kind of wording to use to describe their marriage so that it fits into the proper narrative that one of the legalistic canons can apply to.

 

I'm optimistic that something good will come out of this, though I do not think the media hype is all that good.  just as before Humanae Vitae, though, the media is reporting on what they want to happen... I hope that the synod will actually come up with a good way to reform the annulment process, though I can't answer to what that might be... I hope they maintain the 'annulment' concept rather than going for the 'ecclesiastical divorce' concept though, but perhaps a change like that is being hinted at as on the table for the synod by the comparison to the Eastern Orthodox (the difference being that an annulment declares there was never a valid marriage, whereas an ecclesiastical divorce acknowledges that there was one)

[Apotheoun]

Al, you do get that the two systems are not that different, right? There are marriage tribunals in the Orthodox church and they do not commune anyone with a civil divorce who has remarried without an "ecclesiastical divorce." Honestly, I think Pope Francis thinks that the Orthodox simply give communion to divorced and remarried people. 

Edited October 12, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

I'm optimistic that something good will come out of this, though I do not think the media hype is all that good.  just as before Humanae Vitae, though, the media is reporting on what they want to happen... I hope that the synod will actually come up with a good way to reform the annulment process, though I can't answer to what that might be... I hope they maintain the 'annulment' concept rather than going for the 'ecclesiastical divorce' concept though, but perhaps a change like that is being hinted at as on the table for the synod by the comparison to the Eastern Orthodox (the difference being that an annulment declares there was never a valid marriage, whereas an ecclesiastical divorce acknowledges that there was one)

A decree of nullity does not mean that there was no marriage at all; instead, it only means that the marriage contracted was not sacramental.

 

The following is from the Archdiocese of Atlanta Marriage Tribunal website:

 

"It must also be made clear that a Decree of Invalidity in no way affects the legitimacy of children of such a previous marriage, and has no bearing on other natural and civil obligations such as child support or custody. A church Decree of Invalidity does not imply that the marriage never existed, but only that it did not have the character of a sacrament. The Church does not seek to assign blame for the marriage breakup to any of the persons involved."

 

That is why the use of term "remarry" is perfectly acceptable when talking about Catholics who remarry after getting an annulment, because the annulment does not say that there was no marriage at all, which is the reason why the children of the first marriage are not illegitimate, but instead only involves a declaration by the Church that the first marriage was not sacramental due to some defect.

[Aloysius]

you can think that this is what Pope Francis thinks if you want, but there really isn't any evidence that this is what he actually thinks... and even if that is what he thinks, he's just basically asked the synod to examine how the East does it as an example in informing their reform, so I imagine they'll discover exactly how it works (I doubt too many people at that high level are all that ignorant of how it actually work).  while people who don't use the ecclesiastical system of annulment/ecclesiastical divorce are in the same boat if they get civilly divorced/remarried, the two systems by which that equivalent of 'ecclesiastical divorce' are dispensed are quite different in themselves and Pope Francis clearly wants to examine the example of the Eastern Orthodox in the review of how the Roman annulment tribunals work.

 

your clarification on the terminology of annulments is appreciated, many people do get lazy and just say there was 'no marriage' rather than 'no sacramental marriage' which can be confusing at times.  still, the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical divorce does not declare that there was no sacramental marriage at the time of crowning, and that is a significant difference in the way the two look at things... because an Eastern Orthodox can cite infidelity to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce, but a Roman Catholic must somehow link that infidelity to something that proves the marriage wasn't sacramentally entered into in the first place (ie that the person married them with no intention of remaining faithful)

[Apotheoun]

So, you admit that the two systems are not all that different because people who get a civil divorce are denied communion in both Churches, but you think that something that the Catholic Church has held against the Orthodox for centuries, saying that they are not being faithful to the Lord's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, should now become Roman Catholic practice. Wow, talk about doctrinal evolution on the part of the Roman Church. I have to admit I have always admired the Roman Church's unshakable resolve in defending the indissolubility of marriage, and now that is open to change? 

[Apotheoun]

Quite honestly I think that any future change in Roman Catholic practice on giving communion to divorced and remarried persons will have nothing to do with Orthodoxy; instead, I think the change will simply be to give communion to people in those irregular situations. You know . . . a big tent approach.

[Apotheoun]

Al, let me be clear about this, I hope that I am wrong on this issue and that the Roman Church reaffirms its constant practice of denying communion to people living in openly adulterous relationships. I guess we will see what happens after the Extraordinary Synod next October.

[Aloysius]

you say I admit something that I never denied.  they're not different in terms of giving communion to people who don't go through the ecclesiastical process--those who don't go through the ecclesiastical process and get divorced/remarried aren't admitted to communion.  but the ecclesiastical process is definitely different, and it's the ecclesiastical process itself that most people think Francis is talking about reforming.  you have based your problem on Francis's words on the assumption that he misunderstands the Eastern Orthodox practice... but on top of that you've basically said that the Eastern Orthodox are acting contrary to Our Lord's teachings on the indissolubility of marriage so even if he properly understood it, he shouldn't let it influence him.  okay, that's your opinion I guess.

 

Personally I don't think the Eastern Orthodox practice is necessarily contrary to Our Lord's teaching, I think a certain loving engagement of Christ's Church with an economy of mercy is good, and it's probably the best way I have to understand the sometimes blatantly absurd nature of today's tribunal process where people are being granted annulments because some canon lawyer somewhere coached them on exactly how to word/phrase their petitions to get them pushed through... I think a great many annulments have been granted for marriages that, at the time of their wedding, really had no reason not to be sacramentally valid, so ultimately the Eastern Orthodox are just being more straightforward about it on that front.  ultimately the main thing that needs to be dealt with is the legalistic tribunal process so that there is a more honest straight forward handling of these things.

 

though personally I'd prefer to keep with the "annulment" concept rather than the "ecclesiastical divorce" concept, it does seem possible this signals a shift towards the ecclesiastical divorce concept... but actually I bet at the end of the day the synod will still keep with the terminology of annulments, but who knows.

[Apotheoun]

. . . but the ecclesiastical process is definitely different, and it's the ecclesiastical process itself that most people think Francis is talking about reforming. 

Of course they are different, because the theology of the sacraments in Orthodoxy and Catholicism are different.

 

But please do explain what Pope Francis meant when trying to apply Orthodox practice, which holds that the priest is the minister of the sacrament of marriage, to a system that says that the couple administer the sacrament to each other.

 

I think Pope Francis said what he did simply because - like most Roman Catholics - he thinks that the Orthodox Church gives communion to civilly divorced couples, which we have both agreed it does not do. So how can the Orthodox practice, which because of its distinctive theology cannot support a system of annulments, help to reform the Roman Church's system of annulments? Is the Roman Church going to dump its present system and adopt the Orthodox system? And if it does that isn't that a substantive change in Roman Catholic dogma on marriage?

Edited October 12, 2013 by Apotheoun