I am of the understanding that generally, the Catholic Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as valid marriages. So in general, if a non-Catholic couple converts to Catholicism, they will not have to re-certify their marriage (or even if just one of the two becomes Catholic). I'm wondering under what circumstances one might not be able to transfer his/her marriage in this way, i.e. when would a converting person's marriage *not* be considered valid by the Church. For instance (and these things may be common in some cultures): * The person could be a remarried divorcee, * The couple may be first cousins, * One or both may have been underage at the time of the marriage, or still underage at the present time, * The marriage may have been conducted without consent of one or both parties, * The person may be a polygamist. Which situations which would definitely never be considered a valid marriage? If some are considered on a case-by-case basis, how are cases determined?

If a husband seeks an annulment and it is denied, but the wife dies after the annulment is denied, is he then free to remarry in the Catholic Church?

In session 24 of the Council of Trent, Canon IV, the Church teaches that "If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema." Is this declaration held by the Church to mean indefectability in all canonical proceedings of annulments granted or witheld by the Church? Or has it asserted rather that the Church in the principle of the matter **can** hold impediments to annullment of marriages but may err in any given case? That is to say that the Church can be mistaken on the grounds for annullment in any particular case, but the parties are bound to follow the decision of the Church? This would be a religious analogue to the understanding that secular courts may err in the findings of a guilty or non-guilty verdict. How has the Church shown the meaning of this canon? > **Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony** > > **Doctrine and Canons** > > Being the eighth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the eleventh day of November, MDLXIII. > The first parent of the human race, under the influence of the divine Spirit, pronounced the bond of matrimony perpetual and indissoluble, when he said; This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. But, that by this bond two only are united and joined together, our Lord taught more plainly, when rehearsing those last words as having been uttered by God, He said, therefore now they are not two, but one flesh; and straightway confirmed the firmness of that tie, proclaimed so long before by Adam, by these words; What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. But, the grace which might perfect that natural love, and confirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the married, Christ Himself, the institutor and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His passion; as the Apostle Paul intimates, saying: Husbands love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it; adding shortly after, This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church. > > Whereas therefore matrimony, in the evangelical law, excels in grace, through Christ, the ancient marriages; with reason have our holy Fathers, the Councils, and the tradition of the universal Church, always taught, that it is to be numbered amongst the sacraments of the new law; against which, impious men of this age raging, have not only had false notions touching this venerable sacrament, but, introducing according to their wont, under the pretext of the Gospel, a carnal liberty, they have by word and writing asserted, not without great injury to the faithful of Christ, many things alien from the sentiment of the Catholic Church, and from the usage approved of since the times of the apostles; the holy and universal Synod wishing to meet the rashness of these men, has thought it proper, lest their pernicious contagion may draw more after it, that the more remarkable heresies and errors of the above-named schismatics be exterminated, by decreeing against the said heretics and their errors the following anathemas. > > **On the Sacrament of Matrimony**. > > - **Canon I**. If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly > one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) > instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men > in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be > anathema. > - **Canon II**. If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have > several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by > any divine law; let him be anathema. > - **Canon III**. If any one saith, that those degrees only of consanguinity > and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder > matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and > that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or > establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be > anathema. > - **Canon IV. If any one saith, that the Church could not establish > impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in > establishing them; let him be anathema.** > - **Canon V**. *If any one saith, that on account of heresy, or irksome > cohabitation, or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond > of matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema.* > - CANON VI. If any one saith, that matrimony contracted, but not > consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion by > one of the married parties; let him be anathema. > - **Canon VII**. If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and >doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of >matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; >and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot >contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of >adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, >having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema. > - **Canon VIII**. If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she > declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between > husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for > a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema. > - **Canon IX**. If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, > or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to > contract marriage, and that being contracted it is > valid,notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the > contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who > do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they > have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: > seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it > rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we > are able. > - **Canon X**. If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of >virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in >virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema. > - **Canon XI**. If any one saith, that the prohibition of the solemnization > of marriages at certain times of the year, is a tyrannical > superstition, derived from the superstition of the heathen; or, > condemn the benedictions and other ceremonies which the Church > makes use of therein; let him be anathema. > - **Canon XII**. If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to > ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.

Assuming Ann is Catholic and married to Bob. She later gets a civil divorce from Bob and gets married outside the church to Chris. Bob later dies. Is Ann's new marriage now valid? If not, can she get a dispensation? Or does she need to marry Chris a second time?

A prenuptial agreement typically outlines what happens in the event a marriage ends in divorce or some other dissolution of the marriage. This at first appears to be at odds with the idea of a Catholic marriage being two people vowing to be married "till death do us part" (i.e. they are still married even if they are civilly divorced). Is a prenuptial agreement permitted for a Catholic marriage? I'm particularly wondering if a prenuptial agreement would be used as grounds for annulment, since it might suggest that they weren't serious about their marriage vows.

In its discussion of marriage, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (*CCC*) states, "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element"(*CCC* __1626__) that seals the covenant of matrimony. "If this freedom is lacking, the marriage is invalid." (*CCC* __1628__) The *CCC* goes on to say, "For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void), the Church ... can declare a nullity of marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed." (*CCC* __1629__) In consideration of this, it lends to question what the nature of the sexual relations were if the marriage never existed. However, that's an aside; it's the children of such a union I'm asking about. Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents. __Is there a term for children born from what was thought to be a valid Catholic marriage whose parents then go through legal divorce and the Church delclares the marriage null__? Please no derogatory answers, but if there's something "you've heard somewhere," feel free to add as a comment with some context.

**My previous questions were kind of wrong**: - [Why is it harder for Filipino Catholics to get a church annulment?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66154/why-is-it-harder-for-filipino-catholics-to-get-a-church-annulment) - [Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di) - [Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64089/why-is-it-not-that-a-state-divorce-is-actually-an-argument-against-a-church-annu) **Why they were kind of wrong**: - I supposed that in both cases, namely the case for Filipino Catholics and the case for German Catholics, where both church marriages were of course invalid, that both of the state marriages were invalid as well, and then I asked about the financial aspect of state annulments which supposedly cost more than state divorces. - I believe I should have been asking about what would happen if while both church marriages were invalid, both state were marriages were valid. **Let me start over**: --- Case 1: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, and my state marriage is invalid too. - Then I could get a state annulment or state divorce and then, if successful in either, I could start church annulment proceedings. Case 2: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, but my state marriage is valid, a common occurrence by this . - By this , it seems I would have to first get a state divorce before I start a church annulment. (*) Case 2.1: (*) is wrong to think that I would have to first get a state divorce because a state separation is an alternative requirement to a state divorce. - Therefore, in countries that have no state divorce (THERE'S ONLY ONE: THE PHILIPPINES), there's no issue because those countries (THE PHILIPPINES) have state separation. Case 2.2: (*) is right, so a state separation does not satisfy the necessary requirement to begin a church annulment in the way that a state divorce or state annulment does. - Before, I ask the question, let me recap to say that there is no issue in Case 1 and Case 2.1. Then, the following question is on Case 2.2. Of course, if Case 2.2 is wrong and Case 2.1 is right, then please just say so and cite a source. > **Now the Question**: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid? **Let me be concrete with examples**: Let Jack and Jill be a Catholic couple married in the Philippines, and let Romeo and Juliet be a Catholic couple married in Germany. Suppose both couples have *valid* state marriages but *invalid* church marriages. Then neither can get a state annulment to start a church annulment petition. - Romeo and Juliet don't care because they can get a state divorce and then start a church annulment petition. - However, this is a nightmare for Jack and Jill, both of whom hope to remarry (well, actually 'marry' because they were never validly 'married' in the first place) outside the Philippines and both of whom are already living separately outside the Philippines. From the church's point of view, it's okay for Jack and Jill to remarry, but bound by the Philippine state's laws, Jack and Jill cannot begin a Philippine Catholic Church annulment petition. And yet 1. This is supposedly a very common occurrence easily remedies by the possibility of state divorce. 2. The impossibility of state divorce is one that the Catholic Church is in favour of throughout the world, in particular, the Philippines. 3. By the 2 statements above, if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment, then it seems the Catholic Church is self-contradictory: The Catholic Church's desire to not have state divorce in the world, in particular, the Philippines, is hindering the invalidly church married Filipino Catholics from getting an annulment, effectively penalising Filipino Catholics because the Philippines is doing what the Church wants. I believe ecclesiastical judicial economy does not apply because these kinds of situations, namely when a church marriage is invalid while a state marriage is valid is common (If it's common around the world, I don't see how it's less common in the Philippines). - **Let me clarify**: 1. The Church wants the Philippines to continue to not have state divorce. 2. The Church would want its invalidly church married Filipino Catholics Jack and Jill to have annulments, even if Jack and Jill have valid state marriages. 3. The above statements seem to contradict if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment. How they do not contradict is the answer to the question. # **The following is how I imagine things**: The Church: 'Wow, the situation you described is indeed a church invalid marriage that you beyond reasonable doubt and not merely beyond balance of probabilities . Fine, just get a state divorce and then we can start a church annulment.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, we live in the Philippines.' The Church: 'Oh, that country's great! Predominantly Roman Catholic, has no divorce, has great beaches and food, etc. Cool people. Cool country. It's more fun in the Philippines . Anyway, just get a state annulment then.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, our state marriage is valid.' The Church: 'Wait, your state marriage is valid, but your church marriage is invalid ?' Jack and Jill: 'Well yeah, based on the situation we just described to you.' The Church: 'Hmmm...I don't know. Can you prove it beyond reasonable doubt?' Jack and Jill: 'You just said we did.' The Church: 'Oh right. Then get a state separation.' Jack and Jill: 'Oh, a state separation substitutes for a state annulment or state divorce and is not "an abomination of the moral order "?' The Church: '_ _ [so what's the answer?] _ _'

**Example**: Say I'm married and I snoop into my spouse's personal belongings and discover some kind of evidence that, if it would be admissible, would prove beyond reasonable doubt (or balance of probabilities, whatever is the church's standard) that my church marriage is void or voidable (I'll say just 'invalid' to mean 'void or voidable'), that is for a church annulment and not church divorce (so no Pauline privilege, Petrine privilege, etc, although apparently these don't count as divorces or something ). - **Edit to clarify based on answers/comments that are now deleted**: I know what annulment is. In this example, the marriage is definitely invalid. The evidence points to behaviour that points to doubt on the intention or capacity to enter into marriage, and would do so beyond reasonable doubt (or balance of probabilities). The evidence is not about subsequent behaviour and doesn't have to be a document. Finally, If relevant, let's include the assumption that the the state marriage is invalid, but please state why the assumption is relevant. ### Question 1: Would the church consider the evidence inadmissible because it violates the church's equivalent of the US fourth amendment? - Eg Fruit of the poisonous tree : So here, I'd like to know if the church is more like the US where 'such evidence is not generally admissible in court' or more like India or Ireland where they 'admit evidence irrespective of the legality of the source'. ### Question 2: In general, how would one get an ecclesiastical warrant? - Would one need to get a civil warrant as well? - Or is there no such case where one obtains an ecclesiastical warrant but not a civil warrant? - I have a feeling we have to go by civil law here unless the law is unjust such as in North Korea or something. I mean, the couple's/respondent's/petitioner's living in a certain area and so their/h expectations of privacy would depend on the state laws. - But in the case a petitioner would seek a church annulment and not a state divorce and not a state annulment (is that possible? See my other question ), would the church have to consult a state attorney? - I was thinking about Antarctica or Mars as in my other question , but the point is that one's expectations of privacy depend on one's location, if not one's state laws or lack thereof. Thus, I guess, the evaluation of evidence admission is based on such expectations. So, if one was in a Russian spaceship on Mars, then your privacy may be governed by Russian laws. And if you went on vacation to some ungoverned territory say another solar system or even time travelling to another time, there would be some expectations of privacy between humans. I guess this is where natural law may come in or something.

The Council of Trent session 24 on matrimony says the Church can judge matrimonial cases: >Canon XII.—If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema.
Canon XII.—Si quis dixerit, causas matrimoniales non spectare ad judices ecclesiasticos: anathema sit. However, it seems these judges can err in their judgment of a marriage's invalidity, or issue a false judgment for a bribe. Many marrieds tempted to commit adultery, despite knowing they are in valid indissoluble marriages (Mt. 19:6 : "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."), seek annulments as a form of "Catholic divorce" (cf. Vasoli, *What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism* ). If the ecclesiastical judges mistakenly or dishonestly judge a valid marriage as being invalid, can the couple validly remarry?

**Note**: This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66164/how-do-filipino-catholics-get-a-church-annulment-when-their-state-marriage-is-va --- Apparently, state divorce is a necessary condition to begin a church annulment process. Why isn't a state divorce actually an argument **against** rather than a necessary condition for a church annulment petition? I mean, there are **reasons to get an annulment instead of divorce despite divorce being cheaper **. So, if your church marriage is invalid, as you want to petition, then why did you get a state divorce instead of a state annulment for your state marriage, **which I guess** was also invalid? Of course, answers may include: 1. Your state marriage is invalid, but the financial reasons for getting a state annulment instead of a state divorce weren't applicable to you. Hence, even though your state marriage is invalid, you chose the cheaper route of getting a state divorce instead of a state annulment. 2. Your state marriage is valid though your church marriage is still invalid. ---- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di **Update**: Would a state separation suffice in the place of a state annulment or state divorce? Case 1: The country has divorce. Case 2: The country is the Philippines.

Here's something I've got no idea about. In the case where one party is married in a Baptist Church but divorced and the other party has no encumbrances. Barring quarrelsome arguments I can't answer concerning grounds for annulment, is the first party even required to do anything to prove that their first marriage is null and void?

This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66164 --- ### Example: Let's say there's this Catholic couple married in the Catholic church and married in some state. Then one member of the two members of the couple discovers **something** that, for the sake of argument, would definitely render the marriage invalid: - Suppose this hypothetical something would be **definitely be accepted as grounds for annulment** in both church annulment and state annulment. - Suppose further that the member can definitely prove that hypothetical something beyond reasonable doubt in, again, both church and said state. > ### Can said member get a church annulment regardless of state annulment or divorce existence, proceedings or results? Please cite sources. I don't see why the church would care if I'm state married, state annulled or state divorced if I could prove invalidity of my church marriage. Related questions: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64089/why-isnt-a-state-divorce-actually-an-argument-against-a-church-annulment-petiti https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66154 --- ### Context: Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha says 'A copy of the divorce decree', but the article seems to be directed to Catholics who are civilly divorced and not civilly annulled and still church married. - Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha also says in Myths and Truths that > Myth: 'A person’s divorce does not have to be final in order to apply for a declaration of nullity.' > Truth: 'To petition for a declaration of nullity you need to be civilly divorced. The Church presumes that all marriages are valid until proven otherwise and hopes that a couple in a troubled marriage will work at reconciliation.' --- ### Elaboration: - To clarify: I get that state annulment (all the more for state divorce) is not a sufficient condition. My question is whether or not a state annulment (or divorce) is a necessary condition. - One thing that comes to mind is **ecclesiastical judicial economy **. Without a state annulment, perhaps the church can simply claim being too busy to even entertain your claim. I completely understand if the queues are long, but I mean, as long as the queues as exist. Anyway, if such is the case, please cite a source. - Consider people who get married only in church but not in state, say, Antarctica or Mars . If the church in fact REQUIRES a state to marry people, please cite source. - Then again, it could be that I don't have a state annulment, not because my state marriage is valid, but because state divorce is cheaper. - Consider that I can't afford either a state annulment or state divorce. - Consider variations in state annulment laws. Then it would be possible that, say, for a Japanese Catholic and a Swedish Catholic with identical cases that the Japanese Catholic wouldn't be entertained because Japan doesn't recognise a certain thing as grounds for annulment while both Sweden and the Catholic church do, I think. Oh wait, the Japanese Catholic could always get a state divorce. - Consider places where there are no such possibilities of divorce such as the Philippines where annulments cost around USD$2,853. So, German Catholics in identical situations as Filipino Catholics would get entertained by the church because Germany has divorce, it seems. Also, the Philippines is a third world country. Good luck obtaining that can kind of money for the sake of a religious procedure. I didn't realise the church was charging that kind of money for its sacraments (I guess annulment is part of the sacrament of marriage). ---

This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66164 --- Update: Would a state [separation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_separation#Philippines) be a substitute requirement in the place of a state annulment or state divorce for (3) below? Case 1: The country has divorce. Case 2: The country is the Philippines. If yes to case 2 for (3) below, then the original question is moot because the Philippines does have state separation. --- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64089/why-is-it-not-that-a-state-divorce-is-actually-an-argument-against-a-church-annu --- This seems quite weird, ironic and unfair: 1. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in church divorce (except Pauline, Petrine, etc), and it further doesn't believe in state divorce (afaik or not , in which case, close this question). 2. The Philippines, a predominantly Catholic country, is the only country without state divorce (My Theology professor in undergrad kept pointing out that actually the Vatican is another *place*/*state* without state divorce, but I said *country*). 3. To apply for a church annulment, one must first get a state annulment OR state divorce. (So if state separation is sufficient, then this assumption is wrong and so the whole question is moot) 4. State annulments are more costly than state divorces. (sort of ) 5. From (4), there is incentive for a invalidly state married couple to claim their state marriage is valid or at least not claim their state marriage is invalid and get a divorce instead of an annulment. 6. Let Jack and Jill be a Catholic couple married in the Philippines, and let Romeo and Juliet be a Catholic couple married in Germany. Suppose both couples have invalid state marriages and invalid church marriages. From (3) and (5), it is easier for Romeo and Juliet to have a church annulment because, since Germany has state divorce, Romeo and Juliet can get a state divorce in instead of a state annulment. Proof of (6): Suppose WOLOG that the cost of a church annulment is the same in both Germany and in the Philippines, denoted x. For Jack and Jill to get a church annulment, they must first obtain a state annulment, both of which they can do because both their church and state marriages are invalid by assumption. The cost of a state annulment in the Philippines is USD$2,853. Therefore, the total cost of their annulments is USD$2,853+x. For Romeo and Juliet to get a church annulment, they must first obtain a state annulment or state divorce, both annulments of which they can do because both their church and state marriages are invalid by assumption. Now, the cost of a state annulment in Germany is likely greater than the cost a state divorce in Germany, and the latter according to scheidung-online.de is possibly € 1.000, or USD$1,170.25 computed at 2018Aug29, 4:50 PM UTC in Google . Therefore, the total cost of their annulments is possibly USD$1,170.25+x. Observe that cost for Romeo and Juliet = USD$1,170.25+x < USD$2,853+x = cost for Jack and Jill. QED 7. From (6), there is incentive for the Philippine government to allow state divorce, which it's doing though obviously not for church annulments. (1) and (7) seem to be a self-contradiction on the part of the Catholic Church: 1. The Catholic Church wants state divorce to not be allowed (a stronger condition than 'does not want state divorce to be allowed ' in countries, in particular the Philippines , the last country without divorce, and yet... 2. ...the Catholic Church makes rules that such that it is more beneficial for the Philippines to have state divorce. Question: 1. If I understand right, then why isn't the Catholic Church accommodating Filipinos to bypass a state annulment for a church annulment because the Philippines doesn't have state divorce? (I won't ask why the Catholic Church refuses to accept church annulment petitions from state divorcees ) 2. If I understand wrong, then which part/s, and why?

I understand that the Catholic Church issues annulments in place of divorces under certain circumstances. When did this practice first begin and under what was the reasoning given for it and its distinction from divorce?

I read here point 33. > **If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never > existed?** > > Not exactly. It means it did not exist in the way the Church > says that marriages exist. A declaration of nullity does not deny that > a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship that > existed was not what the Church means by marriage. If it never existed according to what the Church means by marriage does this make their previous "relationship" full of fornicating after the church declare the annulment? Does the annulment make their previous cohabitation full of fornications?

A non-baptized man marries a Catholic, then divorces. Then the non-baptized man remarries a Protestant. During this marriage the man is baptized Protestant. The man later coverts to Catholicism and but does not get an annulment from the first marriage because the priest says he meets all three criterion and absolves him. He is then confirmed and receives first communion, from the same Msgr. 1. Is that man able to receive first communion and confirmation? 1. Is he in a state of grace? 1. Can he be a godfather?

Mary marries John and both have good intentions of living together and raising a family. After x years it's discovered that one cannot have children and nothing can be done medically. Can the other person receive an annulment based on the fact that he /she wants to have children but the spouse cannot? Is the one person that can have children supposed to forgo children ? Let's assume that no fraud was committed and the person didn't know they were infertile.

There is a common misconception that an annulment is a Catholic version of a divorce (see this question ). However, this has made me wonder: is it is possible to get a divorce within the Catholic church, rather than an annulment? To put it another way, is it possible for a marriage in the Catholic Church to end before death in a way other than annulment?

The Wikipedia article for [Marriage in Eastern Orthodoxy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church) describes in almost poetic terms how marriage cannot be dissolved, even by death, because Christ has defeated death. If I'm interpreting all this correctly, it seems to be saying that marriage is an eternal bond which cannot be broken by anything, similar to how a persons baptism, confirmation, and holy ordination leave indelible marks on the soul of that person, none of which can be revoked. If this is the case, then why is divorce permitted? What is the theology that makes eternal marriage and divorce consistent with each other? Is "divorce" just another way of saying "annulment"? That is, when an Eastern Orthodox says that two people are "divorced", is this just a way of saying that there was never a valid marriage in the first place? (Similar to Catholics)

Do Catholic priests with the faculty of performing marriage also get to perform annulments, or does that need referral to the bishop?