Are the Orthodox Catholic?

[Cavaradossi]

Furthermore, the Synod of the Russian Church released a document titled, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” which may be found here orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Under Second X, we find this statement:

For the spiritual education of those contracting a marriage and consolidation of marital bonds, the clergy are urged before celebrating a Marriage to explain in detail to the bridegroom and bride that a marital union concluded in church is indissoluble. They should emphasise that divorce as the last resort can be sought only if spouses committed actions defined by the Church as causes for divorce. Consent to the dissolution of a marriage cannot be given to satisfy a whim or to «confirm» a common-law divorce. However, if a divorce is an accomplished fact, especially when spouses live separately, the restoration of the family is considered impossible and a church divorce may be given if the pastor deigns to concede the request. The Church does not at all approve of a second marriage. Nevertheless, according to the canon law, after a legitimate church divorce, a second marriage is allowed to the innocent spouse. Those whose first marriage was dissolved through their own fault a second marriage is allowed only after repentance and penance imposed in accordance with the canons. According to the rules of St. Basil the Great, in exceptional cases where a third marriage is allowed, the duration of the penance shall be prolonged.

In its Decision of December 28, 1998, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church denounced the actions of those spiritual fathers who «prohibit their spiritual children from contracting a second marriage on the grounds that second marriage is allegedly denounced by the Church and who prohibit married couples from divorce if their family life becomes impossible for this or that reason». At the same time, the Holy Synod resolved that «pastors should be reminded that in her attitude to the second marriage the Orthodox Church is guided by the words of St. Paul: ‘Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned… the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord’ (1 Cor. 7:27-28, 39)». [emphasis in bold mine]

Whatever that ROCOR priest told you, he is mistaken. A second marriage is strongly discouraged by the mother church, but is permitted under the canon law of the Church. It also mentions that the allowance for a third marriage under exceptional conditions and after a period of penance goes back to St. Basil the Great.

Also, here are the ‘myriad of reasons’ you mentioned which make a divorce allowable within the Russian Orthodox Church:

In 1918, in its Decision on the Grounds for the Dissolution of the Marriage Sanctified by the Church, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, recognised as valid, besides adultery and a new marriage of one of the party, such grounds as a spouse’s falling away from Orthodoxy, perversion, impotence which had set in before marriage or was self-inflicted, contraction of leper or syphilis, prolonged disappearance, conviction with disfranchisement, encroachment on the life or health of the spouse, love affair with a daughter in law, profiting from marriage, profiting by the spouse’s indecencies, incurable mental disease and malevolent abandonment of the spouse. At present, added to this list of the grounds for divorce are chronic alcoholism or drug-addiction and abortion without the husband’s consent.

All of these reasons are grave issues for a marriage, and reasonably so should be grounds for divorce. They are nowhere near indicative of ‘latitude’ towards the issue of divorce as you have so disingenuously implied in your post. Stop spreading misinformation about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Harpazo]

Furthermore, the Synod of the Russian Church released a document titled, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” which may be found here orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Under Second X, we find this statement:

Whatever that ROCOR priest told you, he is mistaken. A second marriage is strongly discouraged by the mother church, but is permitted under the canon law of the Church. It also mentions that the allowance for a third marriage under exceptional conditions and after a period of penance goes back to St. Basil the Great.

Also, here are the ‘myriad of reasons’ you mentioned which make a divorce allowable within the Russian Orthodox Church:

All of these reasons are grave issues for a marriage, and reasonably so should be grounds for divorce. They are nowhere near indicative of ‘latitude’ towards the issue of divorce as you have so disingenuously implied in your post. Stop spreading misinformation about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Sadly, whenever our Latin friends see that we permit a maximum of 3 marriages, they run with it and come up with all kinds of crazy theories and ideas, but will not look at declarations and such from our synods. Oddly, they don’t like it when Protestants do it to them.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[GaryTaylor]

Are we misinformed about the use of Contraceptives in the EO also? I know…Spacing and Limiting children gives this life. Theres a concept that goes back to what…1933? How does the “never changing” EO reconcile this?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are we misinformed about the use of Contraceptives in the EO also? I know…Spacing and Limiting children gives this life. Theres a concept that goes back to what…1933? How does the “never changing” EO reconcile this?

Considering that reliable contraceptives were not widely available until the last century, calling the Orthodox position on contraceptives like condoms and hormone therapy new is like calling the Catholic Church’s stance on nuclear warfare new. Of course it’s undeniably new, but who cares? The strange thing is that it seems as if all of the families in my parish have three or four children despite the false allegations by Catholics that the Orthodox give out dispensations to use birth control like candy on Halloween. Ye shall know them by their fruits…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Considering that reliable contraceptives were not widely available until the last century, …

Means exactly what? That its all well and fine when the Church decides as one to make change? Well thank you we been telling the “never changing” EO this right along.

calling the Orthodox position on contraceptives like condoms and hormone therapy new is like calling the Catholic Church’s stance on nuclear warfare new. …

No your stance on Contaceptives is all your “own”. And I fail to see how God fits the equation.

Of course it’s undeniably new, but who cares? …

I do, or we wouldn’t be having this dialogue now would we?

The strange thing is that it seems as if all of the families in my parish have three or four children …

So this validates contraceptives, explain how?

despite the false allegations by Catholics that the Orthodox give out dispensations to use birth control like candy on Halloween. …

I didn’t make any allegations. In fact I asked if this was a misconception.

Ye shall know them by their fruits…

Bible verse to justify Contraceptives???

OK

Peace

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Are we misinformed about the use of Contraceptives in the EO also? I know…Spacing and Limiting children gives this life. Theres a concept that goes back to what…1933? How does the “never changing” EO reconcile this?

I think it is important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church permits the use of contraception as well (NFP). Argue as you will, it serves the same purpose as artificial contraception. St. Augustine :

“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a prostitute, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.”

Contraception (like marriage) is a concession to human weakness and is granted to men because of the hardness of their hearts. Ideally, no one should marry, much less use contraception.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Means exactly what? That its all well and fine when the Church decides as one to make change? Well thank you we been telling the “never changing” EO this right along.

No your stance on Contaceptives is all your “own”. And I fail to see how God fits the equation.

I do, or we wouldn’t be having this dialogue now would we?

So this validates contraceptives, explain how?

I didn’t make any allegations. In fact I asked if this was a misconception.

Bible verse to justify Contraceptives???

OK

Peace

Ok then, you show me a scholarly resource which supports the idea that the Church always had a stance against contraception. Substantiate your claim.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s the Russian Orthodox Church’s position on contraception:

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

Contraception is not encouraged, but it is regarded as being a matter best discussed with one’s priest. If a couple does possess the correct health, resources or spiritual maturity for raising children, then they should use contraception rather than irresponsibly bringing children into the world. Honestly, what I was pointing out was that Orthodox families tend to be larger. Roman Catholic Europe is shrinking in population, despite the Catholic Church’s discouragement of contraception. So again, which method works better, when it comes to encouraging couples to produce children, general prohibition or pastoral guidance? Ye shall know them by their fruits.

 

[fred_conty]

HI Cavadossi,
You said: By their fruits you will know them.

Benedict, Francis, Dominic, Thresa, Catherine, Aquinas, Thomas Moore, Patrick, Augustine, and literally thousands of others, even to the currant day, Mother Theresa. What liturgy did they all celebrate? Who did they pray to, what church did they show allegience to? What faith did they hold fast to? Did they believe in the sacraments? And whose supreme leadership do they follow? And finally what effect did they have on the people of their day even now in our day? And they displayed miracles.

Is there anything wrong with what I said?​

“that they all may be one as I am in You …” His last will and testiment.

 

[steve_b]

I was directing this question towards Roman Catholics and shouldnt have posted it here.

This Non Catholic forum is like an underworld dungeon with predators.

I will ask again elsewhere.

The Catholic Church is made up of many rites. The Latin/Roman rite makes up ~98% of the Catholic Church. The remaining rites, make up the remaining ~2%.

All rites are of equal dignity. No ONE rite is superior or inferior to the other. As long as there is communion with the pope, a rite is Catholic, and they can call themselves the Catholic Church.

For clarification, re: Orthodox

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30

 

[steve_b]

I think it is important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church permits the use of contraception as well (NFP). Argue as you will, it serves the same purpose as artificial contraception.

ABC (artificial birth control) ≠ NFP
M:

“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a prostitute, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.”

Contraception (like marriage) is a concession to human weakness and is granted to men because of the hardness of their hearts. Ideally, no one should marry, much less use contraception.

Augustine was writing against manacheism. It’s obviously NOT a sin to have children and no one is promotiing the forbiding of marriage or of having children… Physiologically speaking, a woman is fertile for only a matter of hours in a month. NFP does NOTHING to prevent conception. That’s WHY it is NOT used by those who want assurances that prevent conception.

Re: Manacheism newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm

This is way off the topic of the thread.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

ABC (artificial birth control) ≠ NFP

Both serve the exact same purpose.

Augustine was writing against manacheism.

And the Manicheans were practicing the rhythm method (i.e. the basis of NFP).

NFP does NOTHING to prevent conception.

That is exactly what NFP does. Why do you suppose it is used?

 

[Cavaradossi]

HI Cavadossi,
You said: By their fruits you will know them.

Benedict, Francis, Dominic, Thresa, Catherine, Aquinas, Thomas Moore, Patrick, Augustine, and literally thousands of others, even to the currant day, Mother Theresa. What liturgy did they all celebrate? Who did they pray to, what church did they show allegience to? What faith did they hold fast to? Did they believe in the sacraments? And whose supreme leadership do they follow? And finally what effect did they have on the people of their day even now in our day? And they displayed miracles.

Is there anything wrong with what I said?​

“that they all may be one as I am in You …” His last will and testiment.

LOL, I think that you are playing the game where you pretend that we Orthodox do not have saints. I will stick to my Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Isaiah the Solitary, John Cassian, Mark the Ascetic, Hesychios the Priest, Nelios the Ascetic, Diadochos of Photiki, John of Karpathos, Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus, Theognostos, Philotheos of Sinai, Peter of Damascus, Symeon Metaphrastis, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory of Sinai, Gregory Palamas, Theophan the Reculse, Silouan the Athonite, John of Shanghai and San Francisco, and thousands of others, none of whom ever celebrated the Tradition Latin Mass (by the way, a majority of those saints you listed probably never celebrated the OF of the Mass as it is celebrated today). You’re not arguing against some sort of Protestant here, so your usual Catholic apologist arguments (you don’t have saints, you don’t have tradition, etc.) fall flat. We have our own saints, and I assure you that they are quite holy men who were nurtured by the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[dvdjs]

Please provide me with a credible source for your claim about the handling of divorce within the Orthodox Church gradually changing after the schism; I would like see the evidence for this.

The gradual laxity already began in the East pre-schism. It is wrong to suggest that the current practices have always been in force. See John Meyendorff’s Marriage–An Orthodox Perspective

Also, please provide the name of that ROCOR priest. While it is my understanding that the Russian Church will perform the crowning ceremony again, while the Greek Churches will not, I have never heard anybody tell me that a second marriage ceremony is done without a penitential tone.

Have you ever been to one? Have you ever talked to anyone who has?

For attributions and credible authors read the threads cited here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7921988&postcount=12

 

[dvdjs]

Furthermore, the Synod of the Russian Church released a document titled, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” which may be found here…

Different jurisdictions have widely different practices. In fact, on the last go 'round on this issue, we found that some EOCs grant divorces but others do not. What is the practice in your jurisdiction?

Whatever that ROCOR priest told you, he is mistaken. A second marriage is strongly discouraged by the mother church, but is permitted under the canon law of the Church. It also mentions that the allowance for a third marriage under exceptional conditions and after a period of penance goes back to St. Basil the Great.

I gave the references above. He is the only one that has I have seen post on the matter who has done or been to a second marriage in an EOC.

Also, here are the ‘myriad of reasons’ you mentioned which make a divorce allowable within the Russian Orthodox Church:

All of these reasons are grave issues for a marriage, and reasonably so should be grounds for divorce. They are nowhere near indicative of ‘latitude’ towards the issue of divorce as you have so disingenuously implied in your post. Stop spreading misinformation about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

What I wrote is true, whether you like it or not. So cut the accusation of misinformation. Moreover the characterization of laxity is correct. Although the interpretation is not without difficulty, one can plausibly make a case that Christ allowed for divorce under very limited conditions. The long list that you give goes very far beyond the words of Christ. It is a laxity as compared to the Word of God. However grave you may find these innovative grounds for divorce, there were not admitted as grounds by Christ. Why not accept his teaching?

 

[steve_b]

Both serve the exact same purpose.

God created a woman’s cycle. NOT man.

Man created ABC because he wanted assurance no pregnancy takes place. The Catholic Church condemns ABC. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean many Catholics don’t ignore the condemnation and use ABC.
M:

And the Manicheans were practicing the rhythm method (i.e. the basis of NFP).

That is exactly what NFP does. Why do you suppose it is used?

NFP, with every union, there are no barriers to conception other than what God has created… NOT so with ABC.

btw, This isn’t the topic of the thread.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Different jurisdictions have widely different practices. In fact, on the last go 'round on this issue, we found that some EOCs grant divorces but others do not. What is the practice in your jurisdiction?

I have not ever heard of a church in the EOC which did not grant divorces for grave reasons. My jurisdiction certainly allows for divorce under similar circumstances.

I gave the references above. He is the only one that has I have seen post on the matter who has done or been to a second marriage in an EOC.

What I wrote is true, whether you like it or not. So cut the accusation of misinformation. Moreover the characterization of laxity is correct. Although the interpretation is not without difficulty, one can plausibly make a case that Christ allowed for divorce under very limited conditions. The long list that you give goes very far beyond the words of Christ. It is a laxity as compared to the Word of God. However grave you may find these innovative grounds for divorce, there were not admitted as grounds by Christ. Why not accept his teaching?

Firstly, what you wrote is a false generalization. It is the experience of one ROCOR priest, not the experience of the entire Church. Perhaps in his opinion, the second marriage ceremony is not different, but the truth is that it is. In Greek Orthodox jurisdictions especially, second marriages do not have the crowning, which is done in first marriages.

Secondly, the laxity you speak of with divorce also exists with annulments. Let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that annulments are basically divorce under a different name. Somebody who gets an annulment is not only free of his wife, but is also free to remarry without any sort of consequence (which is untrue of divorce in the Eastern Orthodox Church).

Thirdly, the tradition of granting up to three marriages and no more dates back to St. Basil the Great, so what exactly are you talking about with innovation? Also, Christ only mentions adultery as a reason for divorce, but who says that is therefore the only allowable reason? We are not a Scripture Only Church, just as your Church is not a Scripture Only Church.

 

[dvdjs]

I have not ever heard of a church in the EOC which did not grant divorces for grave reasons. My jurisdiction certainly allows for divorce under similar circumstances.

Some do not grant divorce. Some do. I am not sure what it means to allow for divorce.

Firstly, what you wrote is a false generalization. It is the experience of one ROCOR priest, not the experience of the entire Church. Perhaps in his opinion, the second marriage ceremony is not different, but the truth is that it is. In Greek Orthodox jurisdictions especially, second marriages do not have the crowning, which is done in first marriages.

I did not make a generalization, but was very specific to delimit the my remark
“and, according to a ROCOR priest who has done such marriage ceremonies, scarcely any discernible difference between a first or second marriage ceremony.”
I didn’t generalize, because it is very hard to know what is the practice among the many Orthodox jurisdictions. Greeks may be more strict on this matter than ROCOR. As I mentioned, the last time this was discuss everyone who had been posting with certitude ultimately admitted that they had never seen an Orthodox second marriage ceremony.

Secondly, the laxity you speak of with divorce also exists with annulments. Let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that annulments are basically divorce under a different name. Somebody who gets an annulment is not only free of his wife, but is also free to remarry without any sort of consequence (which is untrue of divorce in the Eastern Orthodox Church).

I agree that we have reached a state of great laxity in the granting of annulments in the CC, especially in US. I don’t support it and don’t excuse it.

Thirdly, the tradition of granting up to three marriages and no more dates back to St. Basil the Great, so what exactly are you talking about with innovation?

At the time of Basil the Great there was no such thing as a second marriage ceremony in the EOC. You really should read the links I gave.

Also, Christ only mentions adultery as a reason for divorce, but who says that is therefore the only allowable reason? We are not a Scripture Only Church, just as your Church is not a Scripture Only Church

. Sure. The point is that Christ spoke strongly even to the point of shock against divorce. Even the exception for “adultery” rests on a dubious translation. Your suggestion that, in the name of tradition, the Church can take it upon itself to reverse the moral teachings of Christ is not Orthodox.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Whatever. No matter what I say, you will accuse me of fabricating history and using ‘Orthodox fairy tales,’ and I am apt to do the same to you. There is no use in debating when we are obviously entrenched in our respective positions. We (the Orthodox and Catholics) obviously both need to patch up our glass houses (contraception, divorce, annulments, etc.) before we throw stones; trying to tear the other side down will not prove your side to be right, that I can say for sure. At any rate, let’s agree to disagree, or else we will meet with much frustration :banghead:

 

[dvdjs]

Whatever. No matter what I say, you will accuse me of fabricating history and using ‘Orthodox fairy tales.’ There is no use in debating when we are obviously entrenched in our respective positions. We (the Orthodox and Catholics) obviously both need to patch up our glass houses before we throw stones, that is all that I can say. Trying to tear the other side down will not prove your side to be right, that I can say for sure.

Please: it is not a matter of “… no matter what I say…”. I have no interest in tearing down the OC in any way whatsoever, nor in tearing down Orthodox posters. I think that pointing to readings that should help people correct erroneous views should be considered building up, not tearing down.