Divorce and the Greek-Orthodox

[livingwordunity]

This reaffirms to me that the Catholic Church is the only church that can be identified with an immovable Rock.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This reaffirms to me that the Catholic Church is the only church that can be identified with an immovable Rock.

Yet your church does not follow the canons of the Holy Fathers, which do not even consider third marriages to be lawful marriages (according to St. Basil, they are allowed out of condescension, being only better than unmitigated fornication), and which forbid fourth marriages. How can you criticize us for the application of oikonomia (a patristic principle) in the case of divorces, while affirming the sinfulness of such an affair, when your church does not even follow the teachings of the Holy Fathers in affirming the sinful nature of third marriages?

 

[livingwordunity]

Yet your church does not follow the canons of the Holy Fathers, which do not even consider third marriages to be lawful marriages (according to St. Basil, they are allowed out of condescension, being only better than unmitigated fornication), and which forbid fourth marriages. How can you criticize us for the application of oikonomia (a patristic principle) in the case of divorces, while affirming the sinfulness of such an affair, when your church does not even follow the teachings of the Holy Fathers in affirming the sinful nature of third marriages?

I think you are confusing the Catholic Church’s teaching on annulments with divorce and ‘remarriage’. When the Catholic Church grants an annulment, She is declaring that there was no real marriage that took place. It was invalid. For an extreme example, today’s so-called same-sex ‘marriages’ would be an open and shut case for an annulment. But, the Catholic Church doesn’t accept as valid any ‘remarriage’ without a decision by the Church that the previous ‘marriage’ was, in fact, not a valid marriage. Is that was is taught by the Eastern Orthodox?

 

[josie_L]

Actually, the canons of St. Basil are what I was referring to, and these particular canons have been understood as implicitly having ecumenical approval according to the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, which ratified in their own canons the canons of the Holy Fathers without enumerating them. In this way, one cannot simply dismiss the authority of the canons of St. Basil by dismissing the authority of Trullo, because even if it were true that Trullo has no binding power upon the West, Chalcedon does, and Trullo serves as an interpretative guide as to which unnamed canons of the Holy Fathers were considered by the ancient Church to have been ratified at Chalcedon.

Trullo also known as Quinisext (692 AD) is believed to be part of the 5th (553 AD) and 6th (681 AD) ecumenical councils (retroactively), is also part of the 4th ecumenical council of Chalcedon too. i.e., its unnamed canons (this would include those canons concerning marriage) were ratified at Chalcedon. In what session was it ratified, moreover, what do you mean by “unnamed”? I have read that canon 28 of Chalcedon (which was rejected by the West) was reiterated at Trullo, but see no evidence for anything more. From my understanding, Trullo was very unfavorable towards the customs of the West:

In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and “every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned” (Fortescue).

newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

Obviously, the West did not recognize these canons because they were not part of any prior ecumenical council.

 

[josie_L]

I think you are confusing the Catholic Church’s teaching on annulments with divorce and ‘remarriage’. When the Catholic Church grants an annulment, She is declaring that there was no real marriage that took place. It was invalid. For an extreme example, today’s so-called same-sex ‘marriages’ would be an open and shut case for an annulment. But, the Catholic Church doesn’t accept as valid any ‘remarriage’ without a decision by the Church that the previous ‘marriage’ was, in fact, not a valid marriage. Is that was is taught by the Eastern Orthodox?

If it wasn’t a valid marriage in the first place, then its dissolvement cannot be classified/termed as a divorce.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think you are confusing the Catholic Church’s teaching on annulments with divorce and ‘remarriage’. When the Catholic Church grants an annulment, She is declaring that there was no real marriage that took place. It was invalid. For an extreme example, today’s so-called same-sex ‘marriages’ would be an open and shut case for an annulment. But, the Catholic Church doesn’t accept as valid any ‘remarriage’ without a decision by the Church that the previous ‘marriage’ was, in fact, not a valid marriage. Is that was is taught by the Eastern Orthodox?

Your church allows for unlimited remarriages after the death of a spouse. The Holy Fathers did not, and spoke of third marriages as being unlawful. It is, as I said earlier, outrageous for our application of oikonomia in the case of remarriage after divorce to be criticized, when your church has completely cast aside the teaching of the Holy Fathers that third marriages are sinful (but tolerated after an appropriate penance).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Trullo also known as Quinisext (692 AD) is believed to be part of the 5th (553 AD) and 6th (681 AD) ecumenical councils (retroactively), is also part of the 4th ecumenical council of Chalcedon too. i.e., its unnamed canons (this would include those canons concerning marriage) were ratified at Chalcedon. In what session was it ratified, moreover, what do you mean by “unnamed”? I have read that canon 28 of Chalcedon (which was rejected by the West) was reiterated at Trullo, but see no evidence for anything more. From my understanding, Trullo was very unfavorable towards the customs of the West:

Obviously, the West did not recognize these canons because they were not part of any prior ecumenical council.

You seem not to be understanding what I am arguing. Canon I of Chalcedon states, “We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.” The first canon of Second Nicaea likewise states the we should, “press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.”

My point is that even if you deny the authority of the second canon of Trullo (which explicitly enumerates St. Basil’s canons among the canons of the Holy Fathers), you cannot use this to deny the authority of the canons of St. Basil, because two Ecumenical Councils ratified these canons implicitly when they ratified the canons of the Holy Fathers, a collection which as Trullo witnesses, was considered to include the canons of St. Basil the Great.

 

[josie_L]

You seem not to be understanding what I am arguing. Canon I of Chalcedon states, “We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.” The first canon of Second Nicaea likewise states the we should, “press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.”

My point is that even if you deny the authority of the second canon of Trullo (which explicitly enumerates St. Basil’s canons among the canons of the Holy Fathers), you cannot use this to deny the authority of the canons of St. Basil, because two Ecumenical Councils ratified these canons implicitly when they ratified the canons of the Holy Fathers, a collection which as Trullo witnesses, was considered to include the canons of St. Basil the Great.

That doesn’t mean that regional councils and the canons which they produced are accepted as ecumenical, i.e., what you’ve posted above doesn’t say that all local/regional canons (especially those concerning disciplines/customs) must be accepted at an ecumenical level or rather raised to an ecumenical standard. If this were the case then all regional councils and their respective canons, including those from the West, would also be ecumenical too, then where would we be? :whacky:

 

[josie_L]

Your church allows for unlimited remarriages after the death of a spouse. The Holy Fathers did not, and spoke of third marriages as being unlawful. It is, as I said earlier, outrageous for our application of oikonomia in the case of remarriage after divorce to be criticized, when your church has completely cast aside the teaching of the Holy Fathers that third marriages are sinful (but tolerated after an appropriate penance).

Name me the Fathers in question, i.e., I do not believe for a second that this is Sacred Tradition or rather universally accepted by the Church. Perhaps, citing St. Vincent of Lerins would be do us good:

"I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.

"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect: That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, first, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, it may be, someone will ask: ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’ The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

Trullo cannot be termed as being ecumenical (even if it was initiated as one) because it was not universally acknowledged throughout the whole Church, i.e., the West never considered it more than a regional council at best, at worst it was what St. Bede referred to as a “reprobate” synod.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, not only do the EOs accept contraception in marriage, but they accept divorce and ‘remarriage’, too? This is shocking to me. I wonder how many Catholics who say they are leaving Catholicism to become Eastern Orthodox are doing it for this reason. I wouldn’t do it, but I can imagine that it probably happens a lot. Theological arguments would not dissuade them.

I don’t know if you have been in an abusive relationship or if you have been divorced.

Both my wife and I come from very abusive relationships. Neither one of us married in the Church or any other Church for that matter - both our prior unions were strictly civil (I was born and raised Catholic and fell away early in College and my wife is in RCIA now). Going through the divorce alone is a form of purgatory, I suspect that the concept of purgatory took form when a deeply spiritual Catholic went through one…

We are both going through annulment, which takes years to resolve and we don’t know if they will get annulled or not.

Now imagine being raised Catholic and reverting. To understand and have the spiritual conviction of what the Eucharist is. And no matter how many times you do Reconciliation, you will not be able to partake because your present marriage is considered to put you in a state of mortal sin… That the body and blood of Christ is there at the Mass and that no matter your suffering, you can’t receive it.

Please don’t refer me to BJPII documents and others because I have read them ad nauseum. We have submitted ourselves to the authority of the Church. That does not make the suffering any easier… I mean at times, I question what is the whole point of doing Reconciliation if I can’t be Reconciled? What if I get into an accident and I die before my marriage gets annulled? What if my wife, who is incredibly delicate of health, passes away before we get an annulment?

I don’t think you can even begin to understand the torments and how you must submit to Christ’s mercy to endure these attacks.

Now, the EO don’t offer a “free for all” waiver for divorces. If I am not mistaken, the divorcee will be withheld from partaking communion for 1-3 years (It’s been awhile since I read the guidelines, so please correct me) along with penance.

So, I can’t really blame any Catholic that leaves for Orthodoxy because I know first hand the suffering that comes with it. I don’t endorse it, but I don’t condemn it either.

Theological arguments have little to do with the soul, ideas and doctrines do little to heal the suffering. Love will do.

 

[livingwordunity]

Isaiah45_9,

I’ve actually been through a very toxic relationship, a divorce, and an annulment through the Catholic Church. I only stated the facts as they were presented on this thread about the EO and related it to the teaching of the Catholic Church. I didn’t judge anyone’s soul. But, I now realize that, in discussions with a Catholic who says they are leaving to be an EO, I could be wasting my time giving reasons why the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ if the one who I’m trying to dissuade is leaving the Catholic Church for emotional reasons rather than for what is true.

 

[livingwordunity]

That doesn’t mean that regional councils and the canons which they produced are accepted as ecumenical, i.e., what you’ve posted above doesn’t say that all local/regional canons (especially those concerning disciplines/customs) must be accepted at an ecumenical level or rather raised to an ecumenical standard. If this were the case then all regional councils and their respective canons, including those from the West, would also be ecumenical too, then where would we be? :whacky:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah45_9,

I’ve actually been through a very toxic relationship, a divorce, and an annulment through the Catholic Church. I only stated the facts as they were presented on this thread about the EO and related it to the teaching of the Catholic Church. I didn’t judge anyone’s soul. But, I now realize that, in discussions with a Catholic who says they are leaving to be an EO, I could be wasting my time giving reasons why the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ if the one who I’m trying to dissuade is leaving the Catholic Church for emotional reasons rather than for what is true.

Yes, you would do a great favor to not speak to a Catholic who is going through suffering…

What good is to be in the one true Church if we have no love… which makes us nothing.

 

[livingwordunity]

Your church allows for unlimited remarriages** after the death of a spouse**. The Holy Fathers did not

If it were true that a Christian should not be free to remarry after the death of their spouse why would this teaching be absent from every ecumenical council known to the Church? What reason would there be for such a rule? It contradicts the gospels because if it were true that one is not free to remarry after the death of their spouse then Jesus would not have answered the Sad’ducees by saying, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” - Matt. 22:30

How would you have answered the question that the Sad’ducees asked Jesus about remarriage after the death of a spouse?

Matthew 22

23 The same day Sad’ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question,
24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’
25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother.
26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh.
27 After them all, the woman died.
28 In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her.”
29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

 

[livingwordunity]

You’ll have to excuse me. I’m still in a state of shock about this. Until this week, and especially today, I had always thought of the Eastern Orthodox as being conservative, that the only real difference between us and them was that we have a Pope and they don’t. But, today I found out that there’s a lot more that divides us than I had previously thought.

 

[livingwordunity]

What good is to be in the one true Church if we have no love… which makes us nothing.

The Church is a hospital for sinners. But to be open to receive the medicine the Church has to offer we have to be humble and not be to proud to accept correction. And yes, we need love, but love can’t exist without the whole truth. A half or partial truth is still a lie. Jesus said the truth sets us free. So when someone leaves the one true Church they are hurting themselves.

 

[RyanBlack]

If it were true that a Christian should not be free to remarry after the death of their spouse why would this teaching be absent from every ecumenical council known to the Church? What reason would there be for such a rule? It contradicts the gospels because if it were true that one is not free to remarry after the death of their spouse then Jesus would not have answered the Sad’ducees by saying, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” - Matt. 22:30

How would you have answered the question that the Sad’ducees asked Jesus about remarriage after the death of a spouse?

Matthew 22

23 The same day Sad’ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question,
24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’
25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother.
26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh.
27 After them all, the woman died.
28 In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her.”
29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Jesus was discussing marriage in the context of the Levitical Law, not in the sacramental, Christian understanding of marriage.

 

[livingwordunity]

Jesus was discussing marriage in the context of the Levitical Law, not in the sacramental, Christian understanding of marriage.

The context of the discussion was whether or not a Christian should be free to remarry after their spouse dies. So, I showed biblical proof that Jesus says we are free to remarry after our spouse dies.

 

[RyanBlack]

You’ll have to excuse me. I’m still in a state of shock about this. Until this week, and especially today, I had always thought of the Eastern Orthodox as being conservative, that the only real difference between us and them was that we have a Pope and they don’t. But, today I found out that there’s a lot more that divides us than I had previously thought.

Are you aware of the fact that the Orthodox don’t grant ecclesiastical divorces for just anything, and that any marriage other than a first marriage is considered to be penitential in character?

 

[RyanBlack]

The context of the discussion was whether or not a Christian should be free to remarry after their spouse dies. So, I showed biblical proof that Jesus says we are free to remarry after our spouse dies.

No. The discussion with the Saducees was in response to a question having to do with levirate marrages, which have nothing to do with a Christian understanding of marriage as a sacrament.’