Divorce and the Greek-Orthodox

[dvdjs]

What of the Apostolic Tradition? Sola Scriptura is a heresy.
Economy is quite Apostolic and in accord with Scripture and the Fathers.

Fascinating. I don’t think that any theory of economy is so expansive that it would empower going against the words of Christ. There are probably better ways to make this argument.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

To dvdjs:

The missions of St. Cyril and Methodius established Orthodoxy in the Slavic nations, yes.

My point is that you claim roots with us…you were the one who said your tradition is 300 years old, not me. That is what prompted my question.

You know full well what I mean by the U word. I am trying to be nice, but if this is going to turn into a nasty slug match over Brest than I will end my inquiry now.

 

[livingwordunity]

What of the Apostolic Tradition? Sola Scriptura is a heresy.

Economy is quite Apostolic and in accord with Scripture and the Fathers.

As you should know, my beliefs are what is taught by the Catholic Church. Therefore, they are not Sola Scriptura. Apostolic Tradition is not supposed to be in conflict with Sacred Scripture. And Sacred Scripture is not supposed to be in conflict with Apostolic Tradition. That is what Catholics believe. We don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, and we don’t believe in Sola Apostolic Tradition. We believe in both, especially the words of Jesus in the gospels.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Fascinating. I don’t think that any theory of economy is so expansive that it would empower going against the words of Christ. There are probably better ways to make this argument.

Who said it was all expansive? A Bishop’s discretion is not loosey goosey, despite the polemics.

Ignoring the Apostolic Tradition in favor of Biblical Proof texting raises an eyebrow to say the least.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

As you should know, my believes are what is taught by the Catholic Church. Therefore, they are not Sola Scriptura. Apostolic Tradition is not supposed to be in conflict with Sacred Scripture. That is what Catholics believe.

That is good. Oikonomia has its origin in this tradition as well as Scripture. The Canons are also sourced here. They should be taken in the whole should they not?

 

[RyanBlack]

The Sad’ducees clearly are asking about a situation where someone’s spouse dies and they remarry. Does Jesus tell them a person can’t do that? Does he say it would be a sin for this woman to marry again and again after each of her husbands has died? No. He treats marriage after the death of a spouse totally different than he does with divorce where he says that if someone divorces and remarries they commit adultery.

The Sadducees aren’t even concerned about marriage here. Their question isn’t an honest question. It’s an attempt to engage Jesus in a debate about the resurrection, which they steadfastly denied. Furthermore, Jesus gives no teaching about marriage, except that people aren’t given in marriage in heaven. Finally, the extent to which marriage (which is really peripheral in this passage) is at issue here, it’s not even about sacramental, Christian marriage. Marriage had not yet been raised to the dignity of a sacrament. This is dealing with the Jewish levirate marriage, which was all about perpetuating the line of succession for elder sons who had died without heirs.

 

[dvdjs]

To dvdjs:

The missions of St. Cyril and Methodius established Orthodoxy in the Slavic nations, yes.
My point is that you claim roots with us…you were the one who said your tradition is 300 years old, not me. .

No: I said quite probably from the very inception, with clear documentary evidence as far back as three centuries. The “quite likely” is just the circumstantial evidence of having ancestors in the region at the time of the mission, and our being Eastern. The clear documentary evidence is from grave markers in my ancestral village.

 

[livingwordunity]

The Sadducees aren’t even concerned about marriage here. Their question isn’t an honest question. It’s an attempt to engage Jesus in a debate about the resurrection, which they steadfastly denied. Furthermore, Jesus gives no teaching about marriage, except that people aren’t given in marriage in heaven. Finally, the extent to which marriage (which is really peripheral in this passage) is at issue here, it’s not even about sacramental, Christian marriage. Marriage had not yet been raised to the dignity of a sacrament. This is dealing with the Jewish levirate marriage, which was all about perpetuating the line of succession for elder sons who had died without heirs.

Jesus said that people in Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. How does marriage being a sacrament change that? It doesn’t make any sense to say that it’s a sin for someone to remarry after their spouse dies when the only marriage in Heaven is between Jesus and the Church.

 

[RyanBlack]

Jesus said that people in Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. How does marriage being a sacrament change that? It doesn’t make any sense to say that it’s a sin for someone to remarry after their spouse dies when the only marriage in Heaven is between Jesus and the Church.

I never said that marriage being made a sacrament changes the fact that people in Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. What I was saying is that the Sadducees were not discussing Christian, sacramental marriage with Jesus. The marriage that was being discussed (peripherally, as they were really attempting to engage Jesus in a debate about the resurrection of the body) was the ancient Jewish levirate marriage. As such, I see no reason to attempt to base Christian teaching on marriage based on this passage, except for the part about whether people marry in Heaven. Having said that, there is a biblical basis for the lawfulness of the second marriage of those who are widowed-it’s just not to be found in this passage. Rather, it is to be found in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 39-40. However, even in this passage, St. Paul teaches that it is better for the widow not to remarry, but that the remarriage is preferable to burning (with passion). This is the basis for the Orthodox teaching that second marriages are penitential and are granted as a concession to human weakness.

 

[livingwordunity]

I never said that marriage being made a sacrament changes that people in Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. What I was saying is that the Sadducees were not discussing Christian, sacramental marriage with Jesus. The marriage that was being discussed (peripherally, as they were really attempting to engage Jesus in a debate about the resurrection of the body) was the ancient Jewish levirate marriage. As such, I see no reason to attempt to base Christian teaching on marriage based on this passage, except for the part about whether people marry in Heaven. Having said that, there is a biblical basis for the lawfulness of the second marriage of those who are widowed-it’s just not to be found in this passage. Rather, it is to be found in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 39-40. However, even in this passage, St. Paul teaches that it is better for the widow not to remarry, but that the remarriage is preferable than it is to burn (with passion). This is the basis for the Orthodox teaching that second marriages are penitential and are granted as a concession to human weakness.

It seems like the topic is wandering between divorce and remarriage and remarriage after the spouse dies. One of the EOs in this thread claimed that it is a sin to remarry after your spouse dies. And the verse I provided showed how that makes no sense given the fact that the only marriage in Heaven is between Jesus and the Church. That was the point of what Jesus said. Therefore, there is no reason for believing that remarriage after your spouse dies is a sin (unless you are ordained).

 

[RyanBlack]

It seems like the topic is wondering between divorce and remarriage and remarriage after the spouse dies. One of the EOs in this thread claimed that it is a sin to remarry after your spouse dies. And the verse I provided showed how that makes no sense given the fact that the only marriage in Heaven is between Jesus and the Church. Therefore, there is no reason for believing that remarriage after your spouse dies is a sin (unless you are ordained).

The fact that Jesus said that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in Heaven does not equate to the bond of a sacramental marriage ceasing to exist upon the death of one of the spouses.

Sacramental marriage did not even exist at the time Jesus was conversing with the Sadducees, and therefore is not what Jesus was discussing. This is why it makes no sense to attempt to base Christian teaching on marriage upon this passage, which is so obviously not about marriage in the first place. Marriage is being used disingenuously by the Sadducees, when they really want to engage the issue of the resurrection of the body. Jesus’s own point in this encounter is to declare the truth of the resurrection of the body, not to establish Church teaching about sacramental marriage.

 

[YADA]

The fact that Jesus said that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in Heaven does not equate to the bond of a sacramental marriage ceasing to exist upon the death of one of the spouses.

Sacramental marriage did not even exist at the time Jesus was conversing with the Sadducees, and therefore is not what Jesus was discussing. This is why it makes no sense to attempt to base Christian teaching on marriage upon this passage, which is so obviously not about marriage in the first place. Marriage is being used disingenuously by the Sadducees, when they really want to engage the issue of the resurrection of the body. Jesus’s own point in this encounter is to declare the truth of the resurrection of the body, not to establish Church teaching about sacramental marriage.

Really - I think Jesus pointed out that marriage was always sacramental in nature … from the beginning …and that divorce was allowed by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts … that in God’s plan marriage was intended to be a sacrament …

Your point about St Paul and widows remarrying as a secondary - less then optimum is also the same point he makes for non-married when he says “. It is good for a man not to marry” …In Matthew’s Gospel [Ch19] Jesus refers to as “Eunuchs for the Kingdom” .

Thus Why is it only for second marriages that the Orthodox view as penitential? Should not first marriages be penitential in nature as well? … and why the number three? … why not stop at two? given that first marriages are also less then optimum?

Also - Jesus came to fulfill the law - not to change one iota [jot] of the law … thus the discussion of the widow and the seven brothers looses some of its - that is the OT Jewish practice of marriage not the Christian view … Jesus was speaking to Jews in the hearing of Jewish followers of His Good News of Salvation … his example would have to be not only relevant to the topic [Resurrection of the body] but also in context to the topic … marriage here on earth and in the here after …

 

[livingwordunity]

The fact that Jesus said that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in Heaven does not equate to the bond of a sacramental marriage ceasing to exist upon the death of one of the spouses.

Is the teaching that it’s a sin to remarry after your spouse dies the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox churches or the personal opinion of some who are Eastern Orthodox? Because I’ve never heard about this teaching in my whole life until today, and I’m middle aged. I never knew that anyone believed this. The Catholic Church says no to divorce and remarriage but says yes to remarriage after death of spouse.

The Resurrection and Theological Anthropology Pope John Paul II

As can be seen from these words, marriage, that union in which, according to Genesis, “A man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (2:24)—the union characteristic of man right from the beginning—belongs exclusively to this age.

Does the Eastern Orthodox church officially teach the opposite of this?

 

[RyanBlack]

Is the teaching that it’s a sin to remarry after your spouse dies the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox churches or the personal opinion of some who are Eastern Orthodox? Because I’ve never heard about this teaching in my whole life until today, and I’m middle aged. I never knew that anyone believed this. The Catholic Church says yes to remarriage after death of spouse but says no to divorce and remarriage. Does the Eastern Orthodox church officially teach the opposite of this?

For the Orthodox any second or third marriage is granted as a concession that acknowledges human imperfection that falls short of the ideal taught in Sacred Scripture. This concession is for the spiritual welfare of weak, imperfect humans who might otherwise lapse into fornication.

 

[livingwordunity]

For the Orthodox any second or third marriage is granted as a concession that acknowledges human imperfection that falls short of the ideal taught in Sacred Scripture. This concession is for the spiritual welfare of weak, imperfect humans who might otherwise lapse into fornication.

We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Papal encyclicals which we use to demonstrate that what we are saying is the official position of our Church. Can you provide something similar like that but an official Eastern Orthodox document to show that what you are saying is the official position of the Eastern Orthodox church?

 

[RyanBlack]

We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Papal encyclicals which we use to demonstrate that what we are saying is the official position of our Church. Can you provide something similar like that but an official Eastern Orthodox document to show that what you are saying is the official position of the Eastern Orthodox church?

There is no Orthodox counterpart to the CCC.

Why are you reluctant to believe me? I am Eastern Catholic, and was at one time Eastern Orthodox. I have five years of graduate theological education, including the M.Div. and Th.M. degrees. I’m not an authority or expert, but I have read a number of volumes on Orthodox teaching. However, if that doesn’t satisfy you, check out this link.

stgeorgegoc.org/divorcePastoralGuidelines.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

There is no Orthodox counterpart to the CCC.

There is no Orthodox equivalent to the CCC, although the question he wants answered should be contained in the Rudder. Although I am loathe to mention that. Western Catholics have a tendency to read it as they would a legal book.

 

[YADA]

For the Orthodox any second or third marriage is granted as a concession that acknowledges human imperfection that falls short of the ideal taught in Sacred Scripture. This concession is for the spiritual welfare of weak, imperfect humans who might otherwise lapse into fornication.

This attitude regarding widows remarrying being less then optimum is rooted in the teachings of St Paul - from earlier posts … Well St Paul makes the same point for non-married persons when he says “. It is good for a man not to marry” …

And In Matthew’s Gospel [Ch19] Jesus refers to “Eunuchs for the Kingdom” those who choose the non-married state for the glory of God …

Thus - I ask why is the Orthodox teaching only for widows entering a second or third marriage? Obviously the ideal is a life dedicated to the service of God … thus for anyone who marries … be it first, second or third is a concession to human imperfection … so every marriage is a concession - your economy - for those who might otherwise lapse into fornication … all human kind …

Thus the Orthodox position is inconsistent …

And there is no justification for a third - but not a 4th …

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thus the Orthodox position is inconsistent …

And there is no justification for a third - but not a 4th …

This teaching that second and third marriages are concessions made to human weakness as well as the limit of three marriages, these were established by the Fathers themselves. Which do you trust, the interpretations and customs of the Holy Fathers (which you attack as inconsistent) or your own private judgment and interpretation of scripture? I thought that faithful Roman Catholics, according to the Tridentine Creed, were not permitted to elevate the latter (their own private judgment and interpretation of the Scriptures) above the former.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As far as tradition goes: I claim my tradition. My family and ancestors have been part of the Byzantine Slavonic church quite probably from its very inception, with clear documentary evidence as far back as three centuries.

That of course implies your very own patrimony originally included at the very least being in communion with those who granted divorces by oikonomia (if not even practicing this themselves), as is evidenced by the fact that the practice of granting divorces by oikonomia was one of the points of contention brought up and subsequently glossed over at Florence, which certainly occurred before your ancestors entered into corporate union with the Pope.