Divorce and the Greek-Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter YAA23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavaradossi said:
That is exactly what those canons say. And if we are to trust that the second canon of Trullo is clarifying which canons have been given such authority, then they did in fact include some councils from the West in that listing, such as canons from several councils of Carthage.
Click to expand...
But Trullo is not ecumenical, i.e., it was not accepted by the West (even if some of its canon was accepted by the West prior to Trullo), i.e., the canons for the most part were very anti-Latin (no celibate priesthood, no fasting on Saturdays . . . etc.) and as such, would impose/enforce Byzantine customs/disciplines on the West. Do you see why it was rejected by the Pope in the first place, so unless, you can show me where else the canons concerning marriage are implemented, i.e., at an ecumenical level, then I shall remain unconvinced of your position.
 
Cavaradossi said:
That is exactly what those canons say. And if we are to trust that the second canon of Trullo is clarifying which canons have been given such authority, then they did in fact include some councils from the West in that listing, such as canons from several councils of Carthage.
Click to expand...
I’ve read canon II of Trullo and all it says is that certain canons were already ratified either at Nicea and/or Chalcedon (canon 28 which was rejected by the West) and/or at other regional councils like Sardica, but there was other canon implemented at Trullo which were never ratified by the West, hence, the reason that Trullo is not regarded as ecumenical. It is a regional council only.
 
Misplaced_Book said:
I was attempting to be inclusive. Do not Eastern Catholics claim the patrimony of the East?

So you do not view us as your Mother Church and Mother Tradition?

By us I mean Orthodoxy.

By your use of the word inception do you view your tradition as a new creation?

Would this not confirm the U word model?

I am trying to be gentle and genuinely understand where you are coming from…you deny being Latinized yet this post is made.

This is interesting.
Click to expand...
Being part of the UNIVERSAL church implies embracing all aspects of her CATHOLICITY (not just a part of it). Remember that when you recite your creed.
 
Misplaced_Book said:
What of the Apostolic Tradition? Sola Scriptura is a heresy.

Economy is quite Apostolic and in accord with Scripture and the Fathers.
Click to expand...
Is economy another word for doing whatever you want because according to some Orthodox it’s being misused:
Also revealed in the “Agreed Statement on Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy’” is an erroneous Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation). In the instances where the baptisms of Catholics are admitted, such converts find themselves received into Eastern Orthodoxy by Chrismation even though such persons had also been previously confirmed in the Catholic Church. Here there is clear rejection of Catholic doctrine that the Sacrament of Confirmation (Chrismation) imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark and thus the sacrament of Chrismation cannot be repeated. There may be individual Orthodox theologians who say that the anointing with chrism is not a repetition of the Sacrament of Chrismation but other theologians have no hesitancy in asserting that it is the Sacrament of Chrismation that is administered in the reception of converts from Catholicism.
Click to expand...
In his “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Ludwig Ott noted:
Click to expand...
“The Orthodox Church denies the existence of the [indelible] character in Confirmation” (p. 367). It has become clearer that there remains a regrettable confusion among the Eastern Orthodox with respect to a doctrine of “sacramental economy” (“oikonomia”) which results in invalid sacraments becoming valid by “pastoral discretion”. As the authors of the “Agreed Statement on Baptism and ‘Sacramental economy’” candidly declared:
Click to expand...
“This interpretation of “oikonomia” endows the hierarchy with a virtually infinite power, capable as it were, of creating ‘validity’ and bestowing grace where it was absent before. This new understanding of ‘economy’ does not, however, enjoy universal recognition in the Orthodox Church. We have already noted that the East Slavic Orthodox churches remain committed to the earlier understanding and practice of the Byzantine era which does not imply the possibility of making valid what is invalid, or invalid what is valid. Even within Greek-speaking Orthodoxy, ‘sacramental economy’ in the full Nicodemean interpretation does not command universal acceptance. As a result, within world Orthodoxy, the issue of ‘sacramental economy’ remains the subject of intense debate”.
Click to expand...
That the validity of Catholic sacraments is denied by significant numbers of Eastern Orthodox who do not accept that there can be grace-bearing sacraments outside the Eastern Orthodox communion (for them the Pope has not been baptized!) and who still adhere to an untenable view of “sacramental economy” highlights the serious doctrinal divisions actually existing among the Eastern Orthodox – divisions that appear without the possibility of authoritative resolution. It may be recalled here that the celebrated William Palmer, Fellow of Magdalen College, who had gone to Russia in 1840-1841 in the hopes of a recognition of the Branch-Theory of the Church held by Anglicans like himself and who therefore sought access to Greco-Russian sacraments, found himself with a Russian Orthodox Church that recognized the validity of his baptism while the Greek Orthodox Church did not. He eventually resolved the matter by becoming a Catholic.
Click to expand...
The part I emboldened was taken verbatim from a North American Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation in 1999.
 
dvdjs said:
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.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
Justin Martyr 150 A.D: “And ‘Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery.’ and, ‘There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but all cannot receive this saying.’ So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her.”

Athenagoras the Athenian 177 AD wrote A plea for the Christians. In it he writes: “For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of action, - that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. ‘For whosoever puts away his wife,’ says He, ‘and marries another, commits adultery’; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again.” .

Clement of Alexandria 194 AD on the exception clause states that the only exception for divorce is for remarried couples to end their sinful marriage: “Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”

Tertullian had much to say agreeing with the above then of course came Augustines work.

There is no “re-marriage” in Scripture. Very much the opposite and in several areas of the NT.

1- Corinthians 7-27- Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.

Luke 16:18- Whosoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery: and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery.

Matthew 19:5-6 “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

“The Eastern churches, under the influence of imperial legislation, were more lenient. They generally permitted divorce and remarriage for adultery and other serious offenses. For a while during the early Middle Ages, a few church councils in the West began allowing remarriage after adultery or lengthy separations.”

past Aquinas period enters …

“Augustine’s position, however, eventually carried the day in the West, and a medieval consensus on marital sacramentality and indissolubility developed, receiving Thomas Aquinas’s stamp of approval in the thirteenth century. During the same period, a very limited alternative to divorce developed This was the procedure of… “annulment,”… the official pronouncement that a marriage bond never existed, despite outward appearances to the contrary.”

“Augustine was the first theologian to call Christian marriage a sacrament, or means of grace. He based his argument in part on the use of the Latin word sacramentum for the Greek word mysterion in Ephesians 5. He opposed those who wanted to allow marriage of the innocent party in cases of adultery and made the indissolubility of Christian marriage, even after adultery, the standard of the Western church.”

christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/augustweb-only/46.0c.html

newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
 
josie_L said:
Being part of the UNIVERSAL church implies embracing all aspects of her CATHOLICITY (not just a part of it). Remember that when you recite your creed.
Click to expand...
I just had to add this because this is how I feel too:
Actually, an irenic Protestant gentleman (who ended up becoming Orthodox) made a very similar point. Catholicism, he observed, accommodates every kind of legitimate spirituality, the entire spectrum, from “the icy intellectualism of a Ronald Knox to the sentimental pietism of a Therese of Lisieux.”
Click to expand...
I’m not sure he was entirely fair to Therese–she was a pretty tough cookie; one has to be to be a Carmelite–but his basic point stands, I think. It is one big reason why I am Catholic. An erstwhile colleague used to wear a sweatshirt, around Christmas, screen-printed with the words “Santa, I want it all!” That’s kind of the way I feel–”Jesus, I want it all!” Icons and statues. Apophasis and cataphasis. Mysticism and scholasticism. Mary and Martha. Contemplation and action. Chotkis and rosaries. Eastern saints and Western saints. Faith and Reason. Basilians and Benedictines (and Franciscans and Dominicans and Carthusians and Carmelites….) Byzantine chant and Gregorian chant (and Palestrina and Poulenc and just about everyone except Marty Haugen–LOL!). Every ethnic and racial group under the sun. Every legitimate, orthodox Christian spirituality. Every legitimate Christian devotional tradition, Eastern and Western. The whole nine yards. I want it all.
Click to expand...
That, in a nutshell, is why I’m Catholic.
Click to expand...
cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/baptism-sacramental-economy-and-st-nicodemus/
 
josie_L said:
But Trullo is not ecumenical, i.e., it was not accepted by the West (even if some of its canon was accepted by the West prior to Trullo), i.e., the canons for the most part were very anti-Latin (no celibate priesthood, no fasting on Saturdays . . . etc.) and as such, would impose/enforce Byzantine customs/disciplines on the West. Do you see why it was rejected by the Pope in the first place, so unless, you can show me where else the canons concerning marriage are implemented, i.e., at an ecumenical level, then I shall remain unconvinced of your position.
Click to expand...
The idea that the Pope has a line item veto of councils is absurd.

Your Pope didn’t like a lot of things, but that is besides the issue.
 
YADA said:
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 …
Click to expand...
👍
 
josie_L said:
I’ve read canon II of Trullo and all it says is that certain canons were already ratified either at Nicea and/or Chalcedon (canon 28 which was rejected by the West) and/or at other regional councils like Sardica, but there was other canon implemented at Trullo which were never ratified by the West, hence, the reason that Trullo is not regarded as ecumenical. It is a regional council only.
Click to expand...
👍
 
dvdjs said:
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.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
josie_L said:
Being part of the UNIVERSAL church implies embracing all aspects of her CATHOLICITY (not just a part of it). Remember that when you recite your creed.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Catholic Church is truly catholic because we have both Eastern and Western traditions within our Church. But, the Eastern Orthodox only have the Eastern traditions.
 
RyanBlack said:
There are Western Rite Orthodox parishes within the EO Churches.
Click to expand...
Misplaced Book needs to hear this more than LivingWordUnity, i.e., you would think from his replies that the EO is composed solely of Byzantine rite Orthodox parishes. 😃
 
RyanBlack said:
There are Western Rite Orthodox parishes within the EO Churches.
Click to expand...
How well received are they because I found this on Wikipedia:
However, unlike most Eastern Catholic churches, Western Rite Orthodox congregations are not the result of historically complex political and ecclesiastical developments, but rather of small-scale conversion to Orthodoxy by individuals and congregations. Also, Western Rite congregations all adhere to the same bishops as their Byzantine counterparts; they do not constitute a separate church of their own, nor do they maintain their own seminaries or observe their own canons, as do the Eastern Catholic churches. Furthermore, many Eastern Catholic churches represent communities grafted directly from Orthodoxy, often as a result of internal schisms in a local Orthodox church. These churches were (at least theoretically) permitted to retain their ancient liturgical traditions, and retained some of their ecclesiastical structures (e.g., diocesan sees and claims, such as the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch and Ukrainian eparchy of Kyiv, prior to its suppression). By contrast, most modern Western Rite communities rarely emerge directly from the jurisdictional structures of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican communions, and celebrate reconstructed liturgies with ahistorical additions (e.g., supplementary prayers grafted from the Byzantine, Celtic, Mozarabic rites, etc.), often new to the community entering Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Rite_Orthodoxy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top