Divorce beliefs in Orthodox Church

[Nine_Two]

The same thing that becomes of any children of divorce. They are devastated at the destruction of their family and are forced to pick up the pieces left by their parents’ sin.

I believe the question was regarding their legitimacy in the eyes of the church.

 

[dnu]

Hey Nine_two

Is there a website like catholic.com for Eastern Orthodoxy? I’ve found a lot of Orthodox Sites, but none quite like this one.

 

[prodromos]

Hmmm? This is an interesting point. What becomes of the children of marriage that never existed in the first place?

It is stated that they are legitimate in terms of a natural marriage (non sacramental). So legitimacy of children is viewed in purely secular terms.

John

 

[Nine_Two]

Hey Nine_two

Is there a website like catholic.com for Eastern Orthodoxy? I’ve found a lot of Orthodox Sites, but none quite like this one.

Not that I’ve ever found.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes, that would be falling down.
This might surprise you, Nine, but yes, I have indeed read that part of Scripture on more than one occasion. And the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites led Moses to make an exception that he really should not have made. Christ came to set things right and bring back the truth of marriage, that it is for life with very rare exceptions in case of porneia. I fail to understand your liberal, almost Protestant attitude toward divorce. The Orthodox for centuries loathed divorce and kept it out as much as Catholics. It’s amazing how much you ignore Christ’s admonition to end divorce and give it little quarter.
Perhaps you should read why Christ says divorce existed in the first place.

Disolving?
There are certain sins you can “get up” from, right? Stealing, lying, looking at pornography, cheating, gossiping, etc. But how do you get out of living in a state of perpetual sin with a woman when in reality you’re still married to the first woman you dumped? Answer: you can’t. Unless she was adulterous or in a state of perversion or other serious, very serious behavior that made the marriage not valid to begin with, then you are still married to lady #1. That’s what Jesus flat out says. How can you put spin on what he says? He tells the women she is still married to her first husband as is in a serious state of adultery. That’s what He says. How do we spin that and allow it anyway then give the adulteress two more shots before she finds a guy she digs?
No, repenting of ones sins means getting up.

**With all due respect, how many annulments do you hear about? I have only spoken to a few ladies who have gone through or are going through the process and in all the cases the husband had very seriously committed adultery and had abandoned the women. Even with that obvious good case, the annulment proceedings were taking well over a year as the priests/bishop carefully went through the circumstances of the sad situations. These aren’t cases of the husband wanting to watch Sports Center and the wife wanting Desperate Housewives so they filed for divorce. It was serious stuff that warranted it. And it goes to the idea that the marriage was never really a true marriage. That’s often true. **
Whereas an annulment is recognision that you were living in sin in the first place. It seems that the majority of annulment cases I hear about are ones that go through, you can probably safetly extrapolate that and say that under Roman law most Catholic couples are living in sin.
There better be some hard-core questioning and some serious reasons behind it that are very biblical. Giving an arbitrary number of three is just weird.
If three marriages were allowed no questions asked, you might have a point.
Are you trying to persuade me that a couple shouldn’t stay together when there is abuse and intense adultery involved? You don’t need to sell me on it. I’m sold. Adultery and things of this nature go to what Christ said about divorce. The Church can and should explore annulments in this. I never said leaving people to beat the heck out of each other and cheat is benevolent. Please don’t assume I would think that. I’m not barbaric, Nine.
Christ said that one of the greatest sins is leading another to sin. Leaving two people in a loveless marriage with no way out so that they despise each other, they cheat on each other, they abuse each other, is that benevolent and helping man to grow in faith and sin less?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

COLOR=“blue”]Yes, you caught me, Nine, I’m God. I’ve believed I’m the Supreme Being for years. Come on, of course I don’t think I’m God. I’m merely saying that adultery is a SERIOUS sin. A bishop granting remarriage three times is putting himself and the people in remarriage in spiritual jeopardy. You know what I said. Don’t try to portray me as stoking any fires. I don’t want ANYONE to go to hell, period. But I listen to what Our Lord says and I worry for the salvation of the souls of people in divorced and remarried situations like this who don’t really merit it. You should to if you love them.
Did Christ not say “Judge not lest you be judged?” So why do you damn these men to hell? Are you God? Where was St. Peter given the right to damn man to hell?
This is just downright weird commentary, you sound very hostile and bitter toward Catholicism for some reason. Former Catholic? What does Simony have to do with this? Do you want me to start naming horrible people guilty of nasty crimes and corruption in Orthodox history? I won’t. Why? Because it has nothing to do with this conversation? Diversionary tactics don’t work. Just stay on the topic. I won’t bite that bait.
And yet you do. How many times I read the Q&A section of this site and hear about someone who is leaving the Church because they are no longer able to receive the eucharist (essentially excommunicating them) for a mistake they made when they were young. Indeed, you speak so highly of an organization which once openly engaged in Simony at its highest levels, and which today commonly does at funerals the very act which it once decread to be desecration of bodies (cremation).
Yeah, I’m well aware of sin, the ramifications of it, and the stone-casting statement by Our Lord. I resent your saying I even slightly believe myself sinless. Who do you think you are talking to me like this? There is no reason for you to be busting out this kind of stuff on me. This has nothing to do with casting stones. By your definitions and outlook, we should just sin at will and turn the other cheek to all sins and evils in the world lest we appear judgmental! You as an Orthodox are unique for sure because none of the Orthodox with whom I’ve spoken in here or elsewhere EVER have this attitude about sin being so cavalier. Your approach to sin sounds like a Baptist or someone from Calvary Chapel, loosey goosey. As an Orthodox you should know to preach the truth in love. The truth about sin isn’t pretty. People locked in an adulterous relationship remarried for frivolous reasons other than adultery or abuse, etc. are locked in a perpetual sin and profain the Sacrament of the Eucharist. You know this, come on?
Christ forbade a lot of things, we call those things which he forbade, but which we still do “Sin”, as he said the the pharisees, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If you have never sinned than I welcome your righteous judgement on us.
How do you know my bishops are permitting second marriages that are not for good reasons? You act as if you know they are granting annulments based on “he’s a Steelers fan, she’s a Raiders fan” type of divorces.
Perhaps you should be asking this of your own Bishops who permit those second marriages.
But it’s not committed three times. It’s perpetual. they’re living in the state of sin each time they’re intimate and all the way as they pretend to be wedded in God’s sacramental state but they are in adultery. I suppose there are sins as bad as this but that doesn’t take away the gravity or severity of the sin. It’s perpetual, not one, two or three times type of deal. It’s a locked-in-sin ongoing spiritual prison. You’re comparing this to a one-time or two time or three time sin. It’s serious stuff. I share your prayer, trust me.
There are sins I have committed far more than three times, and I pray to God he will have mercy on me, and see my desire to be close to him.

 

[Nine_Two]

Wait… So you’re saying a marriage automatically becomes null and void and never happened if one of the partners cheats on another?

No wonder so many are handed out, it’s like an easy to get free pass. It’s amazing some are denied.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two;6392455:

This might surprise you, Nine, but yes, I have indeed read that part of Scripture on more than one occasion. And the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites led Moses to make an exception that he really should not have made. Christ came to set things right and bring back the truth of marriage, that it is for life with very rare exceptions in case of porneia. I fail to understand your liberal, almost Protestant attitude toward divorce. The Orthodox for centuries loathed divorce and kept it out as much as Catholics. It’s amazing how much you ignore Christ’s admonition to end divorce and give it little quarter.

Moses made the exception? Moses was allowed to make the exception, unless you don’t consider the Torah to be inspired. Additionally Christ said what was proper and right, he said that divorce was a great sin, which should not take place. This does not change the hardness of peoples hearts.
Additionally you’re blowing off what is said as “almost protestant” is dishonest. If anything comes along and you dislike it than it must be “Protestant”?
You continue to say we ignore Christs command that divorce is wrong while you defend anulments, which are essentially the same thing.

There are certain sins you can “get up” from, right? Stealing, lying, looking at pornography, cheating, gossiping, etc. But how do you get out of living in a state of perpetual sin with a woman when in reality you’re still married to the first woman you dumped? Answer: you can’t. Unless she was adulterous or in a state of perversion or other serious, very serious behavior that made the marriage not valid to begin with, then you are still married to lady #1. That’s what Jesus flat out says. How can you put spin on what he says? He tells the women she is still married to her first husband as is in a serious state of adultery. That’s what He says. How do we spin that and allow it anyway then give the adulteress two more shots before she finds a guy she digs?

So you’re saying that if a Catholic is married and has an affair that affects the validity of the original marriage? So you agree with remarriage then? Since the individual is already guilty of adultry they can go ahead and keep doing it, in your mind? Additionally you keep ignoring how it actually is, it isn’t just three marriages as many have explained. The second marriage is allowed if the bishop is convinced it may work out, a third is never allowed except in cases where a spouse has died, as opposed to the Catholic allowance of unlimited marriages. So if I’m reading what you say, Catholics can get married over and over again if they have sex outside the marriage or they kill their spouses, which is apparently less sinful than simply allowing another marriage.

**With all due respect, how many annulments do you hear about? I have only spoken to a few ladies who have gone through or are going through the process and in all the cases the husband had very seriously committed adultery and had abandoned the women. Even with that obvious good case, the annulment proceedings were taking well over a year as the priests/bishop carefully went through the circumstances of the sad situations. These aren’t cases of the husband wanting to watch Sports Center and the wife wanting Desperate Housewives so they filed for divorce. It was serious stuff that warranted it. And it goes to the idea that the marriage was never really a true marriage. That’s often true. **

Awesome loophole, Marriage never existed if you have sex outside of it. I hardly think that’s what Christ meant.

There better be some hard-core questioning and some serious reasons behind it that are very biblical. Giving an arbitrary number of three is just weird.

What’s this? A Catholic arguing Sola Scriptura?
Additionally the logic of the number three has been explained over and over in this thread. I’m not going to do it again.

Are you trying to persuade me that a couple shouldn’t stay together when there is abuse and intense adultery involved? You don’t need to sell me on it. I’m sold. Adultery and things of this nature go to what Christ said about divorce. The Church can and should explore annulments in this. I never said leaving people to beat the heck out of each other and cheat is benevolent. Please don’t assume I would think that. I’m not barbaric, Nine.

An Anulment means that the Church says it never happened. How do abuse and adultry change the past?

 

[Nine_Two]

COLOR=“blue”]Yes, you caught me, Nine, I’m God. I’ve believed I’m the Supreme Being for years. Come on, of course I don’t think I’m God. I’m merely saying that adultery is a SERIOUS sin. A bishop granting remarriage three times is putting himself and the people in remarriage in spiritual jeopardy. You know what I said. Don’t try to portray me as stoking any fires. I don’t want ANYONE to go to hell, period. But I listen to what Our Lord says and I worry for the salvation of the souls of people in divorced and remarried situations like this who don’t really merit it. You should to if you love them.

You commented that individuals doing certain things are damned. That’s being God. Who goes to hell and who doesn’t is a perogative reserved for God alone. Play the victim if you want, pretend I’m the one who came onto you with hostility, and not the other way around. Whatever you want.

This is just downright weird commentary, you sound very hostile and bitter toward Catholicism for some reason. Former Catholic? What does Simony have to do with this? Do you want me to start naming horrible people guilty of nasty crimes and corruption in Orthodox history? I won’t. Why? Because it has nothing to do with this conversation? Diversionary tactics don’t work. Just stay on the topic. I won’t bite that bait.

You’ve based the ethos of your argument on the moral superiority of the Catholic Church. Simony most certainly runs counter to this. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Holy Orthodox Church acknowledges that on earth it is run by men and that mistakes will be made. So you can name every crime ever committed by Orthodox individuals you want, it won’t help restore your argument of moral superiority. Additionally if I sound anti-Catholic it is quite possibly because I have a Catholic who for whatever reason decided to come out swinging at me when I answered another individuals request for information. Normally I’d do my best to ignore me but, being human, I unfortunetly reach a breaking point where I’ve had enough of this sort of behavior and I do answer back.
And no, I’ve never been a Catholic, I looked into it but was turned off by the excessive legalism.

Yeah, I’m well aware of sin, the ramifications of it, and the stone-casting statement by Our Lord. I resent your saying I even slightly believe myself sinless. Who do you think you are talking to me like this? There is no reason for you to be busting out this kind of stuff on me. This has nothing to do with casting stones. By your definitions and outlook, we should just sin at will and turn the other cheek to all sins and evils in the world lest we appear judgmental! You as an Orthodox are unique for sure because none of the Orthodox with whom I’ve spoken in here or elsewhere EVER have this attitude about sin being so cavalier. Your approach to sin sounds like a Baptist or someone from Calvary Chapel, loosey goosey. As an Orthodox you should know to preach the truth in love. The truth about sin isn’t pretty. People locked in an adulterous relationship remarried for frivolous reasons other than adultery or abuse, etc. are locked in a perpetual sin and profain the Sacrament of the Eucharist. You know this, come on?

Perhaps you should reread everything you’ve written. You’ve done nothing but cast stones.
I have never said sin is alright, I have never said divorce is alright, I’ve never said any of the words you seem intent on putting in my mouth. I’ve said the sin is not for you to judge, and I’ve only attempted to explain why the Church has the position it does. I absolutely and completely agree that divorce is an evil thing, but I most certainly don’t believe in a God who damns people to hell for a (singular) mistake. Perhaps the Catholic God is different than the Orthodox God, but our God is both Just and Merceful.

How do you know my bishops are permitting second marriages that are not for good reasons? You act as if you know they are granting annulments based on “he’s a Steelers fan, she’s a Raiders fan” type of divorces.

Nice qualifier there. “For good reasons”, if I were to put words in your mouth like you’ve been putting in mine, I’d say that’s proof that you’re really a protestant who doesn’t believe in the sanctity of marriage.

But it’s not committed three times. It’s perpetual. they’re living in the state of sin each time they’re intimate and all the way as they pretend to be wedded in God’s sacramental state but they are in adultery. I suppose there are sins as bad as this but that doesn’t take away the gravity or severity of the sin. It’s perpetual, not one, two or three times type of deal. It’s a locked-in-sin ongoing spiritual prison. You’re comparing this to a one-time or two time or three time sin. It’s serious stuff. I share your prayer, trust me.

But then this brings us back to the question, if two people get married, and their marriage wasn’t “valid” for some reason but they end up going through their whole lives together (as a marriage should), then are they damned for living in perpetual sin together, since their marriage was invalid from the start?

If you want to reply to this I’m going to ask that you read over everything, make sure you’re not giving answers that will be interpretted as crude, and I shall reply likewise. If you decide you don’t want to do that and want to keep posting as you have, then I’ll most likely ignore it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ll answer the last part of this post. I’m not going to invest one more solid minute to this debate. Your arguments are weak and all you do is charge people with playing God or being judgmental if their opinion deviates from yours. I’m not “playing the victim.” That’s more your m.o. And honestly Nine, I could care less if you ignore me. I don’t come on here begging on my hands and knees for Nine Two to read my posts like a giddy school girl. Your arguments are not compelling nor is your logic. You’re a guy who wants to make it up as he goes, ignore 2,000 years of history and theology, and taylor make your own religious agenda. That’s fine. I’m done with the discussion. Please, ignore me!

You commented that individuals doing certain things are damned. That’s being God. Who goes to hell and who doesn’t is a perogative reserved for God alone. Play the victim if you want, pretend I’m the one who came onto you with hostility, and not the other way around. Whatever you want.

You’ve based the ethos of your argument on the moral superiority of the Catholic Church. Simony most certainly runs counter to this. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Holy Orthodox Church acknowledges that on earth it is run by men and that mistakes will be made. So you can name every crime ever committed by Orthodox individuals you want, it won’t help restore your argument of moral superiority. Additionally if I sound anti-Catholic it is quite possibly because I have a Catholic who for whatever reason decided to come out swinging at me when I answered another individuals request for information. Normally I’d do my best to ignore me but, being human, I unfortunetly reach a breaking point where I’ve had enough of this sort of behavior and I do answer back.
And no, I’ve never been a Catholic, I looked into it but was turned off by the excessive legalism.

Perhaps you should reread everything you’ve written. You’ve done nothing but cast stones.
I have never said sin is alright, I have never said divorce is alright, I’ve never said any of the words you seem intent on putting in my mouth. I’ve said the sin is not for you to judge, and I’ve only attempted to explain why the Church has the position it does. I absolutely and completely agree that divorce is an evil thing, but I most certainly don’t believe in a God who damns people to hell for a (singular) mistake. Perhaps the Catholic God is different than the Orthodox God, but our God is both Just and Merceful.

Nice qualifier there. “For good reasons”, if I were to put words in your mouth like you’ve been putting in mine, I’d say that’s proof that you’re really a protestant who doesn’t believe in the sanctity of marriage.

But then this brings us back to the question, if two people get married, and their marriage wasn’t “valid” for some reason but they end up going through their whole lives together (as a marriage should), then are they damned for living in perpetual sin together, since their marriage was invalid from the start?

If you want to reply to this I’m going to ask that you read over everything, make sure you’re not giving answers that will be interpretted as crude, and I shall reply likewise. If you decide you don’t want to do that and want to keep posting as you have, then I’ll most likely ignore it.

 

[Mickey]

our God is both Just and Merciful.

Amen.

But then this brings us back to the question, if two people get married, and their marriage wasn’t “valid” for some reason but they end up going through their whole lives together (as a marriage should), then are they damned for living in perpetual sin together, since their marriage was invalid from the start?

Exactly!