Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[ddarko]

In contemporary practice, notwithstanding the odd remarks of Hesychios, there is a divorce procedure; the Orthodox church does ‘grant’ a divorce. This from a ROCOR priest on monachos:

monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?6429-Divorce-and-second-marriage

I see.

It is this view of divorce however that I oppose. Because in this view, divorce is a dissolving of the bond leaving the person free to remarry. I don’t see how that can be reconciled with what our Lord said.

Since the nature of marriage is indissoluble, if it did take place, no matter what the participants do cannot make it dissolvable. To say otherwise seems illogical no?

God Bless

 

[mardukm]

I’ve always wondered about the EO idea of “eternal marriage.” Does an ecclesiastical divorce in EO’xy dissolve an “eternal marriage?” Or are there levels of marriage (i.e., supernatural vs. natural marriage) recognized within EO’xy? I mean, in EO’xy, is it the case that a supernatural marriage can not be dissolved (hence, “eternal marriage”) and marriages are dissolved only in a natural sense?

Blessings

 

[JM3]

By default I believe the Catholic Church should bend over backwards to make a full communion possible. What I find lacking is an inability to admitt the possibility of being wrong, making an proper apology and moving past this horror show in Christology to correct a wrong.

I suggest you read The Orthodox Church by Fr. Adrian Fortescue and learn the history of the schism before coming to incorrect conclusions. You will see that the Apostolic Roman Church has always ‘bent over backwards’ for the Emperor’s Church.

This is a PDF download of the book: saintsworks.net/books/Fr.%20Adrian%20Fortescue%20-%20The%20Orthodox%20Eastern%20Church.pdf

It is 29 MBs and may take awhile to download.

 

[Triciacat]

Or are you trying to say the ‘‘marriage’’ in your church is not really a marriage to being with ?

No, the Orthodox church won’t deny that the marriage occurred. The Catholic church does that, however, when it sees fit to deny that God has indeed blessed the union by granting an annulment which suggests that the marriage never occurred in the first place. The Catholic church believes that marriages are indissoluable, except when they are not. At least the Orthodox church makes no such excuses.

 

[Formosus]

I suggest you read The Orthodox Church by Fr. Adrian Fortescue and learn the history of the schism before coming to incorrect conclusions. You will see that the Apostolic Roman Church has always ‘bent over backwards’ for the Emperor’s Church.

This is a PDF download of the book: saintsworks.net/books/Fr.%20Adrian%20Fortescue%20-%20The%20Orthodox%20Eastern%20Church.pdf

It is 29 MBs and may take awhile to download.

Fr. Fortescue isn’t exactly the most even handed or unbiased source on the history of the schism.

Further, some Emperors often times enjoyed playing off Rome and Constantinople to get a deal that was most politically beneficial for themselves.

 

[ddarko]

No, the Orthodox church won’t deny that the marriage occurred. The Catholic church does that, however, when it sees fit to deny that God has indeed blessed the union by granting an annulment which suggests that the marriage never occurred in the first place. The Catholic church believes that marriages are indissoluable, except when they are not. At least the Orthodox church makes no such excuses.

Ok I think you really muddled things up here. I was simply stating that the Orthodox can only justify their view if they take the stance that

*) marriage in the orthodox church is not the same as what Christ instituted i.e. what RC would call marriage.

Because if they do disagree with the above and claim that it is the same marriage Christ instituted, anything less than binding to what he said about marriage is to undermine Christ’s words. So rejection of (*) makes anything you try to present as how Orthodox marriage is different from Roman Catholics in order to defend the idea of divorce and remarriage is moot. All that matters is that we are talking about the same marital institution that Christ talked about.

If we are, then to dissolve a marriage bond is a grave SIN and a sign of your church leading the faithful astray. That is my charge agains the Orthodox church.

As for annulments, you can only get one if there was no marriage to begin with. I hope you can see the obvious difference between a divorce which dissolved a marriage and an annulment which just recognizes that a marriage never took place. Divorce is a grave sin, the other is morally neutral.

God Bless

 

[Formosus]

Well if we want to discuss Christ’s words, Christ also said “whatever you bind in heaven shall be bound and whatever you loose shall be loosed” (to paraphrase). Which seems to imply the Church could have authority to dissolve a marriage. Further, marriage in the west is only indissoluble until one of the partners die, and then all of a sudden the other spouse can marry again without any problem. At least in the Orthodox tradition, you get three marriages. One sacramental, and two natural ones allowed for because of the hardness of our hearts.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

Well if we want to discuss Christ’s words, Christ also said “whatever you bind in heaven shall be bound and whatever you loose shall be loosed” (to paraphrase). Which seems to imply the Church could have authority to dissolve a marriage. Further, marriage in the west is only indissoluble until one of the partners die, and then all of a sudden the other spouse can marry again without any problem. At least in the Orthodox tradition, you get three marriages. One sacramental, and two natural ones allowed for because of the hardness of our hearts.

I asked about this earlier - the idea of a natural vs. supernatural marriage. I think you have answered my question partly. I wonder if the idea of only one sacramental marriage, while the rest are only natural marriages, would be amenable to the Latin phronema. Natural marriages don’t have the same character of sacramental marriages, so maybe that would be a point of agreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Harpazo]

Fr. Fortescue isn’t exactly the most even handed or unbiased source on the history of the schism.

Further, some Emperors often times enjoyed playing off Rome and Constantinople to get a deal that was most politically beneficial for themselves.

Took the words right out of my mouth, but of course I’d be “biased” if I said that.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JM3]

Fr. Fortescue isn’t exactly the most even handed or unbiased source on the history of the schism.

Further, some Emperors often times enjoyed playing off Rome and Constantinople to get a deal that was most politically beneficial for themselves.

If Fr. Fortescue is incorrect in his conclusions or in his resources, then provide your evidence.

First Council of Constantinople - 381

CANONS

3
Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

Question: Should the Catholic Church in Washington D.C. be given the ‘privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome’ since it is ‘new Rome’?

 

[ddarko]

Well if we want to discuss Christ’s words, Christ also said “whatever you bind in heaven shall be bound and whatever you loose shall be loosed” (to paraphrase). Which seems to imply the Church could have authority to dissolve a marriage. Further, marriage in the west is only indissoluble until one of the partners die, and then all of a sudden the other spouse can marry again without any problem. At least in the Orthodox tradition, you get three marriages. One sacramental, and two natural ones allowed for because of the hardness of our hearts.

Oh my, ok this is something I would have thought I would hear from a Protestant and not an Orthodox.

Christ clearly did say that no one can dissolve the marriage bond. Are you saying Christ was contradicting himself? There is no indication that he was speaking of marriage when he uttered the claim “whatever you bind in heaven shall be bound and whatever you loose shall be loosed”. To even interpret it this was is moot. The Church can’t change the nature of things. Just to give you a different example to see the absurdity, based on that passage can the Church BIND same sex marriages i.e. Bind on earth what it deems fit? NO!!! So just as that is absurd, so is what you are saying about divorce. Interpret the Bible in it’s entirety, not passage by passage.

So to have a natural marriage to a different spouse when you are already married to your still alive spouse is adultery. So in short, the Orthodox church is leading it’s faithful astray.

I really don’t see how you can get out of this. What else are you going to allow because of the ‘‘hardness of heart’’? How about three kills per life? Three counts of sodomy perhaps? Oh oh, how about one count of a same sex marriage? As you can probably see, this is becoming a joke. So I honestly think the Orthodox church is reducing the sacrament of marriage to a joke. So far you really haven’t done a good job to show it hasn’t.

The only claim you are trying to pass is that it has to be allowed for the hardness of heart. Why didn’t you read the rest of that passage on what Christ said about marriage, the hardness of heart and the law of Moses?

If you are saying ‘we practice this method because of the hardness of heart’, that means you are not practising the marriage Christ intended. Christ referred to that practice in the past tense in that passage. So your Orthodox marriage is indeed just the marriage of the Old Testament following what Moses gave for the hardness of hear. Actually in your case, it’s even worse because your church grants divorce for other things as well. Its time for you to embrace the full news. There is a new covenant and Christ has established and fully revealed the nature of marriage. The people of the Old covenant did not know that. But since you do know, you have a moral responsibility to respect marriage for what it is.

You church clearly is not doing that. How hard is it for you to see?

God Bless

 

[Formosus]

Dear brother Formosus,

I asked about this earlier - the idea of a natural vs. supernatural marriage. I think you have answered my question partly. I wonder if the idea of only one sacramental marriage, while the rest are only natural marriages, would be amenable to the Latin phronema. Natural marriages don’t have the same character of sacramental marriages, so maybe that would be a point of agreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am not an expert in the theology of marriage. I sort of assume from what I have read that there is only one Sacramental marriage in E.Orthodox/byzantine theology.

ddarko, I am glad that you know how to use a slippery slope fallacy but could you instead read and think about what I actually said. How about addressing the point that in the west, marriage is eternal except when its not (such as when a spouse dies). To my understanding, in Byzantine theology, the sacramental marriage is eternal. The natural marriages, are allowances made for the weakness of the human will. That it is better to marry then to burn (to paraphrase St.Paul). Further, the Byzantine limit of three seems far more restrained and moderated then in the Latin west where annulments are passed out easily. Simply put, just because it contradicts your latin theological understanding doesn’t mean that it is wrong, or heretical , or protestant or whatever. The Church is not just Latin and the marriage theology of the Orthodox/byzantine churches is just as old, if not better documented in the patristic times, then the Latin west’s.

-to JMJ

Fr. Fortescue was a man of his times and I can not fault him for that. But research and understanding into the causes and background of the schism has advanced quite significantly since his death, as well as the Roman understanding of Eastern churches and their role in the Universal Church.

So are you questioning an canon of an Ecumenical Council that is universally accepted? Even Rome has acknowledged that Canon’s legitimacy. As for the absurd question about D.C., the simple answer I would give is no. If a new Ecumenical Council was convened and was guided by the Spirit to give the Archbishop of D.C. such a position of honor , then I would have to trust the Church’s wisdom on the matter, though such a thing would not be because D.C., is the “new Rome”.

 

[sidbrown]

Just as a question: when a Catholic or Orthodox is married, and the wife dies, and the husband remarries - would he be joined in heaven to his first wife or to his second wife. Similarly for the Orthodox case, when a person gets an Orthodox divorce and remarries, would he then be joined in heaven to his second wife and not to his first wife?

 

[Ghosty]

ddarko, I am glad that you know how to use a slippery slope fallacy but could you instead read and think about what I actually said. How about addressing the point that in the west, marriage is eternal except when its not (such as when a spouse dies). To my understanding, in Byzantine theology, the sacramental marriage is eternal.

Where has the West ever said that marriage is eternal? Such a notion directly contradicts Christ’s own words, at any rate; in Heaven we are neither married nor given in marriage.

If there is such a notion in the East that some marriages are eternal (I’ve never heard this before), then it is yet another direct contradiction with Scripture which must be explained beyond mere oikonomia, or dispensation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ddarko]

ddarko, I am glad that you know how to use a slippery slope fallacy but could you instead read and think about what I actually said. How about addressing the point that in the west, marriage is eternal except when its not (such as when a spouse dies). To my understanding, in Byzantine theology, the sacramental marriage is eternal. The natural marriages, are allowances made for the weakness of the human will. That it is better to marry then to burn (to paraphrase St.Paul). Further, the Byzantine limit of three seems far more restrained and moderated then in the Latin west where annulments are passed out easily. Simply put, just because it contradicts your latin theological understanding doesn’t mean that it is wrong, or heretical , or protestant or whatever. The Church is not just Latin and the marriage theology of the Orthodox/byzantine churches is just as old, if not better documented in the patristic times, then the Latin west’s.

First, I am not using a slippery slope fallacy. I am just showing you how logically inconsistent it is to hold on to your position. For an example if you came out and said “Principle of contradiction does not hold”, I would give you a bunch of examples of other things you want to hold true that depend on it. What I did was the same. I just showed you why your interpretation made your position logically inconsistent. SO NO! If it did work, it does not make logical sense. Do you see the difference?

To highlight, take the same sex marriage example I said. The reason why we oppose it is because we argue that it is not Natural and the way a marriage should be as instituted by God. But if we can choose to bind anything the way you used that passage for to justify divorce, then even same sex marriage can be changed and the original argument against it does not hold. In short, it is like saying “The church can make anything permissible”. How do you not see how this makes your position absurd? You are ripping apart a core axiom of Christianity: What is morally good is defined as that which is consistent with God’s nature i.e. the way God intended. According to you, we can change that nature. I am running out of different ways to get this across to you.

As for this eternal business, who cares? Under the Catholic view, 2nd marriages are discouraged anyways even when it comes to death. Christ also says that there is no marriage in heaven with the example of the seven brothers and one widow. There can of course be some special bond between the two married people in heaven but that is irrelevant here.

I really see nothing that you have said worthwhile to think about. You are just trying to give excuses which Christ has clearly spoken against. First you tried to say that Christ gave permission to bind things and therefore the church can divorce Now when that fails, you are debating about how marriage works in eternity.

I would say, first lets get it right on earth. Then lets talk about eternity.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Just as a question: when a Catholic or Orthodox is married, and the wife dies, and the husband remarries - would he be joined in heaven to his first wife or to his second wife. Similarly for the Orthodox case, when a person gets an Orthodox divorce and remarries, would he then be joined in heaven to his second wife and not to his first wife?

This should answer your question

Luke 20:27-40
Matthew 22:23-33
Mark 12:18-27

God Bless

 

[prodromos]

Oh my, ok this is something I would have thought I would hear from a Protestant and not an Orthodox.

Formosus is Catholic according to his profile.

 

[ddarko]

Formosus is Catholic according to his profile.

Well I guess that makes it even more of a let down just kidding.

But rather than disowning him, you could come to his aid since he is trying so hard to defend your church’s position on marriage, divorce and remarriage

God Bless

 

[prodromos]

Well I guess that makes it even more of a let down just kidding.

But rather than disowning him, you could come to his aid since he is trying so hard to defend your church’s position on marriage, divorce and remarriage

God Bless

I am simply amused by your immediate assumption that he was Orthodox, plus your apparent inability to admit your error, instead trying to shift the onus back to me.
Your attitude reminds me of Bishop John Ireland, who was instrumental in converting thousands of Catholics to Orthodoxy, all the while remaining a staunch Roman Catholic himself. Who knows how many you have already set on the path to Holy Orthodoxy.

May God bless your ministry as much as He blessed that of Bishop Ireland.

 

[sidbrown]

As for annulments, you can only get one if there was no marriage to begin with.

This is not true, really, because Joseph Patrick Kennedy got a marriage annulment from his wife even though he was married to her and there was a Sacramental marriage to begin with.