Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[Ghosty]

Glory To Jesus Christ!

Thanks for the comment Ghosty, but it doesn’t answer my question in the least!

To make it more clear, the Church can lay extra restrictions/devotions on people. The celibacy of Bishops is one example. Not being able to remarry after adultery is another. This may be constricting, or it may be for spiritual growth (such as fasting), but it is certainly permittable.

The Church can’t say that something that God says is immoral and impossible is moral and possible, however.

The term “adultery” can be interpreted in different ways. The Orthodox church also does not advocate staying in a relationship where harm can come to an individual, whether physical, mental, or spiritual.

Pornea can’t be understood as physical abuse. It is actually a very specific term referring to sexual misconduct. The Lord didn’t say that divorce can occur because of adultery, but rather fornication. Adultery is a broad term, but fornication/pornea is very specific.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t personally know anyone in my church who is in a second marriage, so I have no examples to answer from. You would probably need to talk to a priest or a bishop to get an answer. I’m sure Fr Ambrose would have been happy to oblige.

Fr. Ambrose is one of the people who’s convinced me that there is something seriously wrong with the moral justification of this activity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

So in the case of the annulments, I believe that there must be hundreds which were granted due to invalid reasons.

Only hundreds? It looks like a lot more than that.
According to the article: “The annulment crisis in the Church” by Fr. Leonard Kennedy, “There is advertising in church bulletins, Catholic newspapers, and even the secular press, that annulments are available, sometimes with a suggested guarantee that they will be granted. “Some invitations practically promise an annulment to all who apply. The promotional efforts . . . may evoke responses from . . . spouses who dream of greener marital pastures but would not seriously consider separation and divorce were annulment not presented as a convenient and acceptable alternative.””
And of all of the annulments presented to the Roman Rota for appeal, more than 90% are overturned. What then does that say about the integrity of the annulment process, if more than 90% of the marriage annulments presented to the Roman Rota for appeal are overturned?
According to Sheila Rauch Kennedy:
“When you try to defend your marriage, the army that comes after you is pretty brutal,” Rauch Kennedy said yesterday from her Cambridge home. “You’re accused of being a vindictive ex-wife, an alcoholic bigot, an idiot.”
“I felt we had a very good marriage in the beginning,” said Rauch Kennedy, who now teaches at Wheaton College. "The children were conceived and born in that marriage and for a number of years, before it unraveled, it worked.”
“The way [annulment] is used in American tribunals, it can be anything – a bad hair day, your goldfish died, you weren’t playing with a full deck when you got married 20 years ago,” she said. “And people defending [their marriages], usually women, have been belittled and patronized.”
“If the spouse tries to defend himself or the marriage, church officials often attempt to silence him, asserting, as happened at first in my case, that the proceedings must be kept secret…”
“There has to be a better way to protect the sanctity of marriage and show compassion to Catholics who wish to remarry after divorce. Invalidating marriages and dragging their defenders through psychological mud is hardly a Christian act.
Perhaps an answer is closer than we think. The Catholic Church might look to its sister institution, the Orthodox Church, and to Catholic marriage rules in other situations for a solution to the divorce dilemma.”
boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/19/the_loose_canon_in_the_catholic_church/

 

[prodromos]

Fr. Ambrose is one of the people who’s convinced me that there is something seriously wrong with the moral justification of this activity.

Then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

God bless.

 

[Ghosty]

Then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

God bless.

If the notion that a second marriage is just as good as the first, even in cases of divorce with no adultery, is the position you’re taking (that’s Fr. Ambrose’s) and you’re not willing to back it up with anything, then yeah I’d say we’ve got nothing to discuss.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

If the notion that a second marriage is just as good as the first, even in cases of divorce with no adultery, is the position you’re taking (that’s Fr. Ambrose’s) and you’re not willing to back it up with anything, then yeah I’d say we’ve got nothing to discuss.

Peace and God bless!

I am sorry to say that some people, including some Catholics, see the Catholic marriage annulment process as resulting in something even worse in some cases than what you are now describing: By that I mean that according to the annulment process, the second marriage is seen as even better than the first, since there is an official denial that the first marriage ever happened, when everyone who attended the Mass and subsequent ceremonies and parties believed that it did. By the way, don;t blame me if there are some Catholics who have this opinion. Take for example, the explanation given by Joe Kennedy: “I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook, Sheila. But you just have to say it this way because, well, because that’s the way the church is.”
Perhaps that is why Sheila Rauch Kennedy wrote her book and recommends that the Catholic Church look to its sister institution, the Orthodox Church, for a solution to the divorce dilemma.

 

[diggerdomer]

Do you support union with the Orthodox Churches?

Yes. As the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[dvdjs]

… the notion that a second marriage is just as good as the first, even in cases of divorce with no adultery, is the position you’re taking (that’s Fr. Ambrose’s)

And by “just as good” it should be made clear that Fr. means sacramental second marriages, services that are not penitential in any apparent way, ecclesiastical permission is pro forma rather than contingent on the reason for divorce, and the period of excommunication has been reduced to nothing. In other words, Fr. denies, in no uncertain terms, all of the qualifiers that are discussed by here. The practices of the Fathers have vanished into nothingness. And this from a ROCOR priest.

 

[Triciacat]

Father doesn’t agree. Do you have a reference to a contemporary service text?

No, I don’t. Sorry. And I’ve never even attended a second Orthodox marriage service. It was always my understanding that the service was the same except for the above-mentioned details. If I can track down more details, I will post them.

 

[Ghosty]

I am sorry to say that some people, including some Catholics, see the Catholic marriage annulment process as resulting in something even worse in some cases than what you are now describing: By that I mean that according to the annulment process, the second marriage is seen as even better than the first, since there is an official denial that the first marriage ever happened, when everyone who attended the Mass and subsequent ceremonies and parties believed that it did. By the way, don;t blame me if there are some Catholics who have this opinion. Take for example, the explanation given by Joe Kennedy: “I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it. It’s just Catholic gobbledygook, Sheila. But you just have to say it this way because, well, because that’s the way the church is.”
Perhaps that is why Sheila Rauch Kennedy wrote her book and recommends that the Catholic Church look to its sister institution, the Orthodox Church, for a solution to the divorce dilemma.

The fact that a Sacrament appeared to occur but did not is nothing unique to Marriage. The Eastern Orthodox Churches re-Baptize many converts from Catholicism and Protestantism, despite those people clearly having been Baptized previously (and the Catholic Church practices “conditional Baptism” under certain circumstances as well). If we were to attend a Liturgy and receive the Eucharist, yet the priest was not actually a priest, we would seem to receive the Eucharist but would not in fact be doing so.

So a Marriage can appear legitimate but not be, due to hidden factors, and that is the reason for the annulment process. Properly conducted it is there to examine all the circumstances of the Marriage and see if the Sacrament was in fact performed despite all appearances that it was. This is no different than looking at the circumstances of a Baptism or the Eucharist.

Again, the fact that the process is commonly abused in the U.S. in modern times does nothing to invalidate the process and teaching itself. You keep bringing up the abuse (one that, ironically, was corrected and overturned), and yet you seem to be ignoring the underlying theology of the issue. It is the underlying theology that is the key in this discussion, not the outward practices and abuses.

I want to add that I don’t actually consider this issue to be a major Church-dividing issue. I’m participating in this discussion simply because it’s a topic that interests and disturbs me; I don’t believe it’s something that should ultimately keep us apart.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Triciacat]

To make it more clear, the Church can lay extra restrictions/devotions on people. The celibacy of Bishops is one example. Not being able to remarry after adultery is another. This may be constricting, or it may be for spiritual growth (such as fasting), but it is certainly permittable.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose there are parallels, then, with the Orthodox church–the Catholic church can lay extra restrictions as it sees fit, and the Orthodox church uses economia in it’s marriage doctrine. Whether either is scripturally-sound or not seems to be the issue.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

When Islam marches towards Constantinople and Rome the east and west will unite.

If there was a reunion wouldn’t there be an Ecumenical Council?

 

[Ghosty]

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose there are parallels, then, with the Orthodox church–the Catholic church can lay extra restrictions as it sees fit, and the Orthodox church uses economia in it’s marriage doctrine. Whether either is scripturally-sound or not seems to be the issue.

Laying extra restrictions is indeed Scripturally sound. St. Paul did this when laying out the guidelines of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:

8]
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
10]
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband

11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12]
To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
14] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.

Here we have St. Paul both saying what the Lord’s rule on marriage is, and then adding his own instructions on top of it. In other parts we have St. Paul recommending fasting from meat, despite meat being Holy according to the Lord.

So adding extra restrictions or practices on top of the Lord’s commands is perfectly Scriptural, though it may or may not be the compassionate thing to do in such circumstances. Oikonomia historically was about loosening these kinds of restrictions, the ones added on, and not about allowing what the Lord has forbidden.

If the Church is able to make what the Lord has called evil into good, then it can be done for murder, rape, and even blasphemy. I don’t see any Scriptural or historical justification for such a position, however.

What I see with divorce and remarriage is that the Eastern Orthodox Communion is making allowances where even the Lord Himself did not make for the Jews. In fact, the Jews had made allowances for divorce (and they had ecclesial authority at the time), and the Lord explicitely reprimanded them for making such allowances. From Matthew 19:

3]
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
7] They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8] He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

So here we have Christ directly correcting them for practicing what Moses himself allowed. I have a very hard time seeing how the Church can come along and reinstitute the practice of Moses that was directly condemned by God Himself.

Peace and God bless!

 

[shaky]

Yes. As the Catholic Church teaches.

What gets me about understanding the definition of Sin. Murder fornication Adultery is easy to understand. But when it comes down to ‘‘HEREISIS’’ it is not easy to get a proper definition amongst all the churches catholic and protestant.
what exactly is the Sin. Is it a differnt belief about something? Or is it the Seperation caused by different belief about something?
Why cant all christians Come together regardless of what they believe?

 

[Triciacat]

Laying extra restrictions is indeed Scripturally sound. St. Paul did this when laying out the guidelines of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:

Here we have St. Paul both saying what the Lord’s rule on marriage is, and then adding his own instructions on top of it. In other parts we have St. Paul recommending fasting from meat, despite meat being Holy according to the Lord.

So adding extra restrictions or practices on top of the Lord’s commands is perfectly Scriptural, though it may or may not be the compassionate thing to do in such circumstances. Oikonomia historically was about loosening these kinds of restrictions, the ones added on, and not about allowing what the Lord has forbidden.

If the Church is able to make what the Lord has called evil into good, then it can be done for murder, rape, and even blasphemy. I don’t see any Scriptural or historical justification for such a position, however.

What I see with divorce and remarriage is that the Eastern Orthodox Communion is making allowances where even the Lord Himself did not make for the Jews. In fact, the Jews had made allowances for divorce (and they had ecclesial authority at the time), and the Lord explicitely reprimanded them for making such allowances. From Matthew 19:

So here we have Christ directly correcting them for practicing what Moses himself allowed. I have a very hard time seeing how the Church can come along and reinstitute the practice of Moses that was directly condemned by God Himself.

Peace and God bless!

I disagree with your definition of economia. “Economia” essentially means “management,” usually assuming “good” handling, not “poor” handling. “Akribia,” in contrast, means strict adherance to church law. “Economia” in the ecclesiastical sense, is a discretionary deviation from “akribia.” In ecclesiastical economy, the church manages a variety of problems and issues that have arisen over centuries of church history. Christ, Himself, gave the church this discretionary power to manage the church. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to his apostles, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This authority was passed from the apostles to the bishops.

An example of the church’s use of economia can be found in Acts chapter 15. Here, the apostles made a decision to limit the number and degree of Jewish observances that would be required of Gentile converts. Peter said:

[10] "Now, therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
[19] "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
[20] but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood…
[28] "For it seemed good to the Holy spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials…
[30] And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of it’s encouragement.

Economia was used in this case to aid in the salvation of the Gentiles by not overburdening them with doctrine. This is an example of compassionate or “good” management. An important distinction is that economia is not used for “poor” management, ie in order to excuse murder, rape, etc. So, although the Catholic church might consider the use of economia in Orthodox marriage doctrine to be an example of “poor” management, the Orthodox chuch does not, taking into consideration the inherent harm to an individual and the possible loss of eternal life.

 

[Ghosty]

Triciacat: The example from Acts shows that the Church was willing and able to loosen burdens placed by human law, but not by God’s Law. Humans had bound Gentiles to live by Jewish Law, not God, and the Church eased that burden by removing the human-imposed Law. This is not an example of the Church loosing what God had bound, but the Church loosing what the Church had bound.

As Scripture says, the Holy Spirit did not bind the people to the things which some in the Church were expecting, and therefore the Church was relieving the people of that burden. In contraposition, Christ (and therefore the Spirit) did bind the people to rules of Marriage, so the Church can’t remove that requirement, anymore than it can remove the requirement of belief in God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Triciacat]

You might consider Acts 15 to be a bad example, but the point of my post was that Christ gave the apostles power to use discretion (Matthew 16:19).

 

[mardukm]

And of all of the annulments presented to the Roman Rota for appeal, more than 90% are overturned. What then does that say about the integrity of the annulment process, if more than 90% of the marriage annulments presented to the Roman Rota for appeal are overturned?

It means that the American Catholic Church is rather liberal in granting annulments, but Rome is the beacon of conservatism and orthodoxy on the matter. Amen! This demonstrates that annulments are not a back-door divorce in the Catholic Church.

According to Sheila Rauch Kennedy:

Her annulment was overturned by Rome. What’s your purpose for bringing up points from Sheila Rauch’s book that has no more relevance since her annulment was overturned?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Triciacat,

You might consider Acts 15 to be a bad example, but the point of my post was that Christ gave the apostles power to use discretion (Matthew 16:19).

I hope you keep in mind what brother Ghosty stated - that the power to use discretion concerns ecclesiastical laws, not divine law.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Saint_Castulus]

Do you support union with the Orthodox Churches? We often hear that Catholics and Orthodox are so close that full communion should be reestablished. Do you support union with the Orthodox Churches? But perhaps a more interesting question is under
which set of circumstances would you agree to support reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

1. Orthodox Churches interested in union with the Catholic Church must accept all essential Catholic teaching and beliefs, such as papal infallibility, universal papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and Purgatory.
2. Orthodox Churches are fully accepted under no pre-conditions and they can continue just as they are now and Catholics and Orthodox can just declare that they are in full Communion with each other without making any changes.
3. The Catholic Church must accept all of the essential Orthodox teachings as they are and conform its belief to that of the Orthodox Churches.
4. The Catholics and the Orthodox will meet halfway. Each one gives in a little bit to the other and the union is obtained by the compromise of meeting halfway.
5. There should not be a union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches because they are two different Churches.
   I would like to post a poll to see what the response is among those of us interested in Eastern Catholicism. thanks

#2 please, god bless you.