Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JM3]

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?

ecumenical council of Florence 1443. The west and the east were united until 1452, when Constantinople was taken by the Turks.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Triciacat]

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

So then do you mean that doctrine concerning fornication is ecclesiastical law and not divine law? Regardless, are not ecclesiastical laws the result of the Holy Spirit working within the church? How then would you interpret Matthew 16:19?

 

[sidbrown]

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

1. She gives reasons why she believes that the Orthodox solution to the failed marriage problem is better. She indicates why she opposes the Catholic solution of marriage annulments.
2. She indicates that she was pressured not to file for the appeal. If she had not filed for the appeal, the annulment would not have been overturned. This might indicate a possible flaw in the Catholic marriage annulment process, which does not appear in the Orthodox solution to the failed marriage problem. From what I read, there are some Orthodox who oppose the Catholic solution and would see it as problematic in the event of a possible union of the two Churches.

 

[sidbrown]

#2 please …

Probably you are right, and each side will simply accept the other as they are and with no preconditions, when reunion occurs. Of course, not everyone shares that opinion. For example, there was a 2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes toward Orthodox Catholic Reunion which resulted in a different view:
Lay Orthodox Christians Hold Their Ground on Orthodox-Catholic Church Reunion
The results of the 2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes Toward Orthodox-Catholic Reunion
I. Executive Summary
“Sympathetic skepticism” and unwavering faithfulness to Orthodox Tradition aptly describe the attitudes, some positive, some negative that the 2010 Orthodox Lay People Survey recorded from Orthodox respondents when faced with the prospect of reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Although most respondents were remarkably open to exploring reconciliation and even for receiving a Council’s decision authorizing and enabling reunion, Orthodox respondents envisioned reunion only along strictly Orthodox theological lines, leaving little room for dogmatic diversity and with a significantly redefined notion of Roman Papal Primacy if one is to be retained at all. Despite exhaustive mutual consultation and general councils, reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches may not take place at the grassroots, where lay Orthodox Christians reject membership within the reconciled Churches, making reconciliation a mere canonical formality without practical consequences and real liturgical communion between the Churches.
• 63 percent of respondents favored reestablishing full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
• 60 percent would support a decision by a joint “Grand Council” of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches approving and enabling communion.
Orthodox Respondents are More Likely to Accept Reunion Along Orthodox Lines.
• 52 percent of respondents would accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome if his primacy is defined strictly according to Orthodox tenets;
• 57 percent of all respondents believe that Orthodox-Catholic reunion is not in the best interest of the Orthodox Churches, despite the fact that 63 percent of the respondents favored unqualified reunion at the beginning of the survey.
And more…

Please:
Read more: vivificat1.blogspot.com/2010/10/sympathetic-skeptics-lay-orthodox.html#ixzz16kh9KhfR

or
: vivificat1.blogspot.com/2010/10/sympathetic-skeptics-lay-orthodox.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Triciacat,

So then do you mean that doctrine concerning fornication is ecclesiastical law and not divine law?

It is a divine law.

Now, I would like to ask you:
Matthew 5:32 states: Whoever puts away his wife except for the case of fornication porneias], makes her commit adultery moikasthai], and whoever marries the one put away commits adulterymoikatai].
Did you know that this statement is unique to the Gospel of Matthew? Do you know why that is?
Do you understand the difference between porneias (fornication) and moikasthai (adultery), or do you think it makes no difference that Jesus used two different words?
Why do you suppose that whoever marries the one that has been divorced commits adultery?
Please answer those questions.

Regardless, are not ecclesiastical laws the result of the Holy Spirit working within the church?

Yes. And how does that exactly justify the Church breaking a divine law? Please explain.

How then would you interpret Matthew 16:19?

It means 1) the power to impose or remit eternal punishment (i.e., forgive sins); 2) the power to impose or remit penance/ temporal punishment; 3) the power to make or cancel laws for the Church (i.e., ecclesiastical laws).

It does not give the Church power to break or cancel the divine laws. The Catholic Church does not claim that for herself, and never has. Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church does? Please clarify.

I am willing to acknowledge that the principle of oikonomia may be applied to remit #1 and #2 above for a second marriage. But oikonomia cannot make a sin no longer a sin. If a second marriage occurs, it must be penitential in character, as is the case in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, for example, second marriages are considered inferior, and the priest does not grant a blessing of crowning, but rather offers prayers for forgiveness during the ceremony.

Notice that regardless of how one interprets the distinction between porneias (fornication) and moikasthai (adultery) in Matthew 5:32, Jesus does not grant permission to remarry after separation in that passage. Far from it, He states clearly that even the one who marries the divorced person also commits adultery. And St. Paul in I Cor 7 permits a second marriage only to widows (presumably also widowers).

What I’ve noticed (which I find very disturbing) is that many Orthodox (both Oriental and Eastern) nowadays don’t think there is really anything wrong with a second or third marriage while the other spouse is still alive. These don’t seem aware of the marked penitential character of the digamist ceremony.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

1. She gives reasons why she believes that the Orthodox solution to the failed marriage problem is better. She indicates why she opposes the Catholic solution of marriage annulments.

As I said, those indications obviously are no longer relevant since Rome overturned her annulment. Again, please explain why you are bringing this up? Are you just trolling again?

2. She indicates that she was pressured not to file for the appeal. If she had not filed for the appeal, the annulment would not have been overturned. This might indicate a possible flaw in the Catholic marriage annulment process, which does not appear in the Orthodox solution to the failed marriage problem. From what I read, there are some Orthodox who oppose the Catholic solution and would see it as problematic in the event of a possible union of the two Churches.

Please explain to us what “flaw” there could be from her perspective. The annulment of her marriage was overturned. All is right. The systerm worked. Again, what is the purpose of bringing this up?

And what exactly is so “right” about the Orthodox solution? Permission to commit adultery? Please explain.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

As I said, those indications obviously are no longer relevant since Rome overturned her annulment. Again, please explain why you are bringing this up? Are you just trolling again?

Please explain to us what “flaw” there could be from her perspective. The annulment of her marriage was overturned. All is right. The systerm worked. Again, what is the purpose of bringing this up?

And what exactly is so “right” about the Orthodox solution? Permission to commit adultery? Please explain.

Blessings,
Marduk

First of all, my guess is that in the case of a reunion, each side would generally accept the other as they are without preconditions.
I think that on the question of divorce that the Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage, for very serious conditions and only as a concession to human weakness, based on what was allowed in the early Church in the East. For example, according to St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) , “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).

 

[Ghosty]

First of all, my guess is that in the case of a reunion, each side would generally accept the other as they are without preconditions.
I think that on the question of divorce that the Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage, for very serious conditions and only as a concession to human weakness, based on what was allowed in the early Church in the East. For example, according to St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) , “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).

St. Epiphanius is the only Early Father who made that allowance, and he did NOT extend that allowance for the woman. Since women are lesser than men (according to St. Epiphanius). The other Fathers who wrote on the subject did not allow for remarriage after divorce at all, so there is no consistency in that regard.

What can be said is that Christ explicitely struck down Jewish ecclesial law that allowed such things, and St. Paul also. That abuses crept into the Church shouldn’t be surprising, but they stand condemned as abuses by Christ Himself when He walked on Earth.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

First of all, my guess is that in the case of a reunion, each side would generally accept the other as they are without preconditions.
I think that on the question of divorce that the Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage, for very serious conditions and only as a concession to human weakness, based on what was allowed in the early Church in the East. For example, according to St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (d403) , “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).

One thing that should be clear if you have following any of the relevant threads: the gulf between Orthodox “as they are” and “in the early church in the East” is enormous. One or the other might in fact be a basis for reunion, but not both.

 

[sidbrown]

One thing that should be clear if you have following any of the relevant threads: the gulf between Orthodox “as they are” and “in the early church in the East” is enormous. One or the other might in fact be a basis for reunion, but not both.

Is there a similar gulf between Roman Catholics as they are now and as they were in the early Church in the West? For example, concerning the authority of the Pope of Rome?

 

[dvdjs]

Is there a similar gulf between Roman Catholics as they are now and as they were in the early Church in the West? For example, concerning the authority of the Pope of Rome?

Are you asking me? What on earth is the relevance of your question to my post?

 

[mardukm]

Is there a similar gulf between Roman Catholics as they are now and as they were in the early Church in the West? For example, concerning the authority of the Pope of Rome?

Catholics are not the one who deny that the Church can organically develop.

Blessings

 

[sidbrown]

Are you asking me? What on earth is the relevance of your question to my post?

I think that I read that there have been ongoing discussions on the role of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium. I thought that for the Orthodox participants in the discussions which were held in Vienna, their view is that the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was exercised in the West, while in the East, the territories were divided between the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

 

[sidbrown]

St. Epiphanius is the only Early Father who made that allowance, and he did NOT extend that allowance for the woman.

I am not sure if you are confusing St. Basil here with St. Epiphanius. According to: A History of Divorce by S. B. Kitchin, St. Epiphanius allowed divorce on the ground of adultery and said that if either party should marry again, the Church absolved them and tolerated their weakness. However, according to this book, St. Basil allowed divorce on the ground of adultery, but said that the same right did not apply to the wife.

 

[Ghosty]

I am not sure if you are confusing St. Basil here with St. Epiphanius. According to: A History of Divorce by S. B. Kitchin, St. Epiphanius allowed divorce on the ground of adultery and said that if either party should marry again, the Church absolved them and tolerated their weakness. However, according to this book, St. Basil allowed divorce on the ground of adultery, but said that the same right did not apply to the wife.

I was confusing him, not with St. Basil, but rather Ambrosiaster. St. Epiphanius actually made no allowance for remarriage after divorce that I can see. In fact, he explicitely rules it out in “Against Heresies” when he says:

"Because of the weakness of the people and their inablility to be content with a first wife, it is possible to tolerate their marrying a second after the death of the first…

Nor do we mean that anyone might have two wives, taking a second while the first is still around"."

The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 2, pg. 73, cit. 1097

I can’t find any direct example from St. Epiphanius in my resources which show he permitted divorce and remarriage, and the only sources for that particular quote you posted seem to be second hand. At any rate, it would seem to directly contradict what he says in the same work in the direct translation from Jurgens.

Peace and God bless!

 

[a_priori]

Perhaps things are fine the way they are? Maybe this ecclesiastical “two-party system” provides for a method of checks and balances that keeps the Church as a whole from getting sideways as it has done from time to time in history. With each side insisting on my-way-or-the-highway, there isn’t much danger that a critical mass will be achieved anyway.

 

[dcointin]

One thing that should be clear if you have following any of the relevant threads: the gulf between Orthodox “as they are” and “in the early church in the East” is enormous. One or the other might in fact be a basis for reunion, but not both.

What differences do you see between contemporary Orthodoxy and early eastern Christianity?

 

[Triciacat]

Re: Post #467

Sorry Mardukm–I had to omit your post due to the 6000 character rule.

Yes, doctrine concerning fornication is divine law. I agree! I understand the differences between fornication and adultery, but surely you realize that it is the interpretations of fornication that account for doctrinal differences! I would prefer to limit that discussion for another thread. Thanks to everyone for kindly providing the Catholic explanation in posts recently on this thread. It has been a great educational experience. I have read Jimmy Akin’s account of Matthew 5:32 and can appreciate the Catholic interpretation of this gospel.

I think what many people don’t understand, Mardukum, is that an Orthodox marriage is spiritual, and not primarily a means for procreation. It is a function of the married couple’s journey towards completeness in Christ. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul addresses those who are single or widowed (verse 8), those who are married (verse 10), and “to the rest” (verse 10). In verse 12, Paul says, “But 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, (emphasis added) let him not send her away.” Verse 13 says, “and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away.” Verse 14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband…” If we continue to verse 15, Paul says, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." Continuing on to verse 16 and 17, Paul says, “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches.”

Clearly, Paul is distinguishing between godly and ungodly situations, and does not even assign the term “married” to unbelievers, as evidenced by his distinct omission of the word in verse 12 and 13, but by his use of the term “married” in other verses! A "husband’ and “wife” “living” together hardly constitutes a true Christian spiritual marriage! This distinguishes true and godly (spiritual) marriages from the multitude of ungodly situations Christians might find themselves in. God calls upon us to “judge not, that ye not be judged.” God does not call upon us to judge the godliness of a “marital” situation! That is for Him alone! We must exercise extreme caution when using pure logic in a delicate circumstances. The absence of this in certain situations is what I have always found distubing about Catholic doctrine. I am sorry that that you see the administering of kindness and mercy in certain painful situations by the Orthodox church as wrong. Remaining single after a divorce can be a higher calling, but, unfortunately other sins may enter into the situation should the church insist a person remain single, and cause a person to forfeit eternal life. Also unfortunate is that the spirit of the Pharisees often comes into play and and we judge and demand sacrifice from others and not ourselves instead of bestowing kindness and mercy, as Jesus did for us, as is the case when the church demands that divorced people not remarry.

Economia is, therefore, a bishop’s discretionary power to dispense with the ordinary church discipline, or the strict application of the ordinary rules or canon of the Church as their provisions do not always precisely cover every situation that might arise. Such dispensations are made with a view towards putting the spirit before the letter and helping the cause of the salvation of souls. Not that the Orthodox church gives a “get-out-of-jail-free” card! This, in my opinion, seems more prevalent in the Catholic church…in Orthodoxy, a person has confession, admits the sin, asks the forgiveness of God, and has the inclusion of special prayers in the remarriage ceremony. We must trust that our church, under the Holy Spirit, is guiding our leaders in a holy fashion. A difficult task at times, indeed. Our earthly marriage does not last into eternity as does our spiritual marriage to Christ, it is this latter marriage that is of paramount importance and must be considered if our earthly marriage is drawing us away from the word of God and eternal life.

Thanks again to everyone for their posts on this thread. This will be my last one on this topic and I will now move on to other things…as I haven’t yet had my first marriage ceremony!

Peace of Christ,
Triciacat

 

[Formosus]

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!

Theology of marriage is not something that I have studied that much. It is my understanding that Latin marriages are eternal in the sense that they can not be broken asunder, except in the case of death appearntly. I have been told by Orthodox that marriage is eternal in Orthodox theology, and I think that is a reasonable suggestion. Perhaps the life of a marriage in the hereafter will be vastly different (“we will live as the angels”, such as perhaps continuing in a spiritual state of marriage and not a physical one? I do not know). Only the first marriage is eternal, as the second and third marriages are not Holy Mysteries, but merely allowances for human weakness.

-Mardukm
I read in one of your posts on this thread that the Coptic Orthodox explain that divorce is allowed because one of the spouses as suffered spiritual death. Perhaps in many of the way that the modern EO allows for ecclesial divorce, this reason could not be used. But I think you could find ways to use this same justification for a good deal of the canons allowing divorce in the EO church. Either way, if the EO is not following the patristic tradition faithfully on this point then they should modify their canons and that perhaps that could work as a grounds for reunification on the issue of marriage/divorce among all the apostolic churches.

DDarko, I do not really find a need to respond to your posts further, but the Church condemns same sex marriage based on several principles.

1. That it is condemned by Scripture and the Fathers.
2. That it is unnatural because two people of the same sex can not fufill one of the primary ends of marriage (children). ]

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the Church’s acceptance/non-acceptance of ecclesiastical divorce as practiced by all the Eastern churches outside of the Roman communion. Hence why I referred to it as the use of a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[1Yesusmen]

I voted option one, and it seems like we are closer now to it than ever before. I will continue praying for this unity, and hope others will join me.

I join you in praying for a unification of all Catholic rites. Various rites already share essential beliefs / doctines/ dogma and this is what makes them all Catholic. The celibacy requirement is a man-made rule mandated in the Latin rite, could be changed any day with a stroke of a pen by the pope, and should not trump having enough priests to provide access to sacraments to Catholics in the world.