Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[mardukm]

Several sources have quoted St. Epiphanius on this. Further, St. Asterius, Bishop of Amasea, in his fifth homily on Matthew xix, writes: “I praise the husband who flys from the designing wife, who cuts asunder the bond by which he is bound to the asp or the viper.

Where is the permission for remarriage in this quote?

Also, Theodoret, Bishop of Antioch, admitted divorce for adultery.

Ditto

And, according to His Holiness Alexius, who was patriarch of Constantinople in the beginning of the eleventh century: “No clergyman is to be condemned for giving the benediction at the marriage of a divorced woman, when the man’s conduct was the cause of the divorce.”

I think it is generally admitted that it was only around this late date that EO can point to any explicit permission for divorce and remarriage while the other spouse is still alive (though I don’t think this statement is really that explicit that the husband is still alive).

According to the Council of Rome, 826 AD, under Pope Eugenius II: Nulli liceat excepta causa fornicationis adhibitam uxorem relinquere, et deinde aliam copulare….
In other words, does this not say that there is an exception made for the case of fornication?

Where’s the permission for remarriage?

Blessings

 

[Ghosty]

The source I quoted disagrees with you on St. Basil, at least in the case of the man. It is true though, that he did not allow the remarriage of the woman.

First off, you haven’t cited St. Basil, but I have (on the other marriage thread). Secondly, you obviously still haven’t read the post of mine you responded to, because you’re still talking about remarriage after fornication. Please re-read what I have written.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

Where’s the permission for remarriage?

Not explicit, but appears implicit because of the phrase: “excepta causa fornicationis”

 

[sidbrown]

First off, you haven’t cited St. Basil, …

I gave the reference for the citation. But if you want the quote posted here, then I can give it. St. Basil is not in favor of divorce and remarriage, however, it looks to me like he does say that after repentance, he is in favor of restoring that person to the status of being able to receive Holy Communion in the Church.
St. Basil the Great Canon IV (translation):
“As regards trigamy and polygamy we have decreed the same canon as in the case of digamy, analogously. For it is a year in the case of digamy, but two for the others. As for those who are guilty of trigamy, they are excommunicated for the space of three years and often four years. For such a marriage is no longer to be called a marriage, but polygamy, or rather mitigated fornication. Wherefore the Lord told the Samaritaness who had had five husbands in succession,
‘and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband’ as being no longer themselves worthy when they have exceeded the measure of digamy to be called by the appellation of husband or wife. We have taken to the custom of condemning trigamists to five years excommunication not on the ground of any canon but only on the ground of usage followed by those who have preceded us. But it behooves us not to exclude them entirely from the Church, but instead to entitle them to listening in some two years or three, and thereafter to permit them to co-standers, though obliged to abstain from communion with that which is good, and then after exhibiting some fruit of repentance, let them be restored to the status of persons entitled to communion.”

 

[Ghosty]

I gave the reference for the citation. But if you want the quote posted here, then I can give it. St. Basil is not in favor of divorce and remarriage, however, it looks to me like he does say that after repentance, he is in favor of restoring that person to the status of being able to receive Holy Communion in the Church.
St. Basil the Great Canon IV (translation):
“As regards trigamy and polygamy we have decreed the same canon as in the case of digamy, analogously. For it is a year in the case of digamy, but two for the others. As for those who are guilty of trigamy, they are excommunicated for the space of three years and often four years. For such a marriage is no longer to be called a marriage, but polygamy, or rather mitigated fornication. Wherefore the Lord told the Samaritaness who had had five husbands in succession,
‘and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband’ as being no longer themselves worthy when they have exceeded the measure of digamy to be called by the appellation of husband or wife. We have taken to the custom of condemning trigamists to five years excommunication not on the ground of any canon but only on the ground of usage followed by those who have preceded us. But it behooves us not to exclude them entirely from the Church, but instead to entitle them to listening in some two years or three, and thereafter to permit them to co-standers, though obliged to abstain from communion with that which is good, and then after exhibiting some fruit of repentance, let them be restored to the status of persons entitled to communion.”

First off, it doesn’t say that the second and third marriages are allowed in cases beyond adultery. Second, it does not say that they are permitted to remain in the relationship, it merely details the penances that go along with repentence. The second to last Canon in the list in question makes this clear:

Canon LXXXIV.
We do not judge altogether by the length of time, but by the circumstances of the penance. If any will not be drawn from their carnal pleasures, and choose to serve them rather than the Lord, we have no communication with them.

Please show us something that either shows that St. Basil allowed divorce and remarriage in cases other than adultery, or that these people can remain together after repenting.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Triciacat]

Regardless, I have no problem with divorce and remarriage after adultery (“some other misdeed” is too vague); I said earlier that the prohibition on remarriage after adultery is an ecclesial, not Divine, prohibition.

Peace and God bless!

The Catholic church attributes one meaning to the word “adultery” (marital sexual unfaithfulness) whereas in the Orthodox church, adultery also means anything “not spiritual.” A husband or wife’s loyalty or priority given to any worldly passions which causes his marriage to become spiritually dead can be construed as adultery. This is just another example of the true meaning of the Orthodox marriage, that it is purely spiritual in nature. When an Orthodox marriage is spiritually dead, there isn’t one. So, as the Catholic church allows divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery, so does the Orthodox church.

Secondly, are we assuming that the Holy Spirit is not at work where ecclesial matters are concerned?

 

[Ghosty]

The Catholic church attributes one meaning to the word “adultery” (marital sexual unfaithfulness) whereas in the Orthodox church, adultery also means anything “not spiritual.” A husband or wife’s loyalty or priority given to any worldly passions which causes his marriage to become spiritually dead can be construed as adultery. This is just another example of the true meaning of the Orthodox marriage, that it is purely spiritual in nature. When an Orthodox marriage is spiritually dead, there isn’t one. So, as the Catholic church allows divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery, so does the Orthodox church.

Secondly, are we assuming that the Holy Spirit is not at work where ecclesial matters are concerned?

The word that Scripture and the Fathers used clearly referred to physical fornication, not spiritual disconnect. That kind of argument simply isn’t going to pass.

As for the Holy Spirit working in ecclesial matters, the Church has always been capable of going off the rails in ecclesial matters. Was the Holy Spirit working in the Church when it actively sold Absolution (Simony), and justified doing so in a Council? Was the Holy Spirit at work in the Russian Orthodox Church when it became an organ of the Communist Party in Russia and helped persecute dissidents of the state? Was the Holy Spirit at work when gangs of monks, led by a Patriarch (and Saint, no less), physically beat those who disagreed with them at ancient Councils? Was it the Holy Spirit at work when an Apostle turned Christ in to be executed, and the rest turned away from Him?

The Church’s every action is not the work of the Holy Spirit. If it were than God would be a monster, and would be standing against Himself. Our job, as members of the Church, is to help keep things on the right path, and that’s precisely what I’m trying to determine and do here.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Triciacat]

The word that Scripture and the Fathers used clearly referred to physical fornication, not spiritual disconnect. That kind of argument simply isn’t going to pass.

As for the Holy Spirit working in ecclesial matters, the Church has always been capable of going off the rails in ecclesial matters. Was the Holy Spirit working in the Church when it actively sold Absolution (Simony), and justified doing so in a Council? Was the Holy Spirit at work in the Russian Orthodox Church when it became an organ of the Communist Party in Russia and helped persecute dissidents of the state? Was the Holy Spirit at work when gangs of monks, led by a Patriarch (and Saint, no less), physically beat those who disagreed with them at ancient Councils? Was it the Holy Spirit at work when an Apostle turned Christ in to be executed, and the rest turned away from Him?

The Church’s every action is not the work of the Holy Spirit. If it were than God would be a monster, and would be standing against Himself. Our job, as members of the Church, is to help keep things on the right path, and that’s precisely what I’m trying to determine and do here.

Peace and God bless!

I don’t perceive this to be an argument; rather a respectful discussion of church doctrine. The Orthodox church believes its interpretation of adultery to be valid, just as the Catholic church believes it’s interpretation to be valid. What constitutes a marriage in the Orthodox church, and the reasons for one, are so incredibly different than in the Catholic church, and so it follows that its doctrine for divorce and remarriage will be different–far less dogmatic and semantic, and far more spiritual. I certainly agree that mankind has had significant secular (name removed by moderator)ut into church doctrine, but we can’t blame God for that. Man is capable of exercising free will, and he has, most obviously, done so. My point was simply that we shouldn’t assume that the Holy Spirit isn’t at work in all matters of the church, ecclesiastical and divine.

 

[DavidKays]

Why don’t you consider that both of you are right and that both Churches in regards to their respective laws and tradition are correct. I see no problem how both Churches deal with marriage. Reading on both I see no problems at all. If Catholics do not understand the Orthodox position at all then I will recommend them to live with us for awhile let us say for 1 year so that you can better understand us and see that we are really doing the same thing as they are for our children and trying to do the best for them.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t perceive this to be an argument; rather a respectful discussion of church doctrine. The Orthodox church believes its interpretation of adultery to be valid, just as the Catholic church believes it’s interpretation to be valid. What constitutes a marriage in the Orthodox church, and the reasons for one, are so incredibly different than in the Catholic church, and so it follows that its doctrine for divorce and remarriage will be different–far less dogmatic and semantic, and far more spiritual. I certainly agree that mankind has had significant secular (name removed by moderator)ut into church doctrine, but we can’t blame God for that. Man is capable of exercising free will, and he has, most obviously, done so. My point was simply that we shouldn’t assume that the Holy Spirit isn’t at work in all matters of the church, ecclesiastical and divine.

I am also approaching this as a discussion, I’m just using the term argument in the sense that there are two contrary positions being advanced, argument and counter-argument.

That being said, there is not a huge difference in what Marriage is, however, and that’s important to remember. Regardless, the Orthodox Churches do seem to deviate from the word of Christ on this matter, and that’s my concern; if God calls something adultery, who are we to say it is not? I don’t see how the Holy Spirit can be working a contradiction within the Church.

This isn’t a point of attack, but a point of serious concern because it is depriving people of truly coming to reconciliation and repentence, which is the entire purpose of oikonomia in the first place.

Peace and God bless!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

To the OP: who wouldn’t?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Why don’t you consider that both of you are right and that both Churches in regards to their respective laws and tradition are correct. I see no problem how both Churches deal with marriage. Reading on both I see no problems at all. If Catholics do not understand the Orthodox position at all then I will recommend them to live with us for awhile let us say for 1 year so that you can better understand us and see that we are really doing the same thing as they are for our children and trying to do the best for them.

But there is a problem with the Catholic approach, if not doctrinally then spiritually, because it removes the necessity to repent for the failed marriage. If the couple in question is going to truly have a change of mind and reorder their lives in the direction of God then they have to eventually come to terms with their own brokenness. Regardless of the supposedly faulty grounds the marriage was entered into upon, the reality is the couple failed to demonstrate the perfect unselfish love with are all called to have.

At least in the Orthodox Church, as imperfect as the practice is, (in theory) the individuals in question have to show some fruits of repentance before they would be allowed to marry again. They have to demonstrate that they have had a change of mind and turned in the direction of God. When the Catholic Church comes along retroactively and tells the couple they weren’t truly married to begin with it’s like giving them a mulligan. After all there’s no need to repent when the couple didn’t have a valid marriage to begin with. The couple can just go on their way and hope they manage to contract a valid marriage on the next try.

Either way I think both practices have basis in tradition, I just feel the Orthodox way is more pastorally sound.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Outstanding reasoning, Joseph. I feel much the same way on this issue…

But there is a problem with the Catholic approach, if not doctrinally then spiritually, because it removes the necessity to repent for the failed marriage. If the couple in question is going to truly have a change of mind and reorder their lives in the direction of God then they have to eventually come to terms with their own brokenness. Regardless of the supposedly faulty grounds the marriage was entered into upon, the reality is the couple failed to demonstrate the perfect unselfish love with are all called to have.

At least in the Orthodox Church, as imperfect as the practice is, (in theory) the individuals in question have to show some fruits of repentance before they would be allowed to marry again. They have to demonstrate that they have had a change of mind and turned in the direction of God. When the Catholic Church comes along retroactively and tells the couple they weren’t truly married to begin with it’s like giving them a mulligan. After all there’s no need to repent when the couple didn’t have a valid marriage to begin with. The couple can just go on their way and hope they manage to contract a valid marriage on the next try.

Either way I think both practices have basis in tradition, I just feel the Orthodox way is more pastorally sound.

In Christ
Joe

 

[sidbrown]

To the OP: who wouldn’t?

I think that the poll shows that there are some who oppose the reunion. For one thing, there are some hard-line Orthodox who do not trust Roman Catholics and would not favor union. Things that I have heard cited by them include historical problems such as the Fourth Crusade, the Ustase treatment of the Orthodox Serbs in WWII, and then a whole lot of other questions which they regard as essential, but which Catholics tend to believe can be resolved with good faith.

 

[Ghosty]

But there is a problem with the Catholic approach, if not doctrinally then spiritually, because it removes the necessity to repent for the failed marriage. If the couple in question is going to truly have a change of mind and reorder their lives in the direction of God then they have to eventually come to terms with their own brokenness. Regardless of the supposedly faulty grounds the marriage was entered into upon, the reality is the couple failed to demonstrate the perfect unselfish love with are all called to have.

At least in the Orthodox Church, as imperfect as the practice is, (in theory) the individuals in question have to show some fruits of repentance before they would be allowed to marry again. They have to demonstrate that they have had a change of mind and turned in the direction of God. When the Catholic Church comes along retroactively and tells the couple they weren’t truly married to begin with it’s like giving them a mulligan. After all there’s no need to repent when the couple didn’t have a valid marriage to begin with. The couple can just go on their way and hope they manage to contract a valid marriage on the next try.

Either way I think both practices have basis in tradition, I just feel the Orthodox way is more pastorally sound.

In Christ
Joe

You seem to be presuming a lot about Roman practice. The second marriage itself is not penitential, obviously, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t absolution and penance for the sins committed in the first marriage. Confession is part of the lead-up to the Sacrament of Marriage in the Roman tradition, IIRC.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Triciacat]

I am also approaching this as a discussion, I’m just using the term argument in the sense that there are two contrary positions being advanced, argument and counter-argument.

That being said, there is not a huge difference in what Marriage is, however, and that’s important to remember. Regardless, the Orthodox Churches do seem to deviate from the word of Christ on this matter, and that’s my concern; if God calls something adultery, who are we to say it is not? I don’t see how the Holy Spirit can be working a contradiction within the Church.

This isn’t a point of attack, but a point of serious concern because it is depriving people of truly coming to reconciliation and repentence, which is the entire purpose of oikonomia in the first place.

Peace and God bless!

I think there’s a HUGE difference in the reason for marriage in each of the churches. Orthodoxy ascribes a WIDER meaning to the term adultery, which ALSO includes the Catholic one (sexual unfaithfulness to one’s spouse) but also adultery of thought (which most people commit about every six minutes, in my opinion… ) and it also considers it to be any ungodly loyalty that draws people away from the word of God. Economia can, when used with proper discretion, actually bring people CLOSER to God, since, when it is applied to marriage doctrine, there must be confession, repentance, and, ultimately, the person may be saved from the loss of eternal life. I, personally, don’t believe God wants us to reconcile with Satan, and we are instructed to flee from evil. Forgiveness is a completely different story.

 

[Triciacat]

Why don’t you consider that both of you are right and that both Churches in regards to their respective laws and tradition are correct. I see no problem how both Churches deal with marriage. Reading on both I see no problems at all. If Catholics do not understand the Orthodox position at all then I will recommend them to live with us for awhile let us say for 1 year so that you can better understand us and see that we are really doing the same thing as they are for our children and trying to do the best for them.

Yeah, but what if we’re both wrong…?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Historically both sides have good reason NOT to trust each other. But essentially they are long lost brothers who need each other. Pope John Paul II called the East and West two lungs. I know the Orthodox were repulsed at such imagery but I thought it was charitable and brotherly—the idea that the Church isn’t complete until Orthodoxy and Catholicism come back to one another and breathe as one. I thought it was a cool statement.

I think the Catholic Church did a lot to alienate the East and the disgusting manner in which the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated at Hagia Sophia in the middle of Mass was insane. The sacking of Constantinople didn’t mend any fences and forcing the filioque on some Orthodox was a misstep as well.

But I think some Orthodox, as you say, don’t want any part of a reunion and they need to do some soul-searching. If it’s the Holy Spirit’s will, our individual pride is moot!

I think that the poll shows that there are some who oppose the reunion. For one thing, there are some hard-line Orthodox who do not trust Roman Catholics and would not favor union. Things that I have heard cited by them include historical problems such as the Fourth Crusade, the Ustase treatment of the Orthodox Serbs in WWII, and then a whole lot of other questions which they regard as essential, but which Catholics tend to believe can be resolved with good faith.

 

[Triciacat]

I, personally, don’t believe God wants us to reconcile with Satan, and we are instructed to flee from evil. Forgiveness is a completely different story.

To clarify, couples do undergo pastoral councelling before divorce.

 

[DavidKays]

Yeah, but what if we’re both wrong…?

I doubt that very much. The Holy Spirit who has guided both Churches for so long would have told us so.