Annulments were pretty rare in the Latin Church once upon a time as well - and limited to very extreme case such as your examples above. The Church has developed her understanding of what constitutes grounds for an annulment. Much as the Orthodox Churches have developed their understanding of what constitutes a broken marriage.
I don’t know how often they are used these days, especially in the U.S., but annulments do exist in Orthodoxy. @dochawk listed forced marriage and abduction. Deceit (such as in the case of bigamy) and consanguinity can also be grounds for annulment. In practice, most of these cases are easier treated as divorces. I’ve seen a list of possible grounds (from a Russian Orthodox source) and used to link to it regularly, but the link is no longer working.
I have 41 posts in this thread.steve-b:
But you are in 100% control of how much charity and grace you extend to others in explaining your faith.
Again, you’re judging the quotes I posted.steve-b:
Exactly. No human being is in a position to judge the heart of another. When you assign culpability to another person, you have made a judgment on the state of their heart. Only God can do this. Priests in the confessional make this kind of judgment during confession, but even they cannot read the whole human heart. They will grant or withhold absolution based upon what they have been told.
I can read your posts, and respond to what you have written, that is all.
I’m not arguing with the writings of St. Paul you have quoted, nor do I believe St. Paul’s words lack charity. What I do object to is that you’ve used his words to imply I am condemned to hell for being an Orthodox Christian. No other poster in this thread has done so, but has rather engaged in productive and positive conversation. Frankly, it’s very fortunate that I know you don’t speak for the Catholic Church, otherwise you would be guilty through utter lack of charity for driving me away from the very Church you think I need to be a part of.
What is the title of this thread?steve-b:
I’m not arguing with the writings of St. Paul you have quoted, nor do I believe St. Paul’s words lack charity. What I do object to is that you’ve used his words to imply I am condemned to hell for being an Orthodox Christian.
Please show me in my 44 posts where I have spoken uncharitably?
No, just how you are applying them. Your conclusions from the quotes. It is the manner in which you focus and pull out the parts. Like saying that one must be “fully in” or one is “out”. I think you need to do this for yourself, and it is a form of private revelation that makes sense to you, but private revelation should not be forced upon other people. God has given you insight for your own benefit.
I understand that you believe your conclusions follow from the quotes, and that you cannot accept that there are any other conclusions.
No, it is the conclusions you make, not the text itself.
Exactly. The clarity you have for yourself, and you would like to apply this clarity to others. The result is that you are creating dissention and separation in the process. Rather than embracing your siblings in Christ, you preach that they are going to hell if they do not conform to what you think is right.
The Church does not teach that we are in a formal schism with the Orthodox. It’s more so an issue of upper management.
Honestly, I think this has been happening since before the schism. Human beings have a drive to homogenize, and we tend to cluster to others like ourselves, and project “other” onto those who are different. Our pride of our own way, and our believe in our own “rightness” is actually a form of arrogance.
Steve, beloved and passionate brother, you are creating this by your attitude. Your lack of charity and refusal to respect the faith of your siblings in Christ drives a wedge.
I understand it seems that way to you, because you cannot help but draw the conclusions you do from what you are reading.
This is a critical question for all of us, as each of us has a duty to do so. You have applied them to yourself with great passion and conviction.
That sentence refers to Eastern Catholics not Eastern Orthodoxsemper_catholicus:
Yes, as long as they are according to the laws of the Church to which they belong, the sacraments are licit, or lawful. That is what it means that the Churches of the East “have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them.” This does not mean that the Pope does not have full supreme universal authority over them, just that Orthodox bishops have made the legal structure within their own communities. They have done that with the same authority over the Church entrusted to the Pope along with the bishops.
Yeah for formal schism the members would actively have to make a distinct and knowledgeable act of separation.
Not possible as Rome is indefectable and even the fathers and ecuemnical councils acknowledged this many times. Sadly today the EO deny this.
This is not correct
It isn’t, many of their fathers and the 7 ecumenical councols acknowledged the infalibility and universal jurisdiction of the pope. Although these words weren’t around they acknowledged, very clearly, these concepts with regards to the pope. I can show you numerous example of eastern bishops and councils saying as much.
This phrase is not found anywhere in the first millennium. They made it up around the time of the schism when Constantinople was trying to elevate itself.
They most definitely did and Lyons II and Florence.
Yeah after they murdered 60000 latin in Constantinople just a few decades prior or how they opened up the tabernacles and trampled on the holy eucharist of the Latin churches under foot in the 11th century in Constantinople… They never tell you that do they.
Lol look up the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople.
You just described yourself. Unlike you I give my references in context all properly referenced. you give your opinion backed up by your opinion.steve-b:
No, just how you are applying them. Your conclusions from the quotes.
You just described yourself. Unlike you, I let my references make the conclusion.
My conclusions?
You just described yourself. AND I’ll just say Paul is writing to the Church and they know about the sins described. Just like when Paul wrote the following. Note the same word “in Greek” in Gal 5:19-21, is used in this passage from Romans as well.
The HS inspired Paul to write what he does. Does the HS speak on His own? No. He takes from Jesus John 16:13-15 RSVCE - When the Spirit of truth comes, he will - Bible Gateway
It does not.
steve-b:
Steve, beloved and passionate brother, you are creating this by your attitude. Your lack of charity and refusal to respect the faith of your siblings in Christ drives a wedge.
This little article has a simple summary of how the split was not theological but political, and a reaction to the arrogance of the Roman Pope.
> 838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches , this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
schism is NOT profound communion.