Full Communion with Orthodox Churches - would it require recognition of the pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carefullytread
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rohzek said:
Except the Catholic Church requires that the first marriage be somehow invalidated or annulled to allow for a second marriage.
Click to expand...
In some dioceses, 95% of those who apply for a Roman Catholic marriage annulment in the USA get it. What percentage of couples who apply for a church approved Orthodox divorce meet the requirements set by the Orthodox church for the divorce?
BTW, the Roman Catholic Joseph Kennedy has said that the Catholic annulment process is just “Catholic gobbledygook.” Even Cardinal Kasper has said that the Catholic annulment process is sometimes just " divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.".
 
Tomdstone said:
In some dioceses, 95% of those who apply for a Roman Catholic marriage annulment in the USA get it. What percentage of couples who apply for a church approved Orthodox divorce meet the requirements set by the Orthodox church for the divorce?
BTW, the Roman Catholic Joseph Kennedy has said that the Catholic annulment process is just “Catholic gobbledygook.” Even Cardinal Kasper has said that the Catholic annulment process is sometimes just " divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.".
Click to expand...
Liberals
 
carefullytread said:
I was recently reading this Vatican radio address. Amongst other things, the Pope says

Does this mean that the Catholic and Orthodox churches could be in full communion without the Orthodox Churches accepting the authority of the Pope? Could they be in full communion and still have differing doctrine, e.g. maintain their teachings on divorce?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that divorce should be that big of an obstacle to reunion. However, the big stumbling block is the papacy and what the papacy would mean in a reunited church. Of course there are a whole lot of other issues and questions which would need to be addressed, but IMHO, the position of the papacy would be the biggest roadblock to reunion. The Orthodox, I think, might see the Pope as the first among equals in a united church, with some sort of primacy of honor, but I don’t see them accepting the teaching of infallibility of the Roman Pope acting on his own ex cathedra, And I don’t see them as accepting the concept of universal papal jurisdiction.
IMHO, it does not look to me like either side wants to budge from its position on various issues at this point in time.
 
Wandile said:
It kind of was.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing something. The Latins or Catholics rather had a problem with us having married priests, which they thought should not be allowed. They were pretty insistent on that point, mostly because they had such a problem with people not obeying it in the West. They didn’t consider our own traditions.
 
Tomdstone said:
In some dioceses, 95% of those who apply for a Roman Catholic marriage annulment in the USA get it. What percentage of couples who apply for a church approved Orthodox divorce meet the requirements set by the Orthodox church for the divorce?
BTW, the Roman Catholic Joseph Kennedy has said that the Catholic annulment process is just “Catholic gobbledygook.” Even Cardinal Kasper has said that the Catholic annulment process is sometimes just " divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.".
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about Orthodox statistics. I don’t think there are any good ones. This is the closest thing I could find: helleniccomserve.com/divorceperspective.html

As for the standards of the Orthodox process of canonical divorce, those vary depending upon jurisdiction. And since there are multiple jurisdictions in the USA, it is difficult to get a good idea about it. I’ve been told of a personal story by one fellow parishioner about her ordeal of achieving a canonical divorce, and it took a ridiculously long amount of time. But that sort of thing was decades ago. Who knows what it is like now.
 
prodromos said:
Cardinal Humbert’s Bull of Excommunication didn’t even mention it. What evidence are you referring to?
Click to expand...
Most were unaware of the novelties in the east regarding divorce. Those who knew criticized it besides the odd pope who allowed imperial remarriage for whatever political advantage.
 
Rohzek said:
I think you’re confusing something. The Latins or Catholics rather had a problem with us having married priests, which they thought should not be allowed. They were pretty insistent on that point, mostly because they had such a problem with people not obeying it in the West. They didn’t consider our own traditions.
Click to expand...
I’m not confusing anything
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t think that divorce should be that big of an obstacle to reunion. However, the big stumbling block is the papacy and what the papacy would mean in a reunited church. Of course there are a whole lot of other issues and questions which would need to be addressed, but IMHO, the position of the papacy would be the biggest roadblock to reunion. The Orthodox, I think, might see the Pope as the first among equals in a united church, with some sort of primacy of honor, but I don’t see them accepting the teaching of infallibility of the Roman Pope acting on his own ex cathedra, And I don’t see them as accepting the concept of universal papal jurisdiction.
IMHO, it does not look to me like either side wants to budge from its position on various issues at this point in time.
Click to expand...
They will accept all Catholic positions. One thing history has shown is that the Catholic Church does not budge. She may word things in a friendlier manner but the essence of the doctrine remains in tact. The EO have honestly forgotten what primacy is and any reading St Cyril’s letter to the Pope or Patriarch Mennas of of Constantinope will clearly show it wasn’t a mere primacy of honour (a fact modern EO scholars are admitting)
 
Wandile said:
Most were unaware of the novelties in the east regarding divorce. Those who knew criticized it besides the odd pope who allowed imperial remarriage for whatever political advantage.
Click to expand...
I asked for evidence, not your opinion.
 
Wandile said:
Those who knew criticized it besides the odd pope who allowed imperial remarriage for whatever political advantage.
Click to expand...
If an infallible Roman Catholic Pope allowed a church approved divorce and remarriage, it means that a church approved divorce and remarriage could possibly be part of any reunion scheme. This is particularly true also, because Cardinal Kasper has said that some Catholic marriage annulments are dishonest divorces.
 
Wandile said:
One thing history has shown is that the Catholic Church does not budge.
Click to expand...
Not true because before Vatican II, the Byzantine Catholics said the filioque in the creed. After Vatican II, Rome budged and allowed the Byzantine Catholic Church to say the creed without the filioque. Rome has also budged on the matter of celibacy for Roman Catholic priests. In 1054, Rome excommunicated the Greeks under Michael Cerularius in a bull of excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbertus. The Bull mentioned that one reason for the excommunication was that Michael Cerularius allowed married priests.
 
prodromos said:
I asked for evidence, not your opinion.
Click to expand...
I would provide it but it’s not something easily on hand. I’ve can look for it if your patient enough. I read a lot of stuff over the years but this I not an opinion but fact I can tell you that much.
 
Tomdstone said:
Not true because before Vatican II, the Byzantine Catholics said the filioque in the creed. After Vatican II, Rome budged and allowed the Byzantine Catholic Church to say the creed without the filioque.
Click to expand...
That’s disciplinary not doctrinal. They are still required to believe in the Orthodxy of the Filioque
Rome has also budged on the matter of celibacy for Roman Catholic priests. In 1054,
Click to expand...
Again discipline not doctrine:shrug:
Rome excommunicated the Greeks under Michael Cerularius in a bull of excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbertus. The Bull mentioned that one reason for the excommunication was that Michael Cerularius allowed married priests.
Click to expand...
That was a disciplinary fight, in this respect, although role richly recognised the ok novel practice of the Byzantines. When I said Rome doesn’t budge, I meant doctrinally.
Nevermind that Humbert excommunicated the patriarch and all who sympathize with him. It was a personal not general excommunication (an act he did on his own mind you).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top