Initiating the Cause for Abp. Elias Zoghby

[1holycatholic]

Dear 1holycatholic,

From my understanding, it is called “ecclesiastical divorce” to distinguish it from divorce per se, which is not permitted by God.

“Ecclesiastical divorce” is divorce or separation permitted by the authority of the Church. In the concept, it is recognized that divorce is not normative. It is practically identical to the notion behind the “Pauline privilege.” Note that when St. Paul describes the Pauline privilege, he distinguishes between what Jesus taught about divorce, and what he (Paul) teaches about divorce.

I believe you are confusing the concept of ecclesiastical divorce, on the one hand, and remarriage, on the other. Ecclesiastical divorce is permitted, and I believe, a holy thing, when two people can no longer live with each other.

The issue is not whether ecclesiastical divorce is acceptable, but whether remarriage is acceptable. I do believe the Catholic Church has the most perfect and ideal teaching on divorce and remarriage, as well she should. But I don’t think we can deny the value of remarriage wholesale in some circumstances.

The Coptic Orthodox ideal is morally attractive. A second or third “marriage” is clearly distinguished as not ideal. In fact, the Prayer of Matrimony is actually excluded from ceremonies of second or third “marriages.” I think it is similar in other Oriental Churches. Like the Catholic Church, every OO Church has an explicit teaching on the indissolubility of marriage (which, IIRC, is not likewise among the EO Churches).

Also, I agree with brother josephdaniel that the Pauline and Petrine privileges are indeed “ecclesiastical divorces.”

Finally, as an Oriental, I’d like to say that I fully appreciate and understand the difference between ecclesiastical divorce and annulment. The two concepts are certainly not the same, though the ends may be the same. Not distinguishing between the two is like failing to distinguish between murder and self-defense.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m aware of the Pauline and Petrine privilege. They aren’t applicable to Sacramental marriage which is the issue at hand. bpbasilphx claimed in post #22 that Orthodox can dissolve a [valid] Sacramental marriage. That is what was being referred to as an “ecclesiastical divorce.” The Church simply does not have the ability to dissolve a valid Sacramental marriage - never has, never will.

 

[malphono]

From my understanding, it is called “ecclesiastical divorce”…

The Coptic Orthodox ideal is morally attractive. A second or third “marriage” is clearly distinguished as not ideal. In fact, the Prayer of Matrimony is actually excluded from ceremonies of second or third “marriages.” I think it is similar in other Oriental Churches. Like the Catholic Church, every OO Church has an explicit teaching on the indissolubility of marriage (which, IIRC, is not likewise among the EO Churches). …

Finally, as an Oriental, I’d like to say that I fully appreciate and understand the difference between ecclesiastical divorce and annulment. The two concepts are certainly not the same, though the ends may be the same. Not distinguishing between the two is like failing to distinguish between murder and self-defense.

Even as the year closes, it looks like we pretty much [post=6098502]agree[/post] [post=6100220]again[/post].

 

[Formosus]

I’m aware of the Pauline and Petrine privilege. They aren’t applicable to Sacramental marriage which is the issue at hand. bpbasilphx claimed in post #22 that Orthodox can dissolve a [valid] Sacramental marriage. That is what was being referred to as an “ecclesiastical divorce.” The Church simply does not have the ability to dissolve a valid Sacramental marriage - never has, never will.

Yet the practice did exist in the pre-schism church. It was a common practice in the pre-schism Church of Constantinople and even the canons of Nicea hint that it[Ecclesiastical divorce] existed. It was never an issue between East and West until modern times, it certainly never came up in the debates involving the schism between Rome and the Byzantines, or the separations of Rome/Constantinople from the oriental churches.

 

[sidbrown]

So we are to believe that Ted Kennedy’s marriage to Joan Bennett, witnessed by Francis Cardinal Spellman, was somehow so defective that it would be invalid, despite their being accepted as a married couple, living together for years, filing joint tax returns, and having several children?

Then who can know WHO is “validly married” except for God Himself?

This is one reason why I’m not the only one to observe that a declaration of nullity is so often nothing more than a legal fiction.

At least the Orthodox discipline acknowledges reality (in this case, that a totally valid marriage had broken down beyond repair and reconciliation)–and would grant an ecclesiastical divorce to Joan on grounds of Ted’s numerous philanderings.

I don’t know if they are scams or not, but I saw an advertisement for a legal outfit that more or less guaranteed you would get your marriage annulment if you sign up with them.

 

[Hesychios]

Yet the practice did exist in the pre-schism church. It was a common practice in the pre-schism Church of Constantinople and even the canons of Nicea hint that it[Ecclesiastical divorce] existed. It was never an issue between East and West until modern times, it certainly never came up in the debates involving the schism between Rome and the Byzantines, or the separations of Rome/Constantinople from the oriental churches.

I never thought of that before.

It was not on the list of complaints Cardinal Humbert drew up.

 

[mardukm]

I think this issue is complicated by the ease with which the secular powers interfered in the affairs of the Church during the Medieval Ages. Do we have proof that the Church normatively permitted ecclesiastical divorce and remarriage in both East and West, apart from the occasional allowance granted to rulers?

Blessings

 

[marlo]

Even if its witnessed by a Cardinal and the rites were performed by a Catholic Priest, if the wedding is null or void in the first place, then its null or void period.

there have been instances of these issues that after further investigation of the church due to people applying for divorce or affected parties nullifying the marriage of a couple, then the church can investigate further because of evidence provided.

So we are to believe that Ted Kennedy’s marriage to Joan Bennett, witnessed by Francis Cardinal Spellman, was somehow so defective that it would be invalid, despite their being accepted as a married couple, living together for years, filing joint tax returns, and having several children?

Then who can know WHO is “validly married” except for God Himself?

This is one reason why I’m not the only one to observe that a declaration of nullity is so often nothing more than a legal fiction.

At least the Orthodox discipline acknowledges reality (in this case, that a totally valid marriage had broken down beyond repair and reconciliation)–and would grant an ecclesiastical divorce to Joan on grounds of Ted’s numerous philanderings.

 

[marlo]

There was a forum discussion before regarding the Orthodox granting of “divorce” that made a potential orthodox convert to switch back to the Catholic church due to this issue. The reason is because he explained that the Orthodox church is worshiping saints (after the schism) that was in reality burning in hell, and granting of divorce so that another one can marry is similar to allowing adultery and was used abusively in the EO church.

it was in the old Eastern Christianity forum

The Orthodox Church does.

 

[mardukm]

I just read HE Zoghby’s statements on Divorce and Remarriage. Contrary to what someone else stated earlier in the thread, HE Zoghby upheld the indissolubility of marriage, and was merely pleading for the application of oikonomia on those who may not be graced with the virtue of perfect continence - and hence want to marry again.

I think it is hard for Western Christians to understand the principle of oikonomia. But I also think the apprehensions of our Western brethren are well-founded. I have debated with EO who think that oikonomia somehow magically makes a sin no longer a sin. This is especially prevalent in debates about divorce/remarriage and contraception. I am certain Latin Catholics have often faced EO who do not view divorce/remarriage and contraception as sins. I myself have met such EO more often than I care to admit. However, I have also encountered EO who do believe that divorce/remarriage and contraception are sins (though less often).

If there is to be any resolution on this issue, the EO need to be more united on the topic. The fact is, oikonomia does NOT make sin OK. What it does is relax or remove the ecclesiastical penalty attached to a particular sin. I think the misunderstanding is prevalent in the EOC because the EOC generally has a less penitential and less Justice-oriented spirituality and theology than the OOC or the CC.

The EO have some work to do if it is to have a meeting of the minds with the Catholic Church on this topic. I sincerely believe a rapprochement is possible, but only with a solid affirmation of the Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, as Archbishop Zoghby had done. It must be admitted that remarriage is a sin in the eyes of God, but the Church is willing to remove the normal canonical penalties (especially the penalty of non-communion) in an exercise of oikonomia.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

There was a forum discussion before regarding the Orthodox granting of “divorce” that made a potential orthodox convert to switch back to the Catholic church due to this issue. The reason is because he explained that the Orthodox church is worshiping saints (after the schism) that was in reality burning in hell, and granting of divorce so that another one can marry is similar to allowing adultery and was used abusively in the EO church.

it was in the old Eastern Christianity forum

I could be wrong, but I understand that the Eastern Churches allowed ecclesiastical divorce before the schism of 1054 and the West did not object to the practice.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\ I have debated with EO who think that oikonomia somehow magically makes a sin no longer a sin. This is especially prevalent in debates about divorce/remarriage and contraception.\

**In Orthodoxy, oikonomia only applies to the Church’s canonical norms.

This flows from the general understanding that none of the canons are ends in themselves. The only end in itself is the salvation of souls. If the strict application of a canon gets in the way of someone’s salvation, then the canon does not apply.

As regards marriage, the breakdown of the marriage is considered the sin and evil.

As regards contraception, there is, to my knowledge, no canon forbidding it. Abortion is another matter; it cannot be denied that some methods of contraception, such as the pill and IUD are abortifacient.

The general Orthodox attitude is this: for a normal healthy couple to refuse to have children is selfish and sinful. However, there may be medical reasons when contraception is the lesser of two evils, such as some medical conditions where pregnancy would seriously jeapordize the mother’s life. **

 

[AnneElliot]

The general Orthodox attitude is this: for a normal healthy couple to refuse to have children is selfish and sinful. However, there may be medical reasons when contraception is the lesser of two evils, such as some medical conditions where pregnancy would seriously jeapordize the mother’s life.

So it’s considered unselfish to risk the mother’s life by using contraceptive methods (non-abortifacient)-- that are not a 100% guarantee-- to avoid a life-threatening pregnancy?

 

[Ghosty]

This flows from the general understanding that none of the canons are ends in themselves. The only end in itself is the salvation of souls. If the strict application of a canon gets in the way of someone’s salvation, then the canon does not apply.

**As regards marriage, the breakdown of the marriage is considered the sin and evil. **

The problem with this understanding, from a Scriptural stand point, is that it’s not divorce and the break-down of marriage that is referred to as evil, but the remarriage afterwards. This is why the debate continues: there seems to be a practice that goes directly against the words of Christ and St. Paul, and the issue of salvation comes up not because of Canons preventing remarriage, but the prohibitions of Scripture itself.

If something that is stated by God as evil is treated as a merely “canonical issue”, then it does seem to be that sin can be disregarded in favor of “oikonomia”. This is why, even as an Eastern, I have a big problem with the notion of “ecclesial divorce and remarriage”. It just seems to fly against the salvation of souls, papering over sin with the tradition of man. Humans can’t simply legislate adultery out of existence by giving it ecclesial sanction.

An example of oikonomia that involves sin, but which does not bother me at all, are the issues of fasting and inter-communion. It is the canons which make the rule on fasting and inter-communion, not the direct word of God, and so loosening them for the betterment of souls is perfectly understandable; it fits Christ’s words about tying a burden on someone’s back but not lifting a finger to lessen it. If something is a sin because it violates a canon, then oikonomia can certainly completely remove the sin. It’s when the sin is a sin without regard to the canons, as in the case of remarriage after divorce, that the problem arises.

I want to stress that I don’t view this as a “doctrinal divide” between East and West, but merely as a potentially dangerous and inappropriate custom in the East. There are plenty of such customs in the West as well, but this is not the thread for those.

As for Sayedna Elias, I’ve not heard anything about him that would lead me to conclude that he should be considered a Saint, but likewise I’ve not heard anything that would take him out of the running. I wouldn’t initiate his cause, but I wouldn’t block it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

How many people here have read Abp. Elias’s book TOUS SCHISMATIQUES, published in English as WE ARE ALL SCHISMATICS?

What are the opinions about it?

And next question:

What would you all think in trying to get support for the cause of his being elevated to sainthood?

I’ve read his book, it’s great, it needs to be taken to heart by East and West.

I would gladly support his cause for sainthood, but I think 1000 times more important is continuing his cause for Church reform and unity.

 

[Alethiaphile]

I read a writing of his called “Vatican I Pseudo Council”

Reason enough to declare him a saint.

 

[Ghosty]

Reason enough to declare him a saint.

Statements like this diminish the meaning of sanctity, and reduce Sainthood to little more than an ecclesio-political tool.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Statements like this diminish the meaning of sanctity, and reduce Sainthood to little more than an ecclesio-political tool.

My statement was an oblique way of giving my opinion on Vatican I, and was not meant as a serious statement about the qualifications for sainthood.

 

[Ghosty]

My statement was an oblique way of giving my opinion on Vatican I, and was not meant as a serious statement about the qualifications for sainthood.

Then you should just say your opinions, and not make sly statements about sanctity. God should not be mocked, even on an internet forum.

 

[spn82756]

I believe that as sister Churches…the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a special relationship that does not exist among other churches. We should be doing as much as possible to unite. How can the rest of Christianity ever become one when the Churches that can truly trace their origins to the Apostles do not have a closer relationship. Sometimes…closeness results more in competition and I’m right/your wrong. Very sad to the eyes of Jesus.

 

[sidbrown]

I believe that as sister Churches…the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a special relationship that does not exist among other churches. We should be doing as much as possible to unite. How can the rest of Christianity ever become one when the Churches that can truly trace their origins to the Apostles do not have a closer relationship. Sometimes…closeness results more in competition and I’m right/your wrong. Very sad to the eyes of Jesus.

I don’t see the Catholic Church going along with the demands of those in the Orthodox Church.