Orthodox and remarriage

[Reuben_J]

Neither does the Church water down marriage. The ancient canons concerning marriage are still enforced.

It is not compromising. The Church has not changed her teaching on whether people should contract second or third marriages, or whether remarriage after divorce is sinful. Furthermore, the Church is completely free to refuse (and often does refuse) to allow for remarriages. Remarriage is not a right in the Orthodox Church, it is an exception made for those involved for the sake of their salvation.

In my view it is watering down the Sacrament of Matrimony, if you allow divorce and remarrying of spouses who have received this Sacrament validly.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am told by Orthodox posters that an Ecumenical council must be inclusive and approved by all parties for it to be ecumenical. Trullo was rejected by the Western Church. Who has the power to loose and to bind? If a Council is not attended by the Bishop of Rome, who does not assent to it, how can you claim that council has the authority to loose and to bind?

That would be the bishops. You are aware that even in the Catholic Church today there are councils happening without the attendance of the Pope and such councils are deemed local. Every Eastern Catholic Church have their regular synod, and even Roman Catholic bishops have formed Episcopal Conferences where they can make decisions for their respective Churches (diocese). Of course there is always the underlying overall “rule” of the Church, if you want to put it that way. They can’t start teaching heresy from such councils (although it has happened in the past and it was dealt with, such as nullifying the council).

A Council can have a million bishops attending it, but without the Chair of St. Peter, it cannot be considered ecumenical.

This is true. But it is polemical to claim that it is the authority of the Pope of Rome that makes it Ecumenical. It is Ecumenical because ALL bishops accept it. Including the Pope of Rome. The rejection of the Pope of Rome carries as much weight as the rejection of a bishop of a very small diocese of an insignificant town. A council is not Ecumenical until all canonical bishops accept the council. This is why sometimes a council that today we recognize as Ecumenical, wasn’t recognized as Ecumenical for decades after its conclusion. Either because it wasn’t widely accepted until that point, or like in the Second Council it was a local council until much later on when it was adopted by everyone within the Canonical Church.

This is a reason why the Orthodox has not convened any ecumenical council since the schism, so at least the Orthodox Church admits as much. So I cannot see it as self defeating argument, but factual truth about the nature of ecumenical council.

No, the reason the Orthodox have had not convened an Ecumenical Council because there hasn’t been an issue that needs to be addressed that required common consensus throughout the communion of Orthodox Churches. The second issue is that Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Emperor (not the Pope, at least in the First Millennium). Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has not been a single secular leader who has temporal authority over all the territories of the Church. There is that question on who today has that authority. The Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to preside over a council, but some argue that he doesn’t have the authority to summon a council.

I do not know much about the content of various councils and am not pretending that I am an expert at them except for the general outline. I have mentioned this before in my earlier post. I was mentioning Fortescue for reference but it is a fact that this Council is controversial and is not accepted by the Western Church. Since the canon on the economy of marriage is to be found in the Council of Trullo, then it is not accepted universally but by the Orthodox Church only. Trullo’s canon therefore is unilateral. That’s why I mention it is for the Orthodox Church which I have no problem with.

Although Trullo has been convened at a time that the Orthodox and Roman Catholics were in communion. Even though the West rejects the council, it has not been condemned as being heretical.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is true. But it is polemical to claim that it is the authority of the Pope of Rome that makes it Ecumenical.

Hi Constantine

I am on the way out but I will address this. I did not say anything about the authority of the Pope as I want to avoid this discussion to go into the the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which will be inevitable. I hope it will not go in that direction in this thread. (or even about Ecumenical Councils).

You are right. I was merely saying that without the agreement and the participation of the head of the Catholic Church there is no way that a council is ecumenical. I was referring to the Council of Trullo, the subject being brought up. That’s a general outline; the details are of course subjected to argument. That’s why I do not want to introduce this subject here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi Constantine

I am on the way out but I will address this. I did not say anything about the authority of the Pope as I want to avoid this discussion to go into the the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which will be inevitable. I hope it will not go in that direction in this thread. (or even about Ecumenical Councils).

You are right. I was merely saying that without the agreement and the participation of the head of the Catholic Church there is no way that a council is ecumenical. That’s a general outline; the details are of course subjected to argument. That’s why I do not want to introduce this subject here.

The head of the Church is Jesus Christ. Scripture supports that. I have not read anything in scripture that says Peter or anyone else being the head of the Church

 

[Reuben_J]

The head of the Church is Jesus Christ. Scripture supports that. I have not read anything in scripture that says Peter or anyone else being the head of the Church

Irrelevant to my argument. Start a new thread if you want to dwell on this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Irrelevant to my argument. Start a new thread if you want to dwell on this.

The thing is in your last post you said you didn’t want to talk about the primacy of the Pope and whether or not it is his authority that makes a council Ecumenical, then you proceeded that his acceptance as head of the Church (which he is not) is needed. So in the same paragraph you said you won’t do something and then proceeded to do it.

Let us simplify the argument. The Pope, being a Bishop of the Church, needs to accept a council to make it Ecumenical. It has nothing to do about anything else about him except for the fact that he is a Bishop. The acceptance of all Bishops is needed, regardless is the bishop is a Diocesan Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch, etc. In this discussion, a bishop is a bishop and the Pope is just one of the many bishops that need to accept.

 

[Reuben_J]

The thing is in your last post you said you didn’t want to talk about the primacy of the Pope and whether or not it is his authority that makes a council Ecumenical, then you proceeded that his acceptance as head of the Church (which he is not) is needed. So in the same paragraph you said you won’t do something and then proceeded to do it.

Let us simplify the argument. The Pope, being a Bishop of the Church, needs to accept a council to make it Ecumenical. It has nothing to do about anything else about him except for the fact that he is a Bishop. The acceptance of all Bishops is needed, regardless is the bishop is a Diocesan Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch, etc. In this discussion, a bishop is a bishop and the Pope is just one of the many bishops that need to accept.

Why Constantine, oh why?

Isn’t it enough that I said, the assent or the agreement of the head of the Catholic Church is needed to make a Council ecumenical, not just the Eastern bishops only. I am sorry if I misunderstood you or vice versa.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why Constantine, oh why?

Isn’t it enough that I said, the assent or the agreement of the head of the Catholic Church is needed to make a Council ecumenical, not just the Eastern bishops only. I am sorry if I misunderstood you or vice versa.

This argument will really devolve into a discussion about the role of the Pope in the early Church if you will use that language. That is why I said, let us just leave it at that, the Pope is a Bishop and the acceptance of all Bishops having equal weight and value, is needed. By insisting on his acceptance as head of the Church as a requirement, you are arguming that being the head of the Church (which again he is not) is what makes a council Ecumenical. But he can accept a council and it can be rejected by the Patriarch of Constantinople or Bishop of Ephesus, and it won’t be Ecumenical.

Forget titles or roles. The virtue of one being a bishop is what is needed here.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

No sin at all

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Or that someone who has been remarried wants to come back to the Church but can’t because they are being told they have to separate with their current legal spouse? Isn’t that a greater sin? Especially if they already have a family.

No, that is not a sin at all. We all have to make a choice between the world or Jesus Christ.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, that is not a sin at all. We all have to make a choice between the world or Jesus Christ.

It is easy for you to say that, but unless a majority of the people communing every week live a life completely in accordance with the canons, such an argument is completely unconvincing. I’ve seen many who can brazenly proclaim that such and such matter is a simple choice between Christ and the world, but few who can live a genuine life in Christ, which makes it manifest that they have chosen Christ God over the world, that is few who can live up to such a standard. If we were to cut off all who are not worthy to receive of Christ, then not one man would ever commune of the divine gift. But it is for the benefit of their salvation that people are cut off from the chalice or allowed to commune, and this must be exercised with prudence by the pastor, who possesses the power to bind and loose, and who will render an account for his use of this power, when he is judged.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, that is not a sin at all. We all have to make a choice between the world or Jesus Christ.

So you believe that a loving and merciful God would want to tear apart a family just so that the law can be blindly and legalisticaly applied?

 

[Reuben_J]

Neither does the Church water down marriage. The ancient canons concerning marriage are still enforced.
It is not compromising. The Church has not changed her teaching on whether people should contract second or third marriages, or whether remarriage after divorce is sinful. Furthermore, the Church is completely free to refuse (and often does refuse) to allow for remarriages. Remarriage is not a right in the Orthodox Church, it is an exception made for those involved for the sake of their salvation.

Nobody denies that it is wrong. But economy allows for the lessening of the canonical burden upon sinners, at the discretion of the bishop who has the ability to implement the canons in differing fashions, stemming from his power to bind and loose, as canon 102 of Trullo explains.

Should be glad if you can show the particular canon in **the canon 102 of Trullo **which you said explains the provision in allowing remarrying of a married person and divorce.

Since you said canon 102 of Trullo explains the canon of earlier Ecumenical Council on this subject, can you show that part of the earlier canon (and the Ecumenical Council too) that you referred to. I was asking you that in the earlier post but you may probably miss it.

If you cannot find them, then it is alright. I can’t, but then again, canon law is not my area where I am very conversant with.

Maybe Constantine could help with this too.

Thanks.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Should be glad if you can show the particular canon in **the canon 102 of Trullo **which you said explains the provision in allowing remarrying of a married person and divorce.

Since you said canon 102 of Trullo explains the canon of earlier Ecumenical Council on this subject, can you show that part of the earlier canon (and the Ecumenical Council too) that you referred to. I was asking you that in the earlier post but you may probably miss it.

If you cannot find them, then it is alright. I can’t, but then again, canon law is not my area where I am very conversant with.

Maybe Constantine could help with this too.

Thanks.

Are you just looking for the text?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.ciii.html

 

[Reuben_J]

Are you just looking for the text?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.ciii.html

I have read the text but could not find the canon that supports divorce in remarrying but that’s maybe because I do not quite understand the language. I’ve given an example in my earlier post #139,of Canon Lxxii. Council of Trullo, but that canon doesn’t seem to support the idea of divorce or remarrying.

If you, or Cavaradossi, since he brought this up, can pull out the said canon, it would be good for reference and further deliberation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There must be a language barrier or something here, because claims I never made are being attributed to me. I only supplied canon 102 as an example for another poster to read and understand what pastoral economy is. I never claimed that canon 102 of Trullo applies economy to the case of divorces, only that economy is the justification for applying certain canons, like canons relating to bigamy, as well as St. Basil’s canon IX (which permits a man to cohabit with another woman if his wife abandons him) to cases of divorce and allowing for a remarriage, even though they ought not be permitted at all.

 

[Reuben_J]

There must be a language barrier or something here, because claims I never made are being attributed to me. I only supplied canon 102 as an example for another poster to read and understand what pastoral economy is. I never claimed that canon 102 of Trullo applies economy to the case of divorces, only that economy is the justification for applying certain canons, like canons relating to bigamy, as well as St. Basil’s canon IX (which permits a man to cohabit with another woman if his wife abandons him) to cases of divorce and allowing for a remarriage, even though they ought not be permitted at all.

The canon 102 of Trullo of the Council of Trullo is not an Ecumenical Council, if what was clarified in the other thread is true. It is not in the OC list of ecumenical Council and of course not in the CC’s list.

I understand that you said the Eastern Bishop have the authority to bind and to loose. In this case it is to allow divorce and remarrying of a married person. This is a big thing if we consider that when two persons are validly married they are married under the Sacrament of Matrimony, where the two shall become one flesh and what God has joint together let no man separates.

To loose this sacrament and to bind divorce and remarrying would be really something big; it is not where a local bishop could make that ruling. But let’s say it is, who would confer this authority to the bishop?

In the Gospel, the authority to bind and to loose was only specifically conferred to the Apostle Peter, “Thou art Peter, …” (Mt 16). Yes, the other apostles were breathed the Holy Spirit to forgive sin, but the authority to bind and to loose was to Peter specifically.

A point to consider here is when a priest absolves sin it is always on the understanding that the penitent is not to commit that sin again. If he does, it will be a sin which he has to confess again. It is more of, “Your sin is forgiven, go and sin more,” and not “your sin is forgiven, and now, you can go and commit adultery for the rest of your life.”

I understand that the Orthodox Church has apostolic succession, in fact you can trace your church to any one of the apostles. I am wondering if any of the Orthodox Churches can trace its root to St. Peter traditionally.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am wondering if any of the Orthodox Churches can trace its root to St. Peter traditionally.

Antioch.

 

[Reuben_J]

Antioch.

Thanks.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the Gospel, the authority to bind and to loose was only specifically conferred to the Apostle Peter, “Thou art Peter, …” (Mt 16). Yes, the other apostles were breathed the Holy Spirit to forgive sin, but the authority to bind and to loose was to Peter specifically.

In Matthew 18, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of his Apostles.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Also sounds like Jesus approving the conciliarity of the Church.