Orthodox Doctrines

[Augustine]

Since the Great Western Schism, the Orthodox Churches drifted away from what the Church has taught on the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage, which could be a hurdle greater to overcome than papal primacy in a hypothetical reunion, because it touches on a fundamental difference not so much about how the Church is considered but about the deposit of the Faith. Are there other such doctrinal differences?

 

[Volodymyr]

The Orthodox Churches has taught differently on the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage, which could be a hurdle greater to overcome than papal primacy in a hypothetical reunion

Orthodox church uses ability to “loose” people from unbearable marriages - a power given to our bishops by Lord Jesus Christ. Sacrament of holy marriage however binds unless such occurs. But I think when church unity is established Catolics will be able to understand this. Orthodox also could understand primacy of Bishop of Rome. This union of Christ’s churches will happen when Catolics and Orthodox accept such ranking of patriarchs - but not including infallibilty of any bishop.

 

[Augustine]

Are papal primacy, papal infallibility and the indissolubility of marriage the only doctrinal differences? I assume that the Filioque is not a doctrinal hurdle, or is it? Any other doctrine clarified in Ecumenical Councils since the Schism that are not shared?

It’s not my intent to discuss whose position is right, after all, we cannot expect to solve differences lasting 1000 years. But rather, to understand what separates us, especially with so much dialog taking place between the Roman and the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Hesychios]

Since the Great Western Schism, the Orthodox Churches drifted away from what the Church has taught on the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage…

In the first place, the “Orthodox” have not drifted away from catholic practice in this matter since the first millenium.

That was Eastern Catholic practice long before the first millenium ended, and thus a practice of the Catholic church of the day. Anyone who says the Catholic church never allowed divorce is therefore wrong. It is also wrong to think Holy Orthodoxy thinks of this as an automatic right, divorce is always discouraged and opposed, but handled with pastoral sensitivity.

There, we have settled that without even needing to address the Petrine privilege.

Michael

 

[Augustine]

In the first place, the “Orthodox” have not drifted away from catholic practice in this matter since the first millenium.

Again, I’d rather ask the respondents to refrain from arguing their positions. I’d just like to see the disagreements enumerated.

 

[Hesychios]

Again, I’d rather ask the respondents to refrain from arguing their positions. I’d just like to see the disagreements enumerated.

The point is, you didn’t enumerate a difference. You said “drifted away from what the Church has taught” which is interpretive commentary. You are asking us to let that stand as if it were fact.

So I ask you to refrain from the commentary and be very generic if you don’t want us arguing positions in this discussion.

Pax et Bonum

 

[mark_a]

The point is, you didn’t enumerate a difference. You said “drifted away from what the Church has taught” which is interpretive commentary. You are asking us to let that stand as if it were fact.

So I ask you to refrain from the commentary and be very generic if you don’t want us arguing positions in this discussion.

Pax et Bonum

I know this is not what Augustine is looking for, but are you saying that the Catholic Church became more srtict on marriage doctrines, always had a different understaning than the any of the Orthodox, or what.

There is no dispute intended. I really don’t have a clue.

Thanks.

 

[Hesychios]

I know this is not what Augustine is looking for, but are you saying that the Catholic Church became more srtict on marriage doctrines, always had a different understaning than the any of the Orthodox, or what.

There is no dispute intended. I really don’t have a clue.

Thanks.

I don’t have anything against Augustine at all, the questions are really legitimate and worthwhile. All I am saying is that these things can be listed in a neutral unbiased manner that does not prejudice the reading public.

It’s like the difference between saying “the two brothers do not look alike” (very neutral) and “the one brother got uglier as he got older” which may not even be true. The judgment has to be left out of it or it turns into bait, then I get sucked in and you get sucked in after me.

Now we are really off-topic and they should probably delete all my posts. But to answer your question as briefly as I can: According to Latin Catholic theory the east broke from the west, or the Pope, right? Something about disobedience?

The fact is the discipline for marriage used in the east is the same now as it was when the east was “Catholic” and supposedly “under” the Pope! No difference. So divorces were allowed under the Pope in the first millennium. No question about it if you believe the Eastern Catholics of the first millennium church were actually under the jurisdiction of the Pope.

The second point is, as every good Catholic should know, the Pope reserves the right to himself to grant divorces. It is called the Petrine Privilege. So it makes no sense to imply the Catholics have an absolute opposition to divorce.

In theory, both our churches recognize marriage to be permanent, that is the intent. No one has a “right” to a divorce, and in Orthodoxy usually the guilty party is excommunicated, the innocent party is sometimes granted a second chance at married life as a pastoral matter, but even the ceremonial surrounding it is subdued with an air of penitence. Not many people’s idea of a lovely church wedding, but it serves the function.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[bpbasilphx]

the innocent party is sometimes granted a second chance at married life as a pastoral matter, but even the ceremonial surrounding it is subdued with an air of penitence

In my experience, the order for a second wedding is done ONLY if both parties have been married in the Orthodox church before. Otherwise, economy is used and the order for the First Marriage is done.

 

[Peter_J]

I assume that the Filioque is not a doctrinal hurdle, or is it?

You should consider the fact that the Second Council of Lyons (1274) condemned those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”.

 

[Augustine]

So divorces were allowed under the Pope in the first millennium. No question about it if you believe the Eastern Catholics of the first millennium church were actually under the jurisdiction of the Pope.

Since this is the second time that this statement shows up and since it’s false, it begs a correction.

I believe that you’re talking about annulments, or the recognition that the sacrament has not taken place. Neither the Pauline nor the Petrine privileges, no man really, can break a sacramental marriage. Natural marriages are not sacramental.

You cannot impute that the solubility of marriage was part of the Deposit of Faith in the whole Church by the practices in the East, still under the influence of the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies far longer than the West. In other words, what happened as a matter of fact in the East was in opposition to the Faith of the Apostles.

St. Augustine stated the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage in “De Bono Conjugii”, Pope Innocent I too, both in the 5th century.

And since this thread is degenerating into a 1000-year old bickering, I’m out.

 

[Peter_J]

And since this thread is degenerating into a 1000-year old bickering, I’m out.

Good idea: say what you have to say and then leave so you don’t have to listen to what anyone else has to say.

 

[Hesychios]

Since this is the second time that this statement shows up and since it’s false, it begs a correction.

I had thought that you were honestly looking for a simple enumeration of the differences between Latin Catholics and Orthodox. As you did state “Are there other such doctrinal differences?” And your post #2 seemed to reiterate that.

But it appears you have an agenda. I had not really thought that at first, but it seems you just want us to hand you ammunition and agree with your prejudices.

If that is your intent, restart the topic in the Apologetics section, or possibly even the Traditionalist section, where I suspect you may find an abundance of individuals who will agree with your preconceived notions.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

I believe that you’re talking about annulments…

I can assure you no. You are the first person here to mention it.

Michael

 

[StMarina303ad]

Since the Great Western Schism, the Orthodox Churches drifted away from what the Church has taught on the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage, which could be a hurdle greater to overcome than papal primacy in a hypothetical reunion, because it touches on a fundamental difference not so much about how the Church is considered but about the deposit of the Faith. Are there other such doctrinal differences?

Actually, Orthodox Churches never drifted away from what the Church has taught on the Mystery of Marriage…Jesus Himself gave a reason as to why divorce was permissible: Matt 19:9. The Orthodox have always recognized that marriage from the beginning was until death, but like Moses, the Orthodox Church has permitted divorce due to the hardness of their hearts.

Unlike in the Catholic Church today, there is a limit to the number of divorces and remarriages in the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church, to be honest, hands out Annulments like candy and there is no limit on the amount of them for an individual. Nearly every couple who has been married in the Catholic Church, by a Catholic Priest in front of Catholic witnesses can obtain an annulment should they want one. I studied Annulments and specifically what can qualify someone to get one. The entire Dark Ages Western European world would have one because of their practice of marriage only to relatives - isolated towns frequently inbred - cousins, etc. especially Royal Families.

The problem with Annulments, unlike an Eclesiastical Divorce, is that the when the Catholic Church declares a marriage Annulled, they are saying that the marriage never existed. Which means until the Annulment happened a Catholic couple thought they were married, yet they weren’t. Therefore, a couple who unknowingly have not “actually” been married, have in fact been living in sin…living with and having sexual relations with a person who is not your spouse is a Mortal Sin in the Catholic Church - meaning that if the person dies unrepentant, they will spend all eternity in Hell. That is some serious business!

Annulments are madness, especially the way the Catholic Church currently, frequently declares them.

There are by far, more Annulments handed out in the Catholic Church than there are Eclesiastical Divorces in the Orthodox Church.

The result to the children of these marriages ending - whether it’s is declared an Annulment or an Eclesiastical Divorce is identical - it is tramatic and forever leaves a mark.

At least a 2nd marriage in the Orthodox Church is approached with repentance and sorrow after Confession, rather than with joy as a 2nd or 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th marriage or more (yet called the 1st marriage) in the Catholic Church.

My own father was a Catholic and before he died he was married 4 times - leaving children behind with each annulment. Had he been Orthodox, the most he would have been allowed was a total of 2 marriages after his first failed and then only if he would be granted an Eclesiastical Divorce - which is not easy to get - only certain grounds allow for it.

In the Catholic Church, all a groom or bride needs to do, is drink a lot of cough syrup before the wedding service that has alchohol in it, so that years down the road he can say he was under the influence of alchohol at the wedding and he or she would be granted an annulment.

At least within Orthodoxy a married couple has is secure in the knowledge that if they had a wedding in the Orthodox Church, they are married - they will not wake up 37 years down the road to find out they were never married after all. I have no idea how Catholic Couples can live with that type of complete insecurity about something which should be a basic given.

 

[StMarina303ad]

no man really, can break a sacramental marriage.

Really, well, even Jesus said that Moses allowed for divorces: Matt 19:8 and Jesus while saying that from the beginning (aka before the fall of Adam and Eve which let sin and death into the world) it was not so, Jesus also gave an exception to the general rule of no divorces: Matt 19:9 - namely sexual immorality aka adultry, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox Church (before the Catholic Church split herself away from us) has added a couple of other reasons divorces would be permitted.

What I don’t see *any where *in Sacred Scripture nor in Sacred Tradition is this whole idea of Annulment - it is something that the Catholic Church has come up with out of the blue since she split herself off from Christ’s Orthodox Church.

 

[mardukm]

Here’s an interesting scenario for everyone to consider.

The Coptic Orthodox Church (IN EGYPT ONLY, btw) and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Alexandrian Patriarchate, have reached an agreement to recognize each others’ marriages as a Sacrament. HOWEVER, the doctrinal norms of each Church regarding marriage are different and respected.

The fact is, the Eastern Orthodox Church permits divorce and re-marriage in MANY MORE circumstances than the Coptic Orthodox Church permits. The CO only recognizes divorce under the circumstance of adultery or apostasy. The EO, on the other hand, will recognize divorce for long-term imprisonment of one of the spouses, for mental illness, for a capital crime against the State, etc. ,etc., etc. The Coptic Orthodox Church will not recognize a marriage between an OO Copt and an EO Copt if the EO Copt was divorced for a reason that the CO does not accept as valid.

As regards the Latin Church, it is not true that she grants annulments in a multitude of circumstances. The Latin Church grants an annulment in ONLY ONE CIRCUMSTANCE - i.e., if it can be demonstrated that the free will of one or both of the spouses was obstructed in some way. A marriage that is not entered under the condition of FULL AND FREE VOLITION is an invalid marriage.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

The problem with Annulments, unlike an Eclesiastical Divorce, is that the when the Catholic Church declares a marriage Annulled, they are saying that the marriage never existed. Which means until the Annulment happened a Catholic couple thought they were married, yet they weren’t. Therefore, a couple who unknowingly have not “actually” been married, have in fact been living in sin…living with and having sexual relations with a person who is not your spouse is a Mortal Sin in the Catholic Church - meaning that if the person dies unrepentant, they will spend all eternity in Hell. That is some serious business!

StMarina, I’m sure you mean well but once again you’ve misunderstood Catholic theology: If you don’t know that what you’re doing is wrong, you can’t be committing a mortal sin. (Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between the term “grave matter” and the term “mortal sin”. )

On the other hand, the couple would be committing sin if they at the time of their wedding they did something like …

In the Catholic Church, all a groom or bride needs to do, is drink a lot of cough syrup before the wedding service that has alchohol in it, so that years down the road he can say he was under the influence of alchohol at the wedding and he or she would be granted an annulment.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister StMarina,

Really, well, even Jesus said that Moses allowed for divorces: Matt 19:8 and Jesus while saying that from the beginning (aka before the fall of Adam and Eve which let sin and death into the world) it was not so, Jesus also gave an exception to the general rule of no divorces: Matt 19:9 - namely sexual immorality aka adultry, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox Church (before the Catholic Church split herself away from us) has added a couple of other reasons divorces would be permitted.

Not just a “couple” but whole HOST of reasons. A former contributer (much missed) Father Ambrose once gave a link to all the reasons that the EO use to justify divorce. There are a LOT. The Russian Orthodox Church has even more than the normal number given by the EOC.

What I don’t

see *any where *in Sacred Scripture nor in Sacred Tradition is this whole idea of Annulment - it is something that the Catholic Church has come up with out of the blue since she split herself off from Christ’s Orthodox Church.
An annulment is the same as saying that an action “invalid” or “null”- it means the Church recognizes that the action never took place to begin with. I don’t know how you can make your statement because the terms “invalid” and “null” can be found everywhere in the language of the canons of the early Church. You will find that an “annulment” was recognized not only for the Sacrament of marriage, but also for other Sacraments as well.

For ordination, an ordination by a bishop outside of his jurisdiction is considered “null” or “invalid.” Also, for a person who is ordained, if it is later discovered that he has had a secret marriage, or has not led an exemplary life, then his ordination is regarded “null” or “invalid.”

For marriage, a marriage between kin is considered “null.” And a marriage contracted by a cleric after ordination is considered “null” or “invalid.”

For baptism, those that are not done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are considered “null” or “invalid.”

There are many other examples from the canons of the early Church. Read up on it. Whatever it is you have learned from your teachers regarding the Catholic Church on this issue has been false, I’m afraid.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[StMarina303ad]

On the other hand, the couple would be committing sin if they at the time of their wedding they did something like …

It may be a sin in your eyes, but that person would get be granted an Annulment by the Catholic Church.