Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
If you would like to continue to air your bitter feelings toward Holy Orthodoxy, I would recommend that you start another thread.
Click to expand...
Since I have no bitter feelings there are none to air. The truth is evidently bitter to you.

Ron
 
This thread is like watching a UFC cage match 😛
But you know what, my RCC brethern, the Pope seems to give more respect to the EOC than you guys, you ought to chill. :harp:
The Holy Orthodox Church(es) have valid apostolic succession.
We have valid apostolic succession.
I agree the nationalism and ethnic identities of the various EOCs and the resulting lack of solidarity among them does indictate a need for the unity obtained by recognizing the bishop of Rome, St. Peter’s successor, as 1st among equals as they did 1000 years ago, but at the same time, let’s not kid ourselves that our RCC is so united and monolithic. In reality, there are many differences and infighting, conflicting opinions and the majority of catholics in the world are nominal, or at best cafeteria catholics, if you don’t deny the polls and surveys…you’ve got St. Death, in Latin America…“Catholics for Choice” in the media…this whole annulment thing, etc…BUT at least we do have a “final vote” so to speak in the bishop of Rome…
I think we ought not call the EOC a sect or anything like that, I mean, in the Epistles in our shared N.T., Paul writes to the “church in Corinth”, the church in Rome, etc…you know…
Things were not as set in stone back in the day and probably not as set in stone 1000 years ago either…but “sects”…C’mon, show some respect for the only other institution(s) on the planet with valid apostolic succession! :mad:
 
Does anyone know when the judicial annulment process in the Roman Catholic Church (as we know it today) actually began?
 
St Luke 16: 18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (KJV)

18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. (NASB)

18`Every one who is sending away his wife, and marrying another, doth commit adultery; and every one who is marrying her sent away from a husband doth commit adultery. (YLT)
This passage destroys the idea of an “innocent party” (divorced woman) being allowed to remarry.

This will likely be my last post on this thread considering it is going in circles at this point. There is far too much spam***** to sift through for any constructive discussion/debate to take place.

*****I define spam as posts that fill up a thread without actually contributing to the original and main discussion and rather are done with the deliberate intent to confuse and derail the main issue so as not to have to respond directly to it. The hope of spammers is to wear out those who actually care about having a true discussion/debate so that they quit – or – better yet hope that they say something they will regret so that the spammers can use it against them down the road.

In case people dont know what spam is, here are the characteristics of spam:
  • posts consisting of a sentence or two (especially in “response” to a huge quoted text)
  • posts asking absurd questions
  • posts twisting facts
  • posts insisting on talking about off topic issues
  • posts that “respond” to a question without actually answering the question openly and fairly
 
Mickey said:
But in essence, that is what is happening.

Originally Posted by Fuerza
If someone were to go to confession without the intention to truly repent, that confession would likewise be considered invalid
.
Another bad analogy. This is an issue of conscience. Only God can read hearts.
The sacraments are not about “rules”. The sacraments are God’s gift to humanity. The sacraments are about love, mercy, compassion, repentance, and forgiveness.
Mickey
Click to expand...
Actually, to carry the analogy: who knows that their sins are really forgiven in absolution? If the intent of marriage can be scrutinized into non-existence, why not confession?
 
Fuerza said:
Again, to be clear, there is no erasure of a sacrament here. The sacrament never took place to begin with. A decree of nullity simply recognizes this fact.
Click to expand...
How about the exercise of the Petrine and Pauline “privileges”: they both dissolve a valid marriage.
 
Alexios said:
Mickey,

Despite you insisting that you understand the argument, you clearly do not. Simply stating otherwise does not make it true,

Let’s try it again, slowly…

(1) Catholic view: Marriages cannot be dissolved. By you saying that an annulment dissolves the marriage by declaring it never existed, you are showing yourself to be very thickheaded. I’m honestly not trying to offend, but a marriage cannot be “dissolved” if it never existed. So if you insist on saying you understand it all, then stop saying that annulments dissolve marriages, because it makes you look foolish. You obviously either don’t get it or don’t want to understand it.
Click to expand...
The “Petrine” and “Pauline” privileges dissolve marriages, so even according to your canons, there are marriages which are dissolved.

No, anullments do not dissolve marriages. They excuse dissolved marriages.
(2) Eastern Orthodox view: For certain reasons (and the reasons are not what are important here), a marriage can be dissolved. Reasons: not important; the point is that a marriage can be dissolved. Now THAT is an erasing of a Sacrament if I ever saw one. This is not the Catholic view.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Look up your “privileges” as listed above.

Btw, Eastern Orthodox view, death does not dissolve marriage. This is also the view of the Fathers.
The fact that chaos has resulted in marriages is not the fault of the Catholic Church or her annulment process, but rather the fault of a society that does not understand marriage in the least. These problems didn’t exist years ago because society understood marriage much better. Now, individual court tribunals can abuse the annulment process, just as anyone in a position of authority within the Church can abuse his power. Newsflash: Orthodox clerics in positions of power can abuse their power and influence as well. Or maybe you should check in with ex-Jerusalem Patriarch Irenaios, or Bishop Nikolai of the OCA in Alaska or any other number of persons.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Yes, how did Irenaios become EX-patriarch?
 
Alexios said:
Mickey, the Church cannot erase a marriage. In the Latin tradition, Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament conferred on each other by the spouse, in the presence in and with the blessing of the Church. It is not the Church’s to dissolve, but simply to be called in to investigate to see if it exists or not if one of the partners tries for an annulment.
Click to expand...
Why wait till one of the parties wants one? The church is an interested third party, why should it wait?
 
roncriss said:
Though you Orthodox refuse to admit even that a marriage between brother and sister would be null and void, because it would be an admission that the Catholic Church is right in principle,
Click to expand...
No, because we have the pastoral concerns, not the legalistic sanctimony, at the top of our list of priorities.
an illegitimate marriage
Click to expand...
again, your mistranslation. Btw, read the rest of the section of Saint Clement.

was indeed the ONLY allowance granted by our Lord. Both Our Lord and St Paul, echoing Him, stated quite clearly that there was to be no divorce from a legitimate marriage,

yet your Petrine and Pauline privileges do.
and that if a spouse left he or she was to remain unmarried. You are quite quick to selectively quote scriptures when you think they support you, though you ignore them entirely when you want to disobey them.
Click to expand...
Corban.
Christ granted that in principle some marriages are illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Your eisogesis.
The Catholic practice recognizes this fact and establishes tribunals to determine which ones these are.
Click to expand...
When did you establish them?

Why wait until the couple brings the question up?
The practice may be inexcusably abused, but this does not make Our Lord wrong in principle as you imply.
Click to expand...
Our Lord has nothing to do with the tribunals.
The Orthodox disobey the direct commandments of Jesus and St Paul by ecclesiastically recognizing divorces and then marrying those who are still, according to Our Lord, married, thereby officially approving their adultery.
Click to expand...
We don’t have a Petrine or Pauline (at least in Rome’s sense of the word) privilege that I know of.
Its that simple. The Catholic Church follows Our Lord’s commandment.
Click to expand...
After mistranslating it.
Choose this day who you will serve.
Click to expand...
Not Corban.
 
roncriss said:
Alexios,

They DO get it. The fact is made clear by their refusal to answer direct questions which they realize would result in an admission. They can’t use logic or even bring themselves to agree with your very sound reasoning. They must pretend not to understand the import of very common english words.
Click to expand...
Like illegitimate.
So don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit that they comprehend your very simple and undeniable reasoning. They realize that to admit the facts would result in the necessity to do what I did: leave an Orthodox sect and come into union with the one, holy and Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I guess hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
 
roncriss said:
I stand corrected:

“In Eastern Orthodoxy, doctrine does not state that the priesthood confers an indelible character on the person’s soul. Laicization removes the ordained status completely. All sacred actions of a former clergyman are normally considered invalid (beginning from the time of laicization).”

“In Roman Catholicism, a laicized priest is forbidden to exercise his priestly functions, but an indelible priestly character is held to remain on his soul (or to put it simply, “once a priest, always a priest”). Consequently, any exercise of his sacramental powers is considered valid even though illegal because he has been laicized. (In fact, in the case of danger of life, a laicized priest must give the Last Rites or at least absolve the dying.)”
(Wikipedia)

So Orthodox think they can un-do holy orders like they do marriage. We disagree. Of course the Catholic Church, being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, with “Peter” at the helm, is right, while the many sects of Orthodoxy, being led by fallible men, are wrong. This is a perfect example of why you need the Pope and the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
To sit in Moses’ seat I suppose.

We have only one Priest: all others only share in His Priesthood. Consequently when a priest leaves that Priesthood, he doesn’t get to take it with him.

How well did you/we do with Honorius at the helm? Vigilius? Zosimos?
 
roncriss said:
It is factual. There is only one Christian Church, which subsists in the Catholic Church. There are not many autonomous ethnic and nationalist churches loosely united through inter-communion. These are man-made sects. Christ did not found them. It is charitable to recognize the truth, no matter how uncomfortable you may find it. Sorry, you won’t find me abandoning Catholic doctrine to salve your feelings. Tough love.
Click to expand...
yes, Rome isn’t ethnic (LATINization?) nor nationalist (PAPAL states, UNAM SANCTAM).

Man-made eh? Which men made it?
 
Fuerza said:
To VARC,

I must ask, since it seems that you have already made up your mind about converting to Orthodoxy, why do you still feel the need to bash the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
My apologies for bashing the Catholic faith. My conversion is for reasons other than the annulment issue. But even as a catholic, I was really bothered by the issue so I just kind of ignored it. The truth is that I honestly do see the image of the pharisee and the publican. I am absolutely disgusted with the catholic position of annulments and every catholic post I read that attempts to justify the practice makes me want to vomit. No offense.
 
roncriss said:
I would add that there is no monolithic “Holy Orthodoxy”, just a loose and changeable conglomeration of national churches, some in communion with others and some not, which, more often than not, are so politically divided that they cannot even bring themselves to concelebrate a liturgy with those supposed in communion. It would be more accurate to say “Orthodox churches”. For example at one time the Russian Church was warring with the Russian Church Outside Russia. Now it seems they’ve made up. Before the RCOR was supposed to be a false church. There is no one Orthodox Church. It is telling that the Orthodox churches have lacked the unity required to convene an ecumenical council ever since the schism from the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
As has been posted so often on an erstwhile forum, we haven’t had the need to call an Ecumenical council, unlike Rome, so mired in heresies and schisms (e.g. the Great Western Schism, Avignon papacy, etc) which has had to call many.

That we have had several Pan-Orthodox synods (e.g. Constantinople IV, V, Synod of Jerusalem, Council of Iasi, etc.) demonstrates that we have more than enough unity to call a Ecumenical council if the need presented itself.

And the discord between ROCOR and the PoM never matched, in lenght of time or depth of difference, the disunity between Rome and her Protestants.

I’ve communed in Churches of the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (the one who says the original, unadulterated Creed) on four continents. Imagine, all that unity, and without a autocratic head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top