Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments

[Isa_Almisry]

Hey, do any of you know what these folks mean by “Corban” in this thread? …and I agree with Alexios (?) Isa has not made a point invalidating annulments as far as saying that they are IN FACT the same as a divorce, because an annulment is not the same as a divorce :tsktsk: , HOWEVER, Varc and Isa and the rest ARE totally on base in that the annulment institution as it functions in todays day and age at least, is TOTALLY the same in effect as divorce , it is a loophole for divorce except for the most rare of circumstances …sooo…it is in and of itself NOT the same as a divorce…but in REALITY it is totally used for a way for us catholics to divorce and not have to arrange for our ex to have an unfortuneate “accident” to allow us to move on…
That is all there is too it!
YES, my separated Orthodox brethern, the annulment process as it is used probably 99% of the time is a total joke and hypocritical and a load of STUFF uch: , but having said that HOW does your church reconcile divorce and remarrige with the very clear words of scripture ??? Oh, I agree it would be more merciful and compassionate to allow for this, BUT the bible seems to take a less merciful and compassionate standpoint; PLEASE, 2 things: answer the ? re: how can you allow divorce and remarrige in the face of scripture, and WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CORBAN? :banghead:

I’ve answered the second.

For the first, there are a number of differences that have already come out on this quesiton:

For Rome the issue is one of legality. For us, pastoral concern.

Many here have retranslated porneia as “illicit marriage,” to fit the annullment scheme. We’re sticking with the meaning of sexual sin of some sort (the term in Greek, and Aramaic, is rather broad).

We have a problem with anyone remarrying (2nd marriages are seen as good thing after widowing, but again, as a pastoral concern, like St. Paul, we allow them). Rome has no problem whatsoever it seems in repeated annullments and remarriages (which at some point it self should be a basis of an anullment: hence our 3 times rule).

Can we at least agree that anullment ends a marriage, or is it going to be argued that it never began?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

They think a marriage between brother and sister is legit (they have yet to deny it, so they must accept it).

I came up with an honest answer to an absurdly rare occurence which you wanted to create into a blanket endorsement of anullments. In the situation you set up, I repeated, we would have a pastoral approach to a complicated problem, and I listed a number of concerns which would play into that.

Here, you make it sound like any brother and sister can show up and get married. No, we don’t do that.

What do you expect? Logic? Don’t hold your breath.

No, you’d have to go to the anullment mill. They don’t inhale either (blast from an election past).

Orthodox doctrine is, as I said earlier, reactionary. Whatever the Church believes, they go the opposite direction.

We are the Church.

Or perhaps you are claiming that. No, sorry to undermine the grandiosity, but we don’t wait with baited breath for the pope of Rome to speak ex cathedra so we can do the opposite. We listen for the small, still voice.

No regard for Scripture.

No, just not for Corban.

Their little rebellion against Mamma

grandiosity again.

St. Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch before Rome. You’re the daughter.

is more important than their pride, as these fellows demonstrate routinely. They may have convinced themselves, but no disinterested observer would be fooled by any such tactics. They are merely trolling, as is evident by their presence on a Catholic board.

This is the Non-Catholic Religions, no?

Or is it here persons are talked about and not expected to respond? A place to put up straw men?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We admitted long ago that the process is often abused. But what we are defending here is Catholic doctrine, not the failure of the tribunals to always live up to it. Let’s see if they finally answer the question. Their argument is that since Christ is so mercifiul He will nullify His own commandment concerning divorce and re-marriage. The Orthodox position is all about not following the Gospel because, gosh, its just too darned hard, so God will just (they say) ignore the fact that they ignore His words.

Ron

Corban is not His words. He was quoting.

We don’t annull His commandments. Remember, we don’t believe in anullment.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You know, we have gotten somewhere in this discussion. Originally the Orthodox tried to deny that they allow divorce and re-marriage for anything other than adultery. Then they tried to suggest that they did not allow a third marriage unless the spouse died. Apparently now they have given up those falsehoods in the face of quotes from Orthodox bishops and priests to the contrary, and admissions that they allow divorce and re-marriage for many reasons, such as “incompatibility”, dissolution of the marriage, etc.

I don’t see anyone on our end putting forth “incompatibility” as grounds for divorce. That in the impairment of consent for anullment.

Only death or divorce end a marriage in this world. It’s what happens after where we disagree.

Now their only argument is to deny that any marriage can be illegitimate, even between a brother and sister. Now all they can do is attack the concept of any marriage being illegitimate and misrepresent the Catholic annulment process as a divorce.

You are leaving out a conisderable amount of detail from your arguement.

Again, I will ask: can you admit that an anullment ends a marriage? Or are you going to argue that it never began (note, I didn’t say “valid” marriage, so don’t obfuscate

The fact that they no longer defend the Orthodox process as scriptural

When did that happen?

and feel the need to misrepresent the Catholic position shows at least some advancement in understanding. Though they willfully refuse to accept logic otherwise.

Corban is scriptural: scripture explicitely condemns it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Now I find the following admission from Orthodox canon law very interesting:

“The Church does not grant divorces. However, it recognizes that because of human weaknesses and sin marriages sometimes disintegrate and are ended by civil decree (divorce).”

In other words there is according to them no such thing as an illegitimate marriage.

Where did you read that into Orthodox canon law?

They recognize that the Orthodox Church does not grant divorce.

We bless marriages, not divorces. You need an anullment for that.

But they believe the state can do what the Orthodox Church cannot! End a legitimate marriage!

We hold marriage to be eternal. Hence we are without mechanism for ending one. We just recognize the end brought about by death, or civil death (i.e. divorce), if indeed grounds for the divorce were had.

If this were not the case they would, of course, be conducting bigamous marriages.

According to canon (and scripture) remarriage of a widow(er) is bigamous, and we do that.

Hmmmm. Come to think of it, if our Orthodox brethren are correct, even bigamous marriages must be valid since there is no such thing, they tell us, as an invalid marriage.

maybe you missed this part in your own post:

The Orthodox norm for those who marry is one marriage. A second marriage is tolerated under certain conditions. A third marriage is extended under certain precise circumstances.

Under no circumstances can there be a fourth marriage.

• If both the partners are divorced and/or widowed, the order for the second marriage is used.

So a person could be married multiple times and the Orthodox would consider these marriages not adulterous, but legitimate!

Oh, what a tangled web!

Of course, your bigamist could go over to you, get a succession of anullments and hold his/her head up high.

Yes, a tangled web indeed.

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox err on the side of mercy

It is never an error to show mercy.

I would like to thank Isa and VARC for their eloquent posts describing the many problems of the Roman Catholic annulment system.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Considering this further, since Orthodox do not believe there is any such thing as an illegitimate marriage, and that the state has power to determine the married state or not, as it were, they would be forced to accept even a marriage between two men as valid as long as the state allows it is so. To suggest otherwise would be an admission that some marriages are indeed null and would be correctly determined such by a Catholic tribunal.

Ron

You can call anything you want marriage.

The Church is not obligated to bless it, which is the question.

Which is why the Church investigates a (civilly) dissolved marriage, to see whether if the Church can bind and loose to extend her blessing to the second marriage.

 

[Alexios]

Ron,

By saying the EOs err on the side of mercy is playing into their hands.

It is not merciful to pretend baptized Christians can divorce one another. It is a lie, and lies are not merciful. Only truth is ever truly merciful. The Orthodox err on the side of deception. Of course I don’t think they’re purposely deceiving people (so no one jump on me for that!), but from a Catholic standpoint, it is deception to say baptized Christians can divorce each other.

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox err on the side of deception.

If a married couple cannot stay together due to human weakness resulting from our fallen nature, the Orthodox Church cares for her children with mercy, compassion, love, and forgiveness.

The deception comes into play when a legalistic tribunal steps in and says that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony never occurred due to lack of knowledge–you are now free to re-marry.

 

[peso73]

I’d like to make a motion to end this thread as it is quite obvious that neither side can agree to the others’ position even after an extreme quantity of information and argumentation. Anyone 2nd that motion?
Seriously though, thanks everyone for your information, and hopefully we all can argue about this together across the table at the feast of Abraham
…shoot, I thought of something else! I think perhaps both positions could be right at the same time, because of the power to bind and loose, given to the universal Church of Christ, (consisting in my opinion of any and all church groups with valid apostolic succession) although I realize our RCC rejects the concept of this power extending to divorces, but then annuls the marriages found to be illegit, and even though ideally that would not be the same thing, it functions as such in reality and they are correct that say the leaders of our church don’t do anything about it, so…I feel that our church is in fact using it’s power to bind and loose to loose those marriages by the process of declaring them “null”, just as the EOC are exercising their power by the process of divorce or at least by the blessing of bigamist marriages, and although our Lord said it should be one man and one woman as it was in the beginning, a lot of O.T. saints had more than one wife plus concubines to boot, and their names are among those that are listed in the often used ,“the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob” right? I know Jesus said that was because of human weakness that it was allowed, but that it should be as it was in the beginnning, but then again, we were ordered as Gentiles by St. Paul not to eat blood, and then St. Peter had a dream and it’s ok for Philipinos to eat their “chocolate soup”

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Ronald,

The annulment process is one of many reasons I enetered into communion with the one, holy , catholic and apostolic Church–the Holy Orthodox Church. I have never heard of an annulment being refused for any reason (though I suppose you could find some cases). All priests I have ever spoken to have reiterated Joseph’s experiences explaining that no annulment is refused. An annulment is a legalistic process by which a couple can justify the nullity of the marriage under the guise of making the sacrament appear as if it had never happened---------ludicrous!

Annulments in the past were not granted very much. Today annulments are being abused. The Catholic Church lost all of England because an annulment was not granted to Henry VIII. What you stated above is about abuses mostly in the North Amercia. Don’t judge the teachings of the Catholic Church by those who are abusing Her teaching.
From USA Today 2/8/5,

"In 2002, Vatican officials said, tribunals worldwide ruled on more than 56,000 requests for annulments, with some 46,000 of them granted. Of the favorable rulings, nearly 31,000 came in North America.

“Requests have jumped enormously in the last decades, especially in countries of long-standing Christian tradition,” said Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, a top Vatican court official who put some of the blame on “widespread secularization with its erroneous concepts of marriage.”

In the late 1960s, for example, the number of annulments in the United States numbered in the hundreds"

 

[Sword_Brethren]

“The United States has 6% of the world’s Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world’s annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually. But more than 90% of the cases which were appealed to the highest matrimonial court, the Roman Rota, were overturned.”
By Fr. Leanare Kennedy

 

[roncriss]

I’ll leave you Orthodox to talk among yourselves.

Ron

 

[Mickey]

Don’t judge the teachings of the Catholic Church by those who are abusing Her teaching.

If I did that–I would have left long ago. There are many abuses. The reason I left was because I did not agree with the doctrinal innovations of Rome that ocurred after the split.

 

[roncriss]

If I did that–I would have left long ago. There are many abuses. The reason I left was because I did not agree with the doctrinal innovations of Rome that ocurred after the split.

Mickey,

Actually it was quite the other way around, though I do suppose this constitutes another new thread. Perhaps we should have called it “differences with Orthodoxy” from the start. But I left the Orthodox Church because it was in fact Orthodoxy that had deviated from the faith of the Fathers after the schism. Most of the deviations, which have never, of course, been approved by any ecumenical council, were reactionary and an obvious effort simply to contradict “Mamma”. For example differences concerning procession of the HS or quibbles over transubstantiation. But, more importantly, I began to discover in the stacks accounts of early Eastern fathers and saints who looked to the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. Most famously St John Chrysostom who sought the aid of the Pope when his own bishop had slipped into error and heresy and was persecuting him. I also discovered that, almost like a sign from God (I think it was), since the schism Orthodoxy has slid into ethnicism and nationalism, losing her freedom to first Muslims and later communists. So, in fact, an objective study of history and tradition should inform you that it was the Orthodox churches (there really is no one Orthodox Church) who deviated from the faith of the Fathers, not the Catholic Church.

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

Of course I don’t expect to get any admission from you, only to support the faith of my Catholic brethren. I realize that someone who cannot bring himself to admit the clear implications of Christ’s and St Paul’s words against divorce and who approves such adulterous marriages as the Orthodox conduct in defiance of their words, would never admit that he has schismated from the one Church which subsists in the Catholic Church. I have no delusions that you can admit the truth on either subject.

Ron

 

[Sword_Brethren]

1. Declaration of Nullity

The declaration of nullity must be carefuly distinguished from divorce proper. It can be called divorce only in a very improper sense, because it presupposes that there is and has been no marriage. However, as there is question of an alleged marriage and of a union which is considered by the public as a true marriage, we can understand why a previous ecclesiastical judgement should be required, declaring the presence of a diriment impediment and the consequent invalidity of a supposed marriage, before the persons in question might be free to separate or to enter upon a new marriage. It is only when the invalidity of a marriage becomes publicly known and further cohabitation gives scandal, or when other important reasons render a prompt separation of domicile necessary or adivisable, that such a separation should take place at once, to be made definitive by a later judicial sentence. When the invalidity of a marriage is publicly known, official procedure is necessary, and ecclesiastical process of nullification must be introduced. In the case of impediments which refer exclusively to the rights of the husband and wife, and which can be removed by their consent, only the one of the supposed spouses whose right is in question is permitted to impugn the marriage by complaint before the ecclesiastical court, provided it is desired to maintain this right. Such cases are the impediments of fear or violence, of essential error of impotence on the part of the other not fully established, and failure to comply with some fixed condition. In cases of the other possible impediments, every Catholic, even a stranger, may enter a complaint of nullity if he can bring proofs of such nullity. The only plaintiffs excluded are those who, on account of private advantage, were unwilling to declare the invalidity of the marriage before its dissolution by death, or who knew the impediment when the banns or marriage were proclaimed and culpably kept silence. Of course it is allowed to the married parties to disprove the reasons alleged by strangers against their marriage (Wernz, “Jus decretalium”, IV, n. 743)…

 

[Sword_Brethren]

…That separation and remarriage of the separated parties may not take place merely on account of private convictions of the invalidity of a supposed marriage, but only in consequence of an ecclesiastical judgement was taught by Alexander III and Innocent III in IV Decretal., xix, 3 and II Decretal., xiii, 13. In earlier centuries the summary decision of the bishops sufficed; at present the Constitution of Benedict XIV, “Dei miseratione”, 3 November, 1741, must be followed. This prescribes that in matrimonial cases a “defender of the matrimonial tie” (defensor matrimonii) must be appointed. If the decision is for the validity of the marriage, there need be no appeal in the second instance. The parties can be satisfied with the first decision and continued in married life. If the decision is for the invalidity of the marriage, an appeal must be entered, and sometimes even a second appeal to the court of third instance, so that it is only after two concordant decisions on the invalidity of marriage in question that itcan be regarded as invalid, and the parties are allowed to proceed to another marriage. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., App. 262 sqq.; Conc. Americ. latin., II, n. 16; Laurentius, “Instit. iuris eccl.”, 2nd ed., n. 696 sqq.; Wernz, “Jusdecretal.”, IV, n. 744 sqq.) Sometimes, however, in missionary countries, Apostolic prefects are permitted to give summary decision of cases in which two concordant opinions of approved theologians or canonists pronounce the invalidity of the marriage to be beyond doubt. Moreover, in cases of evident nullity, because of a manifest impediment of blood-relationship or affinity, of previous marriage, of the absence of form, of lack of baptism on the part of one party, a second sentence of nullity is no longer demanded (Decr. of the Holy Office, 5 June, 1889, and 16 June, 1894. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, XXVII, 141; also Decr. of the Holy Office, 27 March, 1901, Acta S. Sedis, XXXIII, 765). The court of first instance in the process of nullication is the episcopal court of the diocese, of second instance the metropolitan court, of third instance the Roman See. Sometimes, however, Rome designates for the third instance a metropolitan see of the country in question (Laurentius, above, 697, not. 6). No one, however, is prohibited from immediate application in the first instance to the Holy See. Custom reserves to the Holy See matrimonial cases of reigning princes.

In the Decretals the declaration of nullity is treated under the title “De Divortiis”. But it is important that these matters should be carefully distinguished from one another. The lack of exact distinction between the expressions “declaration of invalidity” and “divorce”, and the different treatment of invalid marriages at different periods, may lead to incorrect judgements of ecclesiastical decisions. Decisions of particular Churches are too easily regarded as dissolutions of valid marriages, where in fact they were only declarations of nullity; and even papal decisions, like those of Gregory II communicated to St. Boniface "( martyred 5 June, 755)" and of Alexander III to Bishop of Amiens, are looked on by some writers as permissions granted by the popes to Frankish Churches to dissolve a valid marriage in certain cases. The decision of Gregory II, in the year 726, was embodied in the collection of Gratian (C. xxxii, Q. vii, c. xviii), and is printed in “Mon. Germ. Hist.”, III: Epist. (Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi I), p. 276; the decision of Alexander III is given in the Decretals as pars decisa, i.e., a part of the papal letter (IV Decretal., xv, 2) left out in the Decretal itself. In both cases there was question of a declaration of the invalidity of a marriage which was invalid from the very beginning because of antecedent impotence. A certain concession to Frankish Churches was, however, made in these cases. Accoding to Roman custom such supposed husband and wife were not separated, but were bound to live together as brother and sister. In Frankish Churches, however, a separation was pronouced and permission to contract another marriage was allowed to the one not afflicted with absolute impotence. This custom Alexander III granted to the Frankish Churches for the future. If therefore, the union in question is spoken of a legitima conjunctio, or even as a legitimum matrimonium, this is done only on account of the external form of the marriage contract. That in such cases a diriment impediment according to the natural law was present, and an actual marriage was impossible, was well understod by the pope. He says this expressly in the part of his letter that has been embodied in the Decretals (IV Decretal., xv, 2. Cf. Sägmüller, “Die Ehe Heinrichs II” in the Tübingen “Theol. Quartalschr.”, LXXXVII, 1905, 84 sqq.). That in similar cases decision has been given sometimes for separation and sometimes against it, need excite no surprise, for even at the present day the ecclesiastical idea of impotence on the part of the woman is not fully settled (cf. controversy in “The American Eccl. Review”, XXVIII, 51 sqq.).
From the Catholic Encyelopedia 1907
newadvent.org

 

[Sword_Brethren]

(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice – The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes.

We read in Hermas (about the year 150), “Pastor”, mand. IV, I, 6: "Let him put her (the adulterous wife) away and let the husband abide alone; but if after putting away his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery (ed. Funk, 1901). The expression in verse 8, “For the sake of her repentance, therefore, the husband ought not to marry”, does not weaken the absolute command, but it gives the supposed reason of this great command. St. Justine Martyr (d. 176) says (Apolog., I, xv, P.G., VI, 349), plainly and without exception: “He that marrieth her that has been put away by another man committeth adultery.” In like manner Athenagoras (about 177) in his “Legatio pro christ.”, xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965): “For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery”; Tertullian (d. 247), “De monogamiâ”, c, ix (P.L., II, 991): “They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away”; Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), “Strom.”, II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096), mentions the ordinance of Holy Scripture in the following words; “You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives.” Similar expressions are found in the course of the following centuries both in the Latin and in the Greek Fathers, e.g. St. Basil of Cæsarea, “Epist. can.”, ii, “Ad Amphilochium”, can. xlviii (P.G., XXXII, 732); St. John Chrysostom, “De libello repud.” (P.G., LI, 218); Theodoretus, on I Cor., vii, 39, 40 (P.G., LXXXII, 275); St. Ambrose, “in Luc.”, VIII, v, 18 sqq. (P.L., XV, 1855); St. Jerome, Epist, lx (ad Amand.), n. 3 (P.L., XXII, 562); St. Augustine, “De adulterinis conjugiis”, II, iv (P.L., XL, 473), etc., etc. The occurrences of passages in some Fathers, even among those just quoted, which treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed. This permission was mentioned, not without reason, as a concession for the innocent party, because at some periods the Church’s laws in regard to the guilty party forbade forever any further marriage (cf. can. vii of the Council of Compiègne, 757). It is well known that the civil law, even of the Christian emperors, permitted in several cases a new marriage after the separation of the wife. Hence, without contradicting himself, St. Basil could say of the husband, “He is not condemned”, and “He is considered excusable” (ep. clxxxviii, can. ix, and Ep. cxcix, can. xxi, in P.G., XXXII, 678, 721), because he is speaking distinctly of the milder treatment of the husband than of the wife with regard to the canonical penance imposed for adultery. St. Epiphanius, who is especially reproached with teaching that the husband who had put away his wife because of adultery or another crime was allowed by Divine law to marry another (Hæres, lix, 4, in P.G., XLI, 1024), is speaking in reality of a second marriage after the death of the divorced wife, and whilst he declares in general that such a second marriage is allowed, but is less honourable, still he makes the exception in regard to this last part in favour of one who had long been separate from his first wife. The other Fathers of the following centuries, in whose works ambiguous or obscure expressions may be found, are to be explained in like manner.

The Catholic Encyelopedia 1907
newadvent.org

 

[Mickey]

But I left the Orthodox Church because it was in fact Orthodoxy that had deviated from the faith of the Fathers after the schism.

Could not disagree more.

For example differences concerning procession of the HS

RCC changed the Creed. Innovation.

or quibbles over transubstantiation.

RCC forced to define Real Presence due to protestantism.

But, more importantly, I began to discover in the stacks accounts of early Eastern fathers and saints who looked to the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church.

Bishop of Rome always had a primacy of honor–not supreme papal infallibility–this was innovated in 1870.

So, in fact, an objective study of history and tradition should inform you that it was the Orthodox churches (there really is no one Orthodox Church) who deviated from the faith of the Fathers, not the Catholic Church.

History shows me otherwise.

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church

The Church was entrusted to all the Apostles with Christ as the foundation.

No doubt the others were all that Peter was,

Yes.

but a primacy is given to Peter

Yes, a primacy of honour–not supreme papal infallibility.

and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter…Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual
(John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98).

Of course I don’t expect to get any admission from you,

There can be only one admission from me. And that is but to proclaim the true faith of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

I realize that someone who cannot bring himself to admit the clear implications of Christ’s and St Paul’s words against divorce and who approves such adulterous marriages as the Orthodox conduct in defiance of their words, would never admit that he has schismated from the one Church which subsists in the Catholic Church.

I have decided to take the side of mercy, love, compassion and forgiveness over the pharisaical and legalistic structures of an RC tribunal system.

I have no delusions that you can admit the truth on either subject.

Do not be delusional. I have seen the true faith–and it resides in the Holy Orthodox Church.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Divorce in the Orthodox Church an Orthodox Innovation.