It sounds like the man had a sense of humour and felt he could share that with you (yes, priests can have a sense of humour). Of course, if it were true that some priest said what you describe it would have been facetious.Getting back to this concept of oikonomia. I asked a Russian Orhtodox priest to explain it and He asked me if I ever played the game *Monopoly *when I was a kid. I indeed did. He asked are you familiar with the card that said “Get out of jail free”? I replied I was. He then said, oikonomia was a “get out of sin free” card.
No he was serious and as oikonomia has been descriped here the “get out of sin free” explanation seems to fit. People go to jail for a reason, a crime for instance. The crime represents the sin and jail time represents the penalty for that crime [sin] The “get out of jail [sin] card” removes the penalty for the crime [sin]. So we have sin with no penalty.It sounds like the man had a sense of humour and felt he could share that with you (yes, p[riests can have a sense of humour). Of course, if it were true that some priest said what you describe it would have been facetious.
The same could be said of Catholic dispensations, or even absolutions from confessions, but we know that is not the intent.
If you cannot see the similarity between a Catholic dispensation and economy I am amazed.No he was serious and as oikonomia has been descriped here the “get out of sin free” explanation seems to fit. People go to jail for a reason, a crime for instance. The crime represents the sin and jail time represents the penalty for that crime [sin] The “get out of jail [sin] card” removes the penalty for the crime [sin]. So we have sin with no penalty.
The difference, in case you are interested, is that in the Catholic Church a dispensation cannot be given for sin. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, even the Pope cannotIf you cannot see the similarity between a Catholic dispensation and economy I am amazed.
You sound like a Protestant.
That doesn’t fit the example given earlier in this thread by a Catholic, of a dispensation for soldiers who kill.The difference, in case you are interested, is that in the Catholic Church a dispensation cannot be given for sin. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, even the Pope cannot
“…dispense from the Divine law (either natural or positive).” He can dispense “…from vows, oaths, unconsummated marriages” Like wise a bishop, “… can dispense from his own statutes and from those of his predecessors, even when promulgated in a diocesan synod (where he alone is legislator). From the other laws of the Church he cannot dispense of his own right.”
So quite a bit of difference between a dispensation and a “get out sin free” oikonomia. I can see where this *oikonomia * can give way to relativism and the denial of any absolute truth.
Are you saying that poster could not be wrong? I’ll take the Encyclopedia over an unidentified poster. But clearly there is no comparison between oikonomia and a dispensation.That doesn’t fit the example given earlier in this thread by a Catholic, of a dispensation for soldiers who kill.
Oikonomia and dispensation are bred from the same spirit. Although I do tend to agree that oikonomia does seem to allow for more things. I’ve also heard a Roman Catholic priest talk about a granting of annulment in terms that are more similar to oikonomia (ie, for the good of someone’s soul).Are you saying that poster could not be wrong? I’ll take the Encyclopedia over an unidentified poster. But clearly there is no comparison between oikonomia and a dispensation.
Not really.Oikonomia and dispensation are bred from the same spirit. Although I do tend to agree that oikonomia does seem to allow for more things. I’ve also heard a Roman Catholic priest talk about a granting of annulment in terms that are more similar to oikonomia (ie, for the good of someone’s soul).
Wait a minute. That is nonsensical. You’re saying that oikonomia which can permit sin is “for the good of one’s soul”. I don’t think so. WOW and here for 2,000 years christians have been trying to avoid sin because it damns the soul to hell and now the Orthodox church is saying that is all wrong and sin can be good for one’s soul? Unbelievable, utterly unbelievable. You guys have fallen far in the millenium since you left the communion of the Catholic Church. In fact, I dare say that you may have fallen farther than mainline protestants. At least they know that sin is not good for the soul.Oikonomia and dispensation are bred from the same spirit. Although I do tend to agree that oikonomia does seem to allow for more things. I’ve also heard a Roman Catholic priest talk about a granting of annulment in terms that are more similar to oikonomia (ie, for the good of someone’s soul).
Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon after her husband Arthur died. She was a widow and free to marry as death of her first husband, who was Henry VIII’s brother. The dispensation was granted so Henry could marry someone who was previously related to him, even though it was only by marriage. No sin was involved. As for marrying one’s relative this does not violate divine law as Genesis well attests. As for Henry VIII the marriage to Catherine of Aragon was a valid marriage which Henry wanted to annul because Catherine did not provide him with a male heir. Their only offspring to survive was Queen Mary I. So no sin was involved in Henry marrying Catherine, the dispensation was granted because she was his widowed sister-in-law. In fact if you check the bible this very question was posed to Jesus. You’ll find it in Matthew 22:23-33 concerning the seven brothers. It was part of the Jewish law that a man take the wife of a deceased brother so that heirs could be raised in his name. Jesus had a perfect opportunity to rebuke that practice and didn’t. Once again no comparison between a dispensation and oikonomia.Not really.
How often were dispensations granted in European history so that some member of royalty could marry his/her cousin? The case of Henry VIII is a very prominant case of this, and the validity of the dispensation to marry Catherine, his brothers wife, was the central question.
Who was that priest? Give me his name. Personally I think you made up a fresh batch of fiction but give me the bname so I can confront this priest or at least report him to his bishop.Oikonomia and dispensation are bred from the same spirit. Although I do tend to agree that oikonomia does seem to allow for more things. I’ve also heard a Roman Catholic priest talk about a granting of annulment in terms that are more similar to oikonomia (ie, for the good of someone’s soul).
I’m not going to get into Henry here, except to state that his argument was that his marriage violated natural law, but on the topic of marrying relatives… Divine law certainly prohibits marrying close relatives, as was often the case in Europe. Marriage within a tribe is a very different thing than marrying your uncle’s daughter.Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon after her husband Arthur died. She was a widow and free to marry as death of her first husband, who was Henry VIII’s brother. The dispensation was granted so Henry could marry someone who was previously related to him, even though it was only by marriage. No sin was involved. As for marrying one’s relative this does not violate divine law as Genesis well attests. As for Henry VIII the marriage to Catherine of Aragon was a valid marriage which Henry wanted to annul because Catherine did not provide him with a male heir. Their only offspring to survive was Queen Mary I. So no sin was involved in Henry marrying Catherine, the dispensation was granted because she was his widowed sister-in-law. In fact if you check the bible this very question was posed to Jesus. You’ll find it in Matthew 22:23-33 concerning the seven brothers. It was part of the Jewish law that a man take the wife of a deceased brother so that heirs could be raised in his name. Jesus had a perfect opportunity to rebuke that practice and didn’t. Once again no comparison between a dispensation and oikonomia.
No, Henry’s argument was that he married his deceased brother’s widow and wanted it annulled because she did not provide him with a male heir. As for marrying relatives, if you say it violates divine law then maybe you can enlighten us all by quoting this “divine law”? Now if you check your Bible real closely you will find that marrying your uncles daughter was not only allowed but commanded by God. Don’t believe me? Here, look in Numbers 36:10-13:I’m not going to get into Henry here, except to state that his argument was that his marriage violated natural law, but on the topic of marrying relatives… Divine law certainly prohibits marrying close relatives, as was often the case in Europe. Marriage within a tribe is a very different thing than marrying your uncle’s daughter.
You’re confusing Henry’s motives with his argument. He certainly didn’t make that argument. As for divine law, I guess we have two different definitions, you’re definition is based on scripture, mine is based on Holy Tradition. If it was not against the rules of the Church at that time, when marrying ones close relatives come to be against Catholic Church Law, and why? Is it then a case of the Papacy arbitrarily adding rules?No, Henry’s argument was that he married his deceased brother’s widow and wanted it annulled because she did not provide him with a male heir. As for marrying relatives, if you say it violates divine law then maybe you can enlighten us all by quoting this “divine law”? Now if you check your Bible real closely you will find that marrying your uncles daughter was not only allowed but commanded by God. Don’t believe me? Here, look in Numbers 36:10-13:
“10 The daughters of Zeloph’ehad did as the LORD commanded Moses; 11 for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zeloph’ehad, **were married to sons of their father’s brothers. **12 They were married into the families of the sons of Manas’seh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father. 13 These are the commandments and the ordinances which the LORD commanded by Moses to the people of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.”
Henry’s argument failed. The Pope refused to annul a valid marriage. As for divine law, yes mine is based on scripture but yours is not based on Holy Tradition. There is no ,difference between the Written Traditioin and the Oral Tradition. Any statements to the contrary are rejected by the Church as heretical. If the Orthodox believe there is a difference then you have fallen even further than I originally believed.You’re confusing Henry’s motives with his argument. He certainly didn’t make that argument. As for divine law, I guess we have two different definitions, you’re definition is based on scripture, mine is based on Holy Tradition. If it was not against the rules of the Church at that time, when marrying ones close relatives come to be against Catholic Church Law, and why? Is it then a case of the Papacy arbitrarily adding rules?
Whether or not Henry’s argument failed or not (actually it was never resolved, had it failed Catholicism would have won the day in his realm), is of no relevence to the line of argumentation put forth here. Holy Tradition certainly does not contradict itself, however there was a reason for that rule among the Hebrews, if theWritten Law and the Torah is in force now, then why is that law not enforced now?Henry’s argument failed. The Pope refused to annul a valid marriage. As for divine law, yes mine is based on scripture but yours is not based on Holy Tradition. There is no ,difference between the Written Traditioin and the Oral Tradition. Any statements to the contrary are rejected by the Church as heretical. If the Orthodox believe there is a difference then you have fallen even further than I originally believed.
Do you have a source on the institution of this rule?As for the rule against marrying close relatives, it came about as a result of the advance of science. It sought to stop the practice of hereditary diseases being passed on from one generation to another. A very good example was the Hapsburg line of royalty which was beset with hemophilia or bleeder’s disease. This rule is not only a church rule but secular governments have such rules also.
On the contrary. the issue was resolved and not in Henry’s favor either. After several admonitions the pope issued a bull of excommunication on July 11, 1533 declaring Henbry’s divorce and remarriage both to be null and void. As for why that Law is not enforce now is because the reason for it no longer exists. If you would take the time to read it the reason for it is clear.Whether or not Henry’s argument failed or not (actually it was never resolved, had it failed Catholicism would have won the day in his realm), is of no relevence to the line of argumentation put forth here. Holy Tradition certainly does not contradict itself, however there was a reason for that rule among the Hebrews, if theWritten Law and the Torah is in force now, then why is that law not enforced now?
I will gladly supply you with it ,right after you supply me with the source for your allegation that your definition is, “based on Holy Tradition”. Show me where in Holy Tradition. And while you’re at it please provide the source for your prior statement that, “Divine law certainly prohibits marrying close relatives”. After all what’s good for the goose is good for the gander too.Do you have a source on the institution of this rule?