Will Orthodox and Catholics Reconcile?

[UniversalistGuy]

I left Evangelical Christianity because the Sunday morning worship service had become a show with the focus entirely on the people participating. I went on to consider the question of Authority and that led me carefully to examine the truth claims of the Catholic Church together with the truth claims of the Orthodox Church. Eventually, I concluded that the latter contains the fullness of truth. However, it isn’t my contention that the Catholic Church has no authority. I just don’t recognize its authority.

Cordially,
Mick

Are there any books that you can recommend for a seeker like me?

 

[JDZwiers19]

I left Evangelical Christianity because the Sunday morning worship service had become a show with the focus entirely on the people participating. I went on to consider the question of Authority and that led me carefully to examine the truth claims of the Catholic Church together with the truth claims of the Orthodox Church. Eventually, I concluded that the latter contains the fullness of truth. However, it isn’t my contention that the Catholic Church has no authority. I just don’t recognize its authority.

Cordially,
Mick

Do you mean it has legitimate authority that you don’t recognise or an authority that is not legitimate? You are obligated to recognise authority that comes from God. If it is legitimate but you can ignore it that it is not true authority at all.

I think Orthodox don’t appreciate what true authority really means. No offence intended. .

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6961408:

I left Evangelical Christianity because the Sunday morning worship service

had become a show with the focus entirely on the people participating. I went on to consider the question of Authority and that led me carefully to examine the truth claims of the Catholic Church together with the truth claims of the Orthodox Church. Eventually, I concluded that the latter contains the fullness of truth. However, it isn’t my contention that the Catholic Church has no authority. I just don’t recognize its authority.

Cordially,
Mick
:thumbsupo you mean it has legitimate authority that you don’t recognise or an authority that is not legitimate?

The latter.

You are obligated to recognise authority that comes from God.

We all are.

If it is legitimate but you can ignore it that it is not true authority at all.

And if it’s not legitimate then one is obligated not to recognize it.

I think Orthodox don’t appreciate what true authority really means.

Orthodox Christians are fallible.

No offence intended.

None taken.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6961408:

I left Evangelical Christianity because the Sunday morning worship service

had become a show with the focus entirely on the people participating. I went on to consider the question of Authority and that led me carefully to examine the truth claims of the Catholic Church together with the truth claims of the Orthodox Church. Eventually, I concluded that the latter contains the fullness of truth. However, it isn’t my contention that the Catholic Church has no authority. I just don’t recognize its authority.

Cordially,
Mick
:thumbsup:Are there any books that you can recommend for a seeker like me?

One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[scottm]

I read this entire thread and found no mention of the dilemma that the change in Orthodox moral teachings will surely have on reunification efforts.

Some or all of the Orthodox Churches permit three marriages, two divorces – and contraception (including the abortifacient Pill?), which was not allowed for centuries.

Huh??? I have nerver heard or read that. In fact, everything I know about Orthodoxy goes the other way!

But here’s a true story. I enrolled in RCIA a couple years ago. Every candidate needs a sponsor. I asked two men whom I knew, but for this and that reason they could not serve as my sponsor. So, a sponsor was assigned to me. He was divorced. And remarried. His current wife was my assigned co-sponsor. Here’s the best part: he had three children by his prior marriage. No, no, here’s the best part: his current marriage was a valid Catholic marriage because his prior marriage was annulled by the Los Angeles bishops!

That’s right, he “married” a woman and lived with her and had three natural children with her, but it wasn’t a “real marriage.” Nope. He got it annulled, and he married someone else, and my local Roman Catholic parish held him out as a model Catholic. Yep.

True story.

I dropped out of RCIA and went Eastern Catholic instead. Orthodoxy all the way, man.

 

[scottm]

Orthodox, for their own good reasons, aren’t as “reunification happy” as Catholics, at least that’s what I gather from the good Orthodox folks here on this forum.

Speculation here, but that might be because they have all of the Apostles, and the Roman Church doesn’t. And they have all but one biblical city, and the Roman Church has only one city. With that context, one ought not be surprised at their indifference. It’s the Roman Church, in that context, that ought to be clamoring for reunification.

To see what I’m saying, pull out a map of Paul’s journeys in the Book of Acts. It’s the Eastern Church. Look at the titles of the epistles: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and all the rest are Eastern cities, with the lone exception of Romans. Look at the seven churches in Revelation. They’re all Eastern cities. Look where Timothy and Titus were. Look at the cities to which Peter addresses his epistles. The New Testament is the Eastern Orthodox Church, man.

Then pull out the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church, and look up the apostles one by one. They went all over the Eastern Church: Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Macedonia, India, Ethiopia, Libya, Egypt, blah blah blah – the only exception is Rome. The Eastern world is COVERED in churches started by and pastored by one or more apostle. The Eastern Church has every single apostle mentioned in the Bible. In unbelievable contrast, the Western Church just has one city, one church, started by and pastored by an apostle: Rome. Paul and Peter.

Sure, if you want the legend that James went to Spain I’ll give you a third apostle. Fine. That doesn’t change the larger point because James also traveled in the East, and the Eastern world is still covered, blanketed even, by churches started by every single apostle. And the West isn’t.

So, maybe that explains the Orthodox attitude that you’ve witnessed. I’m just talking out loud here. We’re all friends.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy I read this entire thread and found no mention of the dilemma that the change in Orthodox moral teachings will surely have on reunification efforts.

Orthodox moral teachings are the same as when we were in communion, over 1000 years ago.

That makes them ancient Catholic moral teachings.

To the contrary, the Catholic Church has always held that artificial contraception and remarriage following divorce of a valid sacramental marriage are grave, mortal (deadly) sins.

Hesychios: Here you are wrong.

NFP is birth control.

So is celibacy. So is abstinence. Artificial birth control is morally reprehensible. NFP to prevent conception requires abstinence during the fertile period. It respects God’s design of the female human body, in accordance with Natural Law. NFP is also used to achieve pregnancy.

Abortion and abortifactant methods are forbidden.

Orthodoxy says it opposes abortion, but my understanding is that the Russian Orthodox are the only O’s to formally oppose use of The Pill, a known abortifacient – just adopted in the year 2000. Please correct me if I’m wrong – post the official teaching(s) that forbids use of The Pill for each of the Orthodox Churches. I would like very much to be wrong about this.

Adopted at the Sacred Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000
–quote-- XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin. –end quote–

However, here’s evidence of when Orthodoxy went wrong:

The Orthodox Church
by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
First Edition, first printing – 1963 - (pg. 302)
"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

The Orthodox Church
by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
First Edition, revised 1984 - (pg. 302)
"The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father."

The Orthodox Church
New Edition
by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
Penguin Books, 1997 - (Pg. 296)
"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences"

All Christian groups held that artificial contraception was gravely sinful until the Anglican/Episcopalian Lambeth Conference of 1930 declared that it was permissible in certain limited circumstances. That morphed into permissible and even mandatory artificial contraception at any time – on demand. The other Christian communities soon caved in as well, eventually even the Orthodox, until there was only one Church still standing for Truth: the Catholic Church.

Continued

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Continued - Part 2 of 2

Hesychios wrote:

A second marriage may be allowed to the wronged/abandoned party. It is not done in the same way, the ceremony is more penitential in character (but the family is plugged into church life, and still has a chance to grow in faith - children have a chance to grow in a Christian family made whole and not seemingly abandoned by the church) and this is an expression of economia, it is also not a right, but a concession out of charity.

The Orthodox Church is giving permission to couples to live in a state of serious sin. Is this true of all the Orthodox Churches?

I found out in my study of Orthodoxy (before I became a Catholic) that each Church stands alone, and there is no overarching principle that unites them. So there is no Orthodox Church, but there are several Oriental Orthodox Churches and several Eastern Orthodox Churches. And there is conflict among them.

A third possible marriage, very rare even today, only in the event of a death.

From Wikipedia:

–quote–Divorce is permitted in the Orthodox Church for various reasons. The more usual divorce occurs under the pastoral guidance of the spiritual director of the spouses when all attempts at salvaging a marriage have been exhausted. In such cases, remarriage may be possible but there is a special rite for a second marriage which contains a penitential element for the dissolution of the first, i.e. some of the more joyful aspects are removed.[1] Marriage is permitted up to three times in Orthodoxy but each divorce necessitates a short period of Excommunication. --end quote-- (color added)

Taken from the official synodical document entitled, “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000:

–quote-- The Church does not at all approve of a second marriage. Nevertheless, according to the canon law, after a legitimate church divorce, a second marriage is allowed to the innocent spouse. Those whose first marriage was dissolved through their own fault a second marriage is allowed only after repentance and penance imposed in accordance with the canons. According to the rules of St. Basil the Great, in exceptional cases where a third marriage is allowed, the duration of the penance shall be prolonged. – end quote – (color added)

Jesus said it’s adultery. How can a Church grant permission to sin? Who is held responsible on Judgment Day? Breaks my heart.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[UniversalistGuy]

I found out in my study of Orthodoxy (before I became a Catholic) that each Church stands alone, and there is no overarching principle that unites them. So there is no Orthodox Church, but there are several Oriental Orthodox Churches and several Eastern Orthodox Churches. And there is conflict among them.

But isn’t there conflicts in the Catholic churches too? Tell me the overarching principle that unites the Catholics?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Continued - Part 2 of 2

Hesychios wrote:

The Orthodox Church is giving permission to couples to live in a state of serious sin. Is this true of all the Orthodox Churches?

I found out in my study of Orthodoxy (before I became a Catholic) that each Church stands alone, and there is no overarching principle that unites them. So there is no Orthodox Church, but there are several Oriental Orthodox Churches and several Eastern Orthodox Churches. And there is conflict among them.

From Wikipedia:

–quote–Divorce is permitted in the Orthodox Church for various reasons. The more usual divorce occurs under the pastoral guidance of the spiritual director of the spouses when all attempts at salvaging a marriage have been exhausted. In such cases, remarriage may be possible but there is a special rite for a second marriage which contains a penitential element for the dissolution of the first, i.e. some of the more joyful aspects are removed.[1] Marriage is permitted up to three times in Orthodoxy but each divorce necessitates a short period of Excommunication. --end quote-- (color added)

Taken from the official synodical document entitled, “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000:

–quote-- The Church does not at all approve of a second marriage. Nevertheless, according to the canon law, after a legitimate church divorce, a second marriage is allowed to the innocent spouse. Those whose first marriage was dissolved through their own fault a second marriage is allowed only after repentance and penance imposed in accordance with the canons. According to the rules of St. Basil the Great, in exceptional cases where a third marriage is allowed, the duration of the penance shall be prolonged. – end quote – (color added)

Jesus said it’s adultery. How can a Church grant permission to sin? Who is held responsible on Judgment Day? Breaks my heart.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

My brother it seems to me that it is the Roman Catholic Church that has changed the teaching on divorce and remarriage. The Canons of St Basil and the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council testify to that fact.

Canon 8

Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them

Canon 4 of the Canons of St Basil

In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, he whom thou now hast is not your husband. He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance.

The Fathers allowed divorce and a second (and in extreme circumstances a third) marriage as a condescension to human weakness. It has always been viewed as a sin and the person was (and often is) required to serve a penance of excommunication for a period of time before being readmitted to communion. That has been the practice in the East since the earliest days of the Church. I guess my question to you would be how was it that the Bishops of Rome condoned this heresy for so many centuries by remaining in communion with Churches who allowed remarriage, even approving an Ecumenical Council that specifically says we must not refuse to commune with those twice married?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

–quote-- The Church does not at all approve of a second marriage. Nevertheless, according to the canon law, after a legitimate church divorce, a second marriage is allowed to the innocent spouse. Those whose first marriage was dissolved through their own fault a second marriage is allowed only after repentance and penance imposed in accordance with the canons. According to the rules of St. Basil the Great, in exceptional cases where a third marriage is allowed, the duration of the penance shall be prolonged. – end quote – (color added)

Saint Basil the Great is a Doctor of the Catholic church. If it breaks your heart I cannot help that, but this was the policy of the Catholic church in his day.

His Feast day is January 2 on the Roman Calendar, although it was originally on the same day as the Orthodox celebrate it.

Jesus said it’s adultery. How can a Church grant permission to sin? Who is held responsible on Judgment Day? Breaks my heart.

Have you never heard of a dispensation? That is what Economia is called in the west.

BTW, for clarification, the church does not grant divorces. That is something done outside in the world, and church is - in charity - trying to help people put their lives back together and get them plugged into church life for the sake of their souls. It requires the bishop to apply a lot of discernment, every case is unique, and a subsequent marriage is not a right owed to anyone. This is simply an historical fact, the Catholic church has done this from the very earliest days (as evidenced by the sources you reference) out of sympathy as a pastoral matter. Holy Orthodoxy is very conservative by nature, in this it continues the practice of the earlier church “when we were One”.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Not to derail the thread but this is an interesting getting into divorce…I always wondered about how other churches saw it…With the Catholic church it seems the got around it by “annulments”…Finding some “out” that disqualifies the marriage and allows remarriage…All our churches have their share of it…I am sort of a death till ya part kind of guy…I never knew anything about Orthodox procedures…My first wife left me and married one of my friends who was divorced by his wife because he was cheating on her…My pastor had no problem with re marrying me since I was faithful and wasn’t the one dissolving the marriage and marrying another…

 

[mark_a]

Speculation here, but that might be because they have all of the Apostles, and the Roman Church doesn’t. And they have all but one biblical city, and the Roman Church has only one city. With that context, one ought not be surprised at their indifference. It’s the Roman Church, in that context, that ought to be clamoring for reunification.

To see what I’m saying, pull out a map of Paul’s journeys in the Book of Acts. It’s the Eastern Church. Look at the titles of the epistles: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and all the rest are Eastern cities, with the lone exception of Romans. Look at the seven churches in Revelation. They’re all Eastern cities. Look where Timothy and Titus were. Look at the cities to which Peter addresses his epistles. The New Testament is the Eastern Orthodox Church, man.

Then pull out the Encyclopedia of the Catholic Church, and look up the apostles one by one. They went all over the Eastern Church: Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Macedonia, India, Ethiopia, Libya, Egypt, blah blah blah – the only exception is Rome. The Eastern world is COVERED in churches started by and pastored by one or more apostle. The Eastern Church has every single apostle mentioned in the Bible. In unbelievable contrast, the Western Church just has one city, one church, started by and pastored by an apostle: Rome. Paul and Peter.

Sure, if you want the legend that James went to Spain I’ll give you a third apostle. Fine. That doesn’t change the larger point because James also traveled in the East, and the Eastern world is still covered, blanketed even, by churches started by every single apostle. And the West isn’t.

So, maybe that explains the Orthodox attitude that you’ve witnessed. I’m just talking out loud here. .

Thanks for more good points to consider.

We’re all friends

I’m glad, although sometimes its hard to tell.

 

[SedesDomi]

My first wife left me and married one of my friends who was divorced by his wife because he was cheating on her…My pastor had no problem with re marrying me since I was faithful and wasn’t the one dissolving the marriage and marrying another…

Did your friend’s wife divorce your friend because your friend was having an affair with your wife?

 

[Hiskid1973]

Did your friend’s wife divorce your friend because your friend was having an affair with your wife?

No, it was the wife of one of his other friends…Nice guy huh…He wasn’t always like this…But this whole situation taught me ALOT about forgiveness…

 

[Nine_Two]

I know this thread is just a bunch of baiting, but it has some serious issues

and there is no overarching principle that unites them.

Christ would be that principle.

From Wikipedia:

–quote–Divorce is permitted in the Orthodox Church for various reasons. The more usual divorce occurs under the pastoral guidance of the spiritual director of the spouses when all attempts at salvaging a marriage have been exhausted. In such cases, remarriage may be possible but there is a special rite for a second marriage which contains a penitential element for the dissolution of the first, i.e. some of the more joyful aspects are removed.[1] Marriage is permitted up to three times in Orthodoxy but each divorce necessitates a short period of Excommunication. --end quote-- (color added)

Taken from the official synodical document entitled, “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” issued by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000:

–quote-- The Church does not at all approve of a second marriage. Nevertheless, according to the canon law, after a legitimate church divorce, a second marriage is allowed to the innocent spouse. Those whose first marriage was dissolved through their own fault a second marriage is allowed only after repentance and penance imposed in accordance with the canons. According to the rules of St. Basil the Great, in exceptional cases where a third marriage is allowed, the duration of the penance shall be prolonged. – end quote – (color added)

Jesus said it’s adultery. How can a Church grant permission to sin? Who is held responsible on Judgment Day? Breaks my heart.

Yes, Christ did say remarriage was adultery, that is why one must give an appropriate penance. However Christ also said that one who leads another into sin is themselves guilty of great sin, and the number of people who have made mistakes but are unable to be rejoined to your Church because of your love of the law has created a multitude of sins. I doubt there are many who don’t know a fallen Catholic, whose sins are apparently too great to be allowed to ever partake of the Eucharist again.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

Is that what this is?

 

[Contarini]

My brother it seems to me that it is the Roman Catholic Church that has changed the teaching on divorce and remarriage. The Canons of St Basil and the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council testify to that fact.

Canon 8
Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married,

I think this is referring to remarriage after the death of the spouse, not remarriage after divorce. One of the things that I have problems with in the Eastern Church’s attitude to this issue is the failure to distinguish between widowhood and divorce.

Edwin

 

[brb3]

It’s not as if it hasn’t been tried before. It has always turned out badly.

The orthodoxy will first need to shave their unkept beards

 

[brb3]

They are * very* critical of western theology and seem to have no interest in pursuing dialogue toward the goal of reunion. Catholics are heretics, and should return to Orthodoxy, period. I find this attitude very disheartening, but it’s been my personal experience.

Why can’t the East admit their forebears were wrong to leave the Church and now take the lead in righting a tragic schism. With 20/20 hindsight, we today see the West was right on the filioque … and correctly used scripture to point up the value of amending the Creed, to combat the heretics of that day.

 

[JDZwiers19]

Orthodox Christians are fallible.

:

Are calling the Pope Unorthodox? Them’s fighting words.

I have been wondering something, do Orthodox see Peter as the Rock in Mathew 16 or do they see his recognition of Christ as the Rock? I have been told the latter but even many prominent protestant scholars recognise Peter as the Rock? Of course protestants can reject Tradition and even refuse to believe that Peter was in Rome so it makes sense that protestants would be more likely to admit Peter is the rock. Any thoughts from my Orthodox friends?