Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by ddarko

I understood you very clearly. And as I said before, you are making this overly complicated.

Bottom line is this, the Roman Catholic granting of the sacrament of marriage and the Orthodox might be different. But it is irrelevant to this matter here.

If we are talking about the same sacrament that Christ established as marriage, then your church is going against his words. Simple as that. Or are you trying to say the ''marriage'' in your church is not really a marriage to being with ?

The real absurdity of the web page you present is that at the end it says

"The Church has been faithful throughout the centuries to the principle referred to by Paul, that a second marriage is an aberration of the Christian statute. In this sense the orthodox doctrine confirms not only the “indissolubility” of marriage, but also its uniqueness. Every true marriage can be uniquely the “only” one."

Is this a joke? Orthodox allow remarriage.

Also, just because I am fallen, doesn't mean I can do anything. This is rather elementary. Is the Orthodox church willing to give an allowance on the kill count for it's members? No right? Doesn't that even sound absurd? So the same holds for marriage. If someone divorces, he has committed a sin. If he remarries it's even worse.

I really don't see much of a defense on that web page except trying to somehow make it look legit by mixing it with truths.

God Bless

If the Orthodox do not conduct 'real' marriages then I wouldn't be married. Fortunately they do.

[ddarko]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

If the Orthodox do not conduct 'real' marriages then I wouldn't be married. Fortunately they do.

Exactly my point. Which is why, for your church to grant you a divorce, God forbid, if you ever do ask for one, is morally WRONG. It does not matter what the Orthodox intend by marriage etc. Christ has already spoken that marriage may NOT be dissolved.

No church shall undermine him.

That was the point I was making.

God Bless

[JharekCarnelian]

Look at my religion as stated on my profile. I married in an Orthodox Church because my wife is Orthodox and with the permission of the Church.

[ddarko]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Look at my religion as stated on my profile. I married in an Orthodox Church because my wife is Orthodox and with the permission of the Church.

I understand. I am really not here to argue whether the Orthodox marriage is valid or not. I obviously believe that it is valid or I would not be arguing against Orthodox allowance of divorce.

God Bless

[sidbrown]

Originally Posted by ddarko

Exactly my point. Which is why, for your church to grant you a divorce, God forbid, if you ever do ask for one, is morally WRONG. It does not matter what the Orthodox intend by marriage etc. Christ has already spoken that marriage may NOT be dissolved.

No church shall undermine him.

That was the point I was making.

God Bless

The Catholic Church tribunal in the USA REQUIRES that a couple get a divorce before they apply for the annulment. Once the divorce has been granted, the annulment is almost guaranteed, and then the couple is free to remarry. If anyone can get an annulment, then any differences we see between EO and RC in this are purely a matter of semantics and nothing else.

[ddarko]

Originally Posted by sidbrown

The Catholic Church tribunal in the USA REQUIRES that a couple get a divorce before they apply for the annulment. Once the divorce has been granted, the annulment is almost guaranteed, and then the couple is free to remarry. If anyone can get an annulment, then any differences we see between EO and RC in this are purely a matter of semantics and nothing else.

Once again my friend, you seem to have misunderstood the Catholic position.

The divorce that you have to get in the case of an annulment is the Civil Law divorce. Though there might not have been a sacramental marriage, there could well have been a legal one. In that event, the church does require you to get a divorce in civil law.

But this in NO WAY means the church is allowing divorce. The church has already recognized that there WAS NO MARRIAGE TO BEGIN WITH and is therefore simply asking that the couple take care of the legal side of the issue first.

Secondly, NOT everyone can get an annulment. Annulments can only be granted if there was no marriage to begin with. While most Catholics of the West abuse that process, it is at their own risk of salvation. The church position has made it clear what an annulment is for and that if the marriage was valid to begin with Divorce or an Annulment is not allowed.

So no, it is NOT a matter of semantics when it comes to this issue for EO and RC.

God Bless

[sidbrown]

Originally Posted by ddarko

But this in NO WAY means the church is allowing divorce.

The Church is not only allowing the divorce, it is requiring the civil divorce for a couple seeking an annulment.
It really is all semantics, because in the end, whether the couple is granted a Church divorce by the EOC, or an annulment by the RCC, they can marry again. Except that in the EOC, it is a sin to get a divorce, whereas, I haven't heard that it is a sin at all for a married couple to get a RC annulment. And for the RC, you can get as many marriage annulments as you want, there is no limit, unlike in the EOC.
Some of the reasons for granting the annulment seem to be pretty trivial ones, like it occurred to me that I might have wanted to use a condom during the marriage. And in fact, this reason seems a bit off, since the Pope himself, says that there might be cases where the use of a condom is justified. "Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione,..."
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...o/text.html#13

[ddarko]

Originally Posted by sidbrown

The Church is not only allowing the divorce, it is requiring the civil divorce for a couple seeking an annulment.
It really is all semantics, because in the end, whether the couple is granted a Church divorce by the EOC, or an annulment by the RCC, they can marry again. Except that in the EOC, it is a sin to get a divorce, whereas, I haven't heard that it is a sin at all for a married couple to get a RC annulment. And for the RC, you can get as many marriage annulments as you want, there is no limit, unlike in the EOC.
Some of the reasons for granting the annulment seem to be pretty trivial ones, like it occurred to me that I might have wanted to use a condom during the marriage. And in fact, this reason seems a bit off, since the Pope himself, says that there might be cases where the use of a condom is justified. "Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione,..."
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...o/text.html#13

Oh my. Are you Roman Catholic? Because if you are, you are terribly mistaken on what you follow.

The church does not ALLOW DIVORCE. Would have thought this was obvious. Annulments are not a sin since it is the recognition that there was no marriage to begin with. This can't simply be granted to everyone unless a marriage actually did not happen.

So it is different and not a matter of semantics. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

About the condom business, please get your stuff correct. I have opened a thread on this very matter which you can refer to and hopefully correct yourself. The pope said use of condoms when there was no contraception taking place ex: males prostitutes. So no, the pope does not advocate use of condoms for marriage since that would be contraception which is a SIN!!! The rest is just the media having a field day. Your lack of understanding on Catholic teaching isn't helping either.

So in short, you are terribly confused about the nature of Divorce and annulment. One is a sin the other is not.

God Bless

[prodromos]

Originally Posted by sidbrown

This would be a difference then with Catholic annulments. Most people who apply for the annulment in the USA, get it approved.

Keep in mind that there would also be many others who don't apply for an annulment because they have already been advised that it would likely not be granted. Thus only those who are likely to have an annulment granted would go through the process of applying.
What is most worrying is that many Catholic couples go through many years together believing that they have had a sacramental marriage when in fact they are not married at all. At least in the Orthodox Church we know we have been married. The Catholic view on marriage annulments seems to lean heavily towards Donatism, particularly as the bride and groom confer the sacrament of marriage in the Latin rite.

[ddarko]

Originally Posted by prodromos

Keep in mind that there would also be many others who don't apply for an annulment because they have already been advised that it would likely not be granted. Thus only those who are likely to have an annulment granted would go through the process of applying.
What is most worrying is that many Catholic couples go through many years together believing that they have had a sacramental marriage when in fact they are not married at all. At least in the Orthodox Church we know we have been married. The Catholic view on marriage annulments seems to lean heavily towards Donatism, particularly as the bride and groom confer the sacrament of marriage in the Latin rite.

Again, only a very very small percentage of marriages could be annulled. These cases for annulment are not similar to ''grounds for divorce''. We Roman Catholics recognize that if marriage took place, it is indissoluble. So there is really no logical inconsistency here. People who all of a sudden have an epiphany that there marriage lacked some sacramental aspect only after things go wrong should suggest to something to them. People like them abuse annulments and that is a sin they will carry. In short, it's not like you and your wife were Roman Catholics, you are going to wake up in the middle of the night and realize 'ohhhh, our marriage was not sacramental'. If marriage did take place, it did take place.

The problem you are causing for yourself is somehow trying to equate annulments to Divorce in your church. Very sorry but two different things. Even if Roman Catholics abuse annulments, the Church's position is clear and moral. In the Orthodox case, the church's position is morally sinful.

God Bless

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by ddarko

I understand. I am really not here to argue whether the Orthodox marriage is valid or not. I obviously believe that it is valid or I would not be arguing against Orthodox allowance of divorce.

The Orthodox church does not 'grant' a divorce.

The Orthodox church does not 'allow' a divorce.

Once a marriage has been irretrievable broken, the Orthodox church will sometimes consent to another marriage to the victimized or bereaved individual. To quote father Matusiak "out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule".

There is no automatic right to a remarriage after an abandonment and civil divorce, but it might be allowed. There are generally good reasons for doing this, and it is an expression of economy.

One might also remember in this discussion that this is not merely an Orthodox practice, it is a Catholic practice in every sense of the word, having been followed for hundreds of years before the schism among the eastern Catholics (if not also in the western Catholic church). So any Catholic who maintains that his church has never allowed such a practice would be mistaken.

[ddarko]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

The Orthodox church does not 'grant' a divorce.

The Orthodox church does not 'allow' a divorce.

Once a marriage has been irretrievable broken, the Orthodox church will sometimes consent to another marriage to the victimized or bereaved individual. To quote father Matusiak "out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule".

There is no automatic right to a remarriage after an abandonment and civil divorce, but it might be allowed. There are generally good reasons for doing this, and it is an expression of economy.

One might also remember in this discussion that this is not merely an Orthodox practice, it is a Catholic practice in every sense of the word, having been followed for hundreds of years before the schism among the eastern Catholics (if not also in the western Catholic church). So any Catholic who maintains that his church has never allowed such a practice would be mistaken.

Ok how hard can this be to comprehend?

The Orthodox church allows remarriage. And not to the same partner btw. This is in direct contrast to what Christ said.

It does not matter if the early church practiced it before the Schism or not. Whats wrong is wrong. I really don't see where you are trying to go with this.

This is what I hear about Orthodox position, 'humans are fallen, they can't make it work sometimes. So they get divorce, we forgive them and let them remarry'. Thats ridiculous. What else are you going to have this 'expression of economy'? How about murder? Rape perhaps? Or maybe same sex marriage?

Like I really don't know how you argue against the fact that Christ opposed divorce. And not in a ''well I know you guys can't make it work but this is what I would like'' way. He simply stated the nature of marriage. If the Orthodox want to change that nature of marriage, then .. well.. thats a sin in it-self.

In either case, one of us is WRONG. Not both of us are RIGHT. So it is the duty of you and I to find out which one is correct. We can't just unite together, call it a communion and agree to disagree on these matters. Especially in the case of Orthodox, if they are wrong, that would mean the Church is condoning sin of remarriage and leading the faithful astray. In the Roman Catholic case, well, if we are wrong, its not such a big deal because its a more strict view on marriage anyway.

So I think in your Orthodox position, even more so than mine, it is important that you have it right. Otherwise your church is condoning sin. The excuse that early church might have practiced it is no justification either. The question is given the knowledge of the present time, can you still hold on to your position.

God Bless

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

The Orthodox church does not 'grant' a divorce.
The Orthodox church does not 'allow' a divorce.
Once a marriage has been irretrievable broken, the Orthodox church will sometimes consent to another marriage to the victimized or bereaved individual

.
This sounds like bigamy. Surely the OC must allow for the divorce before second marriage.

One might also remember in this discussion that this is not merely an Orthodox practice, it is a Catholic practice in every sense of the word, having been followed for hundreds of years before the schism among the eastern Catholics (if not also in the western Catholic church).

If one would have such memories, those memories ought to be purged because they are false.

The OC did NOT have second marriages in the church for hundreds of years before the schism. The Orthodox practice was changed late in the first milllenium, as the Emperor gave the Church sole responsibility for administering marriage within the Empire. I wonder if the church was also enlisted to grant divorce at that time.

[ddarko]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

.
The OC did NOT have second marriages in the church for hundreds of years before the schism. The Orthodox practice was changed late in the first milllenium, as the Emperor gave the Church sole responsibility for administering marriage within the Empire. I wonder if the church was also enlisted to grant divorce at that time.

Thank you sir for clarifying that. I am not an expert on that specific area and never heard that before so I was just about to go see the truth of that initial claim. I am glad you provided this info.

Appreciate it.

God Bless

[GaryTaylor]

The idea of moving toward full communion began in 1985. Its simply an on-going process. While I do think John Paul II encyclicals on the Holy Spirit are the most in-depth ever written by the Vatican and have helped open the door to this possibility of full communion. And I believe if this will happen, it needs to happen before Benedict is gone. There will not be another with a mind of He or John Paul II to come along immediatly. I don't see that happening. And I believe Benedict is making every effort to make this happen.

Its just difficult to say the least who is defiantly right and who is wrong in areas such as the Holy Spirit. We just don't know that much about the TRUTH of Gods ability in this area. In other words its a Mystery still.

By default I believe the Catholic Church should bend over backwards to make a full communion possible. What I find lacking is an inability to admitt the possibility of being wrong, making an proper apology and moving past this horror show in Christology to correct a wrong.

When an issue for example such as the Holy Spirit comes up. We ought admitt as humans and good stewarts to each other we simply don't know enough. Pass on any major change and by default stick to the church teaching non-dogmatically. Thats just good skeptical philosophy IMHO. But at this point to insist on right to the point of claiming another a heretic and then excommunication? Come, Come now. I see nothing Christian about any of this.

We have a much bigger problem today called the evil. Theres 2-Billion Christians. Alone the Catholic Church is in for another century of record breaking Martyrdom. Together we have a fleeting chance to bring Christology to front of mankind. And that my brothers will go a long way to buy us some time on earth, for our childrens, childrens sake. As it is I couldn't imagine the world these children will be left with. Its ashame is what it is. And all us stand responsible for the situation we find ourselves in.