• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Renowned philosopher signs petition calling on bishops to investigate Pope for heresy

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by redleghunter, May 6, 2019.

  1. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,768
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    So just one would do since this is the depth of historic teaching. Pick your favorite one.
     
  2. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,768
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Yeah that one puzzles me too.
     
  3. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I don't have much time at all to reply thoroughly, but right off the bat I have to say that it looks like you've misread what I meant by one spouse dumping the other over an affair. The one dumped the other because they found a new love in their workplace and left their spouse for a new one, and the Roman Catholic Church annulled the first marriage and performed the new one, to the person with whom the affair was had. That is what I meant. The annulment was bogus, and the first marriage was real, and I'm bearing witness to the reality of that first marriage because that couple were of my family and had been married in the presence of God in the Orthodox Church and were a couple for over a decade. They may have buffaloed a Roman Catholic priest, but they can't buffalo me.

    Furthermore, what the Orthodox believe and do is not incongruous at all. Did you read the article that I provided a link to on here that explains the Orthodox treatment of marriage? The real problem here is a failure to communicate, and what would seem an inability, on your part, to understand and accept "ikoinomeia" being practiced by the pastors in the Church who were given the authority to exercise it (John 20:23). Christ told an adulteress who should have been stoned, according to the law of Jewish religion, to go in peace, as her sins were forgiven. He gave that same authority to exercise mercy (forgiveness of sins) to His Apostles, who transferred that same authority to the Bishops in the Church. The Orthodox Bishops do exercise that authority to show mercy to those who have committed the sin of remarriage after divorce, allowing them to come back into the fullness of the Life in Christ and to receive Communion. The sacred magisterium of Rome prefers that they be left for dead (or "punished by stoning").
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
  4. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,886
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    So some of your relatives lied to a Catholic priest, actually a tribunal of Catholic Canon Lawyers, making up reasons why a valid marriage should be considered invalid? And the lie carried the day? And you blame the Catholic Church for getting suckered? OK.
    It is incongruous to say that marriage is eternal and that divorce is acceptable. Sorry. If that is indeed what Orthodox believe then what they believe and do is incongruous.
    Orthodox 'economy' seems to mean whatever the Orthodox want it to mean. Things are allowed here and there quietly that are otherwise always rejected.
    Jesus forgave that woman, but the tiny thing you neglected to include was that He told her "go and sin no more." Your position is that she can go back to adultery, and that adultery is acceptable, that Jesus allows her to continue in adultery. The Catholic position is that adultery is still wrong, always wrong in each instance, but in each instance it can be forgiven. You have made a caricature of the Catholic position as one of stoning sinners, a position which actually balances "your sins are forgiven" with "go and sin no more".
     
  5. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Yes, that is right, and it is because Christ has granted bishops in the Church the authority to discern and decide what action is most conducive to the salvation of members of the flock - and denying them membership in the Church is usually not conducive to their salvation.

    2nd marriages are not considered sinful in themselves, otherwise St. Paul would not have approved of second marriages for widows in the Scriptures he penned. A 2nd marriage is not "sin", as you say. Rather, the first marriage was nullified by sin, which obliterated the marital bond beyond salvaging. The Church does not "issue" divorces. She merely affirms cases where the sin of this world has cause a marriage bond to be permanently broken, and will never be anything but detrimental to the two people who had been married and are now, in reality, married no longer.

    Please read the article again, and you'll be reminded that Christ made an exception to His own divorce rule, and you'll also be reminded that He gave the authority to do so to His bishops. Some people have a hard time with ambiguity and therefor can accept only hard, fast, unbreakable rules to guide themselves and others by. Not all of God's children have such difficulty with leniency in the law of God, when the salvation of others may be at stake.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  6. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Also, on your claim of Orthodox Church incongruity, Do you believe that all people will attain to the inheritance of the Kingdom of God? If not, and you believe that some people will fail to attain it, then does is follow that since some people will not attain it, that eternal Life in the Kingdom of God therefore does not exist?

    Well, in the same way, just because many people may fail to attain the marital unity that is eternal in the Kingdom of heaven, does not mean that eternal marriage between a man and a woman is not a reality of the Kingdom of heaven, for those who do attain it. If you believe that some people will inherit the Kingdom of heaven and others not, then it is incongruous for you to believe that since not all people will attain to holy marriage that is eternal in heaven, then nobody will. So, we are not being incongruous. Rather, we are simply being more mature and insightful in our understanding of heavenly realities. This is by the grace of the Holy Spirit. We understand that in Heaven there will be immense variation in the ways that God's heavenly creatures will eternally reflect His unspeakable glory! Some will do so as utterly unique, one-flesh men & women united forever in Holy Marriage!
     
  7. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,241
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    That I have honestly never heard of.
     
  8. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Its always been common knowledge in the Church that is almost 2000 years old that the bond (the two becoming one flesh) of matrimony between a husband and wife who remain one from the time of their marriage and forever after, will not be broken in the Kingdom of heaven, but endure forever.

    I honestly am having a tough time with the fact that Mormons (although their understanding of multiple marriages - even of the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven - is twisted and false as is much of everything they believe) are likely about the only group outside of Orthodox Christianity that have a conception of the eternal marriage bond between a man and woman. Still, knowing of this very big difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy explains a lot to me.
     
  9. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,241
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    This is the verse that comes to mind:

    At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.(Matt. 22:30)
    As far as the relationship, I think your mom might still be your mom, you children might still see you as dad or mom. I'll give you one thing, you sure threw one out there that I just did not see coming. Just curious though, I assume at some level the Synods or maybe the Eastern Church Fathers addressed this in some way. Would you be familiar with any teachings along those lines?
     
  10. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I'm not sure it was ever addressed Ecumenically, because marriage always had a certain "eternal" character to it in the consciousness of the Church and so was never questioned here.

    That verse that you quoted needs to be understood in its context. The Sadducees who were challenging Christ had a very base/carnal understanding of what life would be like after the resurrection (which is why they refused to believe in the resurrection of all the dead at all). Hence, their understanding of married life following the resurrection, which they didn't believe in, is that it would be very much like married life is in this base and carnal, fallen world. Christ corrected them. But notice that Christ did not say that a marriage that was consecrated by God in this world would not remain so in the Kingdom of Heaven (resurrected Life). He only said that people would neither marry nor be given in marriage. And he also meant that the carnal/sexual aspect of marriage would cease to exist, because the Sadducees had this (conjugal rights) in mind when they were asking "whose wife would she be then", or in other words, which one of the many brothers who were married to her would get to have sex with her in heaven? There isn't going to be sexual activity in heaven. The Church know this. Heaven, however, isn't the end of the eternal marriage bond between the couple joined together forever by God, in Christ.
     
  11. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    The Church doesn't "allow" divorce. She only allows herself to be aware of when the sin that is in the world has irreparably destroyed a marriage beyond the point of no return. In other words, the marriage has already been dissolved in actuality between the couple. When this happens (and it unfortunately does), then it is usually more conducive to the eventual healing and possible salvation of the couple whose marriage has failed to agree to their parting of ways. Only first marriages that are consecrated by God and were faithfully kept in tact by husband and wife are sacred, eternal marriages.
     
  12. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Okay, then I pick St. Peter the Apostle, the first bishop and Patriarch of the Church in Antioch, the husband of one believing wife and holy martyr who was crucified and said "crucify me upside-down, because I am not worthy to be crucified in the same way that my Lord was!"
     
  13. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,241
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The Sadducess were talking about a Levitical Law that provided, if the husband died without leaving a male heir his brother was responsible to do so. The issues between Judah and Tamar emerged over that very issue and Tamar btw, appears in the genealogy of Jesus. The point here is producing an heir, which is irrelevant if you have been raised to eternal life. So the question with regards to the Law was essentially nonsensical, bear in mind the question is focused on who's wife she will be. The way I've always taken the response is that there will be no marriage in the resurrection, even though I'm not adverse to the idea that the relationship at some level will endure. If 1 Cor. 13 is teaching us anything it's that love endures, I understand that. I don't think that bond just evaporates in the resurrection but the idea of eternal marriage is a bit beyond my frame of reference. I do appreciate your response and kind of get where you coming from with this, guess what your saying is just a bit beyond me.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  14. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,886
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Does the authority Jesus Christ granted to His bishops include the authority to discern that falsehood is true, that heresy is orthodox, that the immoral is moral?

    Is it wrong to exclude an adulterer who will not cease adultery from membership in the Church? Is it wrong to exclude two men married to each other who will not live in continency from membership in the Church? Is it wrong to exclude someone who is validly married to one person who lives with another person from membership in the Church? How is it pastoral to wink at sins that may cause the damnation of souls and say it's all OK?
    I did not say that a second marriage in the situation of a widow is a sin. Those are your words put in my mouth.
    What you seem to be saying here is that a valid marriage need not be a sacrament if sin is present, and that a marital bond can be obliterated. Jesus seemed to say otherwise.

    Is marriage sacramental? Or are the only sacramental ones those which survive?
    I guess I am one of those who have enough trouble with ambiguity to think that there are some hard and fast unbreakable rules of morality. Like God hating divorce. Because otherwise it ends up as 'if it feels good, do it'. And your Orthodox bishop will affirm it's OK.
     
  15. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,886
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Not sure what you are trying to say here. Not all are saved, but some are.
    First, the idea of eternal marriage just goes beyond Scripture. We know marriages last until one spouse dies. Then the other spouse is free to marry again. That's Scripture. We know that a marriage is not valid and must be dissolved if there is 'pornea', the exception listed by Matthew, which is incest. We know that for two married heathens, if one becomes Christian and the other will not tolerate it, the Christian can remarry. And that because baptism is a form of death and rebirth, and marriage does not endure beyond death. The believer must stay married if the unbeliever consents to live peacefully with the believer.

    The idea of ephemeral marriage seems lacking from the words of Jesus. He was pretty hard nosed about the permanence of marriage in this life. And nowhere did he say marriage was eternal. After all, whose wife would she be?
    You say this without Scriptural evidence. Color me skeptical. It may be your belief. It may even be Orthodox belief, although I am not convinced that it really is Orthodox teaching beyond you and one author you refer to.

    If this is Orthodox teaching, that 1.) a valid marriage can be dissolved by sin and 2.) that some marriages are eternal, it's two more reasons for me not to be Orthodox because I see those two things as anything but orthodox. The first is an error and the second is at best a wild speculation.
     
  16. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Well, the Jews living in the times during which the Old Testament writings were produced were strongly concerned with the propagation of their race. But marriage in Orthodox Christian though does not exist solely for the sake of offspring. Genesis does not depict Eve being created for this purpose, but rather, as a complimentary being, created for the sake of Adam. In conclusion, I'll just share this link to an article that provides perhaps a better explanation of what Christ meant and what He did not mean when He said that in the resurrected Life they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. (He did not say that those who have been married will not remain married, or that His sacred marriage bond that He - as God - consecrated would be dissolved). Read it if you want, but if not, don't.

    https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/concerning-eternal-marriage/
     
  17. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,768
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Peter said what exactly about eternal human marriage?
     
  18. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    It's Holy Tradition, not error nor wild speculation. In a true Christian marriage, the one in which God (not man) brought a man and woman together in the Sacred Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Matrimony, there is a man, a woman, and there is God (so there are three, not just two). It is a sacred bond of Eternal Love, and of such Love there is no end. There are such marriages. You will, we hope, behold them in heaven and give glory to God for the such wondrous things as these. Perhaps then you'll no longer see fit to discredit the Holy Tradition.
     
  19. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,643
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    By his actions alone Peter upheld the sacredness of marriage.
    I guess if we can't learn to Live in Christ without strictly enforcing every single law of God, then we shall stone all our harlots without question, and consider this action to be the bestowing of mercy and God's justice. Bishops have the authority to forgive/absolve sins, which is the power to bind and loose. God hates divorce. Bishops (Godly ones) hate divorce too. God is merciful, and gives some of the Shepherds of His flock the knowledge of Him, by grace, so that they know when and how to show mercy, according to God's will.

    Many people get angry over mercy being showed, like the brother of the prodigal son when his father rejoiced over his return into the family.

    God forgave his son, King David, for committing adultery with the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and then having Uriah killed in an attempt to cover up his sin. David's relationship with God was restored through his repentance, yet he remained married to Bathsheba and they continued to engage in conjugal relations. We know this because Bathsheba gave birth to several children fathered by David. David is a great saint in our Church. Some other people have sinned in very bad ways, and their marriages were destroyed and cannot be restored due to the nature and magnitude of the harm done (think of infidelity and physical/sexual/psychological abuse). Then, after divorcing and remarrying later, they are called by God to repentance and restoration of Life in Him. Bishops have the authority to determine if such a person ought to be admitted or re-admitted into the fullness of the Life of the Church, or not. This is their charge.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  20. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,241
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I could be mistaken but I think I said something like that. I don't know why the Orthodox would discourage marriage after the death of a spouse, it seems a natural and normal thing especially with a person accustomed to that kind of relationship. I think Jesus' answer to the Sadducees is crystal clear, people are not married in the resurrection. I don't deny certain aspects of certain relationships might endure at some level but can't find any basis for a celestial marriage.
     
Loading...