• 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. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I see. I'm pretty sure there is a strong basis for eternal bonds in marriage in this passage alone, if understood with the mind of Christ: "But Jesus told them, 'Moses wrote this commandment for you because your hearts were hard. However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10:5-9)

    But celestial marriage (which is a belief of Mormons) probably isn't like what Christ had in mind, and also differs from our understanding of marriage. So I can see why you would be wary and doubtful.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  2. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I'm just saying, I don't really see how marriage continues beyond death and ultimately the resurrection. Trust me, if this were the Mormon concept we would be having an entirely different conversation, if I continued it at all. I just think this is more emotional and sentimental the spiritual and certainly, I find the exposition of Christ's respose ro the Sadducees less then persuasive. I try to keep an open mind and I do like exploring a topic like this I've never encountered. I don't want to cause the topic to stray off topic so I'll take my leave of the subject here. However, I did find the exchange interesting and hope we get a chance to discuss simular things in the future.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  3. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    The Orthodox discourage marriage after the death of a spouse because we believe that we are one flesh with our spouse and are going to be reunited as one flesh after the resurrection. That is why we would try to remain faithful to our one and only, til we are together again forever. I believe that God has joined me into one flesh with the one and only woman I've been with for most of my life now, and that we will be joined in this way forever if we continue to abide in Him as we must. She believes the same. This belief is in our hearts, just as our belief that God has raised Jesus from the dead is in our hearts. But it's a matter of faith, not of emotion.
     
  4. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Okay. Thanks.
     
  5. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Orthodox Holy Tradition, to be valid, would be compatible with Catholic Tradition. (And of course with Scripture, although it may go beyond Scripture alone.) That your tradition is not compatible, either in the impermanence of a valid marriage, or the claimed eternal nature of a marriage that does not end in divorce, makes me think your tradition may have erred. We share all the same Fathers of the Church through the year 1054, so if it were Orthodox Holy Tradition it would be Catholic Tradition too. And that makes correct Holy Tradition a great and good thing.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  6. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    We would follow Jesus. He forgave harlots. But he also said to harlots to go and sin no more. A divorced person with a living spouse he was validly married to who is living with someone else is still sinning. You say that Orthodoxy says that a divorced person with a living spouse he was validly married to who is living with someone else is just fine if the bishop says so.
    This isn't about vengeful people hatin' on people not like them. It's about following what Jesus said. And he said some clear things about marriage and about divorce.
    David had Uriah killed to prevent the discovery of his own adultery with Uriah's wife. David was an adulterer and a murderer. But God forgave him. With Uriah dead, Bathsheba could marry again. That does not make what David did right, but with Uriah dead there was no new adultery. It is past tense, repented of, forgiven.

    With an existing valid marriage any sexual relation with another is adultery. A one time thing can be forgiven. A five time thing can be forgiven. A hundred time thing can be forgiven. One can be forgiven and fall and be forgiven again. But what doesn't work, because contrition requires a firm purpose of amendment, is to stay in a state of sin and have the Church say it isn't so. That makes the Church a liar. And the Church is the bride of Christ, faithful to Christ. If you are validly married to one person and that person is still alive then sex with another person is adultery. Each new instance is serious sin. Marrying the new person just perpetuates and continues the adultery. The solution is to repent, be forgiven, and sin no more. If that involves separating from the person they took up with then that is their option, or to wait until their first spouse dies. They do have things they can do to follow the words of Jesus to go and sin no more.
     
  7. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I was under the impression that the main issue in 1054 was the authority if the Pope. Is that it or was it something else?
     
  8. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I see. So If I murder my wife in a drunken rage, but later realize how sinful and horrible I am and come to God with genuine repentance, then if I marry again after the completion of my term for 2nd degree murder in prison, I can still receive Communion in your Church, because I'm not committing adultery. But if my wife survives my attack and divorces me, but I repent of my addiction to booze and evil ways, and later, having contrition and a firm purpose of amendment, am remarried, I can't receive Communion in your Church, because my ex-wife being still alive and refusing to ever have any contact with me ever again makes me an adulterer if I remarry. So a second marriage is not sinful if my first wife is dead, but it is if she's still alive, even If she has left and married another and thereby make reconciliation virtually impossible, then the second marriage is adulterous and mustn't be allowed, for it is sinful solely on the basis that my first wife still lives.

    Hmmm...
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
  9. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    St. Epiphanius of Bishop of Cyprus (d403) wrote back in his day that the divine word did not exclude a man from the Church or the life if he marries again, after having separated from his wife for a valid motive as defined by Christ (sexual immorality, or fornication): “He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or who has separated from his wife for a valid motive, as fornication, adultery, or another misdeed, if he takes another wife, or if the wife takes another husband, the divine word does not condemn him nor exclude him from the Church or the life; but she tolerates it rather on account of his weakness” (Against Heresies).

    So yes, you are correct: I am saying that since St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus stated that the Word of God does not exclude a man who is divorced with a valid reason, and later remarried, from the Church of the life, but tolerates it on account of his weakness, then it certainly appears likely that a bishop is able to grant permission to people in this predicament to engage in full participation in the Church and its Sacramental Life, especially since the bishops of the Church of which I'm a member are all saying that this excercise of ikonomeia by the Church has generally been the overall policy and practice of the Church throughout Her long history.
     
  10. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Actually, the rift was mostly linguistic and cultural due to a lack of contact as the Roman Road system fell into disrepair and they didn't see much of each other for centuries.

    The Fathers we share thus did not continue significantly beyond 800 AD. We did theology without them and they did theology without us. Not by design, but because it became very inconvenient to keep in contact. Inevitably there will be some drift. What I find remarkable is that while there was drift in theology (method, explanations, apologetics) there was little drift in doctrine.

    What drift there was centered mostly on the 'filioque', and that in and of itself seems to me more a linguistic philosophy problem where in Greek the idea of 'filioque' makes no sense whereas in Latin it does. Today it seems to come down to the original version of the Constantinopolitan Creed not having 'filioque' rather than 'filioque' being wrong in itself.

    Had Eastern and Western theologians kept in contact during the declining years of the Empire, we wouldn't have this schism. Now that we are able to be in contact, there is no need of this schism enduring. Except that the schism is the new tradition to be maintained at all cost. What we could be doing instead is purifying the memories and cleaning up the theologies so we could be one. I won't live long enough to see that. We need each other but some don't want that. Their purity in separation from their brothers is too important.

    Orthodox Holy Tradition is a great and good thing. So is Catholic Tradition. They should be the same. There can be differences in Rite and spirituality, but Tradition is the fence protecting dogma and doctrine. Some defective traditions here and there have crept in and are causing confusion.

    The year 1054 is thus not that important. The excommunications of that year have been abolished by both sides. The deeper issue of not having talked for so long remains, and there are baby steps here and there, as recently in Bulgaria. But too many don't care to breathe with both lungs, because they haven't done so in their lifetimes or in their grandparent's grandparent's grandparents lifetimes.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Yes. How many wives can you have at one time? Two? Three? Maybe even four?

    If you kill your wife, a horrible thing, you are a single person again. If you then truly repent, you can be forgiven. You are eligible to marry. It may not be smart for anyone to marry a wife-killer, but you are free to marry and they are free to marry you.

    If you do not kill your wife, if you were validly married to her in the first place, Jesus would seem to say you must stay married to her. If she will not have you and divorces you, yes you are still married to her in God's eyes. Not in Orthodox eyes I guess. Not in Protestant eyes. If you remarry then in God's eyes you are an adulterer. Your Church might be cool with that but it is not the Tradition we have received. Henry VIII was not right to put away all of those wives, and without him the Reformation would probably have fizzled.

    The flaw in your second scenario is that a firm purpose of amendment would not include marrying someone else. It might involve begging the first wife to take him back, and if not, then living in a silent witness to his word which he gave when he was married to be faithful to her alone. You seem to think that word just dissolves away into nothingness, but it is a vow taken before God and witnesses. If he cannot live with her, he should not remarry as long as she lives. Or his word is meaningless. It loses the sign value then of Christ and His spouse the Church, where in your second scenario Christ takes up with another woman and leaves the Church to fend for herself. Marriage lasts a lifetime because Christ and His Church are married and will not divorce. That bit of ecclesiology informs the sacrametality of marriage. Dissolving away the lifetime commitment of marriage makes people wonder about how committed Jesus is to His Church.
     
  12. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Well, as already stated, St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus (died 403AD) provided written testimony that if a man becomes separated from his first wife for a valid reason, that "if he take another wife" he is not excluded from the Church or the life. The synod of Orthodox Bishops state that this is the Orthodox way.

    As far as your perspective on marriage as only a temporary covenant pertaining mostly to the concerns of life in this world that is passing away, we have to wonder how it can effectively really be the sacred heavenly mystery that is somehow connected to the eternal marriage bond that exists between Christ and the Church, if our marital bond in our human marriages simply dissolves away upon the death of one of the people who of whom God says "they are no longer two, but one flesh". Tell us, will we also no longer consume the body and blood of God when we are become "as the angels" feasting at the heavenly banquet, in the same way that we shall no longer be of one flesh with our own husbands or wives with Whom God permanently joined us? We thought that Sacraments always pertained to eternal Life and have no meaning outside of that context.

    We also wonder if the majority of Christendom does not suffer from the same need for being taught by Christ about the purpose of the law that the Jews whom Christ was addressing had, when He came to give the more perfect revelation of God to us. Roman Catholic and Protestant perspectives on the marital covenant do not currently seem to go beyond what was already the mind of the Jews who were coming to Christ with their questions about marriage and divorce, as being nothing more than a legal arrangement with value only in this temporal world and in preparation for Life in God's Kingdom. But Christ reveals that marriage is far more than this in the eyes of God, especially when He says "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

    They all thought of themselves as obedient to God's command forbidding adultery as long as they had the appearance of those abiding by the letter of the law, Yet Christ spoke to them about this in a way that shows that they did not have the slightest spiritual understanding of the eternal implications of marriage, adultery, or divorce, because the were carnal and base, being greatly under the influence of their sin-hardened and faithless hearts. For until He said it, they were not even aware that they were indeed adulterers themselves, simply by virtue of looking upon someone besides their own spouse and lusting after them. How many young Roman Catholic married men and women would you guess have done this at one time or another, and continue to do it very automatically, thereby closing the door of their hearts to God by the power of this sin? How many Roman Catholic clergymen see many objects of their sexual desire and lust after that which they see - and then act on it? How many Roman Catholic bishops, when they receive accusations against such clergymen react to those accusations in strict accordance with the Apostolic laws by deposing them, rather than just moving them to another region to serve as clergy and receive Communion at the altar at some other geographical location where their past predatory sexual activities are not known about (refer to Canon 25 & 26 of the Apostolic Canons)? And yet for a long time such corrupt priests and bishops continue to be in the Church, presiding at the altar of God and consuming the Eucharistic gifts, at least until somebody finally does something about it.

    But if one has suffered being divorced from their spouse, for reasons of sexual infidelity that has undermined and destroyed the bond that God made (because people can do this by the wrongful exercise of their freewill), and having been cheated out of being married they take another spouse, because of their inability to maintain celibacy, These are excluded from the Church and the life.

    But if they can receive an annulment of their first marriage, which is where a Roman Catholic bishop determines that God did not really join those two into one flesh, so they were never really married, just fornicators because they thought they were married, then they may be married to someone new and not excluded from the Church and the life. This idea is very alien to Orthodoxy and to the divine word, because even though a bishop has authority to forgive or retain sins, They, as men, do not however have the authority to determine if the joining of the two persons into one flesh in marriage had been in accordance with God's will, or not. They may not make null what God has joined together. Sin can kill the covenant, but not the decrees of men. Men, given the authority to do so by God, can declare the sin to be forgiven, on the basis of what is best for people, with their eternal salvation being the greatest concern, and can also allow people who have become married to someone else after being divorced by their first spouse, to be included in the Church and the Life in Christ. The divine word, as St. Epiphanius has written and as the Holy Synod of Bishops in the Church have decreed, does not exclude the remarried from the Church and the full life of a member of the Church, except for possible periods of penance whenever spiritually expedient and beneficial.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
  13. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    If there is some reason the marriage was not valid, then yes, those people are not married and are eligible to marry for the first real time.
    What synod is that?
    The sacraments pertain to eternal life, but that does not mean that they will continue on in heaven where we see the Lord face to face. Will there be Eucharist in heaven? Don't know. As to the other sacraments, I doubt it. Which would be necessary?

    I looked around for any evidence of your eternal marriage idea and yes, the Mormons have it. But I didn't find any Orthodox references to it. I don't know what to say. You believe that it is a big deal in Orthodoxy but I can't find it. Nor can I find it in Scripture. I think it is your idea and not a particularly Orthodox idea.
    Nobody is actually excluded from the life of the Church. If someone vows to remain faithful to their spouse, forsaking all others, to death do they part, and then they trash that vow and take up with someone else, who did what to whom? They chose to be married to one person and then they take up with another, which is adultery. The adultery is optional, not required. They can cease the adultery and be reconciled to God and to the Church. Or they can continue on in adultery and exclude themselves from God's company and from the Church.
    You misunderstand annulments. So I will give you an example. Two cousins marry. It's clearly incestuous but the priest was too dense to figure it out and married them. Are they really married? Or was there never really a marriage there in the first place. It appears you would have to say that it would be alien to Orthodoxy to claim such a marriage might not be in accordance with God's will. Catholics, following Jesus, can rule that there was no real marriage, that it was a null marriage, that they can and should separate and both can freely marry someone else as if for the first time.

    In the synoptic Gospels divorce is prohibited. But the language in Matthew contains an exception in the case of 'pornea'. There is no exception in Mark or Luke. Matthew does not set up a general exception, but a particular very limited exception that would be understood by his Jewish audience. The word 'pornea' is often mistranslated as 'adultery', which is actually the word 'moicheia'. And yet the correct translation of 'pornea' is probably 'sexual uncleanness' that would render a marriage null, such as incest. Or it could be a bit wider, referring to multiple things that every Jew would know would make a marriage null from the beginning. The Church has taken this to include serious flaws in consent as well.
     
  14. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,602
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    It's not just his idea. I have been aware of this as part of Orthodox teaching for many years.
     
  15. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Can you provide an EXACT citation please?
     
  16. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    OK. Thanks. But I'm finding it curious. I don't recall running into it in any of the Greek Fathers I have ever read. So I'm wondering where it came from.
     
  17. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I stated that the person was divorced for a valid reason, as in the sexual immorality of their spouse, or having been left for another, I wasn't making a point about a first marriage being invalid in a sense that the Roman Church would deem it null. I doubt that most annulments are issued on account of marriages actually being invalid. I've seen that they are not hard to obtain.

    The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America:

    "Obviously, Christian marriage will never find its ultimate fulfillment and happiness in this world. Like all things in Christ, marriage too must pass through the cross, through temptation, suffering, trial and finally death, before coming to its ultimate consummation in the Resurrection and the Kingdom of God which will come in power at the end of the ages. All this Christian couples experience as they strive to realize in their own lives the great gift given to them by God in marriage: “Thou hast set upon their heads crowns of precious stones; they asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest it them” (Psalm 21, the Prokeimenon of the Marriage Service). For those who fight the good fight as good and faithful servants, the crowns become their eternal reward as witnesses to Christ and the wedding garments are transformed into robes of salvation and eternal glory." (quoted from the encyclical letter on marriage - Holy Synod - Encyclicals - On Marriage

    God's Mysteries (Sacraments) are all eternal vehicles for our unending transformation from glory to glory, and so there will be Eucharist in heaven, along with the other trans-formative Mysteries. Not by necessity, but by God's glorious design: "I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29) Will Christ "need" to eat, or will we? Probably not. It's not from necessity that any of the Sacraments exist in the forms in which God has given them, but rather by God's own free will.
    As shared above, "marriage too must pass through the cross, through temptation, suffering, trial and finally death, before coming to its ultimate consummation in the Resurrection and the Kingdom of God which will come in power at the end of the ages."

    If a man's wife cheats on him with another man, and then divorces her husband in order to be with the man she cheated on him with, and she soon marries that man with whom she committed adultery, then the man whose wife cheated on and then divorced him and married the other man that she wanted more, is now a divorced man. That divorced man, who now has no wife, is not permitted by the Roman Catholic Church authorities to marry another woman and still receive Communion in the Roman Catholic Church, because if he were to marry another woman while his first wife is still alive, he is guilty of the sin of adultery. If he cannot for some reason obtain an annulment of his first marriage, then he will either remain celibate until his first wife dies, or marry a second wife regardless of her being still alive, and thereby be excluded from the Church and the Life (in which the Eucharist is powerfully central). If in another scenerio, the man catches his wife cheating on him and finds that he must divorce her on account of it. That divorce constitutes a valid reason for divorce. However, if that man divorces his wife for her infidelity and marries a more trustworthy wife, he will still be excluded from the Sacramental Life in Christ, because he has married another while his first wife is still alive.

    What if that man is not the sort of man who can not be celibate? “Not everyone can accept this word,” He replied, “but only those to whom it has been given." (Matthew 19:11)

    Your right, I did not think of such instances where it would be obvious that a couple had been married under such bad circumstances or when certain factors would lead to certain disaster. I such cases it would be so obvious that the union was not of God, that it wouldn't take a bishop to figure it out. Everyone would know it. That's not the case in most annulments issued. In most cases, the marriages were of God, and the participants just failed to fulfill the marriage faithfully due to their own brokenness and inability to make the marriage covenant eternal in accordance with the will of God. The Pope is not a stupid Christian Patriarch. He likely is fully aware that most Roman Catholic annulments are just divorces cleverly disguised beneath the veil of the concept of "annulment", which is not an entirely false concept in itself. What is false about it is that the marriages being invalidated by the process are in fact marriages that God brought about, and the annulment is really a divorce.

    Flaws in consent are the sort of obstacles that most of us have to repent of, change, overcome, etc. in our striving to remain faithful to God and to our marriage in God. Most people are to broken and sinful on account of the troubled homes and lives from which they come, and this is the reason that so many marriages fail, especially in our increasingly sinful and tempting era. These flaws in consent, which are the natural fountain of flaws in the consenting couple, should not be seen as sufficient to tear asunder what God has joined together. There may be rare exceptions, of course, like when a lady unwittingly married a serial rapist and killer, because he deceived her about what sort of guy he was, or if a man is a pedophile and married a woman only so that they could have children which he could enact his perverse desires upon. I'm sure such things happen, and would nullify such marriages myself if it were up to me, for sure.
     
  18. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Against Heresies, 69, PG 41, col.1024, C--1025 A, quoted in J. Meyendorff, Marriage:An Orthodox Perspective, 63.
     
  19. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +6,172
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    I'm having some trouble with this citation, because Migne's PG is in Greek with a Latin translation, but no English at all. So either Meyendorff did his own translation and didn't say so, or didn't cite whatever translation he used. I'm working on translating the Latin to see if it matches up with anything. I did find a contemporary English translation but it does not match up with the English you provided. Some of that may be diction, too soon to tell. I'll look at it day after tomorrow when I get some more time. So for now, your citation is wrong based on the language of the citation (Greek) not matching the language of the text you provided (English). And it's good to be back into PG.
     
  20. truefiction1

    truefiction1 Fool

    +1,647
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    A brother in our parish teaches Latin at the Roman Catholic school over on the other side of town. If you can tell me where i can find Migne's PG with the Latin I'll ask him if he can verify that the English citation of Meyendorff's is accurate. I know neither Latin nor Greek. My suspicion is that Meyendorff translated it himself but didn't say so.
     
Loading...