Some points of Orthodox doctrine, please...

[Globalnomad]

Good morning, friends. We are having one of the usual discussions on OBOB and someone came up with these points on which our doctrines differ. Is this true, or how would you define these? Apologies if you find it put in a way that is offensive to you - no use changing the wording, you can read up the original on OBOB anyway!

quote

There are at least 3 areas where they have departed from this:

The Immaculate Conception - there is a variety of teaching in the EO now - anywhere from Mary was immaculate her entire life, to Mary was a sinner until sometime before the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the birth of Christ to Mary was never immaculate.

This represents a marked change in the teaching of the EO regarding Mary and occured soon after the Reformatiuon and was in fact influenced by reformation theology.

Remarriage - though it is discouraged, they allow for remarriage even though it might result in condoning an adulterous relationship - they make no attempt at discerning if the previous marriage was sacramentally valid. It is considered a penitential marriage, rather than a sacramentally valid marriage that can never be put assunder.

This started in the middle of the 1st milleneium when the Orthodox Church turned their authority over the insitution of marriage to the Emperor. There was only one reason why someone could be remarried then and it was up to the Emperor to grant it. Then the next century saw the reasons evolve into 3, then 10 at the beginning of last century, and the last time I looked, it was about 20.

Contraception: This was a doctrine the EO stood firmly with us on until a few decades ago. At that point, it was firm EO teaching that artificial contraception was absolutely forbidden. Then things changed over the space of a decade, and now it is permitted with the permission of the priest.


unquote

Thanks in advance! I am praying to the Holy Spirit that we do not get into a fight about this. I for one, and many others on OBOB, would love to come to a good understanding of these points, one that sheds a positive light on you (but not a negative one on us either, please. Remember, it's our Holy Week this week!)

 

[MariaRegina]

I will only tackle one question: Marriage.

In Orthodoxy, the Bishop is consulted before a couple can get married in the Orthodox Church whether it is their first, second marriage, or third marriage.

Sometimes the Bishop does not grant a blessing for a first or subsequent marriage. The blessing for a third marriage is rarely granted.

Just so you are aware, in many cases, living together without being married is considered a marriage too.

So if a Catholic fellow lived with one women for two years and then dropped her, and then got married by a justice of the peace to a second woman whom he later divorced, he would not be considered to have ever been married in the Catholic Church, right? Then if he becomes engaged to marry an Orthodox lady, his chances of obtaining a blessing might be slim because he would already have two strikes against him. He could be approved, but the Bishop will look at his level of spiritual maturity, mental stability, and repentance. If any of the three are found lacking, the answer will probably be no.

Likewise, if an Orthodox gal married and her husband died, and then she married again, and that husband also died, her chances of obtaining a blessing for a third marriage are also slim.

Now, this is what my priest told me.

A couple of people in my parish were denied a blessing for a second marriage and they had to live with that.


See also this thread:

http://christianforums.com/t6627779...l-death-do-us-part-in-orthodox-marriages.html

 

[Rowan]

The Immaculate Conception - there is a variety of teaching in the EO now - anywhere from Mary was immaculate her entire life, to Mary was a sinner until sometime before the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the birth of Christ to Mary was never immaculate.

This represents a marked change in the teaching of the EO regarding Mary and occured soon after the Reformatiuon and was in fact influenced by reformation theology.

I don't know anything about the mentioned history, but what I do know is that Catholics mean something different than we do by "immaculate". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the to Catholics, the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that through the merit of Christ, she had no stain of orginal sin on her soul upon birth, correct? Well, we don't believe in "original sin" i.e. as a stain -- through Adam, we inherited death which leads to sin instead of the stain of sin.

The Holy Virgin is not the exception, she is the example. Her leading a holy life is what makes her immaculate in our eyes.

edit - example. One line in the Troparion for St. Mary of Egypt goes "God's Image was perfectly preserved in you..." If you know anything about St. Mary, you know that before she began working out her salvation, she was a prosititute. Nevertheless, the Image is said to be "perfectly preserved" because of her holiness near the end of her life.


We do venerate the Conception of the Theotokos, though. Our church year begins with the feast.


I'm gonna let someone else answer the other two. I have a pretty good idea about the teachings about each, but little grasp on how the teachings are being practiced in both churches, besides that in Orthodoxy, these issues are pastoral.

Besides being young and single (-esque), I haven't really put much thought into either topic.

 

[zhilan]

I will try to post later, but the Immaculate Conception has had waaaay more innovation on the Catholic side. It was one of the big things that convinced me that Orthodoxy was the true Church because it's very clear that it was a new and non-historical innovation from the Catholic Church.

 

[zhilan]

Let me also say one quick thing, which speaks to the other two, and I don't mean to be offensive so please realize that this is just me trying to be quick and forgive the bluntness.

The Orthodox Church realized that no man is infallible and that sometimes things we think are true (ie. that sperm are tiny fully formed humans) turn out not to be and in light of that we can make decisions.

The Catholic Church cannot ever change, so when it does change it has to invent new doctrines to justify the old ones that have been proven wrong. And that's how you end up with some of the crazy ideas. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but I remember a Catholic priest joking to me once saying, "you know, when the Catholic Church decides to ordain women, the first line of the document will read, 'As the Catholic Church has always taught...'" It was a joke, but it speaks very much to the point.

 

[Knowledge3]

yea?

I no longer discuss these things on a social internet forum.

 

[Tigg]

Reading or should I say lurking. Lol! Thanks to all responding. God bless.

 

[Nichole]

Oh you mean this thread?

http://christianforums.com/t7039906

When I read this thread last night I was disgusted and in shock. It was in this thread or another on OBOB that we were referred to as heretics in a round about way. Anyway..........staying here at TAW in my safe zone.

 

[Tigg]

Oh you mean this thread?

http://christianforums.com/t7039906

When I read this thread last night I was disgusted and in shock. It was in this thread or another on OBOB that we were referred to as heretics in a round about way. Anyway..........staying here at TAW in my safe zone.

Thank you for the link. I had only read just the start of that thread. I am one who would rather listen to those who profess that religion I find interest in. And also their rule book. To often what I thought I knew or some of what I was told, was not so.

I still say thanks to those responding and to Globalnomad for bringing these questions here. Altho maybe those in this forum might not or maybe not approve. No offense meant. God bless.

Spiralling out.

 

[Nichole]

Thank you for the link. I had only read just the start of that thread. I am one who would rather listen to those who profess that religion I find interest in. And also their rule book. To often what I thought I knew or some of what I was told, was not so.

I still say thanks to those responding and to Globalnomad for bringing these questions here. Altho maybe those in this forum might not or maybe not approve. No offense meant. God bless.

Spiralling out.

No offense taken! You all have your opinions there and we appreciate at least some coming here to ask the questions, instead of just reading "one view".

 

[Philothei]

Immaculate conception : Virgin Mary (Theotokos) was 'conceved immaculately" :NO we do not believ that never did....

Spotless/Ever Virgin/ Full of Grace/Mother of God/:

All these names are attributed to Theotokos within our hymnology. Also we do say that she is "spotless" without stain since she was "by choice" that.... She choose not to sin. She was full of Grace since she bore Christ, and she is the bearere of God... Theotokos. Also Theotokos was never a sinner sine according to the traditon she lived her early years dedicated to the temple..
Dogma about Theotokos never "changed" due to Protestant theology that a slander ... against our Church... We always believed that Theotokos is spotless out of choice not because she was concieved immaculately....


also about contraception it was always a matter to be discussed with one's SF as are other spiritual matters... I do not see why the catholics thought that it is something NEW... It is not ... spiritual guidance has been taking place in the East since the rise of Monasticism around the time of St Basil the Great and on...

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Good morning, friends. We are having one of the usual discussions on OBOB and someone came up with these points on which our doctrines differ. Is this true, or how would you define these? Apologies if you find it put in a way that is offensive to you - no use changing the wording, you can read up the original on OBOB anyway!

quote

There are at least 3 areas where they have departed from this:

The Immaculate Conception - there is a variety of teaching in the EO now - anywhere from Mary was immaculate her entire life, to Mary was a sinner until sometime before the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the birth of Christ to Mary was never immaculate.

This represents a marked change in the teaching of the EO regarding Mary and occured soon after the Reformatiuon and was in fact influenced by reformation theology.

Remarriage - though it is discouraged, they allow for remarriage even though it might result in condoning an adulterous relationship - they make no attempt at discerning if the previous marriage was sacramentally valid. It is considered a penitential marriage, rather than a sacramentally valid marriage that can never be put assunder.

This started in the middle of the 1st milleneium when the Orthodox Church turned their authority over the insitution of marriage to the Emperor. There was only one reason why someone could be remarried then and it was up to the Emperor to grant it. Then the next century saw the reasons evolve into 3, then 10 at the beginning of last century, and the last time I looked, it was about 20.

Contraception: This was a doctrine the EO stood firmly with us on until a few decades ago. At that point, it was firm EO teaching that artificial contraception was absolutely forbidden. Then things changed over the space of a decade, and now it is permitted with the permission of the priest.


unquote

Thanks in advance! I am praying to the Holy Spirit that we do not get into a fight about this. I for one, and many others on OBOB, would love to come to a good understanding of these points, one that sheds a positive light on you (but not a negative one on us either, please. Remember, it's our Holy Week this week!)

Hi, there!

The East never belived in the Immaculate Conception - there is no need for it because we do not have the same belief in Original Sin. The Theotokos was not given any special graces to cleanse her. She was born in the same state that we all are - susceptible to sin and death, but she chose throughout her whole life not to sin. That is why we call her the Panagia (all-holy).

Remarriage is approached as an "economia". It is not ideal, but neither is the Catholic practice of annulment. We don't get into legalistically trying to declare a previous marriage as a real marriage or not. A marriage is always "real". So with the consent of the bishop, an Orthodox person may remarry, although the ceremony is penitential in nature.

Regarding contraception, please remember that we don't approach things like this as Dogma. Orthodox believe that abortifacient contraceptives are wrong and to be avoided, but other types of family planning are allowed on a case-by-case basis. These things have always been handled on a one-on-one basis between the believer and his/her spiritual confessor.

I think things like this point out the difference between the way the two churches apply the teachings. ISTM that the Catholic church tends to make their rules apply the same across the board - a "one size fits all" application (and then finds ways to work around it, such as annulments); whereas the Orthodox Church doesn't make such rules in the first place, and has always applied teachings on a person-by-person basis. We see the Church is a hospital for sinners. She has the medicines we all need, but the medicine/treatment is applied differently according to each person's need.

Mary

 

[Gwendolyn]

What happens if a bishop denies a blessing to a person looking to get remarried?

What is the function of that blessing? Does it determine whether or not the couple can stil be married in the Orthodox church?

Are they living sinfully if they remarry without a blessing? What does that mean in terms of living an Orthodox life? Can they receive communion?

 

[Globalnomad]

Thanks, Mary of Bethany. That was very useful.

Any other clarifications, please?

 

[Matrona]

What happens if a bishop denies a blessing to a person looking to get remarried?

What is the function of that blessing? Does it determine whether or not the couple can stil be married in the Orthodox church?

Are they living sinfully if they remarry without a blessing? What does that mean in terms of living an Orthodox life? Can they receive communion?

If their bishop denies someone permission to remarry, they can't marry, simple as that. A priest who did it anyway would be courting a suspension for disobeying his bishop.

In the case of someone whose previous marriage ended in divorce, the bishop's granting permission for a second marriage does not somehow "undo" or erase the person's previous marriage, which remains always a real marriage that was unfortunately severed in divorce. It just means that the person in question, in the bishop's estimation, has recognized whatever made the first marriage fail and in his penitence may be married again.

 

[Philothei]

What happens if a bishop denies a blessing to a person looking to get remarried?

What is the function of that blessing? Does it determine whether or not the couple can stil be married in the Orthodox church?

Are they living sinfully if they remarry without a blessing? What does that mean in terms of living an Orthodox life? Can they receive communion?

Practically speaking a bishop will not deny a person getting remarried as long as they have 'ended' their previous marriage. They will not be able to get married (mind you) if they were already married 3 times... either one of them...

the "blessing" would be the issue of the divorce. If they are given a divorce then they are free to marry. The ecllesiastical divorce is different from the civic divorce. there are certain canons that apply. In Greece it is "seperation" of three years (as of now minimum). It used to be12 years of seperation. See how the church does not just issue a divorce at 'want' there has to be evidence of the couple breaking up the marriage that there is no chance of reconcilliation....It is litterally up to the Bishop to determine if sufficient effords and time has lapsed to issue a divorce... All of the cases of divorce have to go through spiritual court where their case is analyzed and evaluated.

A couple who is not allowed to re-marry would have to wait to be issued the ecclesiastical divorce. Usually this is not such a long period... Usually the Bishop calls both parties and hear their story if they had over a year living apart he grants them the divorce and then the party interested in getting married can proceed.
(this is only an example.... as when children are involved things might be treated differently).

If a couple "lives without the blessing of the church"
it places itself out of the life of the Church. It is cut off. if the priest or the Bishop knows of that couple he will deny communion to them. Usually the priests are not aware of the situation, but if they are aware they do deny the chalice, until marriage takes place...

 

[zhilan]

Also usually if someone gets divorced there will be a penance, such as a year without the sacraments. It is not taken lightly.

Remember also, that Jesus said there are grounds for divorce (adultery).

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The Immaculate Conception -

there is a variety of teaching in the EO now - anywhere from Mary was immaculate her entire life, to Mary was a sinner until sometime before the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the birth of Christ to Mary was never immaculate.

This represents a marked change in the teaching of the EO regarding Mary and occured soon after the Reformatiuon and was in fact influenced by reformation theology.

First of all, the belief that Mary was always sinless at all times holds no importance within the Eastern context when it comes to Christology. Therefore, there has never been a need to make a dogma about this. So, on issues like this, it is important to look to the Liturgy, common prayers and general consensus. From here, it is very obvious that the general consensus is that she was always sinless. However John Chrysostom did not agree with this, or at least he believed otherwise (whether he was ever challenged on this, I do not know). Was he correct in his assumption that Mary probably had "small sins". My guess is probably not. He was probably wrong on that andI think the witness of the Chruch (throughout history) would also say that same. But did that make him any less Orthodox? No. In fact, he played a MAJOR part in the development of the wording and understanding of the core dogmas of the Church (ie, our Christology and Soteriology). I think this alone shows that Mary's sinlessness or otherwise is not central to our faith (but rather a natural extension of our faith) and is not any kind of litmus test of orthodoxy in faith.

I will say that it is MUCH easier to find an Orthodox who believes that she was always sinless than otherwise. And if you do find one, he or she probably believes that as a child she had some small sins or that she sinned when she was worried about Christ being lost, but not much more than that (so, mariology a la Chrysostom) and I would challenge anyone to find any devout Orthodox who believes in a more protestant version of the Theotokos. I mean, it defies any kind of common sense to believe that the Theotokos was just like any other Jane Doe sinner around. IN fact, THAT I would say is incompatable with, at the very least, the ethos of Orthodoxy and Orthodox worship.

However none of this really speaks to the Immaculate Conception. The writer of what you quoted is wrongly assuming that to believe that she was sinless, one has to believe that she was concieved in some kind of an immaculate way that barred her from sin (that is, original sin... and THEREIN comes the big difference and is fodder for another thread). In Eastern Christianity, we emphasise the fact that Mary was sinless (since most all believe this) becuase it was HER choice (not becasue she was exempt from something and therefore could not sin... we would suggest that that is, at least at face value, unorthodox and even missing the entire point of the Church's veneration of her above all mere mortals.)

Remarriage -

though it is discouraged, they allow for remarriage even though it might result in condoning an adulterous relationship - they make no attempt at discerning if the previous marriage was sacramentally valid. It is considered a penitential marriage, rather than a sacramentally valid marriage that can never be put assunder.

This started in the middle of the 1st milleneium when the Orthodox Church turned their authority over the insitution of marriage to the Emperor. There was only one reason why someone could be remarried then and it was up to the Emperor to grant it. Then the next century saw the reasons evolve into 3, then 10 at the beginning of last century, and the last time I looked, it was about 20.

We both allow for marriages to break up, the RCC just calls it an annulment and has some fancy wording to make it "work". In the OC, we recognize it as a sin, we recongize it as something that needs to be dealt with and we also recognize that sins are forgiven and that some sins have created irreparable damage. A man beats his wife and their children. The wife needs to leave him. Many times there is no fixing this, or the wife simply cannot trust that the man is going to change (they usually don't in these cases). She needs to leave him. The divorce granted by the Church is merely a recognition of what already has happened. The marriages was ended. "Let no man put asunder" does not mean that no man CAN put it asunder... it means more like "woe to the man that..." The Church didn't say "That's cool tat you ended your marriage by beating your wife and sexually abusing your children". She says "The marriage is dead... there is no saving it. In the meand time, let's recognizie this so the people can move on in theosis." Sometimes the marriage ends because of both parties faults. Here, the Churhc is recognizing the weakness of the people involved... and surely hard penances will be given to both (no Eucharist for however long).. but sooner or later they need to move on with Christ. You can't force someone into the ideal.

Now, can this be abused by clergy? Sure. Has it been abused? My guess is yes. My guess is that divorces may be granted AND (more importantly) very little penance be given. So it's not treated as a serious issue. That's a problem. But more specifically, it's a problem because it's an abuse of the system and misses the spirit of when and why the Church recognizes divorces and allows for remarriage (which is viewed diffrently than a first marriage in the Church, by the way) But then, in the same way, we could say it's a problem if a Cahtolic prioest says to his parishioner "You can not leave your sexually abusive husband... you have to have the marriage annulled first." Well, that's just bad and unCatholic advice. Surely she can leave the husband for safety and the good RCC priests would even encourage them to do so. But that doesn't make anullments in and of themselves stupid, just how it was applied.

Contraception: This was a doctrine the EO stood firmly with us on until a few decades ago. At that point, it was firm EO teaching that artificial contraception was absolutely forbidden. Then things changed over the space of a decade, and now it is permitted with the permission of the priest.

Here, I have to agree and disagree. In practice, I personally believe it is a mess. However, Catholics are totally wrong in suggesting that the Orthodox teaching has changed. I can go to LA and listen to that bishop (Mahoney?) talk and say that the RCC is nuts and heretical. Is that fair? My point is that I DO believe that contraception is treated way too lightly, but this is not an issue of bad doctrine but rather ignoring doctrine. I will say that I do not agree that it is a black and white matter and does need to be treated on a person to person issue with the priest and/or bishop involved, but it should not be treated as a purely personal decision either. This is like when Orthdoox say "I know the Catholic Church is not the Church... just look at the crazy masses and poor changes in liturgy nowadays." But this proves nothing except that the Catholic Church made some poor decisions. Us Orthodox may have some crazy liturgies one day and perhaps even today there are some suspect innovations (or innovations that need to happen but that we aren't responding to) but does that make us less of th Church. The whole context needs to be looked at in these issues.

Hope that helped.

Xpy

 

[zhilan]

And the problems with the Immaculate Conception go very deep. One of the key things in Orthodox understanding is that Christ took on everything He redeemed. Why was He born as a baby? Why did He have a childhood? Why did He suffer? Why was He tempted?

Because in order to Save, He must take on. Christ experienced everything as we did, except without Sin. He was -fully- human and fully Divine.

The Immaculate Conception undermines this. It makes Mary not just Sinless, not just a Virgin, but fundamentally different than us. It makes her born different than us, with a different nature. And if she is fundamentally different than us, then Christ was not born like us, which would mean that Christ did not redeem us.

In my mind the IC is a great example of the Catholic Church justifying itself into a doctrinal invention. The IC became necessary because they started getting this ideas about Original Sin and Augustine.

 

[Gwendolyn]

And the problems with the Immaculate Conception go very deep. One of the key things in Orthodox understanding is that Christ took on everything He redeemed. Why was He born as a baby? Why did He have a childhood? Why did He suffer? Why was He tempted?

Because in order to Save, He must take on. Christ experienced everything as we did, except without Sin. He was -fully- human and fully Divine.

The Immaculate Conception undermines this. It makes Mary not just Sinless, not just a Virgin, but fundamentally different than us. It makes her born different than us, with a different nature. And if she is fundamentally different than us, then Christ was not born like us, which would mean that Christ did not redeem us.

In my mind the IC is a great example of the Catholic Church justifying itself into a doctrinal invention. The IC became necessary because they started getting this ideas about Original Sin and Augustine.

As with all things, it ties into so many other doctrinal issues. The Immaculate Conception leads to discussion about Original Sin and Salvation, etc. etc. Gets pretty complicated.

Now I have a question I want to ask back in OBOB about our concept of original sin.

Anyway, I'm struggling with the Orthodox take on divorce. Yes, it is true that Jesus said divorce is wrong except in the case of "porneia" (though there has been significant discussion over the centuries regarding what exactly porneia is). I can understand the rationalisation behind a wife leaving an abusive husband or a cheating husband.

But what if the couple just decides they don't want to be married anymore? What if they got married for the wrong reasons - like, they were so "in love" that they got caught up in the romanticism of it all and then realised there's no real solid foundaiton. THAT happens far more often than abuse or molestation or even adultery, I'd wager.

I know that you aren't fond of hypotheticals around here. But I feel like it's important for the church to be consistent. Or something. I don't know.