Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

JimfromOhio said:
Define how bad the circumstances in a marriage that divorce is allowable?

Divorce is never allowed living apart is and it may be necessary in some cases to civilly divorce where the civil protection of property and childrens rights are needed. The person would divorce to protect their civil rights but the couple is still considered married by the Church if they were married in the Church. The Church would have to then investigate to see if the marriage was valid/and or sacramental before the person would be free to enter into another union.

JimfromOhio · Dec 15, 2005

Shelb5 said:
Divorce is never allowed living apart is and it may be necessary in some cases to civilly divorce where the civil protection of property and childrens rights are needed. The person would divorce to protect their civil rights but the couple is still considered married by the Church if they were married in the Church. The Church would have to then investigate to see if the marriage was valid/and or sacramental before the person would be free to enter into another union.

Wow...So, my divorce is not approved since I didn't ask the Catholic Church to approve it... or my local church?

Leah · Dec 15, 2005

Shelb5 said:
Divorce is never allowed living apart is and it may be necessary in some cases to civilly divorce where the civil protection of property and childrens rights are needed. The person would divorce to protect their civil rights but the couple is still considered married by the Church if they were married in the Church. The Church would have to then investigate to see if the marriage was valid/and or sacramental before the person would be free to enter into another union.

"The Church would have to then investigate to see if the marriage was vaild/and or sacramental before the person would be free to enter into another union."

I didn't know the RCC had that much control over people. I'm sorry but something about this isn't sitting right with me at all.

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

U R my Sonshine said:
I agree. You can COUNT on being ROYALLY unattracted and angry with your spouse at SOME point in a marriage. It isn't "if" it is WHEN. God knows this....that is why he said for better of for worse. We could ALLLLLL justify in our minds divorcing for some reason at some point in our marriages if there was not GOD holding us accountable.

We live in such a disposable world. We get tired of our "anything" we get a new one and justify it. People are not thinks to be treated like this. ALL spouses deserve to be taken for better or worse (Unless they are putting someones life at risk, or obviously not obeying the marriage vows) and to have the comfort of knowing that the vow will stick, even when they go thru depression, get fat, spend too much money...WHATEVER. We are all human and all going to screw up and hopeful have our spouses stand by us through the screw ups.

What is this???? For better or worse....."Oh....I thought it would always mean 'better" I didn't really mean the "worse" part"

And the problem with the EO view is that it denies the sacramental sufficient grace that God gives to each person to be able to stay married.

If you say God grants it and it is sufficient but man is too weak to cooperate with it so we have to make allowances is for sin is blatantly contradicting Christs commandments.

There is no excuse to put away your spouse and take another. Yes in peril and abuse one can leave and do what ever they must to protect themselves but this is not the same as making allowance for them to leave their spouse repent, and take another. God does not allow that and to say upholding Gods commandments is not merciful but legalistic is just twisting a spinning things to justify and allow your sin.

thereselittleflower · Dec 15, 2005

prodromos said:
BTW Michelle,
In post 509, TLF has graciously presented the evidence you earlier asked for. Remember, up until the schism there was only one church under the authority of the pope according to your version of ecclesiology, so for 500 years the Catholic church allowed divorce and remarriage.

Cheers,
John

John, I love you dearly for you are one to whom I looked to, unbeknownst to you, in my journey back to the Apostolic faith while I lurked at the site that shall not be nambed . . . . .

But this is one of the most fallacious arguments I have ever seen you present. This is the same as saying that the One Church was Arian, or anything thing else that is an eror simply because a segment of the Church got caught up in it.

And the issue I presented regarding the East before the Great Schism was at the express dissaporoval of the Pope and the West. . . so there was no agreement there John . . .

Peace to all

vanshan · Dec 15, 2005

U R my Sonshine said:
People are not thinks to be treated like this. ALL spouses deserve to be taken for better or worse (Unless they are putting someones life at risk, or obviously not obeying the marriage vows)

Yes, even in these situations it would be a sin to divorce, but these are the most obvious scenarios that the Church may extend God's mercy to a person. It is never disolved lightly, so don't misunderstand the Orthodox view. We don't allow for divorcing out of boredom or lack of physical attraction--those are petty reasons, not real struggles.

Basil

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

Gods Revenger said:
"The Church would have to then investigate to see if the marriage was vaild/and or sacramental before the person would be free to enter into another union."

I didn't know the RCC had that much control over people. I'm sorry but something about this isn't sitting right with me at all.

It isnt control over anyone, it is pastoral caring for their eternal soul in the face of what could be a mortal sin Adultery.

What God joined together let no man take apart What does this mean to you ppl? Does it say anywhere we can as long as you are really sorry and promise to do better?

What is it that yall think is okay about remarrying someone when God married you to someone else? Jesus said Let no man take apart. We can not undo a marriage , the best we can do is look to se if it was ever there to begin with. What is so controlling about that. The Church will NOT bless unions where they have no idea if the two are committing adultry or not- this is what the EO do and the Church simply can not do something she was given no power to do. We can not bless ppl who may be committing serious sin.

JimfromOhio · Dec 15, 2005

Shelb5 said:
It isnt control over anyone, it is pastoral caring for their eternal soul in the face of what could be a mortal sin Adultery.

Then, that's between me, my local church and God.

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

JimfromOhio said:
Wow...So, my divorce is not approved since I didn't ask the Catholic Church to approve it... or my local church?

Divorce? I'm sure it is civilly accepted and the Church a church would recognize you are not longer legally married but does God divorce ppl he marrys? Can you show me in the bilbe where he ever divorced any one he married?

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

JimfromOhio said:
Then, that's between me, my local church and God.

if you say it is between your local church, you and God then why can't Catholics be allowed the same luxury? Annulment is between God and the Church and the ppl determining if there was a true marriage and not just a civil union ever in place.

JimfromOhio · Dec 15, 2005

Shelb5 said:
Divorce? I'm sure it is civilly accepted and the Church a church would recognize you are not longer legally married but does God divorce ppl he marrys? Can you show me in the bilbe where he ever divorced any one he married?

My brother who is Catholic is divorced and remarried in the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic, but married in another church.

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

vanshan said:
Yes, even in these situations it would be a sin to divorce, but these are the most obvious scenarios that the Church may extend God's mercy to a person. It is never disolved lightly, so don't misunderstand the Orthodox view. We don't allow for divorcing out of boredom or lack of physical attraction--those are petty reasons, not real struggles.

Basil

So Gods grace is not sufficient in the face of real struggles? When the going gets rough- leaving is an option? Where is this thought in scripture or in tradition?

JimfromOhio · Dec 15, 2005

Shelb5 said:
So Gods grace is not sufficient in the face of real struggles? When the going gets rough- leaving is an option? Where is this thought in scripture or in tradition?

One of struggles is women who stay with their abusive husbands would most likely die or her life would remain miserable.

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

JimfromOhio said:
My brother who is Catholic is divorced and remarried in the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic, but married in another church.

Divorce is not what we are discussing- you are implying an annulment is a divorce and it is NOT. A person would need a civil divorce in order to dissolve a civil union so a person legally can re marry. Divorce then would be necessary for that reason only. You want your marriage to legal and recognize by law. But an annulment is not dissolve what God made- it is declaring through an examination of the marriage to see if there ever really was one in the first place- if there want- then you are free to get married, not to re marry.

Of course we know all along the marriage was legally binding- and in the eyes of government - the couple is remarrying. We know this is the case of remarriage but that is not what we are referring to. We are talking about ever being married sacramentally by God.

vanshan · Dec 15, 2005

The job of Christ's Church is to rehabilitate sinners, so I think getting tied up in an unending discussion of sin is really unfruitful. The moral direction God gives us is there to guide us away from death, which sin produces in us. We identify sin, but we must move beyond that with helping to rehabilitate the sinner, not cast them into the outer darkness of despair.

Basil

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

JimfromOhio said:
One of struggles is women who stay with their abusive husbands would most likely die or her life would remain miserable.

The Church does not ever say she has to stay in that- the Church says she can leave and would encourage her to leave and the Church would even say a civil divorce is further necessary to protect her legal civil rights from this man. But the Church does not automatically equate that with the marriage never took place- they will have to examine that to see that and if it was then the women would be free to marry in the Church again because she would be getting married the first time in reality.

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

vanshan said:
The job of Christ's Church is to rehabilitate sinners, so I think getting tied up in an unending discussion of sin is really unfruitful. The moral direction God gives us is there to guide us away from death, which sin produces in us. We identify sin, but we must move beyond that with helping to rehabilitate the sinner, not cast them into the outer darkness of despair.

Basil

But that is not the problem with the EO stance on divorce and remarriage,.

Here is the fault- you believe the EO have the power to allow civil divorce and as means of dissolving what may have been a sacramental union. Where do you get this from?

You also then allow then to remarry thus you bless what may well be an adulterous union. Where do you get the power to do that?

thereselittleflower · Dec 15, 2005

prodromos said:
The Council in Trullo, otherwise known as the Quinisext council (completing the 5th and 6th councils) produced canons stating that a man who had been remarried could not be ordained and also that if someone remarried after a divorce, they were required to do penance for six years. Most of the canons were a restatement of canons received from the earlier councils.

Canon III
Canon LXXXVII

And? I don't understand what you are attempting to assert here . . . how does it apply to what we are talking about?

Just because some of the canons were a restatmetn of canons received from earlier councils, how does htis make the issue of remarriage being subject to the law of the Emperor rather than Chuch Teaching valid?

Here is some advice given by Pope Gregory II to St Boniface in 726.

14 Pope Gregory II Replies to Questions Put by Boniface (22 November 726)
As to what a man shall do if his wife is unable through illness to allow him his marital rights, it would be better if he remained apart and practised continence. But since this is practicable only in the case of men of high ideals, the best course if he is unable to be continent would be for him to marry. Nevertheless, he should continue to support the woman who is sick, unless she has contracted the disease through her own fault.

All of this is well before the schism of 1054 and since Rome did not protest those canons and indeed a pope has advised a 2nd marriage, according to Catholic ecclesiology and history all of this was under the authority of the pope.

John

John . .this also greatly dissappoints . . . . .

You have no context here . . the letter which you are quoting from provides no context either. . . . Where is the original question from St Boniface to which this is responding?

This is presented it here as if it is to be understood in the context of a scarmental marriage between baptized believers . . . for that is the only context that would have direct bearing on anything we have been saying.

Yet, this is only an assumption for there is NOTHING in the answer itself which suggests this. . . .

This was an answer given to a MISSIONARY. . . . . This was from a MISSIONARY letter to St Boniface. That is a bit of context that is necessary, wouldn't you agree?

How do you know he is not speaking regarding a situation as it arises between those who are not within the Church, who are unbelievers?

How do you know he is not speaking regarding a situation as it arises between those where one partner of the mariage has converted and become a believer, yet their spouse is still an unbeliever ?

Presenting the quote stripped of what context is available, and as though it proves in some way that the West had similara views (for that is the purpose of your posting this) when you can't prove what the context of the response actually is in support of such use of it here, is extremely WEAK evidence for your case and cannot legitimately be used as evidence to support your position if you cannot prove that it is referring to what should happen when such circumstances arise between spouses who participate in a sacramentally valid marriage between two baptized believers.

Since you can't provide such evidence, use of this of this quote in this manner is highly fallacious.

Peace to all

vanshan · Dec 15, 2005

thereselittleflower said:
Presenting the quote stripped of what context is available, and as though it proves in some way that the West had similara views (for that is the purpose of your posting this) when you can't prove what the context of the response actually is in support of such use of it here, is extremely WEAK evidence

. . . . and then when we give her evidence, which disproves her firmly held beliefs, she resorts to attacking the source. Therese, I'm beginning to think it's too late for you. You wouldn't believe any evidence, even if it were delivered to you by a cerub.

Of course we must examine the sources of our information, but you are so certain that what John posted must be false you can only grasp at the hope it's out of context. The intellectually honest, and humble, thing to do at some point, when the evidence shows you've been misled, is humbly admit error and correct your path.

Basil

Benedicta00 · Dec 15, 2005

vanshan said:
. . . . and then when we give her evidence, which disproves her firmly held beliefs, she resorts to attacking the source. Therese, I'm beginning to think it's too late for you. You wouldn't believe any evidence, even if it were delivered to you by a cerub.

Of course we must examine the sources of our information, but you are so certain that what John posted must be false you can only grasp at the hope it's out of context. The intellectually honest, and humble, thing to do at some point, when the evidence shows you've been misled, is humbly admit error and correct your path.

Basil

Oh please... the 'evidence' is tainted with spin. There is so much more to this than what you guys are willing to admit.

Why I'm Orthodox . . . and why others may want to be too.

Well-Known Member

Life of Trials :)

2 Corinthians 5:21

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

Well-Known Member

Life of Trials :)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Life of Trials :)

Well-Known Member

Life of Trials :)

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency