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

seebs said:

Yeah, like that one guy who didn't even struggle when they tried to nail 'im up. Definitely a role model one would want to think about very carefully before emulating.

Click to expand...

What about emulating a guy with zeal for his fathers house who fashioned a whip and drove out some money changers.

thereselittleflower said:

Jim . . the issue in this thread isn't divorce .. it has never been divorce . ..

It is remarriage AFTER divorce while your former spouse is still alive . . . when is it right and when does it involve the sin of adultery, or is it permisible even if it involves the sin of adultery?


Basil and the Orthodox Church have been telling us remarriage in this circumstance is permissable, even if it involves the sin of adultery . . . .



Peace to all

Click to expand...

My brother is Catholic and they gave him permission to remarry to another woman. ummm interesting.

CaDan said:

Bad arguments are bad arguments.

Click to expand...

CaDan, you are possibly the wisest catholic I have ever encountered. I mean that. Your humility and grace is unlike those that share your catholic faith. If other catholics acted like you, maybe I'd get along with them better.

God bless you,
Lucas

geocajun said:

I can oblige, sure, but I am not sure how exactly to respond other than to provide you with the definition of the world dissident:

Main Entry: dis·si·dent

Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin dissident-, dissidens, present participle of dissidEre to sit apart, disagree, from dis- + sedEre to sit -- more at [size=-1]SIT[/size]
: disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief
- dissident noun

This properly describes the Eastern Orthodox relationship in the view of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Geo. I know things get heated from time to time here, and I just wasn't sure if maybe I was reading too much into that description. My point of view on it was a little skewed based on what another had said about it.

Yes, I agree with the definition and the view point of the Church of Rome, just as the East views its brothers and sisters in the West. I apologize if I read too much into your words.

God bless, mate.

thereselittleflower said:

Jim . . the issue in this thread isn't divorce .. it has never been divorce . ..

It is remarriage AFTER divorce while your former spouse is still alive . . . when is it right and when does it involve the sin of adultery, or is it permisible even if it involves the sin of adultery?


Basil and the Orthodox Church have been telling us remarriage in this circumstance is permissable, even if it involves the sin of adultery . . . .



Peace to all

Click to expand...

Terese, I do not agree, the purpose of this thread is NOT about remarriage... it is about a member of CF who wanted to discuss his belief and the beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox church.

You have used this thread to discuss how you personally feel that a woman who has been beaten and abandoned even if she is young, say 20 years old and to say that she can never remarry for the rest of her life... and is instead to remain alone and lonely forever while alive....

That is cruel and heartless. And I will point out to you that it is NOT how the Roman Catholic faith would deal with her. She would be allowed to get an annulment and to remarry again.

In EO we do not do annulments. We have confession and a time of pennance and Spiritual Direction by our Priest in who in turn consults with the Bishop over them.

Then, in some circumstances the woman is allowed to remarry... but the next wedding sacriment is not the same as an original marriage sacriment... It includes continued prayers of forgiveness.

This process is a healing process, not a legal process.

thornygrace said:

Terese, I do not agree, the purpose of this thread is NOT about remarriage... it is about a member of CF who wanted to discuss his belief and the beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox church.

Click to expand...

well, it was about that at one time...
until Therese had to completely derail it.

thornygrace said:

You have used this thread to discuss how you personally feel that a woman who has been beaten and abandoned even if she is young, say 20 years old and to say that she can never remarry for the rest of her life... and is instead to remain alone and lonely forever while alive....

That is cruel and heartless.

Click to expand...

Not to mention disgusting.

JimfromOhio said:

My brother is Catholic and they gave him permission to remarry to another woman. ummm interesting.

Click to expand...

Because they deemed his first marriage wasn’t a covenant.

doncha love it when folks show up around post #650, and then take something from 50 posts back in a vacuum, like nothing else was said to explain it, and then you get to repeat the process all over again.

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.

Click to expand...

Not to late for what Basil to return to the Orthodox Church so I won't miss going to heaven? We went throught that earlier in the thread . . do you want to go there again?

No Basil . . this is not "evidence" that proves anything . . it was simply words for which no proper context, other than it was in a missionary letter in response to a particular question which we have no access to, can be given.

Such "evidence" is WEAK . .. such 'evidence' does not the teachng of the Catholic Church make or Sacred Tradition Make.



In fact, I have been reading this comment by Gratian regarding marriage canons and understanding throughout the Early Church . . and this quote in question as well a one by Ambrose is commented on:It is obviously in question that it means what it appears to say on a supeficial reading of it.


Of course, since we do not have the contextual framework in which to do anything other than give it a superficial reading, one cannot validly use it to prove somethng that is wholly contradicted a noted above.

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.

Click to expand...

No Basil . . I QUESTIONED what the context is . . . I EXPOSED that the CONTEXT is NOT KNOWN . . .

So NO VALID conclusions can be drawn from it . . one way or the other . . .


It cannot be validly used to prove your position.


This is a matter of LOGIC Basil . . . .


Your questioning my integrity above for doing so is merely an ad hominem attack designed to deflect attention away from my esposure of the problems with this "evidence" onto me.


If you think all that is necessary to present evidence that is valid in support of one's position is to produce a quote without understanding its context, then we are at square one in the issue of the rules of logic governing debate .. .

I am not sure that it is possible to have a reasonable discussion if simple rules of logic are going to be discarded in favor of one's beliefs.

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

Click to expand...

The intellectually honest, humble thing to do is to NOT insist that evidence, for which the context is unknown and which is wholly contradicted by the bulk of evidence to the contrary, is valid proof of one's position or to take to task those who point this out.


The evidence has to stand the test of close scrutiny and examination . .


This evidence presented by John doesn't stand the test.


The intellecutally honest and humble thing to do is to recongize the truth of this.



Peace to all

Shelb5 said:

Because they deemed his first marriage wasn’t a covenant.

Click to expand...

Ahhh... this is the RCC point of view. I see. My first marriage was not a covenant either. Looks like every denominations are different handling divorces and remarriages. I would rather members of their denomination stick their own business and not butt in another denomination's handling of divorce/remarriages.

vanshan said:

Our married priesthood, has spared us from such a scandal. Please don't mislead anyone to yoke our two very different groups together. Our bishops are fallible men, so they may sin in any number of ways, but I've heard nothing like what has happened worldwide in your faith.

Basil

Click to expand...

I have heard of equally disturbing things, like bishops hiring assassin to bump off brother bishops.

The sins of the clergy and hiding behind them actually proves nothing for anyone’s side. Catholic, Protestant and EO. Pedophilia is not a Catholic only problem, it is society’s problem because priests are not the only ones who hurt kids, their own fathers at times… Protestant ministers have done this, Rabbis have and EO clerics have too- it proves what? Nothing as far as the validity of the faith is concerned.

Can we just say that the RC and EO disagree on this and move on? Please?

One of the things that I really like about Orthodoxy is its mystical side. There is a deep spiritual aspect of Christianity that I was totally unaware of as a protestant. The writings of Saint Theophan the Recluse are opening my eyes to a very intense spirituality that I found myself longing for before I found Orthodoxy.

JimfromOhio said:

Ahhh... this is the RCC point of view. I see. My first marriage was not a covenant either. Looks like every denominations are different handling divorces and remarriages. I would rather members of their denomination stick their own business and not butt in another denomination's handling of divorce/remarriages.

Click to expand...

Why are you taking this so personally? I don’t about your marriage if uit was or wasn’t valid. I can only say why the Church would grant an annulment freeing someone to marry again.

geocajun said:

doncha love it when folks show up around post #650, and then take something from 50 posts back in a vacuum, like nothing else was said to explain it, and then you get to repeat the process all over again.

Click to expand...

ya, that is what happened to me when VNVnation & TLF explained it welll and along comes what seems a road runner to start it all over... know the feeling

I hate to break it to you guys, but if, after 65 pages, no one's budged even an iota in his/her position--no one's mind is going to be changed. Everyone keeps repeating the same things over and over again--I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

eoe said:

Can we just say that the RC and EO disagree on this and move on? Please?

One of the things that I really like about Orthodoxy is its mystical side. There is a deep spiritual aspect of Christianity that I was totally unaware of as a protestant. The writings of Saint Theophan the Recluse are opening my eyes to a very intense spirituality that I found myself longing for before I found Orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

I'm all for the mysterious but what Jesus said was sin is no mystery to us.

eoe said:

Can we just say that the RC and EO disagree on this and move on? Please?

Click to expand...

I wish it were that easy for everyone. I think some people just aren't willing to let some things go.

GraceInHim said:

ya, that is what happened to me when VNVnation & TLF explained it welll and along comes what seems a road runner to start it all over... know the feeling

Click to expand...

No it wasn’t.. your comment about needing a piece of paper to be married in the Catholic Church needed to be called on because it was a backhanded slap to the church. Like I said, you do not need a piece of paper- you need a bridegroom who is not already married.

Basil,

How important is it for people to come back to Orthodoxy? What am I missing?
Is my salvation in jeopardy?
What greater truths can I learn from the Orthodox church?
While I feel Orthodoxy may have been the first church established, I have trouble equating that to mean its the true church. I'm not so sure there is a true church anymore. The only true church we need is a place where christians can gather, fellowship and worship God. When I want to see a true church setting, I read the NT, where Jesus and His apostles wandered around ministering to others. Shouldnt that be our focus, instead of debating who's church is truer?
I'm not attacking you, Basil, I just want to find out more about this. If there is a true church, why is it yours?

Gid bless, brother,

Lucas