Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Religious Topics / Re: Eastern Orthodoxy, United or Divided?
« Last post by Raylight on Yesterday at 02:28:21 PM »
Eastern Orthodoxy is united like a family is united. Not in the Roman Catholic sense where ya'll have an abusive stepdad who will smack anyone who steps out of line the slightest bit and has regressively kept everyone from maturity in the knowledge that adulthood for the youngsters will mean a threat to his illegitimate authority.

Yeah, that is right. This is why Catholics are the ones who built the Western Civilization. This is why Catholics are the ones who built hospitals and universities. Catholics are the ones who produced many scientists and philosophers. And the list goes on and on. Btw, we're not the ones that got up and down and screamed bloody murder just because a word was added to the creed, and you are taking about "maturity in the knowledge".

Catholic evangelism in the New World.

This is the same rubbish that fanatic Atheists and Anti-Catholics want the world to believe about the Holy Catholic Church. Nobody is denying that there were crimes committed at the hands of some leaders, but for you to think that all that the Church has done can be put into two ugly paintings, is really pathetic. Apparently, the enemy of my enemy is my friend , is the way you see things.

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: On marrying a second wife
« Last post by minasoliman on Yesterday at 02:16:09 PM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

In short, I ask the woman herself, "Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before you (to his rest) in peace?" What will she answer? (Will she say), "In discord?" In that case she is the more bound to him with whom she has a cause (to plead) at the bar of God. She who is bound (to another) has not departed (from him). But (will she say), "In peace?" In that case, she must necessarily persevere in that (peace) with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously— inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power— because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it.

Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. But if;in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels; is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate— destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness?

Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God— albeit the wages be various, albeit there be many mansions, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the one penny of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.

Tertullian, On Monogamy X

It seems to me based on this, the Church, at least where Tertullian was, has not seen that marriage "ends" with the departed spouse.

His view on marriage is directly derived from montanism. Montanism had an ethical rigorism and asceticism. These included prohibitions against remarriage following divorce or the death of a spouse.

I grant you that this is possibly the case, but because there is no "till death do us part" in Eastern Christianity, there is a very important significance in what he says, and I think it's very Orthodox and Catholic.  There is no more "death" but a departure.  Therefore, if we say our spouse is dead, we are speaking against the grace of the Resurrection.  Our spouse is sleeping is the more appropriate gesture.  Furthermore, if marriage emulates Christ and the Church, it is an eternal relationship.  If the one I marry makes me love Christ more and grow into Christ, how much more would that eternal relationship be!'s one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?
Other Topics / Re: Picture of the Day
« Last post by minasoliman on Yesterday at 02:08:48 PM »
Faith Issues / Re: Strange icons
« Last post by hecma925 on Yesterday at 02:06:24 PM »
I love how worried the ox and ass look.

Ass:  Cool trip, right?
Ox:  You jackass!  We should be in the Nativity icon!
Faith Issues / Re: Strange icons
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Yesterday at 01:52:40 PM »
I love how worried the ox and ass look.
Faith Issues / Re: Strange icons
« Last post by Dominika on Yesterday at 01:40:27 PM »
Frankly speaking, I don't know if it should be considered "an Orthodox art" or "an icon" (not counting the Arabic text, as it's ofc added on computer on already existing icon).
Church of Christ "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

Also, the Serbian Patriarch I believe has a red exorason or zostikon (dark red).  Has anyone noticed this, and does anyone know the history of it?
I haven't seen that.

I have a photo somewhere but it could have been refraction, like "red eye" or the red reflection of some dyes/inks (like black permanent ink).
That's probable ;)
Weird, I had no idea! But before their now uncanonical jurisdiction split apart, it was part from the wider communion, wasn't it?
It's complicated; in very ancien time (XI century) there was recognised Archbishopric of Ohrid. Then Macedonian theritory was under Ecumenical Patrarcahte. Then it was part of Bulgarian exarchate (then evolved into patriarchate, as a kind of restoration of Bulgarian Patriarchate after a few centuries) that was non-canonical over a few decades! And then (before WW2) Macedonian parishes were taken by Serbian Church because of the creation of Yugoslavia. So, even earlier, they weren't actually a part of the wider communion ;) And ofc, it was only because of politics.
Other Topics / Re: Picture of the Day
« Last post by Arachne on Yesterday at 01:33:59 PM »
The singalongatron is go.

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: On marrying a second wife
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Yesterday at 01:30:21 PM »
Most explicitly:

St Augustine

"She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication"

The emphasis on "living spouse" is to show that even though you are separated, a sacramental marriage still persists. Hence to marry while your sacramental marriage still exists is adultery (the fathers and scripture call such a person an adulterer/adulterous). It's isn't adultery when your spouse is dead i.e. the sacramental marriage is over.

Again, that has nothing to say about whether the relationship between two spouses is terminated by the death of one.
Point blank it means the marriage is over and the person is unmarried.

No, that's not point black what it means.
Yeah you're right, it's not point black, it's point blank what it means

Cute, but still wrong. 

A married person cannot marry again while married lest they commit adultery.

That's what this is about.
I'm not sure you know what "lest" means

It indicates a prevention of something. "Lest" does not mean "unless"

So YES that's what it's about

I never said "lest" meant "unless". 

What I'm getting at is that the spousal relationship survives death.  Any allowance for another marriage is a matter of economy.  In your Church, you seem to believe that it is a right. 

It only talks about the circumstances in which a person who was once married might marry a second time. 
Once married... Meaning they aren't married anymore.


I Corinthians 7

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
He says it is well for them to, not that they have to, not marry but they can. Paul didn't make any new rule here. He gives advice within the confines of the rule of Chirst that he highlights. This quote defeats your whole point. What he is saying is contained in the very essence of the rule of marriage that you are released at death and free to marry again but he says it's better you don't.

What are you released from, Wandile?  You're released from "legal" obligations.  But marriage is not primarily about law. 

39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
"Until death do us part" ;)

the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Free from him I.e marriage bond is dissolved the way God intended. Sacramental marriage is over. So she is free to marry again.  Again this is the plain law of Chirst which only the Catholic Church still upholds

Since we're correcting each other's words, this is the second time you referred to our Lord as "Chirst".  I gave you a pass the first time, but this is too much.

Anyway, again, you are reading "sacramental marriage is over" (and your own peculiar definition of what that is) into the text.  The "legal" obligations of marriage end with death.  To stretch that to mean that sacramental marriage ends with death is just that--a stretch.  Every other sacrament survives death according to your Church, why would marriage be an exception? 

40 But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
See again he works within the rule. He just advises celibacy as an opinion of his. He is not saying it's a rule. Therefore him saying the should marry is still within the confines of the rule which he highlighted as he himself says when the husband dies the wife is free to marry who she wants.

He offers a judgement and describes it as the judgement of someone who "has the Spirit of God".  Elsewhere in the passage, he is able to make the distinction between his personal opinion and what he believes comes from God.  "I have the Spirit of God" is a bit stronger than "This is what I think, take it or leave it". 

The allowance for a second marriage is due to human weakness: "it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion".  It's not because "Well, my spouse died, so we no longer have any relationship between us".
There is no allowance here. He is giving an opinion on how to work within the rules of the law. If this is the basis Orthodoxy uses to break divine law then it's basis is incorrect. Paul is giving an opinion o what to do after the end of sacramental marriage as he says "in my judgement...". But heresy justifies itself through eisegesis. This is not new.

Only a RC would choose to read St Paul as a canon lawyer rather than as a shepherd of souls. 

The reason why you can't marry while your spouse is alive is because you are still married to them in the eyes of God,hence its adulterous to take another partner as that would be cheating (adultery).

Death has no power over God, so it can't change God's mind about who is or isn't married.
Exactly and God said it ends at death as Paul highlighted when he recounts the law. Further Christ himself emphasized that we will be like the Angels in heaven who do not marry (that is to say single and devoted to God alone). Marriage is here to teach us how to love so we may be ready to devote ourselves to God in the next and be married to Him.

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that the relationship begun here ends there.  In heaven, Wandile is still his mother's son, his father's son, his wife's husband, etc.  Those relationships are not lived there the way they are lived here, but they survive death. 

A single person can't commit adultery hence it is allowed upon the death of a spouse (sacramental marriage is ended and the person is now single) to marry again.

What other sacraments end with death?  Your Church specifically teaches that ordination survives death, schism, heresy, etc.  It's a little too convenient for sacramental marriage to disappear upon death when other sacraments survive death and worse.
It's not our choice it's the rule of God and no man can change that although the Orthodox would like to think so (quoting binding and loosing and the imaginary allowance of Paul which isn't an allowance at all, as justification)

I realise that you need to reinforce your views with a good dose of RC triumphalism to justify continuing in your faith now that your Pope routinely undermines your Church's truth claims (for instance, he believes cohabitation is a grace-filled marriage while most sacramental marriages are null), but spare us. 

If a woman marries, is widowed, and never marries again, it doesn't mean she is unmarried.   

It means exactly that

Only if you prioritise law over grace and death over life.
We priorotise priortise a bastardised corruption of the law of God above all.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »