Author Topic: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage  (Read 2952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,580
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #135 on: August 25, 2015, 07:55:41 PM »
I guess this again is a matter of opinion. Just like how I and many others (who have read the debates at Florence)  believe Mark of Ephesus got ripped apart in the filioque debate with John of Montenero but EO will see it the opposite way.

You of course neglect to mention that St. Mark of Ephesus was essentially censored at Florence (much like how another discussion forum censors people very heavily, especially the sedevacantists who hurt its agenda the most), since the distinction between essence and energy was forbidden to be brought up (so much for an honest union at that latrocinium held in Florence). Even still, he put up a great defense for a man with his hands tied behind his back. They didn't even allow him to mention St. Maximus' letter to Marinus (knowing that it would disprove their position). What sort of an honest debating procedure is that? Read his other theological output. He was far ahead of his contemporaries, like that heretic Bessarion.

The St Maximus case is not strong at all. It disproves nothing. He speaks of ultimate origins not of the filioque. Secondly Bassarion was a man who was very educated and intellectually honest. As far as how he saw what happened Florence   he admits that in his opinion the Catholics proved their case especially in the filioque debate. Mark tried his best and essence energies distinction would not have defeated Latin arguments as it has not done so today.

Even John of Montenero pressed this issue before realising the Greeks were censored on this issue by the emperor. Mark was not ahead of anyone there as even in the other debates like concerning the additions of the filioque, mark with the other Greeks suffered another defeat in proving the legitimacy of its addition.
the Vatican is ever so selective in its condemnation of "Caesaro-Papism."

Btw, recent discoveries and studies show that the manuscripts the Latins produced were interpolated. The Romans didn't have their libraries at hand.
Again its a matter of opinion

no, it is not.
I guess but on what Man have seen in these debates, mark suffered a heavy defeat to the scholastic. Some of the Greeks started getting moved by the Latin arguments.
starvation moved them along.  But evidently not enough-they still refused to sign, and the emperor managed to compel them to give only conditional approval.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,580
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #136 on: August 25, 2015, 07:58:59 PM »
St. Maximus specifically says that the Son is not cause of the Holy Spirit. Of course the case from St. Maximus was exceedingly strong. That is why the Latins refused to admit the letter as evidence. The Greeks even proposed using St. Maximus' letter to be the basis of a reconciliation, and the Latins refused. It was their way or the highway. The one letter written by somebody who evidently understood what the Latins fathers meant by the Filioque in the seventh century was discarded in favor of a formula that declares the Son to be αιτία of the Holy Spirit, the exact thing St. Maximus said the Son isn't.
Oh, the irony! What they rejected as evidence their successor apologists sifted for their quote mines.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,580
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #137 on: August 25, 2015, 08:21:09 PM »
I don't think that's entirely true. In cases involving deceit, bigamy, consanguinity and the like, I'm pretty sure that such marriages can be annulled, as the Church simply can recognize that no marriage could have happened. Suppose, for example, to take an extreme case, that a man and a woman marry, only for it later to be revealed that the woman is a transsexual who was originally a man. Since a man cannot marry a man, an annulment and not a divorce would be the proper procedure. A divorce in such a case would make no sense, because objectively the couple could not have been married in the first place.

The difference is that the present system of Roman Catholic annulment has gone completely bonkers. Now, people essentially can claim a defect of intent on the part of those who confer the sacrament (the married couple), and declare after the fact that their marital problems essentially prove the defect in intent (along with maybe the maid of honor/best man giving some hammy story to demonstrate how the bride/groom did not really understand the sacrament of marriage at the time of marriage). Orthodoxy obviously has no equivalent to this.
You could get an annulment, but it would be from the government, not from the Church. I have never heard of the Orthodox Church granting an annulment. If you sever a marriage, it requires repentance. It doesn't matter what term you use to denote the severing or what the reason is for it.

I think we don't usually speak of "annulments" in the Church because in the majority of cases we are dealing with marriages that began legitimately and failed.  But I think Cavaradossi is right in saying that, in particular circumstances, the Church could nullify a marriage rather than granting a divorce.

I think we can all agree the church does not nullify marriages rather it makes a statement of fact/ gives a decree of nullity...
The Orthodox Church makes a statement of fact/recognizes the decree of divorce, in that a marriage is over. To quote the OCA Statute:
Quote
Whenever the parish priest is unable, through pastoral counseling, to prevent the dissolution of a marriage and the conflict results in a civil divorce and if the interested persons themselves seek from the Church a definition of their status as divorcees, a petition is filed with the Diocesan Court, which examines the documents and makes a new attempt at reconciling the parties.
If the reconciliation fails, the court shall come to a final decision. In issuing its opinion, the court may recommend that penance be imposed by the bishop upon the guilty party/-ies. On the basis of this court decision, the bishop issues the following statement: "Having heard the conclusion of the Diocesan Court of the _____ Diocese concerning the judgment of divorce rendered by the _____ Court of _____ dissolving the marriage between (Name) _____ and (Name) _____ celebrated at _____ on _____, I,_____, Bishop of _____ hereby acknowledge the conclusion of the civil court as final. [Invoking God’s mercy and compassion, I allow (Name) _____ to enter into a new marital union with (Name) _____ and receive the sacraments of the Church starting on _____."
http://oca.org/statute/article-xi

The Vatican Corban factories, er, Marriage Tribunals make up "facts"/pretends a marriage never happened.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,580
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #138 on: August 25, 2015, 08:27:31 PM »
it is a matter of fact that annulments are patristic and correct theology. To deny this is to misunderstand the sacrament of marriage.
That assERtion hasn't accrued any more veracity with your repetition. To assert it is to fall into Donatism.

No Father ever held court in your Corban factories. Correct theology would prevent them from serving.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #139 on: August 26, 2015, 02:26:19 AM »
it is a matter of fact that annulments are patristic and correct theology. To deny this is to misunderstand the sacrament of marriage.
That assERtion hasn't accrued any more veracity with your repetition. To assert it is to fall into Donatism.

No Father ever held court in your Corban factories. Correct theology would prevent them from serving.

lol
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #140 on: August 26, 2015, 02:28:41 AM »
I guess this again is a matter of opinion. Just like how I and many others (who have read the debates at Florence)  believe Mark of Ephesus got ripped apart in the filioque debate with John of Montenero but EO will see it the opposite way.

You of course neglect to mention that St. Mark of Ephesus was essentially censored at Florence (much like how another discussion forum censors people very heavily, especially the sedevacantists who hurt its agenda the most), since the distinction between essence and energy was forbidden to be brought up (so much for an honest union at that latrocinium held in Florence). Even still, he put up a great defense for a man with his hands tied behind his back. They didn't even allow him to mention St. Maximus' letter to Marinus (knowing that it would disprove their position). What sort of an honest debating procedure is that? Read his other theological output. He was far ahead of his contemporaries, like that heretic Bessarion.

The St Maximus case is not strong at all. It disproves nothing. He speaks of ultimate origins not of the filioque. Secondly Bassarion was a man who was very educated and intellectually honest. As far as how he saw what happened Florence   he admits that in his opinion the Catholics proved their case especially in the filioque debate. Mark tried his best and essence energies distinction would not have defeated Latin arguments as it has not done so today.

Even John of Montenero pressed this issue before realising the Greeks were censored on this issue by the emperor. Mark was not ahead of anyone there as even in the other debates like concerning the additions of the filioque, mark with the other Greeks suffered another defeat in proving the legitimacy of its addition.
the Vatican is ever so selective in its condemnation of "Caesaro-Papism."

Btw, recent discoveries and studies show that the manuscripts the Latins produced were interpolated. The Romans didn't have their libraries at hand.
Again its a matter of opinion

no, it is not.
I guess but on what Man have seen in these debates, mark suffered a heavy defeat to the scholastic. Some of the Greeks started getting moved by the Latin arguments.
starvation moved them along.  But evidently not enough-they still refused to sign, and the emperor managed to compel them to give only conditional approval.

Alright brother. If that's what you want to believe so be it lol
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,904
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #141 on: August 26, 2015, 04:08:26 AM »


"Free to marry" does not mean "ideal to marry".
Nor did I claim this. I just said it ecclesiasticaly lawful, that is, not sinful. It being ideal or not is a matter of opinion which St. Paul happily admits. I agree with him but we are speaking about the law of God concerning marriage. It is not allowed to marry when one's spouse is alive even when you are separated. Paul even confirms this v10 and 39...

Jumping in blindly.

Just started to read this long thread. Even though something may be  ecclesiastically lawful, it does not mean that it is not sinful.

For example, during the time of separation and after a civil divorce, an Orthodox Christian undergoes a period of penance where they cannot receive the Holy Mysteries for several years (5 to 7 years usually).

In the Greek Archdiocese of America under the EP, if during that time of penance, the divorced Orthodox Christian finds another mate and wants to remarry, he/she must appear before a spiritual court to obtain an ecclesiastical divorce and ask for a blessing to marry. Even though they may be granted a blessing for a second marriage, it is still a marriage of repentance. This second marriage is seen as a lesser of two evils. It is still a sin or hamartia, which means missing the mark or bull's eye. This is why divorced persons or a widow/widower come before the priest in penitence at their second/third marriages.

While it is best if a person remains single and does not marry a second or third time, it is better that they marry rather than burn in hell fire.

On the contrary, in Roman Catholicism, a couple who was previously divorced/widowed do not have to serve a time of penance before a second, third, fourth, or fifth marriage as there seems to be no limit to the number of times they can celebrate a wedding as long as a spouse has died or an annulment has been granted. And there is no marriage of repentance.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 04:09:14 AM by Maria »
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Protostrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,071
  • All who love ZZ, honour ZZ!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #142 on: August 26, 2015, 12:52:42 PM »
For example, during the time of separation and after a civil divorce, an Orthodox Christian undergoes a period of penance where they cannot receive the Holy Mysteries for several years (5 to 7 years usually).

Source? 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

New thread topic.  Rate the sexual attractiveness of members of OC.net on a scale of 1-10.

Mor Ephrem: 11/10

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,754
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #143 on: August 26, 2015, 01:06:22 PM »
For example, during the time of separation and after a civil divorce, an Orthodox Christian undergoes a period of penance where they cannot receive the Holy Mysteries for several years (5 to 7 years usually).

Source?

That is rather long. Maybe 6 months to a year. If I'm not mistaken, the standard in the Antiochian Archdiocese is 6 months.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Protostrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,071
  • All who love ZZ, honour ZZ!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #144 on: August 26, 2015, 01:07:33 PM »
For example, during the time of separation and after a civil divorce, an Orthodox Christian undergoes a period of penance where they cannot receive the Holy Mysteries for several years (5 to 7 years usually).

Source?

That is rather long. Maybe 6 months to a year. If I'm not mistaken, the standard in the Antiochian Archdiocese is 6 months.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  The longest I've ever heard of was one year, which is why five to seven sounded strange. 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

New thread topic.  Rate the sexual attractiveness of members of OC.net on a scale of 1-10.

Mor Ephrem: 11/10

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 39,580
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #145 on: August 26, 2015, 04:19:07 PM »
For example, during the time of separation and after a civil divorce, an Orthodox Christian undergoes a period of penance where they cannot receive the Holy Mysteries for several years (5 to 7 years usually).

Source?

That is rather long. Maybe 6 months to a year. If I'm not mistaken, the standard in the Antiochian Archdiocese is 6 months.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  The longest I've ever heard of was one year, which is why five to seven sounded strange.
it's buried somewhere in the Pedalion, the Church in Athos which never has to deal with these things in reality.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,300
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #146 on: August 26, 2015, 04:38:43 PM »
I guess this again is a matter of opinion. Just like how I and many others (who have read the debates at Florence)  believe Mark of Ephesus got ripped apart in the filioque debate with John of Montenero but EO will see it the opposite way.

You of course neglect to mention that St. Mark of Ephesus was essentially censored at Florence (much like how another discussion forum censors people very heavily, especially the sedevacantists who hurt its agenda the most), since the distinction between essence and energy was forbidden to be brought up (so much for an honest union at that latrocinium held in Florence). Even still, he put up a great defense for a man with his hands tied behind his back. They didn't even allow him to mention St. Maximus' letter to Marinus (knowing that it would disprove their position). What sort of an honest debating procedure is that? Read his other theological output. He was far ahead of his contemporaries, like that heretic Bessarion.

The St Maximus case is not strong at all. It disproves nothing. He speaks of ultimate origins not of the filioque. Secondly Bassarion was a man who was very educated and intellectually honest. As far as how he saw what happened Florence   he admits that in his opinion the Catholics proved their case especially in the filioque debate. Mark tried his best and essence energies distinction would not have defeated Latin arguments as it has not done so today.

Even John of Montenero pressed this issue before realising the Greeks were censored on this issue by the emperor. Mark was not ahead of anyone there as even in the other debates like concerning the additions of the filioque, mark with the other Greeks suffered another defeat in proving the legitimacy of its addition.
the Vatican is ever so selective in its condemnation of "Caesaro-Papism."

Btw, recent discoveries and studies show that the manuscripts the Latins produced were interpolated. The Romans didn't have their libraries at hand.
Again its a matter of opinion

no, it is not.
I guess but on what Man have seen in these debates, mark suffered a heavy defeat to the scholastic. Some of the Greeks started getting moved by the Latin arguments.
starvation moved them along.  But evidently not enough-they still refused to sign, and the emperor managed to compel them to give only conditional approval.

Alright brother. If that's what you want to believe so be it lol

There was a minority in favor of union but even Catholic scholars will admit the Greek delegation was given poor lodging and deprived of food in order to coerce their cooperation.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #147 on: August 26, 2015, 06:16:50 PM »
I guess this again is a matter of opinion. Just like how I and many others (who have read the debates at Florence)  believe Mark of Ephesus got ripped apart in the filioque debate with John of Montenero but EO will see it the opposite way.

You of course neglect to mention that St. Mark of Ephesus was essentially censored at Florence (much like how another discussion forum censors people very heavily, especially the sedevacantists who hurt its agenda the most), since the distinction between essence and energy was forbidden to be brought up (so much for an honest union at that latrocinium held in Florence). Even still, he put up a great defense for a man with his hands tied behind his back. They didn't even allow him to mention St. Maximus' letter to Marinus (knowing that it would disprove their position). What sort of an honest debating procedure is that? Read his other theological output. He was far ahead of his contemporaries, like that heretic Bessarion.

The St Maximus case is not strong at all. It disproves nothing. He speaks of ultimate origins not of the filioque. Secondly Bassarion was a man who was very educated and intellectually honest. As far as how he saw what happened Florence   he admits that in his opinion the Catholics proved their case especially in the filioque debate. Mark tried his best and essence energies distinction would not have defeated Latin arguments as it has not done so today.

Even John of Montenero pressed this issue before realising the Greeks were censored on this issue by the emperor. Mark was not ahead of anyone there as even in the other debates like concerning the additions of the filioque, mark with the other Greeks suffered another defeat in proving the legitimacy of its addition.
the Vatican is ever so selective in its condemnation of "Caesaro-Papism."

Btw, recent discoveries and studies show that the manuscripts the Latins produced were interpolated. The Romans didn't have their libraries at hand.
Again its a matter of opinion

no, it is not.
I guess but on what Man have seen in these debates, mark suffered a heavy defeat to the scholastic. Some of the Greeks started getting moved by the Latin arguments.
starvation moved them along.  But evidently not enough-they still refused to sign, and the emperor managed to compel them to give only conditional approval.

Alright brother. If that's what you want to believe so be it lol

There was a minority in favor of union but even Catholic scholars will admit the Greek delegation was given poor lodging and deprived of food in order to coerce their cooperation.

Mine was a general comment to his post.
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Luthien

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Roman Catholic seeker
Re: Tradition vs EO 2nd and 3rd marriage
« Reply #148 on: Yesterday at 01:58:59 PM »
Even though they may be granted a blessing for a second marriage, it is still a marriage of repentance. This second marriage is seen as a lesser of two evils. It is still a sin or hamartia, which means missing the mark or bull's eye. This is why divorced persons or a widow/widower come before the priest in penitence at their second/third marriages.

Someone please correct me if this is NOT the approach of Orthodoxy and can direct me toward any elucidating material about these issues, especially because I am Roman Catholic and these ideas are so foreign to the RCC's understandings.

This is my biggest hurdle in my inquiry into Orthodoxy. I have gleaned that the belief of the Orthodox Church is that the second marriage itself is a sin. How can the church "allow" or "bless" someone to commit a sin by remarrying? The concept of the "lesser of two evils" when we are talking about such grave matters of sin doesn't make sense. Sin is sin and should not be approved of by the Church in any form, even to prevent a potentially greater sin. It makes a mockery of the sacrament of Confession as well. How can you knowingly sin while simultaneously repenting of it?  This approach to me seems like saying: "Well, sorry God, but I have to do this because the alternative is (seemingly) worse. I know I am about to sin, and gravely, but it's okay. I'll just confess it right away and it will all be made new again anyway." Can you imagine if we took that approach to sin and repentance in general?  You know by remarrying you are sinning and you completely accept that and do it anyway with a mind to confess it right away so it doesn't matter? And to boot, the Church is "blessing" these actions? Seems like an abuse of the sacraments to me...