OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 01:00:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is your view of Charlemagne?  (Read 9495 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #90 on: October 18, 2012, 03:52:47 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #91 on: October 18, 2012, 04:01:11 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.
But Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, wouldn't that make his crown more legit from a Catholic standpoint?

This was years before the Great Schism BTW.

Not from the POV of the Catholic bishops in Rome who wanted to get rid of St. Leo III--the reason he needed Charlemagne in the first place. Although St. Leo was not a puppet, but opposed him on filioque.
Never the less he legitimized the Franks as the true protectors of the Church, regardless of a few disenfranchised bishops.

Interesting about his opposition of the filioque though.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2012, 04:07:16 PM »

Come again?

Irene of Athens was Empress of the Romans when Leo crowned Charles.
But Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, wouldn't that make his crown more legit from a Catholic standpoint?

This was years before the Great Schism BTW.

Not from the POV of the Catholic bishops in Rome who wanted to get rid of St. Leo III--the reason he needed Charlemagne in the first place. Although St. Leo was not a puppet, but opposed him on filioque.
Never the less he legitimized the Franks as the true protectors of the Church, regardless of a few disenfranchised bishops.

Interesting about his opposition of the filioque though.

Leo III recognized the danger posed by the filioque and had the creed inscribed on silver shields, in Latin and Greek, without it.
A few "Holy Roman Emperors" later and Henry II strong-armed Pope Benedict VIII into inserting the filioque. So much for "protectors of the Church."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2012, 04:30:05 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

But then the East and West also differ on whether second marriages after the death of the first spouse are sinful. This, in the East, was considered to be bigamy, and those who contracted second marriages after the death of the first spouse were penanced accordingly (this is also why a priest cannot marry after the death of his first spouse, because this too is bigamy, and the canonical penance for bigamy in the case of an ordained man is for him to lose his Holy Orders).
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #94 on: October 18, 2012, 04:39:35 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #95 on: October 18, 2012, 04:59:15 PM »

They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding.

Think of it this way. Christ said 'do not put asunder'. But God also said "thou shalt not kill'. But what does the Roman Catholic Church do if a mass-murder (already convicted and serving his prison term) asks for baptism or (if he was already a member of the church before he committed his crimes) confession? You send a priest, accept his repentance, and grant him remission of sins. Same thing for a woman's who had an abortion. That doesn't mean RC's 'allow' murder or abortion. It means you allow people to repent of sin.

That is how Orthodoxy understands divorce. It's a sin. It's not allowed. But if the sin has already been committed, then you can repent of it and receive absolution. Subsequentally, as a concession to human weakness and to prevent the repentant sinner from entering into further sin, the Church may allow a second marriage ("better to marry than to burn").

Quote
There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

I know it gets simplified that way in modern textbooks, but Henry VIII never asked for a divorce. He asked for an annulment. He thought he had a valid case (based on the fact that his wife had been originally betrothed to his brother, and God's apparent judgment on that violation of the marriage canons in their failure to produce viable offspring), the Pope disagreed, possibly for valid canonical reasons, possibly because the wife in question also happened to be the sister of the King of Spain, the Pope's biggest royal ally of the time--but Henry assumed the latter and based his breaking the Church of England loose from Rome on Rome's playing politics with the canons.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,659


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2012, 07:21:10 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #97 on: October 18, 2012, 09:13:26 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #98 on: October 18, 2012, 09:14:52 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?

Or Great Chuck, for that matter?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #99 on: October 18, 2012, 09:18:35 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?

Or Great Chuck, for that matter?

I feel a Chuck Norris deluge about to happen.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #100 on: October 18, 2012, 09:21:55 PM »

Chuck Norris didn't convert to the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church spent 2,000 years preparing for Chuck's reception.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2012, 09:25:34 PM »

Chuck Norris didn't convert to the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church spent 2,000 years preparing for Chuck's reception.

It's not too late, Chuck.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #102 on: October 22, 2012, 01:23:45 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

But then the East and West also differ on whether second marriages after the death of the first spouse are sinful. This, in the East, was considered to be bigamy, and those who contracted second marriages after the death of the first spouse were penanced accordingly (this is also why a priest cannot marry after the death of his first spouse, because this too is bigamy, and the canonical penance for bigamy in the case of an ordained man is for him to lose his Holy Orders).
Let me get this straight, you will allow divorce in the East because you view the first marriage as some kind of "mistake" or past sin that's forgiven but God forbid if your spouse dies and you decide to remarry later on the second marriage is considered " bigamy"? Am I reading this right? Because if I am, this is absolute lunacy. I can't believe this kind of thinking is in line with the EOC.

And we in the Latin Church don't worry about the death of any spouses of our priests since they don't have any, so we don't have any of those, ahem, "issues".
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #103 on: October 22, 2012, 01:57:23 PM »

They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding.

Think of it this way. Christ said 'do not put asunder'. But God also said "thou shalt not kill'. But what does the Roman Catholic Church do if a mass-murder (already convicted and serving his prison term) asks for baptism or (if he was already a member of the church before he committed his crimes) confession? You send a priest, accept his repentance, and grant him remission of sins. Same thing for a woman's who had an abortion. That doesn't mean RC's 'allow' murder or abortion. It means you allow people to repent of sin.

That is how Orthodoxy understands divorce. It's a sin. It's not allowed. But if the sin has already been committed, then you can repent of it and receive absolution. Subsequentally, as a concession to human weakness and to prevent the repentant sinner from entering into further sin, the Church may allow a second marriage ("better to marry than to burn").

Quote
There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

I know it gets simplified that way in modern textbooks, but Henry VIII never asked for a divorce. He asked for an annulment. He thought he had a valid case (based on the fact that his wife had been originally betrothed to his brother, and God's apparent judgment on that violation of the marriage canons in their failure to produce viable offspring), the Pope disagreed, possibly for valid canonical reasons, possibly because the wife in question also happened to be the sister of the King of Spain, the Pope's biggest royal ally of the time--but Henry assumed the latter and based his breaking the Church of England loose from Rome on Rome's playing politics with the canons.
Well regardless how "simplified" Henry's position was, he was wrong and had no right to use his throne to usurp the Pope and start his own heretical sect in England. If anyone had doubts to Henry's character we see his track record of numerous wives he took after he had his way in his new found "religion" in which they were successfully divorced, beheaded, died from labor complications ( Was this God's judgment too I presume?), divorced again, beheaded again, and finally one outlived this royal creature thank God.Two of his "ex" wives were first cousins, a few of them worked for the other in service, so this creep had them knocked off so he could get at them "legally" and he was also related to all of his wives in some way through the common ancestor of Edward the First, so he was incestuous on top of being an adulterer, murder, bigamist,heretic, glutton, fornicator on and on etc,etc. Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was. And like I mentioned, he was personally responsible for the murder for one of Englands greatest Saints in St Thomas More, who was also one of Henry's best friends at one time but wouldn't go along with this devils "agenda".
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #104 on: October 22, 2012, 02:37:32 PM »

Just as the Pope had no right to usurp the power of emperors. But maybe you don't agree.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #105 on: October 22, 2012, 03:06:21 PM »

Coming very late to this discussion, my view of Charles "the Great" is that he was the single biggest cause of the East-West schism. Enough said.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,328


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #106 on: October 22, 2012, 03:22:15 PM »

Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was.

Fidei Defensor , 'nuff said.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 03:25:41 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #107 on: October 22, 2012, 04:07:16 PM »

Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was.

Fidei Defensor , 'nuff said.
Like. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #108 on: October 22, 2012, 04:11:07 PM »

I think Charlemagne was pretty irrelevant to the great schism. By the time of the Ottonians, especially Otto II, things had progressed much better and the Holy Roman Empire was on the verge of bringing a Byzantine balance to the West, until Otto III's untimely death the the accession of northern European barbarians to the throne of St. Peter at Rome. Though they were a trend that started in Charlemagne's reign for reform and centralization, but I don't see how one can make a case for the Eastern Churches being in support of the Western status quo. Italy and Europe were two different worlds, and I don't get the impression the Eastern Churches considered the local churches outside Italy. There was also the dismal moral condition of Rome itself with both corrupt popes and a petty aristocracy. The emperor in Constantinople somehow expected everything to go well in the West--his way--without taking more than an adversarial interest in it, from time to time, when it suited him, when he thought of it at all. The shameful arrest and exile of St. Martin and the bizarre Council in Trullo set more of the tone for how the West thought of the East--as an opportunistic meddler. And they would reap what they sewed after the Gregorian Reformation.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #109 on: October 22, 2012, 04:33:25 PM »

It means that the Church recognizes that that particular person is venerated locally for his or her holiness and that the Church does not object to this veneration.  It's usually the first step in canonization.

Thx!

This stuff struck me as something not really saintly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Concubinages_and_illegitimate_children

Some of the stuff St Constantine did was also questionable if not just plainly sinful yet he is still venerated as a saint. We must remember that saintliness is not perfection while here on earth.  Having said that, since Carolus Magnus was an iconoclast, supported the "filioque" and installed the first organ in a church, he is a heretic and must be condemned as such.

I have yet to see proof that he was an iconoclast (there was a bad translation of the 7th council circulating, citing that we should worship icons (latria)--this is what the English condemned apparently when they condemned the 7th council) Also, support for filioque--there were plenty of Orthodox in the West who said filioque in the creed because it was there, whether Charlemagne actually defended and pushed it theologically I have yet to see. But his 8 marriages would be more of an impediment for veneration from the Eastern standpoint.
Doesn't Orthodoxy allow 3 or 4 divorces or something like that? So why would his "marriages" be a problem for the East?


No.

Besides that, the Eastern fathers are unamimous condemning remarriage (a second marriage) as bad, and third marriages as unrestrained fornication. There was a schism in the East when Leo the Wise (ironically named) wanted to marry three (or was it four) times. He didn't get what he wanted.
They condemn divorce, yet it is allowed, that's the point. I thought what God has joined let no man "put asunder", so how can man separate what is legally binding. This is the confusion for me with Orthodoxy, of course the Latin Church allows annullments but first it investigates the first marriage to see if it was valid to begin with. But the Vatican never offically recognizes the termination of a valid marriage, it is a Sacrament that can't be undone.

There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

But then the East and West also differ on whether second marriages after the death of the first spouse are sinful. This, in the East, was considered to be bigamy, and those who contracted second marriages after the death of the first spouse were penanced accordingly (this is also why a priest cannot marry after the death of his first spouse, because this too is bigamy, and the canonical penance for bigamy in the case of an ordained man is for him to lose his Holy Orders).
Let me get this straight, you will allow divorce in the East because you view the first marriage as some kind of "mistake" or past sin that's forgiven but God forbid if your spouse dies and you decide to remarry later on the second marriage is considered " bigamy"? Am I reading this right? Because if I am, this is absolute lunacy. I can't believe this kind of thinking is in line with the EOC.

And we in the Latin Church don't worry about the death of any spouses of our priests since they don't have any, so we don't have any of those, ahem, "issues".

Lol, you have plenty of married priests. The Vatican has allowed for the ordination of plenty of married Lutheran and Anglican converts, and it uses the same rules for them (i.e., remarriage is forbidden).

At any rate, no, you are not understanding correctly. In the case of bigamy and trigamy (after the death of a spouse), the penance would have been carried out, and the penitent would be received back into communion without needing to put away the second or third spouse. It was considered sinful to contract a second or third marriage but these would be tolerated out of economy. The same logic applies to divorce. It is sinful to divorce, and it is sinful to remarry, but the East is capable of taking a more flexible approach to both out of pastoral economy.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 04:34:53 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,659


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #110 on: October 22, 2012, 05:47:34 PM »

Just as the Pope had no right to usurp the power of emperors. But maybe you don't agree.

The power of the state should be superior to the power of the church? That's something I thought I'd never hear from a conservative.  Tongue
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #111 on: October 22, 2012, 05:51:44 PM »

Let me get this straight, you will allow divorce in the East because you view the first marriage as some kind of "mistake" or past sin that's forgiven

The first marriage is not seen as a mistake. It's the divorce that is the sin (or 'mistake' although only in the same sense that any sin is a 'mistake'). And like any other sin, it can be forgiven although the effect cannot necessarily be undone (you can be forgiven for murder, but it doesn't bring the victim back to life, you can be forgiven for adultery but that doesn't cure your VD, and you can be forgiven for divorce but that doesn't mean the destroyed relatioship can be miraculously resurrected or healed either.

Quote
but God forbid if your spouse dies and you decide to remarry later on the second marriage is considered " bigamy"? Am I reading this right? Because if I am, this is absolute lunacy. I can't believe this kind of thinking is in line with the EOC.

You were married once. If you get married again, whether the first wife is dead, divorced you, or still around, yes, that is literally 'bigamy' "two wives". In the first two cases, the Church may allow it as a concession to weakness, to prevent you from falling even further into sin, but a second marriage is still a second marriage.

And while you may have trouble believing it, this is not something "the EOC" came up with recently. The relevent canons--both on divorce and remarriage after the death of a spouse--are all from the Ecumenical Councils (not suggesting the West changed; I believe the West was always stricter about this than the East, but the West was in full communion with the East when the canons we still operate under were promulgated).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #112 on: October 22, 2012, 06:52:08 PM »

Why do we call him Charlemagne in English?

When your name rings outs in English in at least three acceptable variations, you know were THE king.

"Charles le Magne," Charles the Great. Doesn't anybody take French anymore?

I know what his name means in French. But we have two English names for him which are quite usable.

Why not Karl der Große or Karolus Magnus?

Or Great Chuck, for that matter?

I think that Peppermint Patty gave that one to Charlie Brown already, so we can't switch now, unfortunately.   
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #113 on: October 23, 2012, 01:28:44 PM »

Everything about this man was wrong on so many levels and is historically one of the worst enemies of the Church there ever was.

Fidei Defensor , 'nuff said.
Latae Sententiae.......right back at you. Wink
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #114 on: October 23, 2012, 01:33:41 PM »

Just as the Pope had no right to usurp the power of emperors. But maybe you don't agree.
Soo... this has what to do  with Henry the apostate/heretic?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #115 on: October 23, 2012, 01:40:43 PM »

Charlecrotte was one of the worst things to happen to Western Europe, if not the world.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #116 on: October 23, 2012, 02:59:33 PM »


Quote
There was also a "schism" in the West when a man named Henry the VIII from England wanted to divorce his wife but was denied by the pope, so he started his own church and went on to marry several times and lopped off a few heads along the way of those who disagreed with him, including a great man named Sir/ST Thomas More.

I know it gets simplified that way in modern textbooks, but Henry VIII never asked for a divorce. He asked for an annulment. He thought he had a valid case (based on the fact that his wife had been originally betrothed to his brother, and God's apparent judgment on that violation of the marriage canons in their failure to produce viable offspring), the Pope disagreed, possibly for valid canonical reasons, possibly because the wife in question also happened to be the sister of the King of Spain, the Pope's biggest royal ally of the time--but Henry assumed the latter and based his breaking the Church of England loose from Rome on Rome's playing politics with the canons.

It was more than that the elder brother Prince Arthur was betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, they had married on November 14, 1501 and the Prince of Wales did not die until April 2, 1502.  He was fifteen by the way and she was sixteen.  A special dispensation was obtained from the Bishop of Rome so that Henry who was now the heir to the throne could marry her which did not take place for 8 years due to things like negotiations about the dowry and other complications from Henry VII.

It was not "viable offspring" but male children.  That is one or more sons to continue the royal line.  This is not something that was new.  The need for a male heir was important in many situations.  Henry knew that he could produce sons since he'd had Henry Fitzroy,the first Duke of Richmond and Somerset by a mistress. And before anyone throws that against him, kings and nobles and popes and others have had mistresses and concubines and other encounters throughout history. It's what happened. 

So anyway, he had an illegitimate son, whom he tried to get decreed as his heir, but the young man died at 17.  His reasoning, and he had been educated for a career in the Church so he wasn't making things up, was that there must be something wrong with being married to his brother's wife and that's why God wasn't giving him any male children who survived.

Catherine was the aunt of Emperor Charles V who had Pope Clement VII as his prisoner following the Sack of Rome.  That was the connection and it wasn't a matter of alliance but of imprisonment.  Also as a side note Charles V also had mistresses and illegitimate offspring, just for information's sake. 

The point was "Who would rule?  An English king and parliament or a Spanish King/Emperor telling the Bishop of Rome what to do?" 

And by the way, as an example that I have mentioned in another thread in which the start of the Anglican Church was covered some time ago, Louis VII of France (1120-1180) was first married to Eleanor of Aquitaine. When she only bore him two daughters the marriage was annulled and he married Constance of Castille who also only had girls.  She died and Louis married a third time and finally got an heir, Phillip II.  Meanwhile Eleanor married Henry Plantagenet (Henry II of England) and had five sons and three daughters.

So this mindset was not something new. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #117 on: October 23, 2012, 05:12:34 PM »

" The first marriage is not seen as a mistake. It's the divorce that is the sin (or 'mistake' although only in the same sense that any sin is a 'mistake'). And like any other sin, it can be forgiven although the effect cannot necessarily be undone (you can be forgiven for murder, but it doesn't bring the victim back to life, you can be forgiven for adultery but that doesn't cure your VD, and you can be forgiven for divorce but that doesn't mean the destroyed relatioship can be miraculously resurrected or healed either."-witega


How can a (valid) divorce be defined as a "sin"? Is not the marriage ordained by God  thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined? There can never be true absolute divorce in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.

From Catholic Encyclopedia;

"In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated."


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm



You do realize that Marriage is a Sacrament and Covenant binding.

As for the Bigamy thing, from what I've read, Rome permits valid marriages after the death of a wife but  bars against his receiving or exercising any ecclesiastical order or dignity. According to Canon Law.

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,926


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #118 on: October 23, 2012, 07:00:45 PM »

Is not the marriage ordained by God thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined? There can never be true absolute divorce in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.

You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Christ said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her’; and, ‘if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery’;

But you say, ‘If the church says to a wife, whatever relationship you had is Annulled (that is to say, was never a legtimate marriage),’ you no longer hold a man to do anything for his wife or to remain with her; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 07:01:45 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,158


« Reply #119 on: October 23, 2012, 07:09:05 PM »

Is not the marriage ordained by God thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined? There can never be true absolute divorce in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.

You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Christ said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her’; and, ‘if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery’;

But you say, ‘If the church says to a wife, whatever relationship you had is Annulled (that is to say, was never a legtimate marriage),’ you no longer hold a man to do anything for his wife or to remain with her; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

If the "marriage" was never valid to begin with, then why would the Church ever recognize the "wife" to begin with?

There's no invalidating of anything here, you're not making sense.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,926


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #120 on: October 23, 2012, 09:50:41 PM »

If the "marriage" was never valid to begin with, then why would the Church ever recognize the "wife" to begin with?

You tell me.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #121 on: October 24, 2012, 01:12:10 AM »

" The first marriage is not seen as a mistake. It's the divorce that is the sin (or 'mistake' although only in the same sense that any sin is a 'mistake'). And like any other sin, it can be forgiven although the effect cannot necessarily be undone (you can be forgiven for murder, but it doesn't bring the victim back to life, you can be forgiven for adultery but that doesn't cure your VD, and you can be forgiven for divorce but that doesn't mean the destroyed relatioship can be miraculously resurrected or healed either."-witega


How can a (valid) divorce be defined as a "sin"?

I don't understand the phrasing of this question.
God said 'Do not murder', so murder is a sin.
God said 'Do not steal', so stealing is a sin.
Christ (God) said 'What God has joined together, let not man put asunder', so 'putting asunder' (divorce) is a sin.
Deeper theological reflections on why God commands/forbids this or that is not only possible but profitable, but at the simplest definitional level, if God says 'don't do it' and man does it (or attempts to do it) then it's a sin.

Quote
Is not the marriage ordained by God  thereby rendering it indissoluble at least while both spouses are living? How can man separate what God himself has joined?

Lots of things are 'ordained by God' that, in allowing us the exercise of free will, He allows us to break (to our own detriment). Baptism is a sacrament, a 'Covenant binding', which makes us part of the Bride of God. But if you reject your baptism, break the covenant, and go make yourself into an acolyte of Vishnu or your own pleasure, you will not have a part in the Bridal Feast come the last days. If God allows man to break his union with Him, if apostasy is possible, then why wouldn't man likewise be capable of breaking the union of marriage which is itself a type of that Divine Union?

(Indeed, Christ Himself does not say that man 'cannot' put asunder a marriage, He says 'do not'.)
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,328


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #122 on: October 24, 2012, 05:33:06 AM »

Doesn't annulment make the children begotten in marriage bastards?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #123 on: October 24, 2012, 09:51:05 AM »

Doesn't annulment make the children begotten in marriage bastards?

No, because a civil marriage still happened, even if it's determined that the marriage was never sacramental.
Logged
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #124 on: October 24, 2012, 10:14:03 AM »


And by the way, as an example that I have mentioned in another thread in which the start of the Anglican Church was covered some time ago [snip]

Thanks, Ebor.  Would you mind posting or PMing me a link to that thread?
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #125 on: October 24, 2012, 06:11:13 PM »


And by the way, as an example that I have mentioned in another thread in which the start of the Anglican Church was covered some time ago [snip]

Thanks, Ebor.  Would you mind posting or PMing me a link to that thread?

Here you go: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13426.0.html

Another member had asked for information to understand Anglicanism about five years ago and I and others gave him some history and there was some other discussion as well,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #126 on: October 24, 2012, 07:19:20 PM »

Doesn't annulment make the children begotten in marriage bastards?

No, because a civil marriage still happened, even if it's determined that the marriage was never sacramental.

Many of the grounds for annulment of sacramental marriage would also be grounds for annulment of a civil marriage in most jurisdictions.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 24, 2012, 07:20:56 PM »

Is bastard a legal or religious title? Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 07:21:31 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #128 on: October 24, 2012, 07:25:29 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #129 on: October 24, 2012, 07:29:14 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 07:30:16 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #130 on: October 24, 2012, 07:33:30 PM »

Is bastard a legal or religious title?

It is certainly a legal category.

I was amused back in law school when I discovered a book entitled The Law of Bastardry. Presumably, it was about succession rights of illegitimate children back when such a concept was meaningful.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #131 on: October 24, 2012, 07:37:12 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #132 on: October 24, 2012, 07:53:57 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.

It can. But it doesn't have to. And these are two different meanings, not two ways to one meaning.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #133 on: October 24, 2012, 07:57:14 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.

It can. But it doesn't have to. And these are two different meanings, not two ways to one meaning.
Or perhaps two aspects of the same thing...
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #134 on: October 24, 2012, 08:03:13 PM »

Is marriage a legal pact or mystery?
Are the two mutually exclusive?

IMO - yes. Or there are two kinds of marriages that can (but don't have to) exist simultaneously. Both with separate features.
Why can't one marriage be recognized by the Church and state but in different ways.

It can. But it doesn't have to. And these are two different meanings, not two ways to one meaning.
Or perhaps two aspects of the same thing...

That's what I do not agree with.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.183 seconds with 73 queries.