OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 07:49:33 AM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox/ Catholic issue of divorce  (Read 7474 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« on: October 09, 2010, 09:36:25 AM »


Why in the world would that be so? You don't receive an annulment unless it's appealed to the church.

No union while the system of annulment is operating.

The Orthodox Church, should it unite with the Catholic Church, will certainly need to attend to the abolishment of the strange system of Catholic annulment.

Ever year in the United States it is discovered by the Catholic authorities that 120,000 American Catholics have been in pseudo-marriages, sometimes for decades, and these non-marriages have to be annulled.  The 60,000 pseudo-marriages may be only the tip of the iceberg.  There may well be hundreds of thousands of other Catholic people living in these pseudo-marriages, never valid from the day of the wedding because of some impediment/s, but these people continue oblivious of their pseudo-marriages and never seek an annulment.

If we are to unite with the Catholics we most certainly do not want this horde of non-married people, essentially living in covert fornication, coming to our churches and receiving our sacraments.

This is a matter of morality which must be dealt with before any union.


In order to do so (if we are to pretend to be the 8th ecumenical council of reunion), we would need to reconcile a verse:

Quote
[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

Note:[9] "Except it be"... In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

 
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2010, 09:47:14 AM »

[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.


 

This makes the Catholic teaching even more horrendous.   These 120,000 American Catholics who are granted annulments each year by their Church have most certainly been united in one flesh.  They have been engaging is sexual coitus for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years - most certainly one flesh.  But the Catholic Church, deciding in its "wisdom" that there was some impediment on the day of the wedding decades earlier declares they must cease from being one flesh.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2010, 09:51:59 AM »

[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.


 

This makes the Catholic teaching even more horrendous.   These 120,000 American Catholics who are granted annulments each year by their Church have most certainly been united in one flesh.  They have been engaging is sexual coitus for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years - most certainly one flesh.  But the Catholic Church, deciding in its "wisdom" that there was some impediment on the day of the wedding decades earlier declares they must cease from being one flesh.

Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2010, 09:54:14 AM »

For reference:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml
Quote
3.  What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2010, 09:59:51 AM »

[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.


 

This makes the Catholic teaching even more horrendous.   These 120,000 American Catholics who are granted annulments each year by their Church have most certainly been united in one flesh.  They have been engaging is sexual coitus for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years - most certainly one flesh.  But the Catholic Church, deciding in its "wisdom" that there was some impediment on the day of the wedding decades earlier declares they must cease from being one flesh.

Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

The Russian Orthodox Church recently (in the last 5 years?) issued a proclamation that common law marriages must be respected as true marriages.  This was as a rebuff to some "spiritual fathers" in Russia who were dealing with them too harshly, refusing communion and refusing to baptize the children..

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2010, 10:01:55 AM »

[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.


 

This makes the Catholic teaching even more horrendous.   These 120,000 American Catholics who are granted annulments each year by their Church have most certainly been united in one flesh.  They have been engaging is sexual coitus for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years - most certainly one flesh.  But the Catholic Church, deciding in its "wisdom" that there was some impediment on the day of the wedding decades earlier declares they must cease from being one flesh.

Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

Quote
The Russian Orthodox Church recently (in the last 5 years?) issued a proclamation that common law marriages must be respected as true marriages.

Could you point to the text of this proclamation? This statement on its face seems to contradict everything I've heard in the Orthodox Church about marriage.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2010, 10:02:48 AM »

[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.


This makes the Catholic teaching even more horrendous.   These 120,000 American Catholics who are granted annulments each year by their Church have most certainly been united in one flesh.  They have been engaging is sexual coitus for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years - most certainly one flesh.  But the Catholic Church, deciding in its "wisdom" that there was some impediment on the day of the wedding decades earlier declares they must cease from being one flesh.

Besides, this verse really makes both Catholic AND Orthodox practice horrible.

Yes, the Catholic Church has a series of canon laws to define legally "God's law". In this, they have determined what makes a marriage valid. If one of those couples above were able to reconcile their problem, say commitment to the marriage for life, then the validity of their marriage would be in force.

Btw, have you seen the show 'Big Bang Theory'? You saying coitus made me laugh.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 10:08:47 AM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2010, 10:05:43 AM »


Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

No, he's being condescending against RC annulments.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2010, 10:07:49 AM »

For reference:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

3.  What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent;


One and two are the great problem areas.

There is simply no way to ascertain, at the time of the wedding, that couples are free to marry and are freely giving their assent.

It may come to light decades later that there were impediments in these areas and so no marriage took place and the Catholic Church is obliged to annul the non-existent marriage and prevent the couple from further cohabitation..

It is these areas of uncertainty which as Stanley says, effectively call into question every Catholic marriage on the planet.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2010, 10:11:47 AM »


Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

No, he's being condescending against RC annulments.

I am not being condescending.  I consider the annulment system abominable.  Angry As a Catholic canon lawyer will tell you, there is probably no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient light is shone on it and the state of the two spouses on the day of the wedding.  Pshaw!
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2010, 10:22:56 AM »

For reference:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

3.  What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent;


One and two are the great problem areas.

There is simply no way to ascertain, at the time of the wedding, that couples are free to marry and are freely giving their assent.

It may come to light decades later that there were impediments in these areas and so no marriage took place and the Catholic Church is obliged to annul the non-existent marriage and prevent the couple from further cohabitation..

It is these areas of uncertainty which as Stanley says, effectively call into question every Catholic marriage on the planet.

I would think those would be easy, as well as number four. Number three though:
Quote
(3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children
Is a little more difficult.

Of course, the problem here is also assuming the ideal marriage hitting an iceberg is what is coming to an annulment. Instead, it's more the issue of abusive marriages, promiscuous marriages, or more rarely, a marriage where one of the spouses never wants to have children.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2010, 10:26:38 AM »


Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

No, he's being condescending against RC annulments.

I am not being condescending.  I consider the annulment system abominable.  Angry As a Catholic canon lawyer will tell you, there is probably no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient light is shone on it and the state of the two spouses on the day of the wedding.  Pshaw!

I wasn't saying you were being condescending to me, Father! Merely that you were "hating" on the system of annulments.

I don't know any Catholic canon lawyers, so I would have to take your word on it.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2010, 10:28:40 AM »

The Russian Orthodox Church recently (in the last 5 years?) issued a proclamation that common law marriages must be respected as true marriages.

Could you point to the text of this proclamation? This statement on its face seems to contradict everything I've heard in the Orthodox Church about marriage.


From "The Basis of the Social Concept" a major Statement issued by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000.

X.2:  On December 28, 1998, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church regretted to state that some spiritual fathers tend to declare common-law marriage invalid or demand that spouses, who have lived together for many years but were not married in church for this or that reason, should divorce. Some spiritual fathers do not allow persons who live in “unwed” marriage to communicate, identifying such a marriage with fornication. The decision adopted by the Synod points out that “while insisting on the necessity of church marriage, the Synod reminds pastors that the Orthodox Church also respects common-law marriage”."

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/kh/
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2010, 11:41:24 AM »


Why in the world would that be so? You don't receive an annulment unless it's appealed to the church.

No union while the system of annulment is operating.

The Orthodox Church, should it unite with the Catholic Church, will certainly need to attend to the abolishment of the strange system of Catholic annulment.

Ever year in the United States it is discovered by the Catholic authorities that 120,000 American Catholics have been in pseudo-marriages, sometimes for decades, and these non-marriages have to be annulled.  The 60,000 pseudo-marriages may be only the tip of the iceberg.  There may well be hundreds of thousands of other Catholic people living in these pseudo-marriages, never valid from the day of the wedding because of some impediment/s, but these people continue oblivious of their pseudo-marriages and never seek an annulment.

If we are to unite with the Catholics we most certainly do not want this horde of non-married people, essentially living in covert fornication, coming to our churches and receiving our sacraments.

This is a matter of morality which must be dealt with before any union.


In order to do so (if we are to pretend to be the 8th ecumenical council of reunion), we would need to reconcile a verse:

Quote
[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

Note:[9] "Except it be"... In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.
The Vatican has already abandoned Douay-Rheims and instead has read its corban factories a/k/a the marriage tribunals into the verse:
Quote
whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
7 [9] Moses' concession to human sinfulness (the hardness of your hearts, ⇒ Matthew 19:Cool is repudiated by Jesus, and the original will of the Creator is reaffirmed against that concession. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): see the note on ⇒ Matthew 5:31-32. There is some evidence suggesting that Jesus' absolute prohibition of divorce was paralleled in the Qumran community (see 11QTemple 57:17-19; CD 4:12b-5:14). Matthew removes Mark's setting of this verse as spoken to the disciples alone "in the house" (⇒ Mark 10:10) and also his extension of the divorce prohibition to the case of a woman's divorcing her husband (⇒ Matthew 10:12), probably because in Palestine, unlike the places where Roman and Greek law prevailed, the woman was not allowed to initiate the divorce.

Mat. 5:31 21 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.' 32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
21 [31-32] See ⇒ Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this "exceptive clause," as it is often called, occurs also in ⇒ Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see ⇒ Mark 10:11-12; ⇒ Luke 16:18; cf ⇒ 1 Cor 7:10, ⇒ 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew's "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (⇒ Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in ⇒ Acts 15:20, ⇒ 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M., L.S.S. Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur X James A. Hickey, S.T.D., J.C.D. Archbishop of Washington August 27, 1986
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVS.HTM

This is simple nonsense: what Church Father ever interpreted "porneia" as incest? And like Humanae Vitae, where is any patristics on the gloss that it means "In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living."

A more important problem is that the Catholic Church holds that she marries the couple, while the Vatican holds that the couple marries themselves. For us, then, the "intention" of the couple isn't at issue.
Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2010, 11:53:40 AM »

[Douay-Rheims]Matthew Ch 19:
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.


 

This makes the Catholic teaching even more horrendous.   These 120,000 American Catholics who are granted annulments each year by their Church have most certainly been united in one flesh.  They have been engaging is sexual coitus for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years - most certainly one flesh.  But the Catholic Church, deciding in its "wisdom" that there was some impediment on the day of the wedding decades earlier declares they must cease from being one flesh.

Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

St. Paul seems to find it too close for comfort I Cor. 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."

There seems to be some studies on why sleeping with multiple partners isn't good for you because of a physical chemical dependence that builds with one partner and hates to be ruptured.
Logged

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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2010, 12:13:32 PM »

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVS.HTM

This is simple nonsense: what Church Father ever interpreted "porneia" as incest? And like Humanae Vitae, where is any patristics on the gloss that it means "In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living."

A more important problem is that the Catholic Church holds that she marries the couple, while the Vatican holds that the couple marries themselves. For us, then, the "intention" of the couple isn't at issue.

Seriously, you've got to stop changing names for your own whims. No one knows what or who  you're talking about when you do that.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2010, 12:16:37 PM »

Since I am the devil's advocate here, being neither Orthodox nor Catholic at this time...

How do the Orthodox deal with the same counter argument for allowing divorce despite the command not to?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2010, 12:18:57 PM »

People in the Church err. I found both the easy road to annulments and the acknowledgement  of common law marriages as being errors.

There are many reasons for the high number of annulments. One can be the large number of psychological disorders which are a modern day epidemic. The other can be that Catholics do not taking seriously the sin of simony. Sad to say but everyone knows that lawyers resort to lying as a method of defense. When you study law, the instructors tell you that you can lie during court proceedings because it is the judge who decides what the truth is. Although in America it would be the jury.
Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2010, 12:23:40 PM »


Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

No, he's being condescending against RC annulments.

I am not being condescending.  I consider the annulment system abominable.  Angry As a Catholic canon lawyer will tell you, there is probably no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient light is shone on it and the state of the two spouses on the day of the wedding.  Pshaw!

I think that you have made a slight error there.  What you should have said is that there is no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient cash is on hand.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2010, 12:34:35 PM »


Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

No, he's being condescending against RC annulments.

I am not being condescending.  I consider the annulment system abominable.  Angry As a Catholic canon lawyer will tell you, there is probably no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient light is shone on it and the state of the two spouses on the day of the wedding.  Pshaw!

I think that you have made a slight error there.  What you should have said is that there is no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient cash is on hand.

Are you attempting to Troll?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2010, 12:45:07 PM »

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVS.HTM

This is simple nonsense: what Church Father ever interpreted "porneia" as incest? And like Humanae Vitae, where is any patristics on the gloss that it means "In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living."

A more important problem is that the Catholic Church holds that she marries the couple, while the Vatican holds that the couple marries themselves. For us, then, the "intention" of the couple isn't at issue.

Seriously, you've got to stop changing names for your own whims. No one knows what or who  you're talking about when you do that.

Ialmisry Translation Guide:

the Vatican = the Catholic Church

the Catholic Church = Byzantines

blahblahblah snarky stuff blahblah = this is why I feel I am superior to you and never hesitate to point out that fact
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 12:46:38 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2010, 02:10:33 PM »


Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

No, he's being condescending against RC annulments.

I am not being condescending.  I consider the annulment system abominable.  Angry As a Catholic canon lawyer will tell you, there is probably no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient light is shone on it and the state of the two spouses on the day of the wedding.  Pshaw!

I think that you have made a slight error there.  What you should have said is that there is no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient cash is on hand.

Are you attempting to Troll?

I do that with a boat and downriggers.  Here I speak my mind.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2010, 02:35:48 PM »

I am not being condescending.  I consider the annulment system abominable.  Angry As a Catholic canon lawyer will tell you, there is probably no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient light is shone on it and the state of the two spouses on the day of the wedding.  Pshaw!

I think that you have made a slight error there.  What you should have said is that there is no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient cash is on hand.

Both of these assertions are false of course. 

They are favored stones to lob but in terms of their truth-value they do not comport with reality.  Even I can witness to several attempts to receive an annulment that failed the tests of the tribunal.  I can also name many names where no money exchanged hands at all.  None.   In fact most of the ones that I am aware of cost the petitioner nothing.  I live in a poor area.

At any rate, there are many things to discuss without having to resort to ugly witness that does pass the truth-test.  These tend to be very emotional issues and generally those who get the nastiest are those who feel as they they've been done wrong or a loved one has been wrongly served.

My spiritual Father says that, short of the liturgical discontent in the Latin rite,  the two most prevalent reasons for leaving the Church...to go somewhere else or nowhere at all...are sex and money.  He says that in the preponderance of cases, if you scratch deep enough you will find a connection to either one or both.  He is speaking loosely of course but I have learned over the years that he does have a point.

M.

Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,502


« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2010, 03:17:43 PM »

Since I am the devil's advocate here, being neither Orthodox nor Catholic at this time...

How do the Orthodox deal with the same counter argument for allowing divorce despite the command not to?

I figure, divorce was allowed in the Old Testament because of circumstances. And who allowed that divorce? The Bible says it was Moses (Matt. 19:8 ). Was he guided by God in allowing it? I would assume so. Nonetheless, now we have the Church, with Christ as her head, with the Holy Spirit guiding it... and someone is going to say that the Church can't make a change in what is and isn't allowed? I would venture to guess that the Church has more authority, not to mention more guidance, than Moses did, in making such decisions as to whether God's strict preference regarding divorce should be loosened due to human weakness. Jesus Christ also said that "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt. 5:28 ) When was the last time you heard of a Church giving a heavy penance to someone, or excommunicating them for a time, for having a sexual fantasy? Jesus often said difficult things, because he was giving a goal for us to strive for. That doesn't mean that everyone will reach those goals overnight (if ever), and the Church is not here to punish us for falling short, but rather to nurture as we grow towards the goal.

EDIT--One note about my last line... of course the Church can offer correction, though the ultimate purpose of the correction would be to help someone get back on the right track.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 03:22:34 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2010, 03:20:52 PM »


Are you saying that any sexual union constitutes "one flesh" and God-sanctioned marriage?

We are speaking in the context of the 1,200,000 Roman Catholics over the last decade in stable relationships (usually perceived as marriages but in fact pseudo-marriages) who have been enjoying each others flesh for several decades.

So cohabitation becomes marriage after enough time has elapsed?

No, he's being condescending against RC annulments.

I am not being condescending.  I consider the annulment system abominable.  Angry As a Catholic canon lawyer will tell you, there is probably no Catholic marriage which cannot be annulled, if sufficient light is shone on it and the state of the two spouses on the day of the wedding.  Pshaw!
Yes. That seems very problematical to me. If almost any marriage can be annulled, then who out there is actually married?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 03:21:46 PM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2010, 03:28:46 PM »

A more important problem is that the Catholic Church holds that she marries the couple, while the Vatican holds that the couple marries themselves. For us, then, the "intention" of the couple isn't at issue.
I think that this is an important point.
It does seem like it is a better situation when the priest marries the couple. Of course, there may be exceptional cases when the couple would marry themselves, such as being stranded and a priest would not be available for quite some time.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2010, 03:41:01 PM »

To me, the annulment process in and of itself doesn't seem problematic. The way it is sometimes executed can be problematic. Personally, I think it should be harder to get annulments because if couples think that it is very easy to obtain one, there isn't as big of an incentive to stay together if you know that you can just acquire an annulment if you get sick of each other and decide to be with someone else.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 03:42:17 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2010, 04:45:13 PM »


To me, the annulment process in and of itself doesn't seem problematic.


In the previous 10 year period 1,200,000 American Catholics have been told by the Catholic Church that their supposed marriages were non-existent from Day One.  Despite maybe decades of being "one in the flesh" the Church tells them they were never married and cohabitation must cease.

*That* is problematic!
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 04:46:09 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2010, 05:28:08 PM »


To me, the annulment process in and of itself doesn't seem problematic.


In the previous 10 year period 1,200,000 American Catholics have been told by the Catholic Church that their supposed marriages were non-existent from Day One.  Despite maybe decades of being "one in the flesh" the Church tells them they were never married and cohabitation must cease.

*That* is problematic!

This is patently an absurd commentary that you offer here.  Why you make it seem that the Church has divided this otherwise loving union of one man, one women in wedded bliss....Well Father, it is more like wedded blisters!!

People who get annulments are already divorced.  They are already, and often, bitterly opposed one to the other, and anyone who has tried to keep them together, I might add, or to those who supported the aggrieved one in a messy grab for resources at the end!!  There's already hate-aplenty to go around in many of the cases, perhaps most of them.

Overall mind you, in cases where annulments have been granted, there's been physical and mental abuse, substance abuse, adultery, same-sex attraction issues, physical abhorrence, psychological rejection that can range from severe to absolute, there's been screaming and shouting and recriminations and lies, battered children on all levels or no children at all....and on and on and on.  Many of them, married for decades, have not shared the same bed for decades, or only to serve the need for appearances while they philandered elsewhere!!...so much for "one flesh" Father.

Mary




Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #29 on: October 09, 2010, 05:53:07 PM »


To me, the annulment process in and of itself doesn't seem problematic.


In the previous 10 year period 1,200,000 American Catholics have been told by the Catholic Church that their supposed marriages were non-existent from Day One.  Despite maybe decades of being "one in the flesh" the Church tells them they were never married and cohabitation must cease.

*That* is problematic!

This is patently an absurd commentary that you offer here.  Why you make it seem that the Church has divided this otherwise loving union of one man, one women in wedded bliss....Well Father, it is more like wedded blisters!!

People who get annulments are already divorced.  They are already, and often, bitterly opposed one to the other, and anyone who has tried to keep them together, I might add, or to those who supported the aggrieved one in a messy grab for resources at the end!!  There's already hate-aplenty to go around in many of the cases, perhaps most of them.

So the Vatican obliges and orders up some corban to make it all right.

Overall mind you, in cases where annulments have been granted, there's been physical and mental abuse, substance abuse, adultery, same-sex attraction issues, physical abhorrence, psychological rejection that can range from severe to absolute, there's been screaming and shouting and recriminations and lies, battered children on all levels or no children at all....and on and on and on.  Many of them, married for decades, have not shared the same bed for decades, or only to serve the need for appearances while they philandered elsewhere!!...so much for "one flesh" Father.
That's true: I remember when I was a wee lad the next door neighbor landlord had this man who was always over. It wasn't until I was older (and this had been going on for decades) that I was informed that the situation was that he was married and "Catholic" so he couldn't get a divorce.  I recall that she was put out when he died and the wife got everything.

Babe Ruth, Spencer Tracy...do we care to go on with the list of "good Catholics"?
Logged

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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2010, 09:54:47 PM »


Babe Ruth, Spencer Tracy...do we care to go on with the list of "good Catholics"?

What are you getting at?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2010, 12:32:44 AM »

Since I am the devil's advocate here, being neither Orthodox nor Catholic at this time...

How do the Orthodox deal with the same counter argument for allowing divorce despite the command not to?

I've never been able to wrap my mind around the Catholic mindset on this issue. God has issued commandments with an absolute proscription on lots of things such as murder, stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain, idolatry etc. If we commit one of those sins we can repent and be received back into the bosom of the Church. That being the case why can't you repent of divorce and remarriage just like every other sin?

Jesus said any sin can be forgiven men except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why does the Catholic Church feel the need to add the sin of divorce and remarriage to that list?



In Christ
Joe
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2010, 12:53:08 AM »


Babe Ruth, Spencer Tracy...do we care to go on with the list of "good Catholics"?

What are you getting at?
I'm all for vice paying its tribute of hypocrisy to virtue, but such examples of "maintaining the sanctaty of marriage" by carrying on long term affairs pushes that.  (though to be fair in the examples given, Ruth did marry his mistress when the true identity of his wife's body (she had been cohabitating with another man, and the death certificate at first had his name); and Tracy's affair with Hepburn was kept private, and he wasn't faithful to her either during the affair).
Logged

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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2010, 10:59:17 AM »

Since I am the devil's advocate here, being neither Orthodox nor Catholic at this time...

How do the Orthodox deal with the same counter argument for allowing divorce despite the command not to?

I've never been able to wrap my mind around the Catholic mindset on this issue. God has issued commandments with an absolute proscription on lots of things such as murder, stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain, idolatry etc. If we commit one of those sins we can repent and be received back into the bosom of the Church. That being the case why can't you repent of divorce and remarriage just like every other sin?

Jesus said any sin can be forgiven men except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why does the Catholic Church feel the need to add the sin of divorce and remarriage to that list?



In Christ
Joe

Because when you are divorced and remarried, you are still married to the first person in the eyes of God. Divorce is a legal action...it has no power over spiritual matters and certainly not sacraments. If one wants to truly repent of their sin of adultery, they cannot continue committing adultery and say "but I repented." Repentance is a conversion, not just saying you're sorry.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2010, 12:02:15 PM »


Babe Ruth, Spencer Tracy...do we care to go on with the list of "good Catholics"?

What are you getting at?
I'm all for vice paying its tribute of hypocrisy to virtue, but such examples of "maintaining the sanctaty of marriage" by carrying on long term affairs pushes that.  (though to be fair in the examples given, Ruth did marry his mistress when the true identity of his wife's body (she had been cohabitating with another man, and the death certificate at first had his name); and Tracy's affair with Hepburn was kept private, and he wasn't faithful to her either during the affair).

I thought so. You've delved into the guilt by association tactic. Now, the Catholics could start throwing polemics of that nature back at you OR more likely, they will try and ignore your sarcasm and continue with a more academic and spiritual discussion.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2010, 01:14:21 PM »


To me, the annulment process in and of itself doesn't seem problematic.


In the previous 10 year period 1,200,000 American Catholics have been told by the Catholic Church that their supposed marriages were non-existent from Day One.  Despite maybe decades of being "one in the flesh" the Church tells them they were never married and cohabitation must cease.

*That* is problematic!

This is patently an absurd commentary that you offer here.  Why you make it seem that the Church has divided this otherwise loving union of one man, one women in wedded bliss....Well Father, it is more like wedded blisters!!

People who get annulments are already divorced.  They are already, and often, bitterly opposed one to the other, and anyone who has tried to keep them together, I might add, or to those who supported the aggrieved one in a messy grab for resources at the end!!  There's already hate-aplenty to go around in many of the cases, perhaps most of them.

So the Vatican obliges and orders up some corban to make it all right.

Here again is an excessive and unrealistic response.  An annulment makes nothing "all right".  For some, there never again will be an "all right."   Some will remarry and divorce again.  Some will be blessed with a marriage that will last the distance.  But, as with virginity, once the fabric of a life has been rent by divorce, there really is nothing that will ever make it quite "all right" again.  Anytime one walks away from a vocational promise, there is a tear rent in the very fabric of life. 

One of the good things that I see happening in Catholic communities all around where I live is more and better attention being paid to marriage preparation and also I note that priests and pastors, ministers and preachers are banding together to work to rescue marriages that are in trouble in the larger Christian community.  Sometimes that kind of intervention will be precisely what is needed. 

There's really nothing that I can say that will ever reach you, Isa.  I am sorry about that but I do pray to God that the bitter root you carry may some day be removed from you.

In Christ,

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2010, 02:51:51 PM »

Since I am the devil's advocate here, being neither Orthodox nor Catholic at this time...

How do the Orthodox deal with the same counter argument for allowing divorce despite the command not to?

I've never been able to wrap my mind around the Catholic mindset on this issue. God has issued commandments with an absolute proscription on lots of things such as murder, stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain, idolatry etc. If we commit one of those sins we can repent and be received back into the bosom of the Church. That being the case why can't you repent of divorce and remarriage just like every other sin?

Jesus said any sin can be forgiven men except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why does the Catholic Church feel the need to add the sin of divorce and remarriage to that list?



In Christ
Joe

Because when you are divorced and remarried, you are still married to the first person in the eyes of God. Divorce is a legal action...it has no power over spiritual matters and certainly not sacraments.

Sure it does: you file for divorce, you are ex communicate per the canons. As it should be.  Economy and absolution is always available for such situations, and the Church is empowered to administer it.

As far as the remarriage part is concerned, no, the legal action is not determiniative: it is the determination of the Church as to the validity of the legal actions which has force.

If one wants to truly repent of their sin of adultery, they cannot continue committing adultery and say "but I repented." Repentance is a conversion, not just saying you're sorry.

In the Orthodox Church, normally both parties are excommuicate for a year after the action. From what I've seen, as soon as the corban factory a/k/a the marriage tribunal nullifies your marriage, you are free to remarry: where is the repentance for all those years of living in fornication?  If, as in the case of Babe Ruth, for instance, the remarriage is to validate an affair during the first marriage (something the Orthodox canons forbid, and the Antochian Archdiocese just reitereated as the first issue in case of remarriage, forbbiding it if it is an affair from the first), is it fornication or adultery?
Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2010, 03:08:35 PM »


To me, the annulment process in and of itself doesn't seem problematic.


In the previous 10 year period 1,200,000 American Catholics have been told by the Catholic Church that their supposed marriages were non-existent from Day One.  Despite maybe decades of being "one in the flesh" the Church tells them they were never married and cohabitation must cease.

*That* is problematic!

This is patently an absurd commentary that you offer here.  Why you make it seem that the Church has divided this otherwise loving union of one man, one women in wedded bliss....Well Father, it is more like wedded blisters!!

People who get annulments are already divorced.  They are already, and often, bitterly opposed one to the other, and anyone who has tried to keep them together, I might add, or to those who supported the aggrieved one in a messy grab for resources at the end!!  There's already hate-aplenty to go around in many of the cases, perhaps most of them.

So the Vatican obliges and orders up some corban to make it all right.

Here again is an excessive and unrealistic response.  An annulment makes nothing "all right".  For some, there never again will be an "all right."   Some will remarry and divorce again.  Some will be blessed with a marriage that will last the distance.  But, as with virginity, once the fabric of a life has been rent by divorce, there really is nothing that will ever make it quite "all right" again.  Anytime one walks away from a vocational promise, there is a tear rent in the very fabric of life.

I see no cognissance of that in the Vatican's corban scheme: it is theoretically possible to have annullments and remarraiges over and over and over without end. In Orthdoox moral theology, ANY second marriage (e.g. widowhood) is not treated as a second (technically, it is bigamy, and is so called by the Fathers), after three tries the Church considers that the married state is not for you (although exceptions have been, rarely, made after multiple widowhoods), and distinguishes between the innocent (who are allowed to, after a period of penance, remarry) and the guilty (who are not), etc.

Yes, that's what the theory is, but the reality is no worse, and I'd say far better, than what goes on with the Vatican's corban.

One of the good things that I see happening in Catholic communities all around where I live is more and better attention being paid to marriage preparation and also I note that priests and pastors, ministers and preachers are banding together to work to rescue marriages that are in trouble in the larger Christian community.  Sometimes that kind of intervention will be precisely what is needed. 

Looking over the paperwork for annulments (at least in the Vatican's archdioces of Chicago), it would be better served if their Pre-Cana programs explored the questions then.

There's really nothing that I can say that will ever reach you, Isa.

Truth always works.

I am sorry about that but I do pray to God that the bitter root you carry may some day be removed from you.
Just because I find the Vatican's Kool Aid bitter and so won't drink it doesn't evince that I carry any "bitter root."
Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2010, 03:24:41 PM »


Babe Ruth, Spencer Tracy...do we care to go on with the list of "good Catholics"?

What are you getting at?
I'm all for vice paying its tribute of hypocrisy to virtue, but such examples of "maintaining the sanctaty of marriage" by carrying on long term affairs pushes that.  (though to be fair in the examples given, Ruth did marry his mistress when the true identity of his wife's body (she had been cohabitating with another man, and the death certificate at first had his name); and Tracy's affair with Hepburn was kept private, and he wasn't faithful to her either during the affair).

I thought so. You've delved into the guilt by association tactic. Now, the Catholics could start throwing polemics of that nature back at you OR more likely, they will try and ignore your sarcasm and continue with a more academic and spiritual discussion.
Not guilt by association, just pointing out the mentality it engenders. In the case of Babe Ruth, I understand that his second marriage was a success. Did that come by repentance (of three months, the body indentified as his wife died in Jan. 11, and Babe married his live in mistress in April)? Had he divorced his first wife (instead of going through the trouble of having her death certificate changed to his name, instead of the name of the man he was cohabitating with), and remarried, would the result be the same? What if Mr. Kinder (the man she was living with) misidentified the body (she died in a fire), would the results be different?
Logged

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
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2010, 08:49:24 PM »


Because when you are divorced and remarried, you are still married to the first person in the eyes of God.


Says who? What happened to the Church's power to bind and loose? 


Divorce is a legal action...it has no power over spiritual matters and certainly not sacraments.


Says who? Many Orthodox Churches have ecclesiastical courts that issue ecclesiastical divorces. Those are necessary before being allowed back to the sacraments.


If one wants to truly repent of their sin of adultery, they cannot continue committing adultery and say "but I repented." Repentance is a conversion, not just saying you're sorry.


But is is you who have invented the rule that a second marriage is perpetual adultery. Yet again, what happened to the power to bind and loose?



In Christ
Joe
Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2010, 09:46:20 PM »


Because when you are divorced and remarried, you are still married to the first person in the eyes of God.


Says who? What happened to the Church's power to bind and loose? 


Divorce is a legal action...it has no power over spiritual matters and certainly not sacraments.


Says who? Many Orthodox Churches have ecclesiastical courts that issue ecclesiastical divorces. Those are necessary before being allowed back to the sacraments.


If one wants to truly repent of their sin of adultery, they cannot continue committing adultery and say "but I repented." Repentance is a conversion, not just saying you're sorry.


But is is you who have invented the rule that a second marriage is perpetual adultery. Yet again, what happened to the power to bind and loose?



In Christ
Joe

It has little to do with the Church's power to bind and loose, at least in the way you are using it.  What is a sin remains a sin.  A second marriage is perpetual adultery, and the Church cannot change that.  What the Church can do is, through Economy, consider that sin to be the lesser of two evils and allow one to remain in the Church under that condition.  The unfortunate effect of the over use of Economy is that it deadens the people to gravity of the sin.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2010, 09:53:18 PM »


Because when you are divorced and remarried, you are still married to the first person in the eyes of God.


Says who? What happened to the Church's power to bind and loose? 


Divorce is a legal action...it has no power over spiritual matters and certainly not sacraments.


Says who? Many Orthodox Churches have ecclesiastical courts that issue ecclesiastical divorces. Those are necessary before being allowed back to the sacraments.


If one wants to truly repent of their sin of adultery, they cannot continue committing adultery and say "but I repented." Repentance is a conversion, not just saying you're sorry.


But is is you who have invented the rule that a second marriage is perpetual adultery. Yet again, what happened to the power to bind and loose?



In Christ
Joe

It has little to do with the Church's power to bind and loose, at least in the way you are using it.  What is a sin remains a sin.  A second marriage is perpetual adultery, and the Church cannot change that.  What the Church can do is, through Economy, consider that sin to be the lesser of two evils and allow one to remain in the Church under that condition.  The unfortunate effect of the over use of Economy is that it deadens the people to gravity of the sin.
Yes. I cringe whenever I hear someone say that you have three chances at marriage. That's not exactly what the Church teaches, but unfortunately that is the practice of a lot-far, far too many-priests.
Logged

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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2010, 10:36:02 PM »

But is is you who have invented the rule that a second marriage is perpetual adultery. Yet again, what happened to the power to bind and loose?

How about Christ:

And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. -St. Matthew 5:31-32

The Catholic Church doesn't grant divorces because divorces are forbidden by Christ. The only way that a couple are not bound by the Sacrament of Matrimony is if it is found that their marriage was null from the beginning.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 10:36:18 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2010, 10:55:18 PM »

But is is you who have invented the rule that a second marriage is perpetual adultery. Yet again, what happened to the power to bind and loose?

How about Christ:

And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. -St. Matthew 5:31-32

The Catholic Church doesn't grant divorces because divorces are forbidden by Christ. The only way that a couple are not bound by the Sacrament of Matrimony is if it is found that their marriage was null from the beginning.
Corban.
Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2010, 10:59:21 PM »

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVS.HTM

This is simple nonsense: what Church Father ever interpreted "porneia" as incest? And like Humanae Vitae, where is any patristics on the gloss that it means "In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living."

A more important problem is that the Catholic Church holds that she marries the couple, while the Vatican holds that the couple marries themselves. For us, then, the "intention" of the couple isn't at issue.

Seriously, you've got to stop changing names for your own whims. No one knows what or who  you're talking about when you do that.

The Orthodox Catholics do.
Logged

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
Tags: marriage  annulment divorce 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  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 0.199 seconds with 72 queries.