Author Topic: On marrying a second wife  (Read 37336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #180 on: July 28, 2016, 06:29:42 AM »
The Holy See is a reference to the ecclesiastical jurdicrion of the Catholic Church in Rome or simply it's refers to the Church of Rome. That is a part of the institution that governs the Vatican City. What is the name of that institution?

Aren't you the one always lamenting juvenile behaviour?  Or is that only when you're not doing it?

Not juvenile at all. What's juvenile is someone who can't even pronounce the name of another communion

Would you acknowledge without qualification that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed?

I'm not asking him to say that. I'm asking him to call us by our name I.e. "Catholic Church" ... Just as I call you "Orthodox" even though I don't believe you are orthodox.

You may not believe that our Church is Orthodox, but your Church officially recognises us as "Orthodox" and "Church"
Yeah but not to its fullest expression. We see you having a few errors so you're recognises in the same league as the sedes.  Church is based on the historical definition of a church. Not that you are the Church but this is all besides the point. Why are you ranting about this?

Quote
to a far greater degree than our Church recognises yours as "Catholic" or "Church".

Nobody cares about your opinion. We are the church of Chirst and that's all that matters. Again why all this ?

Quote
It's not really fair to demand Isa do something that might require him to go against his/his Church's beliefs.
Calling us by our name is not an acknowledgement of our claim. It's common decency and respect.

 
Quote
To hold you to that standard with regard to us is fair and is not a double standard because of your own Church's official declarations.

Lol its not that deep hey. It's just respect
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #181 on: July 28, 2016, 08:33:11 AM »
You may not believe that our Church is Orthodox, but your Church officially recognises us as "Orthodox" and "Church"
Yeah but not to its fullest expression. We see you having a few errors so you're recognises in the same league as the sedes.

I don't see the Vatican courting the sedes the way they court the Orthodox.  So no, they're not in the same league, and you're being disingenuous to suggest that. 

Quote
Church is based on the historical definition of a church.


Which is?

Quote
Not that you are the Church but this is all besides the point. Why are you ranting about this?

Not ranting.  I'm just trying to explain why your demand of Isa is not entirely fair. 

Quote
Quote
to a far greater degree than our Church recognises yours as "Catholic" or "Church".

Nobody cares about your opinion. We are the church of Chirst and that's all that matters. Again why all this ?

If you don't care, then don't respond. 

As an aside, to all those Orthodox who complain when some of us are not as inclined to have a positive opinion of Roman Catholicism as they are, this is why. 

Quote
Quote
It's not really fair to demand Isa do something that might require him to go against his/his Church's beliefs.
Calling us by our name is not an acknowledgement of our claim. It's common decency and respect.

That's your opinion.  Personally, that's also my opinion.  But I respect others who disagree with that opinion and believe it's more serious than that. 

Quote
Quote
To hold you to that standard with regard to us is fair and is not a double standard because of your own Church's official declarations.

Lol its not that deep hey. It's just respect

Sorta like "No one cares about your opinion", I suppose. 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #182 on: July 30, 2016, 05:57:51 AM »
It's not the filioque and Pastor Aeternus...it's divorce and contraception....
Two issues the RC's(Well, the Church anyway) have not sold out on.

Like everyone else.

Now you can go back to  nattering on about "annullments" all you want.

Both Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have already begun to chip away at "divorce" and "contraception".  You may yet live to see their work completed.
Chip all they want, they cannot change Church Doctrine.

The second they try they will be by default, manifest heretics.

Judged so by whom?
We'll start with the doctors and fathers of the Church.

Christ's headship over the Church is not enough for you guys, so you regard the Pope as Christ's vicar, but when you need to judge a heretical Pope, your plan is to refer it to "the doctors and fathers of the Church".

This is rather silly.  You claim that Popes who try to change Church Doctrine are, by default, "manifest heretics", but you don't really have any way of judging that to be the case and dealing with it accordingly other than by hiring an assassin.
They judge themselves if they try and change Church doctrine or dogma.

And there are plenty of teachings on this against this to "judge" them on by past popes.

You know, Vicar's of Christ.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #183 on: July 30, 2016, 12:13:24 PM »
It's not the filioque and Pastor Aeternus...it's divorce and contraception....
Two issues the RC's(Well, the Church anyway) have not sold out on.

Like everyone else.

Now you can go back to  nattering on about "annullments" all you want.

Both Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have already begun to chip away at "divorce" and "contraception".  You may yet live to see their work completed.
Chip all they want, they cannot change Church Doctrine.

The second they try they will be by default, manifest heretics.

Judged so by whom?
We'll start with the doctors and fathers of the Church.

Christ's headship over the Church is not enough for you guys, so you regard the Pope as Christ's vicar, but when you need to judge a heretical Pope, your plan is to refer it to "the doctors and fathers of the Church".

This is rather silly.  You claim that Popes who try to change Church Doctrine are, by default, "manifest heretics", but you don't really have any way of judging that to be the case and dealing with it accordingly other than by hiring an assassin.
They judge themselves if they try and change Church doctrine or dogma.

And there are plenty of teachings on this against this to "judge" them on by past popes.

You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Keep spinning, Charles, it won't get you out the corner your denomination has painted you in. 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #184 on: July 31, 2016, 07:59:33 AM »
It's not the filioque and Pastor Aeternus...it's divorce and contraception....
Two issues the RC's(Well, the Church anyway) have not sold out on.

Like everyone else.

Now you can go back to  nattering on about "annullments" all you want.

Both Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have already begun to chip away at "divorce" and "contraception".  You may yet live to see their work completed.
Chip all they want, they cannot change Church Doctrine.

The second they try they will be by default, manifest heretics.

Judged so by whom?
We'll start with the doctors and fathers of the Church.

Christ's headship over the Church is not enough for you guys, so you regard the Pope as Christ's vicar, but when you need to judge a heretical Pope, your plan is to refer it to "the doctors and fathers of the Church".

This is rather silly.  You claim that Popes who try to change Church Doctrine are, by default, "manifest heretics", but you don't really have any way of judging that to be the case and dealing with it accordingly other than by hiring an assassin.
They judge themselves if they try and change Church doctrine or dogma.

And there are plenty of teachings on this against this to "judge" them on by past popes.

You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Keep spinning, Charles, it won't get you out the corner your denomination has painted you in.
Keep trying to control the narrative of your own personal interpretation from the other side of schism when it comes to our popes.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Arachne

  • Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
  • Section Moderator
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,053
  • I was almost normal once, but I got better.
  • Faith: Cradle Greek Orthodox. Cope.
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese, UK
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #185 on: July 31, 2016, 08:37:47 AM »
You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Christ doesn't need a vicar. He's not absent.
'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox ~

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #186 on: July 31, 2016, 10:57:09 AM »
You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Christ doesn't need a vicar. He's not absent.
It's a title of the pope's supremacy and universal primacy both in honor and jurisdiction over the Church.

No one said Christ was absent.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,819
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Antonis said I'm not Christian, so...
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #187 on: July 31, 2016, 11:19:10 AM »
You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Christ doesn't need a vicar. He's not absent.

This week, the priest who visited my parish was called vicar.

But, that.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

And you'll sleep, but they'll find you

Come back my dream into my arms, into my arms

London is drowning, and I live by the river

https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #188 on: July 31, 2016, 11:21:08 AM »
You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Christ doesn't need a vicar. He's not absent.

This week, the priest who visited my parish was called vicar.

Of whom?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,819
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Antonis said I'm not Christian, so...
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #189 on: July 31, 2016, 11:43:34 AM »


I've always been told every priest is to be treated as 'another Christ.'

Oh well.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

And you'll sleep, but they'll find you

Come back my dream into my arms, into my arms

London is drowning, and I live by the river

https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #190 on: July 31, 2016, 12:47:28 PM »
You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Christ doesn't need a vicar. He's not absent.

This week, the priest who visited my parish was called vicar.

But, that.

vic·ar
ˈvikər/

noun
noun: vicar; plural noun: vicars

(in the Roman Catholic Church) a representative or deputy of a bishop.
(in the Episcopal Church) a member of the clergy in charge of a chapel.
(in the Church of England) an incumbent of a parish where tithes formerly passed to a chapter or religious house or layman.
(in other Anglican Churches) a member of the clergy deputizing for another.
a cleric or choir member appointed to sing certain parts of a cathedral service.
Origin
Middle English: via Anglo-Norman French from Old French vicaire, from Latin vicarius ‘substitute,’ from vic- ‘change, turn, place’ (compare with vice).
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #191 on: July 31, 2016, 12:48:59 PM »
It's not the filioque and Pastor Aeternus...it's divorce and contraception....
Two issues the RC's(Well, the Church anyway) have not sold out on.

Like everyone else.

Now you can go back to  nattering on about "annullments" all you want.

Both Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have already begun to chip away at "divorce" and "contraception".  You may yet live to see their work completed.
Chip all they want, they cannot change Church Doctrine.

The second they try they will be by default, manifest heretics.

Judged so by whom?
We'll start with the doctors and fathers of the Church.

Christ's headship over the Church is not enough for you guys, so you regard the Pope as Christ's vicar, but when you need to judge a heretical Pope, your plan is to refer it to "the doctors and fathers of the Church".

This is rather silly.  You claim that Popes who try to change Church Doctrine are, by default, "manifest heretics", but you don't really have any way of judging that to be the case and dealing with it accordingly other than by hiring an assassin.
They judge themselves if they try and change Church doctrine or dogma.

And there are plenty of teachings on this against this to "judge" them on by past popes.

You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Keep spinning, Charles, it won't get you out the corner your denomination has painted you in.
Keep trying to control the narrative of your own personal interpretation from the other side of schism when it comes to our popes.

How is it my personal interpretation?  Dead popes have no jurisdiction. 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #192 on: August 01, 2016, 08:07:17 PM »
It's not the filioque and Pastor Aeternus...it's divorce and contraception....
Two issues the RC's(Well, the Church anyway) have not sold out on.

Like everyone else.

Now you can go back to  nattering on about "annullments" all you want.

Both Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have already begun to chip away at "divorce" and "contraception".  You may yet live to see their work completed.
Chip all they want, they cannot change Church Doctrine.

The second they try they will be by default, manifest heretics.

Judged so by whom?
We'll start with the doctors and fathers of the Church.

Christ's headship over the Church is not enough for you guys, so you regard the Pope as Christ's vicar, but when you need to judge a heretical Pope, your plan is to refer it to "the doctors and fathers of the Church".

This is rather silly.  You claim that Popes who try to change Church Doctrine are, by default, "manifest heretics", but you don't really have any way of judging that to be the case and dealing with it accordingly other than by hiring an assassin.
They judge themselves if they try and change Church doctrine or dogma.

And there are plenty of teachings on this against this to "judge" them on by past popes.

You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Keep spinning, Charles, it won't get you out the corner your denomination has painted you in.
Keep trying to control the narrative of your own personal interpretation from the other side of schism when it comes to our popes.

How is it my personal interpretation? Dead popes have no jurisdiction.
I guess St. Peter has no jurisdiction then.

Brilliant.

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

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #193 on: August 01, 2016, 09:19:47 PM »
How is it my personal interpretation? Dead popes have no jurisdiction.
I guess St. Peter has no jurisdiction then.

Brilliant.



It's your religion, not mine:

Quote
"Supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power" includes disciplinary authority. If a preceding pope could hamstring the disciplinary authority of his successors by issuing a disciplinary decree binding upon his successors under pain of mortal sin, then the current pope could not be said to have full disciplinary authority over the Church.

The disciplinary authority of a particular pope ends with his death. Successors may choose to continue to promulgate the disciplinary edicts of their predecessors because such edicts continue to be of importance to the life of the Church, but they are not bound to do so.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-pope-bind-all-future-popes-to-a-specific-liturgical-discipline
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #194 on: August 01, 2016, 10:10:41 PM »
How is it my personal interpretation? Dead popes have no jurisdiction.
I guess St. Peter has no jurisdiction then.

Brilliant.



This is the first step on a long road to healing, Charles. We're all rooting for you!
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline benjohn146

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
    • Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, Belleville, Ontario, Canada
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Toronto
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #195 on: August 02, 2016, 01:43:37 PM »
Following.
St Makarios, pray for us.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #196 on: August 04, 2016, 04:58:12 AM »
How is it my personal interpretation? Dead popes have no jurisdiction.
I guess St. Peter has no jurisdiction then.

Brilliant.



It's your religion, not mine:

Quote
"Supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power" includes disciplinary authority. If a preceding pope could hamstring the disciplinary authority of his successors by issuing a disciplinary decree binding upon his successors under pain of mortal sin, then the current pope could not be said to have full disciplinary authority over the Church.

The disciplinary authority of a particular pope ends with his death. Successors may choose to continue to promulgate the disciplinary edicts of their predecessors because such edicts continue to be of importance to the life of the Church, but they are not bound to do so.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-pope-bind-all-future-popes-to-a-specific-liturgical-discipline
Nice try, but again, popes (dead or alive) cannot change doctrine or dogma.

Again, the second they tried they would become manifest heretics. Past, present of future.

Try as you may, but your attempts to malign the papacy from across the schism are feeble at best.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #197 on: August 04, 2016, 05:01:00 AM »
How is it my personal interpretation? Dead popes have no jurisdiction.
I guess St. Peter has no jurisdiction then.

Brilliant.



This is the first step on a long road to healing, Charles. We're all rooting for you!
Thank you, the more mor posts, the better my healing in Catholicism becomes.

Thank you mor. ;)
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #198 on: August 04, 2016, 11:32:36 AM »
How is it my personal interpretation? Dead popes have no jurisdiction.
I guess St. Peter has no jurisdiction then.

Brilliant.



It's your religion, not mine:

Quote
"Supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power" includes disciplinary authority. If a preceding pope could hamstring the disciplinary authority of his successors by issuing a disciplinary decree binding upon his successors under pain of mortal sin, then the current pope could not be said to have full disciplinary authority over the Church.

The disciplinary authority of a particular pope ends with his death. Successors may choose to continue to promulgate the disciplinary edicts of their predecessors because such edicts continue to be of importance to the life of the Church, but they are not bound to do so.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-pope-bind-all-future-popes-to-a-specific-liturgical-discipline
Nice try, but again, popes (dead or alive) cannot change doctrine or dogma.

Again, the second they tried they would become manifest heretics. Past, present of future.

Try as you may, but your attempts to malign the papacy from across the schism are feeble at best.

I'm not maligning the papacy.  The papacy is maligning the papacy.
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Charles Martel

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,805
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #199 on: August 04, 2016, 05:08:47 PM »
Quote
I'm not maligning the papacy.  The papacy is maligning the papacy.
It happens every now and again.

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

Offline Isaac14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the Midwest
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #200 on: August 05, 2016, 10:57:50 PM »
No one really talks about the pastoral aspects of annulments. I'm probably somewhat unique in being Orthodox, but also have obtained an annulment so that I could marry my wonderful Catholic wife. It amazed me how much paperwork and beauracracy is involved and, honestly, it was amongst the least pleasant experiences of my life. To say it briefly, since an annulment is treated as a judicial process, it means all testimony given, is given under oath. My former wife made all sorts of wild insinuations that, because her testimony was "under oath", led to requirements of counseling and psychological evaluations before permission could be granted for marriage. Pretty much everyone, including the counselor I was required to see, saw through the ridiculousness of these claims, but since the rules are the rules, there was no room for any sort of reasonable judgement. From start to finish, it took well over a year and half (thank God for Pope Francis' reforms), consumed reams of paper, involved dozens of people, all to get around the idea that "let man not separate" is the exact same thing as "man cannot separate". I'm still haven't figured out how annulments allow healing unto salvation.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #201 on: August 05, 2016, 11:11:57 PM »
I'm still haven't figured out how annulments allow healing unto salvation.

Maybe they get you to reconsider making yourself a eunuch. 

I'm sorry to hear about your experience.  That's weird that they made you go through the process.  It's almost bound to be a disaster. 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Isaac14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the Midwest
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #202 on: August 05, 2016, 11:18:31 PM »
I'm still haven't figured out how annulments allow healing unto salvation.

Maybe they get you to reconsider making yourself a eunuch. 

I'm sorry to hear about your experience.  That's weird that they made you go through the process.  It's almost bound to be a disaster.

Life is good now! I agree about being weird; the initial contact between my Priest and the Catholics seemed to indicate that permission from my OCA Bishop would sufficient...but once the bureaucracy got rolling there was no stopping it.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #203 on: August 15, 2016, 09:15:27 PM »


I've always been told every priest is to be treated as 'another Christ.'

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #204 on: August 15, 2016, 09:20:30 PM »
I honestly don't think pointing out the annulment process and its problems within the Catholic Church are going to get to the heart of the issue. Sure, it's something to look at and give cause for a deeper look. But that's about it.

If more RCs felt that way, many of these discussions would not seem so pointless.
It's not the filioque and Pastor Aeternus...it's divorce and contraception....
Two issues the RC's(Well, the Church anyway) have not sold out on.
instead they bought Corban.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #205 on: August 15, 2016, 09:21:46 PM »
The Holy See is a reference to the ecclesiastical jurdicrion of the Catholic Church in Rome or simply it's refers to the Church of Rome. That is a part of the institution that governs the Vatican City. What is the name of that institution?

Aren't you the one always lamenting juvenile behaviour?  Or is that only when you're not doing it?

Not juvenile at all. What's juvenile is someone who can't even pronounce the name of another communion
we're not allowed to mention the name of your ecclesiastical community.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #206 on: September 11, 2016, 05:06:30 PM »
Anyway, again, you are reading "sacramental marriage is over" (and your own peculiar definition of what that is) into the text.  The "legal" obligations of marriage end with death.  To stretch that to mean that sacramental marriage ends with death is just that--a stretch.  Every other sacrament survives death according to your Church, why would marriage be an exception?
Well, to be fair, many in his ecclesiastical community-Abelard, for instance-held that marriage was the only sacrament that did not give grace.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #207 on: September 11, 2016, 05:12:59 PM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

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

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

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


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

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

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

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

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?

No but if he held this position then he slipped into one of their errors. The fathers aren't infallible. Minority should be harmonized into the majority.
Arius would have loved you.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,159
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #208 on: September 13, 2016, 12:01:26 AM »
Earlier I had made a post on page 3, where I was forced to refer entirely to a secondary source on account of a number of fourth and fifth century councils that permitted remarriage in various circumstances. Now that I have access to the primary sources, I wish to provide their relevant canons and their translations:

Quote
Council of Arles in 314 AD Citation: Concilium Arelatense, canon 10, in Conciliae Galliae A. 314-A.506, edited by C. Munier, CCSL volume 148 (Turnholt, 1963), Page 11:

De his qui coniuges suas in adulterio depraehendunt, et idem sunt adulescentes fideles et prohibentur nubere, placuit ut, quantum possit, consilium eis detur ne alias uxores, viventibus etiam uxoribus suis licet adulteris, accipiant.

About these [men] whose wives are found in adultery, both the wives and the young men [Note: presumably different people from the husbands] are forbidden to marry. Even while their adulterous wives are alive, they [Note: the husbands] may marry again, although they are given counsel not to take another if they are able.

Council of Vannes 465 AD Citation: Concilium Vernerticum, canon 2, CCSL, 148: Page 152

Eos quoque, qui relictis uxoribus suis, sicut in evangelio dicitur excepta causa fornicationis, sine adulterii probatione alias duxerint, statuimus a communion similiter arcendos, ne per indulgentiam nostrum praetermissa peccata alios ad licentiam erroris invitent.

Also, those who have abandoned their wives, just as it is said in the gospel, except for the cause of fornication, who have married another without proof of adultery, we likewise forbid from communion, in order that not through our indulgence they invite more permitted sins to the license of error.

I omitted a council I mentioned earlier because I believe the secondary source I used had misread it. In the article I read, it stated that the following council only forbid remarriage to women while their first spouse lives. However, this seems to be a terrible misreading. The author claimed that it prevented only women from remarriage after divorce. In fact, it doesn't seem to be excluding wives at all. I say this because "qui" is plural masculine and is the subject of the deponent "abutor." Presumably, the men or "qui"/"hi" are the subject of "habeantur" as well. So I think I translated it correctly more or less below, which actually runs counter to what I initially claimed. If someone doesn't mind, please check my Latin on the Angers canon 6 below.

Quote
Council of Angers in 453 AD Citation: Concilium Andegavense, canon 6, CCSL 148: Page 138

Hi quoque qui alienis uxoribus, superstitibus ipsarum maritis, nomine coniugii abutuntur, a communione habeantur extranei.

Also, these men who have taken another wife, while their first wife lives, making use in the name of marriage, let them be considered outside the communion.

At any rate, I think I might eventually collate all this material together at some point in the near future and create a blog post for it for future reference.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 12:10:48 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #209 on: September 13, 2016, 01:30:49 AM »
Earlier I had made a post on page 3, where I was forced to refer entirely to a secondary source on account of a number of fourth and fifth century councils that permitted remarriage in various circumstances. Now that I have access to the primary sources, I wish to provide their relevant canons and their translations:

Quote
Council of Arles in 314 AD Citation: Concilium Arelatense, canon 10, in Conciliae Galliae A. 314-A.506, edited by C. Munier, CCSL volume 148 (Turnholt, 1963), Page 11:

De his qui coniuges suas in adulterio depraehendunt, et idem sunt adulescentes fideles et prohibentur nubere, placuit ut, quantum possit, consilium eis detur ne alias uxores, viventibus etiam uxoribus suis licet adulteris, accipiant.

About these [men] whose wives are found in adultery, both the wives and the young men [Note: presumably different people from the husbands] are forbidden to marry. Even while their adulterous wives are alive, they [Note: the husbands] may marry again, although they are given counsel not to take another if they are able.

Council of Vannes 465 AD Citation: Concilium Vernerticum, canon 2, CCSL, 148: Page 152

Eos quoque, qui relictis uxoribus suis, sicut in evangelio dicitur excepta causa fornicationis, sine adulterii probatione alias duxerint, statuimus a communion similiter arcendos, ne per indulgentiam nostrum praetermissa peccata alios ad licentiam erroris invitent.

Also, those who have abandoned their wives, just as it is said in the gospel, except for the cause of fornication, who have married another without proof of adultery, we likewise forbid from communion, in order that not through our indulgence they invite more permitted sins to the license of error.

I omitted a council I mentioned earlier because I believe the secondary source I used had misread it. In the article I read, it stated that the following council only forbid remarriage to women while their first spouse lives. However, this seems to be a terrible misreading. The author claimed that it prevented only women from remarriage after divorce. In fact, it doesn't seem to be excluding wives at all. I say this because "qui" is plural masculine and is the subject of the deponent "abutor." Presumably, the men or "qui"/"hi" are the subject of "habeantur" as well. So I think I translated it correctly more or less below, which actually runs counter to what I initially claimed. If someone doesn't mind, please check my Latin on the Angers canon 6 below.

Quote
Council of Angers in 453 AD Citation: Concilium Andegavense, canon 6, CCSL 148: Page 138

Hi quoque qui alienis uxoribus, superstitibus ipsarum maritis, nomine coniugii abutuntur, a communione habeantur extranei.

Also, these men who have taken another wife, while their first wife lives, making use in the name of marriage, let them be considered outside the communion.

At any rate, I think I might eventually collate all this material together at some point in the near future and create a blog post for it for future reference.
another angle that make these interesting: the Vatican-confronted with the lack of a basis for their Corban factories-now try to interpret Matthew as meaning "except in the case of a invalid marriage." The wording of these canons make it clear that they understood it as adultery, not invalidity.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #210 on: September 13, 2016, 02:02:45 AM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

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

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

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


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

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

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

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

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?

No but if he held this position then he slipped into one of their errors. The fathers aren't infallible. Minority should be harmonized into the majority.
Arius would have loved you.

Not really, I'm Trinitarian. The fact is if the fathers speak the same almost unanimously on one issue, any father who disagrees should be harmonized to the majority.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 827
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #211 on: September 13, 2016, 03:13:12 AM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #212 on: September 13, 2016, 12:22:32 PM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

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

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

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


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

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

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

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

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?

No but if he held this position then he slipped into one of their errors. The fathers aren't infallible. Minority should be harmonized into the majority.
Arius would have loved you.

Not really, I'm Trinitarian.

A Filioquist.
The fact is if the fathers speak the same almost unanimously on one issue, any father who disagrees should be harmonized to the majority.
Your Father par excellence, St. Jerome, noted  "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."

From your own mouth:
At one time most of the church was Arian and monothelite. They were corrected so too like on this issue where the minority were.

Your supreme pontiff has pulled the rug out from under you:
Quote
Pope confirms: Amoris Laetitia allows divorced/remarried to receive Communion in some cases
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29314

leaving aside your imaged "unanimity."
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 12:41:24 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #213 on: September 13, 2016, 12:23:55 PM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?
Exactly. I've been told that if the husband always wears a condom, then the marriage is not consummated.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #214 on: September 13, 2016, 12:27:39 PM »
You know, Vicar's of Christ.

Christ doesn't need a vicar. He's not absent.

This week, the priest who visited my parish was called vicar.

But, that.

vic·ar
ˈvikər/

noun
noun: vicar; plural noun: vicars

(in the Roman Catholic Church) a representative or deputy of a bishop.
(in the Episcopal Church) a member of the clergy in charge of a chapel.
(in the Church of England) an incumbent of a parish where tithes formerly passed to a chapter or religious house or layman.
(in other Anglican Churches) a member of the clergy deputizing for another.
a cleric or choir member appointed to sing certain parts of a cathedral service.
Origin
Middle English: via Anglo-Norman French from Old French vicaire, from Latin vicarius ‘substitute,’ from vic- ‘change, turn, place’ (compare with vice).

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #215 on: September 13, 2016, 12:33:54 PM »
No one really talks about the pastoral aspects of annulments. I'm probably somewhat unique in being Orthodox, but also have obtained an annulment so that I could marry my wonderful Catholic wife. It amazed me how much paperwork and beauracracy is involved and, honestly, it was amongst the least pleasant experiences of my life. To say it briefly, since an annulment is treated as a judicial process, it means all testimony given, is given under oath. My former wife made all sorts of wild insinuations that, because her testimony was "under oath", led to requirements of counseling and psychological evaluations before permission could be granted for marriage. Pretty much everyone, including the counselor I was required to see, saw through the ridiculousness of these claims, but since the rules are the rules, there was no room for any sort of reasonable judgement. From start to finish, it took well over a year and half (thank God for Pope Francis' reforms), consumed reams of paper, involved dozens of people, all to get around the idea that "let man not separate" is the exact same thing as "man cannot separate". I'm still haven't figured out how annulments allow healing unto salvation.
I took the liberty of moving this to a more appropriate thread. Perhaps Wandile or Charles-who have neither addressed this post nor the thread I've moved it to-might answer it here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,69921.msg1420739/topicseen.html#msg1420739
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 827
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #216 on: September 13, 2016, 01:11:49 PM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?
Exactly. I've been told that if the husband always wears a condom, then the marriage is not consummated.

I want to hear(read) this from them.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #217 on: September 13, 2016, 01:25:26 PM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?
Exactly. I've been told that if the husband always wears a condom, then the marriage is not consummated.

I want to hear(read) this from them.
IIRC it was on CAF.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,787
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #218 on: September 13, 2016, 04:53:44 PM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?

No.  First, the Church will marry the permanently infertile, she will not marry the permanently impotent.  The main goal of marriage is the spouses assisting one another's salvation.  The purpose of sex within marriage is primarily unitive, then procreative.  That said if one person intends to never have children and does not disclose this to the future spouse yes that would be an invalidating factor.  Any invalidating factor known before the marriage must be disclosed.  I had a cousin get an anullment because her husband never wanted children and had a vasectomy before the wedding without her knowledge.  I had a friend get an anullment because the wife had severe mental health issues but she and her family hid them.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,787
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #219 on: September 13, 2016, 04:54:38 PM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?
Exactly. I've been told that if the husband always wears a condom, then the marriage is not consummated.

I want to hear(read) this from them.
IIRC it was on CAF.
I think that was a CAF looney making stuff up.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #220 on: September 13, 2016, 05:15:40 PM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

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

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

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


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

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

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

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

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?

No but if he held this position then he slipped into one of their errors. The fathers aren't infallible. Minority should be harmonized into the majority.
Arius would have loved you.

Not really, I'm Trinitarian.

A Filioquist.
You're damn skippy. That is the faith of Leo, Hillary, Augustine, Leo III, Agatho, Fulgentius, Ambrose and the western church proper. Amen

Quote
The fact is if the fathers speak the same almost unanimously on one issue, any father who disagrees should be harmonized to the majority.
Your Father par excellence, St. Jerome, noted  "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."
Exactly. The whole world does not equal the fathers. The fathers are clearly inspired so as such we can trust the majority opinion amongst them. Principle stillness stands. You're getting desperate again lol

Quote
From your own mouth:
At one time most of the church was Arian and monothelite. They were corrected so too like on this issue where the minority were.

Your supreme pontiff has pulled the rug out from under you:
Quote
Pope confirms: Amoris Laetitia allows divorced/remarried to receive Communion in some cases
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29314

leaving aside your imaged "unanimity."
Dealt with on the other thread. This is your little fantasy
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 05:16:24 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #221 on: September 13, 2016, 05:38:45 PM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?
Exactly. I've been told that if the husband always wears a condom, then the marriage is not consummated.

I want to hear(read) this from them.
IIRC it was on CAF.
I think that was a CAF looney making stuff up.
I don't know about looney, but I do know that a priest on EWTN said somewhat the same thing, but in a rather obscure and convaluted way that I cannot recall his exact words. It was one of the group that on the same venue once debated the morality of collecting a sample in a condom for an analysis for fertility issues. The word that it was OK as long as their was a hole in the condom-but it had to be a hole large enough to allow semen to flow out from.

Not all have your knowledge and integrity. I have seen similar things by those who should know better at venues that should be more careful. Can I say it is official teaching? No, but I have heard enough that it would satisfy a "marriage tribunal."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #222 on: September 13, 2016, 05:49:05 PM »
So according to papolics, the main goal of merrige is procreation ? So if someone lied about his intentions, it is a basis for annulment because the goal cannot be reached ?

Do i understand that correct ?

No.  First, the Church will marry the permanently infertile, she will not marry the permanently impotent.  The main goal of marriage is the spouses assisting one another's salvation.  The purpose of sex within marriage is primarily unitive, then procreative.  That said if one person intends to never have children and does not disclose this to the future spouse yes that would be an invalidating factor.  Any invalidating factor known before the marriage must be disclosed.  I had a cousin get an anullment because her husband never wanted children and had a vasectomy before the wedding without her knowledge.  I had a friend get an anullment because the wife had severe mental health issues but she and her family hid them.
I know of a sort of opposite of the last case-he goes daily for Eucharist Adoration because he cannot commune, because he will not testify against his ex-wife at the tribunal (I understand that she was the one who got the divorce).

There was a HUGE scandal here some decades ago about a priest (with backing of the higher ups) refusing to marry a man paralyzed from the neck down. I don't recall how it was resolved, but it was resolved in the couple's favor within a year IIRC.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #223 on: September 13, 2016, 05:57:30 PM »
Not really, I'm Trinitarian.

A Filioquist.
You're damn skippy. That is the faith of Leo, Hillary, Augustine, Leo III, Agatho, Fulgentius, Ambrose and the western church proper. Amen[/quote]
Skippy? Is that a South Africanism for correct (in which case, it should be "blessed," not "damned").

St. Augustine was smart enough to admit he didn't understand, but trusted the Greek Fathers of the East. As for the rest of your assertions, I just repeat what Leo III said when he put the Creed without the mutilation of the filioque on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul outside the Walls- "Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei "I, Leo,  put these here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith"

The Bible and the Councils spoke in the East. The filioque was concocted in the far fringes of the West.
The fact is if the fathers speak the same almost unanimously on one issue, any father who disagrees should be harmonized to the majority.
Your Father par excellence, St. Jerome, noted  "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."[/quote]
Exactly. The whole world does not equal the fathers. The fathers are clearly inspired so as such we can trust the majority opinion amongst them. Principle stillness stands. You're getting desperate again lol
From your own mouth:
At one time most of the church was Arian and monothelite. They were corrected so too like on this issue where the minority were.

Your supreme pontiff has pulled the rug out from under you:
Quote
Pope confirms: Amoris Laetitia allows divorced/remarried to receive Communion in some cases
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29314

leaving aside your imaged "unanimity."
Dealt with on the other thread. This is your little fantasy
no, your big catastrophe.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 06:01:22 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 827
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #224 on: September 14, 2016, 04:59:01 AM »
  The main goal of marriage is the spouses assisting one another's salvation.
Good, for a moment i thought your marriages is all about sucking benefits of one another, and if someone withheld he can't quite give you the benefit you want it is a ground for annulment.

Then I started to connect the dots on why you feel divorce is bad but annulment is OK, I thought to myself, maybe they don't know what Christian marriage is about....
« Last Edit: September 14, 2016, 05:01:02 AM by Vanhyo »