Why the Strong Anti-Western Bias Among Orthodox?
I think Ecumenism with the Orthodox is good but it should be both Charitable and Doctrinal at the same time. I've called it CDE (Charitable Doctrinal Ecumenism). Often, one finds, in the mainstream Church, the D part is lacking, i.e. lack of emphasis on the necessary doctrines the Orthodox have erred on E.g. Filioque, Immaculate Conception,Purgatory. Sometimes discussion is doctrinal but not charitable; let us try to keep it as both Charitable and Doctrinal.

Por, are you referring to the Shameless Orthodoxy link? That link itself linked to this Catholic article, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/09...-marriage/ which shows what the early Church Fathers, based on Scripture, believed.

Also, are you aware of any scholarly rebuttals of what Cardinal Burke et al wrote? I don't think you'll find any. What those Cardinals wrote is quite solid.

The arguments from Scripture I gave earlier (which has not been refuted either) are developed and repeated in the above link from Called to Communion.

I post an excerpt only from the part on Tradition and the Church Fathers of the First Millenium. Some of them believe second marriage were absolutely prohibited.

"There are some ancient Christian doctrines that only the Catholic Church has retained. One such doctrine is her teaching on contraception, which was the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, and which all Christians shared for nineteen centuries until the Lambeth Conference of 1930. At that conference the Anglican Church decided to permit the use of contraceptives, and were soon followed by all other Protestant denominations. Another such doctrine is the Catholic Church’s teaching concerning the indissolubility of marriage, and thus the impossibility of remarriage while the spouse lives.1 ...

III. Evidence from the Tradition and the Magisterium
A. First Millennium

Shepherd of Hermas (early second century)
Quote:
And I said to him, Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her? And he said to me, As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery. And I said to him, What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? And he said, The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery. And I said to him, What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband? And he said to me, Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. (The Shepherd 2:4:1)
Here in the early part of the second century we find a teaching on the Christian understanding of marriage. Hermas first asks the angel whether a man who discovers that his wife is committing adultery sins if he continues to live with her. The angel’s answer is that if he lives with her, while knowing that she is committing adultery, he is cooperating with her sin.9 For that reason, he must separate himself from her in such a case. But the angel makes clear that in such a case if the husband re-marries (while his spouse is still living), he commits adultery, because she remains his wife. If she repents, he must take her back, again, because he is still married to her. The marriage bond is not broken by infidelity. And this is why, explains the angel, neither spouse may marry when the other commits adultery.
St. Justin Martyr (d. AD 165)
Quote:
In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts.” (First Apology, 15)
When St. Justin writes, “Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery,” he is quoting Jesus, as can be seen in the quotations from the Gospels laid out in Section II above. St. Justin explains that according to Jesus, if one spouse has committed adultery, the spouse who then re-marries while the other spouse lives, commits adultery. Such a person commits adultery even if the “human law” (i.e. the civil law, or law of the State) permits such a re-marriage.
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch [c. AD 175]
Quote:
He who marries a woman put away by her husband, commits adultery; and he who puts away his wife save for the case of fornication, makes her to commit adultery. (Ad Autolycum, III, 13)
Theophilus here echoes Jesus’ own words. Anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. And anyone who divorces his wife, except in the case of adultery, makes her to commit adultery. What I will show below, in Section IV is that the sort of ‘divorce’ allowed here that in which they separate from each other, so as not to participate in the adultery of the other, but neither are permitted to remarry so long as both spouses live.
Athenagoras of Athens [c. AD 177]
Athenagoras writes:
Quote:
For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions, — that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. For whosoever puts away his wife, says He, and marries another, commits adultery [Matthew 19:9]; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race. (Legatio pro Christianis 33)
The debate at this time was whether second marriages were allowed after one’s spouse had died. I included this quotation because it shows by an a fortiori argument that second marriages after divorce, while the other spouse was living, were out of the question for Christians of this time.
St. Clement of Alexandria (AD 202)
Quote:
Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, You shall not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication; and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. … He that takes a woman that has been put away, it is said, commits adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress, that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. (Stromata 2, chapter 23, AD 202)
What is clear here in this quotation from St. Clement of Alexandria is that the sort of divorce permitted was not a divorce that dissolved the marriage bond, but only a separation of the spouses, anticipating eventual reconciliation. Such a separation was allowed only for fornication (i.e. adultery), and this separation did not then permit either spouse to remarry a third party.
In the following book of the Stromata, St. Clement notes that the Apostles asked Jesus “If the case of a wife be thus, it is not good for the man to marry.” (Matthew 19:10) Then, adds St. Clement, “They in making this enquiry sought to learn whether, when a wife has been found guilty on a charge of fornication, and has been put away, it is permitted to marry another.” (Stromata 3) St. Clement understood the Apostles as recognizing that Jesus was prohibiting remarriage after divorce, except if one spouse died, and that Jesus was teaching that those who re-marry, while both spouses live, commit adultery in doing so."

What the Church does is both Justice and Mercy. It is Justice to the Marriage bond, so that both parties either remain single or get back together. It is Mercy to the children, if there are any, because by forbidding remarriage, there is always a chance for the couple to re-unite and the marriage to work.

At any rate, even if a divergent opinion or practice existed, everyone knows the Church has the right to close theological questions on disputed issues. The Catholic Church did this at the Council of Florence so that, at least after that time, no one can doubt that Christian marriages are absolutely indissoluble.

The Orthodox had a strong contingent at Florence - even the Byzantine Eastern Roman Emperor was present! - and there was not really much duress. There was much more duress on the Papacy, from the Byzantine Emperor(!) at EC5, and still that is regarded as a valid Ecumenical Council. The Truth is that Florence, EC 18, is a valid Ecumenical Council, and it temporarily brought about re-union. "In early April 1438, the Byzantine contingent, over 700 strong, arrived at Ferrara. On 9 April 1438, the first solemn session at Ferrara began, with the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and representatives of the Patriarchal Sees of AntiochAlexandria and Jerusalem in attendance and Pope Eugene IV presiding." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
Rosary Crusade to end Abortion: https://rosarycrusadingarmytoendabortion.home.blog/

"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your Most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/
[-] The following 2 users Like XavierSem's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
And again Vox's compilation on Roman Primacy as recognized in the First Millenium by Eastern, even Byzantine Fathers, is as good as it gets:

From: https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal:
Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)"

St. Maximus and St. Theodore were heroic Eastern Catholic Byzantine Monks. They speak like modern Roman Catholics do on the Supreme Pontificate.
Rosary Crusade to end Abortion: https://rosarycrusadingarmytoendabortion.home.blog/

"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your Most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/
[-] The following 4 users Like XavierSem's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, jovan66102, Lavenderson, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
Xavier, I'm omitting the text of your reply only for the sake of formatting and readability.

The only right thing our buddy Chairman Joe has happened to correctly point out is the futility of patristic prooftexting. The only reason I ever post the patristic quotes that I did is that very often papal apologists have never seen them, and with the insessant use of out-of-context prooftexted Patristics lying squarely on the Catholic side, by a wide margin, it makes a point that perhaps they haven't been shown the complete picture. Observing the Fathers making statements that completely contradict papal monarchial claims should be an invitation to investigate the Fathers in their full context. Those who do this, contrary to Joe 's assertion, will find their papal supremacist views challenged, not confirmed.

In just about every isolated papal prooftext, you will find two very common phenomenon. 1) Praises and laudations of Rome and/or its authority. 2) Praises and laudations of St. Peter the Rock.

#2 is easily answerable by the fact that the vast majority of the Fathers held that the Rock was St. Peter's confession of Faith, but even if the consensus was that it referred to he himself, they would not have equated this to mean the bishop of Rome is Supreme head over the Church since most Fathers also believed all bishops to be successors of St. Peter.

Anyway, as for #1, what you will always find missing without the context is that the Fathers always valued and lauded communion with Rome because of its orthodox faith, not because the pope held any divinely appointed monarchial authority over the whole Church. The only divinely appointed monarch in the first millenium was the Emperor. Go to New Advent and you can read the letters between Emperors and popes and you'll see clearly there was not even the faintest notion of the Church having any sort of supreme papal monarchial government. None. The Chuch was utterly synodal in its governance, having councils called without even the pope's knowledge or consent. The doctrinal declarations of Popes were also always examined by the Council Fathers for their orthodoxy, and were never accepted blindly because of a perceived divinely appointed supremacy or authority. Again, go to New Advent and read entire patristic letters in full context, along with early canons and Council decrees and you will see clearly a Conciliar Church, not anything remotely resembling a papal monarchy. The consensus of the Fathers and the Councils is what we look to.

Your quote from St. Maximos is a perfect example. First of all the original Greek of that particular quote does not exist, and is found only in Latin (and in fragments), so its authenticity is dubious. The medieval latin use of forgeries, interpolation, and translation embellishment to prop up papal claims are well known and even fully admitted by Rome, with St. Thomas's "Against the Greeks" (unknowingly) making extensive use of forged patristic quotes. Anyway, that aside, read St. Maximos' other writings in their context, and you'll see him state quite clearly that if Rome were ever to unite with heretics, he would not follow. Reading St. Maximos as a whole, you'll see he believed orthodox faith confirmed synods, not the pope, and communion with Rome was not of itself the indicator of orthodox faith, but holding the orthodox faith indicated who he would be in communion with and who he would not.

Another dishonest apologetic tactic is the use of extreme praises and laudations found in patristic letters as proof that the Pope ruled over the Church and the other patriarchs. Observe this letter from the Pope of Alexandria (Cyrus) to the Patriarch of Constantinople (Sergius), and tell me if you notice anything. (taken from ubipetrus apologetics site):

"To my Master, honored by God, the good chief shepherd, the father of fathers, the ecumenical patriarch Sergius, from Your most humble Cyrus. Contrary thoughts came into my mind as I was intending to extend the present report to my divinely honoured Master…I summoned the courage to write, when I had taken to heartthe inspired teachings of You Thrice-blessedness,…’I shall be completely corrected in what I report in this letter, being deemed worthy, O divinely honoured one, of the all-pious footsteps of our God-strengthened Master.‘…I was commanded to embark on reading the all-revered report of You divinely inspired Self…I have learned to take refuge in Your teaching, which speaks from God, even as I beg its precious and clearly instructive message to vouchsafe still brighter clarity…As a result, when our ignorance has been illuminated by You God-taught Self, perhaps in this too we may imitate the fat and fertile land…My good Master…I, humble Cyrus, praying for the all-esteemed well-being of my Master who is honoured by God, composed this.

Sounds an awful lot like evidence the EP is the divinely ordered chief shepherd of the Church and head of the other patriarchs from this letter! Would you say this a slam dunk in favor of the claims of Constantinople then? Hardly. But you can find many such letters throughout the Fathers, with even popes themselves addressing emperors while using the same sort of language and holding them up as a superior authority. Now do you see the point?

Anyway, I highly recommend this extremely detailed 2 part Orthodox refutation of the Catholic apologetic use of St. Maximos.

Part 1:
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/01...ck-ybarra/
Part 2:
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/01...ck-ybarra/

As for the work of Cardinal Burke, I will read it and perhaps pass it on to some priests and apologists I know for examination.
[-] The following 2 users Like PorphyriosK's post:
  • AlNg777, J Michael
Reply
(03-25-2021, 08:36 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
(03-25-2021, 09:09 AM)PorphyriosK Wrote:
(03-24-2021, 10:17 PM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
(03-24-2021, 10:05 PM)Evangelium Wrote: Relations may improve, but the Orthodox are never going to agree to reunion with Rome.

I have come to this sad conclusion myself as well. That is why Our Lady of Fatima calls for the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, which will cause their Conversion.  The Schismatic mentality can only be cured by a genuine Conversion of the hearts, minds, and wills of the Orthodox. May Our Lord convert them soon.

But convert to what exactly if I might ask? Which version of Catholicism? Where is this Catholic unity, free from schism and division that you've discovered?

Also, how are your Traditionalist Catholic friends here any different from us when they condemn the heresies of Rome and the modern popes? Is it because they continue to maintain Eucharistic communion with those they deem heretical? Is that something laudable? Traditionalist Catholics keep insisting we Orthodox have a schismatic mentality and need communion with Pope Francis for our salvation, while they simultaneously despise being in communion with him and condemn him as heretical, so it's a bit confusing. 

Which leads to the question: what exactly is the Catholic definition of "communion"? Is it merely a surface level, superficial reality? Is sharing the same Eucharist with those who you feel do not share your faith something to be valued? Is it paying mere lip service?

You do realize that the Church never maintained Communion with heretics for the sake of unity or charity, or sense of politeness, right? The act of anathema and severing communion was itself an act of charity, so that they might repent of their error and return to communion. Allowing them to continue in error as if all is well in order not to be "mean", would in fact be a false charity.

Convert to the true Catholic Faith as taught by the Fathers, guarded by the Popes, declared by the Ecumenical Councils, lived by the Saints, confessed by the Martyrs, testified by Holy Scripture, handed down by Sacred Tradition and otherwise persecuted by the world, the flesh and the devil. 

Conversion does not mean giving up the Slavic Use of the Byzantine Rite liturgically, nor abandoning Palamism and Hesychastic Spirituality, conversion does mean accepting Papal Supremacy, Infallibility, the Marian Dogmas of Assumption and Immaculate Conception, and the formulary of Ferrara-Florence on the Filioque. (Although this latter seems to be abrogated by St. JP II who did not require it of the Greek Catholic Church).  

If the Catholic Church were right up to Vatican II, she is still right today, albeit in a Babylonian Captivity to the Modernists. Is it really any surprise? Our Lord said that the wheat and the chaff will exist side by side until He removes the chaff from our midst.  The Catholic Church existed in small faithful pockets during the Arian Crisis in the 3rd Century, when the majority of clergy and faithful were under the influence of that heresy. Even Emperor Constantine favored Semi-Arianism as a compromise between the Catholic party and the Arians,  and received Baptism at the hands of an Arian bishop. Ss Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, Cyril, etc. did not separate themselves from the Church in order to maintain a supposed "doctrinal purity".  They fought with manly steadfastness from within the Church--they didn't say "Well we have preserved the faith inviolate, therefore let us unite ourselves and our congregations in a separatist puritanical Church". This is the difference between Orthodox/Protestants and Catholics.  True Catholics remain faithful to and fight for the soul of the Church from within, while the Orthodox/Protestants tear apart the fabric of the Church by trying to maintain a supposed doctrinal purity. Look at the history the Protestant sects: they are reduced to insolvable schism due to this mentality.  Look at the Moscow and Constantinople/Alexandria Schism, not to mention Jerusalem and Antioch, or Old Believerism in its varied iterations. Without a locus of ecclesiastical unity the Church descends into chaos.    

The Orthodox are hopelessly deluded if they think they are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, because they are stuck in a crystal of time that locks their liturgy, canons, practice and beliefs in an irrecoverable past Golden Age. In fact, the inability to call a true Ecumenical Council proves that their ecclesiology is lacking. Have you read the documents passed at the Cretan Council?  All they did was cite the Council in Trullo and provide glosses giving the E.P. unprecedented power over the Eastern Churches based on a highly politicized interpretation. They issued no new canons, nor apparently have the power to do so. Not to mention the voting procedure, done by delegation, was not according to established praxis.  Orthodox polity requires either a strong central authority such as the Papacy or the Emperor to resume its proper function. 

On a personal note, despite the practically repellent state of the Roman Church today, I am yet drawn to her in my heart and united to her in my mind as the beacon of Catholic Truth in a mysterious way; such that despite the moral squalor of her clergy, the Anti-Christian ravings of her current Pope and the abysmal state of her Novus Ordo liturgy, I find myself irresistibly drawn to her embrace as a child is borne unto his mother's comforting breast. Even though a son may grow to see the dysfunction of his family he remains bound by blood if not also a small affection to his parents. You have one mother, and even if she turns out be a whore, she remains your only mother; thus it is with my soul and the Holy Roman Church, in which if I perish at least I perish living in her timeless and immutable Truth

The Orthodox Catholic Church has upheld the ancient faith you speak about with the blood of millions of martyrs. What's strange is your pious preaching and pontificating, telling us in one breath we need to adhere to the ancient faith without deviation (which we have), while in the next breath calling us hopelessly "stuck in the past", stuck in our ancient liturgies and unwilling to change. Well which is it? 

By the way the Roman Church hasn't called an Ecumenical Council either. They may use that word all they want, just as the EP continues to use it, but the Empire is gone and it's an empty phrase. We have continued to call plenty of Councils throughout the centuries and they are authoritative and binding. Not sure where you're getting this idea that we either haven't or can't do so.

As for the rest of your sentiments, it seems you've made up your mind. Just beware of fancying yourself perhaps some new saint or martyr in the making for having to endure your new "abusive mother". What a horrible description of your Church. May Christ reveal to you what you have abandoned for this deception. The Church is a loving mother and the Church saves us sinners. She does not need saving. God be with you.
[-] The following 1 user Likes PorphyriosK's post:
  • AlNg777
Reply
(03-26-2021, 01:35 AM)XavierSem Wrote:  Another such doctrine is the Catholic Church’s teaching concerning the indissolubility of marriage, and thus the impossibility of remarriage while the spouse lives.1 ...
The Vatican reserves the right to dissolve marriages and allow remarriage in certain cases. For example, the Petrine privilege and the Pauline privilege where there is assumed a natural bond of marriage.
And it looks to me like both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church permit divorce and remarriage today. Catholics just try to provide some cover by saying that they are really not allowing divorce, but that the couple was never married in the first place. So after 15 years of marriage, and several children, there has been no question of a marriage being invalid. then all of a sudden the wife (or the husband) decides to have relations with an office worker and then wants to begin a new life apart from her spouse. So she applies for an annulment and gets it and then marries her new lover.  The Church now tells her that she was never sacramentally married, although at the time of the wedding the couple repeated the words of the priest: Until death do us part. If almost anyone can get an annulment by claiming defect of consent or something like that, who then in the Catholic Church is really married? Is this practice of easy annulment in the spirit of what Jesus was talking about when he was preaching against divorce and remarriage?
Reply
(03-26-2021, 09:49 PM)AlNg777 Wrote: The Vatican reserves the right to dissolve marriages and allow remarriage in certain cases. For example, the Petrine privilege and the Pauline privilege where there is assumed a natural bond of marriage.

Unbaptized people can't receive the sacraments. Not sure why this is controversial.

(03-26-2021, 09:49 PM)AlNg777 Wrote: And it looks to me like both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church permit divorce and remarriage today.

Well, you'd be wrong about one of those. Your "ends justify the means" thinking prevents you from understanding.
[-] The following 3 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • AlNg777, jovan66102, XavierSem
Reply
(03-26-2021, 10:16 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(03-26-2021, 09:49 PM)AlNg777 Wrote: The Vatican reserves the right to dissolve marriages and allow remarriage in certain cases. For example, the Petrine privilege and the Pauline privilege where there is assumed a natural bond of marriage.

Unbaptized people can't receive the sacraments. Not sure why this is controversial.
Because Jesus did not rule out the natural bond of marriage when he was preaching. And further, with regard to marriage annulments, did Jesus say that it was OK to grant easy annulments as a way of bypassing his preaching against divorce and remarriage. Is the granting of easy marriage annulments for flimsy reasons in the spirit of the preaching of Jesus against divorce and remarriage?
[-] The following 1 user Likes AlNg777's post:
  • XavierSem
Reply
(03-26-2021, 10:57 PM)AlNg777 Wrote:
(03-26-2021, 10:16 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(03-26-2021, 09:49 PM)AlNg777 Wrote: The Vatican reserves the right to dissolve marriages and allow remarriage in certain cases. For example, the Petrine privilege and the Pauline privilege where there is assumed a natural bond of marriage.

Unbaptized people can't receive the sacraments.  Not sure why this is controversial.
Because Jesus did not rule out the natural bond of marriage when he was preaching. And further, with regard to marriage annulments, did Jesus say that it was OK to grant easy annulments as a way of bypassing his preaching against divorce and remarriage. Is the granting of easy marriage annulments for flimsy reasons  in the spirit of the preaching of Jesus against divorce and remarriage?

Granting easy annulments is a sin!  You won't find a single person here who doesn't think that the process is abused, and yet we are all still Catholic!

The person who bends the truth when speaking to a marriage tribunal in order to obtain a certain desired result is committing a grave sin.  That person does not have the moral certainty that his first marriage wasn't valid or that his next marriage will be valid.  If he marries later, he can never have the peace of knowing that he's not committing adultery.  He will live with that on his conscience for the rest of his life.

And the tribunal members who make annulments "easy" are also committing a sin.  An annulment should not be "easy" or "hard".  It should be rigorous and exhaustive.  It should be approached with care, complete honesty, hunger for the truth, and a commitment to accept the result of the tribunal.

We can't toss the rules simply because some people break them.
[-] The following 2 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • jovan66102, XavierSem
Reply
(03-26-2021, 11:36 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: We can't toss the rules simply because some people break them.

You mean like the Orthodox have? Except for that third marriage! It is until death, or else! (Another reason I left Orthodoxy for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.)
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, XavierSem
Reply
(03-27-2021, 12:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(03-26-2021, 11:36 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: We can't toss the rules simply because some people break them.

You mean like the Orthodox have? Except for that third marriage! It is until death, or else! (Another reason I left Orthodoxy for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.)
Do you mean the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church headed by Pope Francis?
Questions are raised about the unity of the Catholic Church - is it really One?
Some Catholics say Pope Francis is a great Pope, others say he is a heretic.
Some Catholics say he is not the Pope.
Some Catholics favor capital punishment others not.
Some say unbaptized babies go to limbo, others say to heaven.,
Byzantine Catholics say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; roman Catholics say from the Father and from the Son.
Some clergy say it is right to bless SS couples, others say not.
Some Catholics say Communion only on the tongue, others say it is Ok on the hand.
Some Catholics favor women priests, others not.
Some say the torture of the inquisition was justified, others say not.
Some say the Orthodox are heretics, others say they are schismatics.
Some say women should wear headcovering, others say not.
In addition to the questions about whether the Catholic Church is one, there are questions raised about whether it is Holy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)