I am leaving the Church
REMINDER: This is a CATHOLIC forum. Orthodox who want to steal sheep need to go to some other forum.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 5 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • Clare Brigid, HailGilbert, jovan66102, Louis IX, Marmot
Reply
(10-09-2021, 07:13 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Orthodox Church's allowance for remarriage, and the reasons for which they will allow it is akin to annulment, in that if the Orthodox practice is adhered to properly, the only people who would be granted a remarriage are people who would probably qualify for a legitimate annulment, were they Catholic.
I think not. My impression is that even the norms of the schismatic Greeks grant divorce and remarriage in cases where there is nothing to indicate that the first marriage was invalidly entered. That is, a bad enough outcome will suffice as grounds for divorce and subsequent remarriage. The Catholic law, although often not observed, is that no matter how bad the outcome may be, no matter the sins and crimes of the spouses, a valid sacramental marriage once entered and consummated, cannot be "broken" or "destroyed" except by death.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • Clare Brigid, jovan66102
Reply
(10-09-2021, 05:22 PM)Melkite Wrote: I am much more amenable to the idea that a heretic pope who destroys the church by destroying the liturgy represents the gates of hell prevailing against it than I am to the idea that the church allowing a married person to remarry does, when their brokeness got in the way of their previous marriage working.
If anybody "destroys the church by destroying the liturgy", then clearly that isn't the true Church because the true Church can't be destroyed. However it may happen that someone attempts to destroy the true Church, and that he at times seems to have succeeded. This has happened in the past.
(10-09-2021, 04:28 PM)Melkite Wrote: Catholics really need to come up with a better argument than "But divorce and contraception!"  Yes, they're sins, and I agree the Orthodox church is wr9ng about them.  But what is the greater sin?  Believing divorce is wrong and allowing for remarriage under stipulations that the Orthodox do, or proclaiming the pope to be a heretic who is intentionally trying to destroy the liturgy and the faith, and yet still submitting yourself to him?
I think I can answer that: Believing divorce is wrong and allowing for remarriage.

The teaching of the saints and that contained in the Gospels is that we ought to submit to our prelates no matter how wicked in all lawful things. "He that heareth you, heareth me". "The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not." Our end in obeying them is to obey God. This end is achieved even if they themselves are wicked, provided the thing commanded be lawful.
Reply
(10-11-2021, 04:29 AM)Marmot Wrote: I think not. My impression is that even the norms of the schismatic Greeks grant divorce and remarriage in cases where there is nothing to indicate that the first marriage was invalidly entered. That is, a bad enough outcome will suffice as grounds for divorce and subsequent remarriage. The Catholic law, although often not observed, is that no matter how bad the outcome may be, no matter the sins and crimes of the spouses, a valid sacramental marriage once entered and consummated, cannot be "broken" or "destroyed" except by death.

My understanding is that when a remarriage is granted, it is usually because one of the spouses did something that, in the annulment process, would be considered grounds for nullity by means of full consent not having been properly given. I guess it's possible that every Orthodox person who has told me this was uninformed or lying, but I doubt that.
Reply
(10-11-2021, 04:46 AM)Marmot Wrote: The teaching of the saints and that contained in the Gospels is that we ought to submit to our prelates no matter how wicked in all lawful things. "He that heareth you, heareth me". "The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not." Our end in obeying them is to obey God. This end is achieved even if they themselves are wicked, provided the thing commanded be lawful.

What is lawful about destroying the liturgy, confusing the faithful and spawning apostasy? If you believe the pope is doing this and submit to him, then you either believe it is lawful, or you believe you must submit to him even if he does something unlawful.
Reply
(10-11-2021, 09:19 AM)Melkite Wrote: My understanding is that when a remarriage is granted, it is usually because one of the spouses did something that, in the annulment process, would be considered grounds for nullity by means of full consent not having been properly given.
I find this hard to understand. Anybody alive can become wicked and commit any sin. How can any sin be proof that something about the marriage was lacking from the beginning? It seems that if there exists a certain act that, when committed after the putative marriage, is grounds for annulment, then anybody wanting to get rid of his wife could just commit that act and then go to the tribunal. That's not how it works the way I see it.
(10-11-2021, 09:23 AM)Melkite Wrote: What is lawful about destroying the liturgy, confusing the faithful and spawning apostasy?  If you believe the pope is doing this and submit to him, then you either believe it is lawful, or you believe you must submit to him even if he does something unlawful.
You are confusing the lawfulness of the superior's act of commanding with the lawfulness of the act commanded. If the superior commands something lawful (that is, the act commanded is lawful to us), although his end is wicked and he sins in commanding it, then he is to be obeyed. If, however, he commands something sinful (that is, the act commanded would be a sin for us to commit), he ought to be resisted, even though he may not personally be culpable at all (for example on account of ignorance). It is not for us to judge whether our superior does well in commanding us. Hebrews: "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you."
[-] The following 1 user Likes Marmot's post:
  • Clare Brigid
Reply
(10-11-2021, 09:56 AM)Marmot Wrote: You are confusing the lawfulness of the superior's act of commanding with the lawfulness of the act commanded. If the superior commands something lawful (that is, the act commanded is lawful to us), although his end is wicked and he sins in commanding it, then he is to be obeyed. If, however, he commands something sinful (that is, the act commanded would be a sin for us to commit), he ought to be resisted, even though he may not personally be culpable at all (for example on account of ignorance). It is not for us to judge whether our superior does well in commanding us. Hebrews: "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you."

This seems like more of an academic distinction than a practical one. We are not obligated to follow anyone into sin, even our superiors. If the intention of an act is to propagate evil, then the act is unlawful, even if it's carried out through a legal mechanism. Morally speaking, I don't see a distinction between the act itself and the use of legitimate authority in carrying out the act.
Reply
(10-11-2021, 10:40 AM)Melkite Wrote: This seems like more of an academic distinction than a practical one.  We are not obligated to follow anyone into sin, even our superiors.
Nobody was speaking about that. There's a difference between imitating and obeying one's superior.
Quote:If the intention of an act is to propagate evil, then the act is unlawful, even if it's carried out through a legal mechanism.
That's lousy homegrown moral theology that does not reflect the mind of the Church. "The intention of an act" could refer to the intention of the superior commanding the act, or to the intention of the subject in performing it. Of course nobody may commit any act with an evil intention, but it is by no means a sin to commit an act lawful in itself, with a good intention on our part, that is commanded by a superior with an evil intention. For example (I can think of no better example), Our Lord obeyed those who would put him to death, knowing that they were labouring for an evil end and by evil means. Was he "following them into sin"? Of course not. Neither were the martyrs who complied with the wishes of their executioners in allowing themselves to be killed, and neither is he who obeys the Pope in lawful things, no matter the intention on the part of the Pope.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)