|
1 members (1 invisible),
289
guests, and
92
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,589
Members6,167
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 33 |
This is why the Orthodox Church excommunicates those who attempt to marry an unbaptized person. The Roman Catholic Church used to do the same. Joe, you are making the case that the Catholic church has departed from scriptural commands and has changed over time. Yet it seems to me that the Orthodox depart from scripture, too. Scripture gives a very limited number of reasons why divorce is allowed (only for infidelity?) yet the Orthodox church today has added many more reasons - none of which are in scripture. I'm guessing her argument would be that she is the church founded by Christ and has the right to do so -- but this is essentially the Catholic argument for making changes, too. So I'm not sure I'm seeing the real difference here - while making different decisions in particular, both EO & Catholic seem to be using the same thinking: we're the true Church and have the right to make such changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
By the way, the permission to divorce was given by God to Moses and it is in the Torah. Now, the permission was because of the hardness of heart, but this doesn't change the fact that it is in the Torah of God. So, God can permit Israel (the Church) to set aside marriages. The Church is the dispenser of the sacraments and binds and looses, not some "natural law." This is also why I think that the Roman Church has difficulties dealing with these issues of divorce and annulments, because they view the couple as the ministers of the sacrament, rather than the priest.
Joe Joe, Christ himself addressed this in Mt 19:3-8. That is the basis of the Catholic Church's teaching on divorce and remarriage, not natural law. Christ (the Legislator of the Torah) tells the Pharisees, when they counter him about divorce, that "Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, but it was not so from the beginning." This is part of the New Covenant, and one of the differences between the Church and Judaism. This was addressed by JPII in the Theology of the Body in depth: in fact, it is his starting point, the first of his catecheses. Again, I'm not looking for a dialectic/argument; I just want to set the record straight about what the Catholic Church teaches.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Erik and Joe, This is why the Orthodox Church excommunicates those who attempt to marry an unbaptized person. The Roman Catholic Church used to do the same. Joe, you are making the case that the Catholic church has departed from scriptural commands and has changed over time. Yet it seems to me that the Orthodox depart from scripture, too. Scripture gives a very limited number of reasons why divorce is allowed (only for infidelity?) yet the Orthodox church today has added many more reasons - none of which are in scripture. I'm guessing her argument would be that she is the church founded by Christ and has the right to do so -- but this is essentially the Catholic argument for making changes, too. So I'm not sure I'm seeing the real difference here - while making different decisions in particular, both EO & Catholic seem to be using the same thinking: we're the true Church and have the right to make such changes. Perhaps the practice in the Catholic Church has "developed" since the earliest days (I don't know the exact history). But, even today, as I mentioned in my first post, a Catholic requires a dispensation from the Bishop to marry a non-Christian. Otherwise, the Catholic sins in contracting the marriage, and good pastors will not go through with the marriage without the proper dispensation from the Bishop.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706 |
Interesting thread. My comments are in a slightly different irection since I don't know canon laws for either church.
If someone could explain why the second marriage is penitential in the Orthdox Church I'd appreciate it. I don't get why penitential prayers, which are essentially reminders of the first marriage, be used to start off a second marriage. That would seem to doom it from the start. I can see a penitential period observed before the marriage or after a divorce, but why during a ceremony?
I can see why divorce was allowed for tubercolosis and leprosy in the past, because they were incurable and contagious, but now that would seem obsolete.(Though I don't know if there's a cure for leprosy yet)
Both churches have obviously added to scripture but given our fallen state I don't see how it could be any other way. Sure, some people divorce for frivolous reasons but there are also many valid reasons besides adultery.Not everyone can bear the burden of an alcoholic,psychopathic,or violent spouse.Theoretically,we're to be on the spiritual level of a saint and then those burdens could be borne, but most of us are no where near that level.(Well, at least I'm not anyway, though to recommend divorce for depression seems a bit extreme.) It's either that or no divorce but people seperate and end up in new families (complete with illegitimate children)anyway. Many Catholics in third world countries either divorce and never return to church again, or they remain married and the spouses live and start families with other partners.
Apparently you can divorce in either church if a partner is infertile.Why? There's always adoption. In the Catholic church marriage is primarily about procreation, but the Orthodox stresses being spiritual helpmeets first and procreation second, so I don't get why the Orthodox would allow infertility to be grounds for divorce. If I'm wrong please correct me;I'm here to learn.
Thank you.
Indigo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Indigo,
Those are all great questions. It is my view that all of the Churches have strayed from the ideal as taught by Jesus. Every Church has added traditions that are not intrinsically part of the Gospel. So, I agree with you that all have added to Scripture. Of course, perhaps if consider that Jesus was indicating an ideal to aspire to, rather than a strictly and absolutely unbreakable moral law, then the issue of possible remarriage in exceptional circumstances is not a problem. If God could, in ancient times, permit polygamy among the Patriarchs then there isn't any reason why God cannot, through his Church today, make exceptions to the general rule that marriage is, in principle, indisoluble.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 33 |
JSMelkiteOrthodoxy:
Q1: The rule about only being allowed 3 marriages: does this apply when all the spouses die of natural causes? For example, I know a man who has been married 3 times and his 3rd wife recently died. I think if he were EO he would not be allowed to marry again - is this true? If so, why since he did nothing wrong?
Q2: Since in EO a 1st and 2nd marriage are both viewed to be sacramental... how does the sacramental nature of the 1st marriage end? By the civil divorce or by the EO church itself when it grants the "church divorce"? If the latter is the reason because the O. church sees itself as the keeper of the mysteries and as it can confer marriage it can take away the sacramental nature of the 1st marriage, too? I think a similar thing happens when a priest or bishop is deposed -- afterwards he simply is a layman and not an ordained clergyman at all (the sacrament of ordination has been removed) -- are there other sacraments that can be removed?
Q3: The rule about allowing divorce and remarriage for a sickness like tuberculosis or leprosy: so even if the sick partner did anything wrong then the other can still be givne a church divorce and permission to remarry? to abandon their sick partner and remarry? I'm thinking I must misunderstand something. I've asked these questions of EO more than once and not gotten an answer. Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Indigo, Apparently you can divorce in either church if a partner is infertile.Why? There's always adoption. In the Catholic church marriage is primarily about procreation, but the Orthodox stresses being spiritual helpmeets first and procreation second, so I don't get why the Orthodox would allow infertility to be grounds for divorce. If I'm wrong please correct me;I'm here to learn. From the standpoint of Catholic Church teachings, your statements here would need some clarification. 1) Divorce. The Catholic Church does not regard annulment as the same thing as divorce: annulment is a post facto finding by a Church tribunal (court), based on evidence submitted by the parties, that a valid marriage never took place; divorce is spoken about as the civilly authorized separation as defined in a particular civil jurisdiction. If the Church grants an annulment to a couple they are free to remarry; if they don't get an annulment, but do get divorced, neither is free to remarry. (The presumption here is in favor of the validity of the marriage.) Where there is harm to one of the spouses or to the children of a valid marriage, the Church permits the other party to seek a civil divorce; but he may not remarry. (In fact, the Church would view the "ideal" situation here as one where the guilty party is thereby moved to seek help, reform his ways, and for the marriage to be rejoined.) 2) Fertility. Infertility (the fact that the couple has not been able to conceive children) is not grounds for seeking an annulment in the Catholic Church; impotency is. Impotency in Canon Law means "inability to engage in the sexual act". In our culture, these terms are sometimes used as synonyms, but they are not so viewed by the Catholic Church. 3) Ends of marriage. You say that "in the Catholic Church marriage is primarily about procreation." This is inexact. The Church views the end of marriage as twofold, for both the baptized and the non-baptized: a) the mutual gift of self by the partners for life, and b) the procreation of children. The order is insignificant. While these two can be viewed and analyzed separately, they are in fact two aspects of a single "vocation" to marriage, due to the purpose of sex itself as a natural phenomenon of "continuing the life of the human species". (This latter may be viewed by some as a "natural law" view, but the fact of the matter is that it should be obvious to anyone.) This view of human marriage is what Pope Paul VI in Humanae vitae insisted on: artificial means of birth control violate the "unitive and procreative" dimensions of the sexual act of those called to the vocation of marriage. By the same principle, the Catholic Church has also condemned the use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF): it is procreative (sometimes), but does not uphold the unitive dimension. For a really insightful understanding of the principles and reasons for this theology and praxis, I would recommend reading John Paul II's Theology of the Body; and I would not bother with any English translation other than the 2006 scholarly re-translation by Michael Waldstein et al., which bears the title, consistent with the Polish original Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. HTW.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
JSMelkiteOrthodoxy:
Q1: The rule about only being allowed 3 marriages: does this apply when all the spouses die of natural causes? For example, I know a man who has been married 3 times and his 3rd wife recently died. I think if he were EO he would not be allowed to marry again - is this true? If so, why since he did nothing wrong?
Q2: Since in EO a 1st and 2nd marriage are both viewed to be sacramental... how does the sacramental nature of the 1st marriage end? By the civil divorce or by the EO church itself when it grants the "church divorce"? If the latter is the reason because the O. church sees itself as the keeper of the mysteries and as it can confer marriage it can take away the sacramental nature of the 1st marriage, too? I think a similar thing happens when a priest or bishop is deposed -- afterwards he simply is a layman and not an ordained clergyman at all (the sacrament of ordination has been removed) -- are there other sacraments that can be removed?
Q3: The rule about allowing divorce and remarriage for a sickness like tuberculosis or leprosy: so even if the sick partner did anything wrong then the other can still be givne a church divorce and permission to remarry? to abandon their sick partner and remarry? I'm thinking I must misunderstand something. I've asked these questions of EO more than once and not gotten an answer. Hmmm... Eric, I've only been EO since this past January and I've never really spent much time investigating these kinds of questions, so I'm reluctant to answer. I do believe, however, that the 3 marriages rule means three marriages total, whether one divorces or the spouse is deceased. As far as questions 2 and 3 are concerned, I've no idea how to answer them. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I've asked these questions of EO more than once and not gotten an answer. Hmmm... Maybe it's because you're playing pointless games of what if. In the real world Orthodox priests are dealing with the realities of human life. Broken marriages, broken families, broken lives. One thing I do know is they are not looking at a checklist and marking things off like "leprosy". I think you need to get past that. Phariseeism, which was mentioned above, strikes me as being very much like this sort of obsession with strictly understanding and adhering to "the rules". Regarding the sacramental aspect in question two, I honestly don't know. I do know the church allows people to marry after death (Catholics as well I assume), and that we consider Christians who die to be very much alive. So the same question then I think applies in that situation, because the sacrament of the first marriage has not ended, nor will it ever I would assume. It's clear to me how a sacrament starts or ends in reality anyway. This is from Fr. Hopko's rainbow books Marriage was not invented or instituted by Christ. The Lord, however, gave a very specific meaning and significance to human marriage. Following the Old Testament Law, but going beyond its formal precepts in his messianic perfection, Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God's love for men, and of his own love for the Church.
According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has: perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church.
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
For centuries there was no particular ritual for marriage in the Church. The two Christians expressed their mutual love in the Church and received the blessing of God upon their union which was sealed in the holy eucharist of Christ. Through the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, and its incorporation into the Body of Christ, the marriage became Christian; that is, it became the created image of the divine love of God which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending.
When a special ritual was developed in the Church for the sacrament of marriage, it was patterned after the sacrament of baptism and chrismation, The couple is addressed in a way similar to that of the individual in baptism. They confess their faith and their love of God. They are led into the Church in procession. They are prayed over and blessed. They listen to God's Word. They are crowned with the crowns of God's glory to be his children and witnesses (martyrs) in this world, and heirs of the everlasting life of his Kingdom. They fulfill their marriage, as all sacraments are fulfilled, by their reception together of holy communion in the Church.
There is no "legalism" in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is not a juridical contract. It contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the "baptizing and confirming" of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is the deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity of the eternal Kingdom of God as revealed and given to man in the Church.
The Christian sacrament of marriage is obviously available only to those who belong to the Church; that is, only for baptized communicants. This remains the strict teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church today. Because of the tragedy of Christian disunity, however, an Orthodox may be married in the Church with a baptized non-Orthodox Christian on the condition that both members of the marriage sincerely work and pray for their full unity in Christ, without any coercion or forceful domination by either one over the other. An Orthodox Christian who enters the married state with a non-Orthodox Christian must have the sacramental prayers and blessings of the Church in order to remain a member of the Orthodox Church and a participant in the sacrament of holy communion.
According to the Orthodox teaching, only one marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance which Christ has given to this reality. Thus, the Orthodox Christian tradition encourages widows and widowers to remain faithful to their spouses who are dead to this world but alive in Christ. The Orthodox tradition also, by the same principle, considers temporary "living together," casual sexual relations, sexual relations with many different people, sexual relations between members of thie same sex, and the breakdown of marriages in separation and divorce, all as contrary to the human perfection revealed by God in Christ. Through penance, however, and with the sincere confession of sins and the genuine promise of a good life together, the Orthodox Church does have a service of second marriage for those who have not been able to fulfill the ideal conditions of marriage as taught by Christ. It is the practice of the Church as well not to exclude members of second marriages from the sacrament of holy communion if they desire sincerely to be in eucharistic fellowship with God, and if they fulfill all other conditions for participation in the life of the Church.
Because of the realization of the need for Christ in every aspect of human life, and because, as well, it is the firm Christian conviction that nothing should, or even can, be done perfectly without Christ or without his presence and power in the Church by the Holy Spirit, two Christians cannot begin to live together and to share each other's life in total unity; spiritually, physically, intellectually, socially, economically without first placing that unity into the eternity of the Kingdom of God through the sacrament of marriage in the Church.
According to the Orthodox teaching as expressed in the sacramental rite of marriage, the creation of children, and the care and love for them within the context of the family, is the normal fulfillment of the love of a man and woman in Christ. In this way, marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity which overflows in the creation and care for the world. This conviction that human love, imitative of divine love, should overflow itself in the creation and care for others does not mean that the procreation of children is in itself the sole purpose of marriage and the unique and exclusive justification and legitimization of its existence. Neither does it mean that a childless couple cannot live a truly Christian life together. It does mean, however, that the conscious choice hy a married couple not to have a family for reasons of personal comfort and accommodation, the desire for luxury and freedom, the fear of responsibility, the refusal of sharing material possessions, the hatred of children, etc., is not Christian, and can in no way be considered as consonant with the biblical, moral and sacramental teachings and experience of the Orthodox Church about the meaning of life, love and marriage. This is one of those subjects that makes me glad I'm Orthodox.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I've asked these questions of EO more than once and not gotten an answer. Hmmm... Maybe it's because you're playing pointless games of what if. In the real world Orthodox priests are dealing with the realities of human life. Broken marriages, broken families, broken lives. One thing I do know is they are not looking at a checklist and marking things off like "leprosy". I think you need to get past that. Phariseeism, which was mentioned above, strikes me as being very much like this sort of obsession with strictly understanding and adhering to "the rules". Regarding the sacramental aspect in question two, I honestly don't know. I do know the church allows people to marry after death (Catholics as well I assume), and that we consider Christians who die to be very much alive. So the same question then I think applies in that situation, because the sacrament of the first marriage has not ended, nor will it ever I would assume. It's clear to me how a sacrament starts or ends in reality anyway. This is from Fr. Hopko's rainbow books Marriage was not invented or instituted by Christ. The Lord, however, gave a very specific meaning and significance to human marriage. Following the Old Testament Law, but going beyond its formal precepts in his messianic perfection, Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God's love for men, and of his own love for the Church.
According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has: perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church.
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
For centuries there was no particular ritual for marriage in the Church. The two Christians expressed their mutual love in the Church and received the blessing of God upon their union which was sealed in the holy eucharist of Christ. Through the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, and its incorporation into the Body of Christ, the marriage became Christian; that is, it became the created image of the divine love of God which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending.
When a special ritual was developed in the Church for the sacrament of marriage, it was patterned after the sacrament of baptism and chrismation, The couple is addressed in a way similar to that of the individual in baptism. They confess their faith and their love of God. They are led into the Church in procession. They are prayed over and blessed. They listen to God's Word. They are crowned with the crowns of God's glory to be his children and witnesses (martyrs) in this world, and heirs of the everlasting life of his Kingdom. They fulfill their marriage, as all sacraments are fulfilled, by their reception together of holy communion in the Church.
There is no "legalism" in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is not a juridical contract. It contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the "baptizing and confirming" of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is the deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity of the eternal Kingdom of God as revealed and given to man in the Church.
The Christian sacrament of marriage is obviously available only to those who belong to the Church; that is, only for baptized communicants. This remains the strict teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church today. Because of the tragedy of Christian disunity, however, an Orthodox may be married in the Church with a baptized non-Orthodox Christian on the condition that both members of the marriage sincerely work and pray for their full unity in Christ, without any coercion or forceful domination by either one over the other. An Orthodox Christian who enters the married state with a non-Orthodox Christian must have the sacramental prayers and blessings of the Church in order to remain a member of the Orthodox Church and a participant in the sacrament of holy communion.
According to the Orthodox teaching, only one marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance which Christ has given to this reality. Thus, the Orthodox Christian tradition encourages widows and widowers to remain faithful to their spouses who are dead to this world but alive in Christ. The Orthodox tradition also, by the same principle, considers temporary "living together," casual sexual relations, sexual relations with many different people, sexual relations between members of thie same sex, and the breakdown of marriages in separation and divorce, all as contrary to the human perfection revealed by God in Christ. Through penance, however, and with the sincere confession of sins and the genuine promise of a good life together, the Orthodox Church does have a service of second marriage for those who have not been able to fulfill the ideal conditions of marriage as taught by Christ. It is the practice of the Church as well not to exclude members of second marriages from the sacrament of holy communion if they desire sincerely to be in eucharistic fellowship with God, and if they fulfill all other conditions for participation in the life of the Church.
Because of the realization of the need for Christ in every aspect of human life, and because, as well, it is the firm Christian conviction that nothing should, or even can, be done perfectly without Christ or without his presence and power in the Church by the Holy Spirit, two Christians cannot begin to live together and to share each other's life in total unity; spiritually, physically, intellectually, socially, economically without first placing that unity into the eternity of the Kingdom of God through the sacrament of marriage in the Church.
According to the Orthodox teaching as expressed in the sacramental rite of marriage, the creation of children, and the care and love for them within the context of the family, is the normal fulfillment of the love of a man and woman in Christ. In this way, marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity which overflows in the creation and care for the world. This conviction that human love, imitative of divine love, should overflow itself in the creation and care for others does not mean that the procreation of children is in itself the sole purpose of marriage and the unique and exclusive justification and legitimization of its existence. Neither does it mean that a childless couple cannot live a truly Christian life together. It does mean, however, that the conscious choice hy a married couple not to have a family for reasons of personal comfort and accommodation, the desire for luxury and freedom, the fear of responsibility, the refusal of sharing material possessions, the hatred of children, etc., is not Christian, and can in no way be considered as consonant with the biblical, moral and sacramental teachings and experience of the Orthodox Church about the meaning of life, love and marriage. This is one of those subjects that makes me glad I'm Orthodox. Andrew, me too. And Fr. Hopko's explanation is as good as it gets. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
divorce is spoken about as the civilly authorized separation as defined in a particular civil jurisdiction. This also needs a clarification. The Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of the civil government in forming or dissolving the Sacraments. So a civil marriage and a civil divorce mean nothing to the Catholic Church. A civil divorce is allowed by the Latin canons (not sure what the Eastern canons say) and is viewed as a separation by the Church. Both spouses are expected to continue acting as married but separated people, including not dating others. The most common process involved in this situation is an annulment, where a determination is made that the two were not able to enter into a marital contract and the marriage was invalid. There is also a way to receive a Church divorce through the Catholic Church. In these situations, the marriage is viewed as valid and is dissolved by the Church. The processes are called Petrine and Pauline Privileges. In the Petrine Privilege, a person who was baptized at the time of the marriage may seek a divorce from an unbaptized spouse. In the Pauline Privilege, a person who was unbaptized at the time of the marriage to another unbaptized person, but later sought baptism, may seek a divorce from the unbaptized spouse. These church divorces are also referred to as dissolutions of the marital bond, which means the same thing. They are rare, and there are a lot of requirements to get them, but they do exist. This is different from the Orthodox Church because the Eastern Churches view the minister of the Mystery as the priest, through the Church. So they only recognize marriages which were properly done in the Church. The western understanding is that the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament. Because the west places the emphasis on the people, their deficiencies can lead to an invalidation of the contract. Because the east places the emphasis on the proper role of the church, annulments are not likely to occur. (Consanguinity, or closeness in relation, would be a situation the east would give an annulment.) The east allows a second and third marriage because of human weakness, just as Moses did. When entering into the second and third marriages, the ceremony is less celebratory because of this allowance. They don't want to be having it at all, and don't want to be joyously celebrating a second or third marriage. They allow it out of weakness, and the couple remembers this in prayer during the celebration, asking and thanking the Lord for his mercy. This isn't needed in a second Catholic marriage because it is always considered the first sacramental marriage, with any previous marriages being annulled--meaning no sacrament took place--or divorced--meaning the first marriage was considered "natural" but not sacramental.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friends,
However, it would be naive of us to think that in common RC practice there is some sort of primary emphasis placed on canons and regulations!
Certainly, it bears studying, but I've been in places, such as the Catholic school board, where there were MANY people who were divorced and living with others. They went to Communion. The priests there essentially said, to quote one of them, "Whatever they say is good for them, is what is good for me."
We cannot assume that the mind of the Church is what is operative in many RC marriage breakups. And, sadly, "invincible ignorance" does indeed cover a multitude of sins.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Wondering, Given that Pope John Paul II taught that marriage is a contract and has its basis in natural law, and is absolutely indissoluble, then I wonder how there can be any place for Petrine and Pauline priviledge. The pope mentions these priviledges but he fails to justify them or show how they are compatible with the idea that every true marriage is indissoluble, whether involving believers or unbelievers. http://www.zenit.org/article-3623?l=englishJoe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Alex,
Do you think that "invincible ignorance" is quite prominent among the faithful, given that Church teaching and practice are so contradictory and confusing?
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I found this discussion of "natural marriages" on the Catholic Answers site and it is in contradiction to what Pope John Paul II has said. The holy father even said that we must warn against the danger of thinking that indisolubility applied only to the marriages of believers. Yet, Catholic Answers says just that. The Pauline Privilege differs from an annulment because it dissolves a real but natural marriage. An annulment is a declaration that there never was a valid marriage to begin with http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312qq.aspNo wonder people are confused. A marriage is either indisoluble or it isn't. A marriage can't be indisoluble and then dissolved, or dispensed with. Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 06/25/07 06:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
