|
1 members (deaconjoseph2021),
286
guests, and
109
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,786
Members6,200
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
As a Melkite Greek Catholic which of these statements must I accept to be truth? The Sacrament of Marriage does not unite a man and a woman. Rather, it is the Church's recognition of a union that God has already begun to work in their lives. As long as the union remains within the reality of this world, it will be subject to sin, pain, and death. But, through the sacrament, the union enters at the same time into a new reality: that of God's Kingdom. In Christ, marriage is restored to its initial perfection and in the sacrament, this union is made open to the possibility of what God intended marriage to be from the beginning: an eternal life of joy in union with Him. Thus, marriage goes beyond a legal contract. There is no exchange of vows - the two have freely and coequally committed to one another and consented to God's presence in their union. There is no phrase "'til death do us part". If marriage is brought into the Kingdom of God, death, as a separation, is powerless over it. Christ has destroyed death by His Cross and Resurrection; therefore, the union of man and woman in Christ is eternal. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church"Catholics do not believe that marriage will occur in Heaven. When Jesus was asked who would be the husband of a woman who had had seven husbands in this life he answered, “You are badly misled because you fail to understand the Scripture and the power of God. When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30). Angels, being pure spirit, have no need for marriage. Therefore, Jesus is plainly saying that there will be no marriage in Heaven. The main purpose for marriage's institution was to produce children. There is no need to reproduce when in Heaven because it is eternal. Also St. Paul tells us that marriage is necessary for those who cannot control sexual desires. “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (I Corinthians 7:9). In Heaven there will be no sexual desires since we will be like the angels who do not have sexual relations. Further the Catholic Church and the Bible teach the superiority of the non-married life. Our Lord confirmed the superiority of the non-married life when his disciples exclaimed, “…it is better not to marry” and he agreed. “Not everyone can accept this teaching, only those to whom it is given to do so” (Matthew 19:10-11). St. Paul also speaks of the superiority of the non-married life in I Corinthians 7. Since being in Heaven means that one has reached perfection, one will live the superior non-married life. " from: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/heaven.htm Am I the only one here who sees that these two statements about matrimonial theology contradict each other?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
From whom did you get this information that "the Sacrament of Marriage does no unite a man and woman" ?
Stephanos I
I would suggest you get information straight from the horses mouth and not what other people say or believe what the Church teaches!
Last edited by Stephanos I; 07/25/08 03:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
As one Melkite to another, I implore you...be at peace.
Marriage IS eternal and that is our tradition. Every sacrament (and indeed everything/relationship we have) will be transformed in Heaven.
The East has her tradition, the West hers.
It's a bit Augustinian to say that marriage is for procreation. St John Chysostom says otherwise. He says basically what we say nowadays; Marriage is to help your spouse get to Heaven. Holy Crowning is yet another mystery by which be can, In Christ, experience the energies of God and be transformed on earth. Marriage is Theosis. But of course, there is no Theosis without Kenosis. And trust me, Marriage is full of Kenosis. You know, as they say, Iron sharpens Iron...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104 |
May I be so bold as to suggest that, like Father Stephanos says, you go to official sources for this type of teaching?
The Internet is not the place to find sound sources for theology unless it can be shown that someone has posted portions of books that come with official ecclesiastical approval. So much of what I see on the Internet is the interpreted--read, filtered through their own prism of experience and prejudice--version of what the actual Churches teach that I don't give any of it much credence until I find out taht I am dealing with someone who can officially speak for the Church. And I mean that for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 58
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 58 |
I agree as well.
On a side note, I see that your question posed in the subject line of your post is:
"If I can not accept Annulments must I become Orthodox?"
My answer is simple, if the issue of annulments is convincing to you that the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ, then, and if you still believe a true Church exists, you should leave and join it. But, before a person switches camps (from either side) I would recommend that they carefully ask if the issue bothering them is a collateral issue or a cental issue. It would seem that only central issues would be of enough force to warrant leaving the "true" Church, if one believes they are part of such a body.
Throughout history, both the Catholic and Orthodox periods have had leaders, at one level or another, who were less right about a certain theological position than others. Most of these issues were minor, some were not. Schism over a minor issue would seem more sinful than righteous, as it unnecessarily divides the body of Christ.
I'm not addressing whether your issue is central or collateral. I'm just addressing what I believe your method of analysis should be.
Felix
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104 |
The main purpose for marriage's institution was to produce children. Let me jump on this one. It seems to be about 34 years out of date. Traditional Latin teaching was that the primary purpose of marriage was "the procreation and education of children," with "mutual sanctification" being secondary. However Pope Paul VI in 1974 addressed a significant shift in this teaching and reversed it. Latin Catholic teaching since that time has been that the primary purpose of marriage is that both partners are to build each other up in holiness with the aim that together they would eventually end in the Kingdom. The emphasis shifts to developing relationships that center on Christ in the marriage and flow out to each othe partners from Him and back and forth to each other in and through Him. So, again, I'd have to say that checking one's sources is absolutely necessary. Anyone can post things lifted from outdated sources and post them online tot he detriment of those who happen upon them. I had the article from an official diocesan newspaper published in 1974 explaining this shift in detail. But I may have trouble finding it. I think it might be best to check the CCC online for chapeter and verse in this area. BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80 |
The wikipedia article was taken/plagiarized from an Orthodox Churches site: http://spot.colorado.edu/~ashtonm/owpp/marriage.html
How kind some of you are to insinuate that my facts are inaccurate or that I have not gotten information from the horses mouth. Dr. Vigen Guroian (an Orthodox seminary teacher from a Catholic University) saw not a single mistake with this article. All Orthodox theologians agree with what this article says about Marriage. This article shows the ancient teaching of the Church. I am not going to prove it by citing official sources.
It is not only simply annulments that do not make the Latin Catholic Church communion the true church of Christ it is many many many mistakes accumulated over centuries which I've only come to realize in the last few years. Annulments and Matrimonial theology is the tip of the iceberg. The Latin Catholic Church accepts three different Patriarchs of Antioch without claiming the other two are deposed. What sort of Church does this???
I don't even know if my Patriarch is authentic!
If I were a priest I would refuse to commune those who had Annulments, therefore I do not see how I can be a priest in the Catholic Communion of Churches. One can see the results of annulments from the marriage of Joseph P. Kennedy II and Sheila Rauch. After 12 years the Vatican decides it is real marriage.
WHOOPS!
Though I enjoy this forum I can see that ecumenism comes at the expense of the truth. This is a forum to convince Eastern Catholics that we can all have three Patriarchs of Antioch who and be happy and that certain theology is complementary and not contradictory. Three Antiochian Patriarches but not three Roman Popes.
The theologies are contradictory and I can say nothing more. It is good that God is merciful on peoples ignorant yet good intentions toward unity. The Orthodox Church has problems too, perhaps they have equall
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,378 Likes: 104 |
First of all, your tag line is misleading in that it is not addressed throughout your thread. Secondly, there are two wholly different approaches to the same Mystery here and they compare like apples ot oranges. Both help us understand the same Mystery but from different approaches. They are not contradictory but merely the expression of the different approaches.
Annulments to a marriage are not addressed in your cut and pastes so I have to ask what the point of this thread really is.
But you tip your hand with the step into a polemic at the end.
I am asking my fellow Moderators or the Administrators to close this thread before it gets too far into that polemical path.
BOB
|
|
|
|
|
