www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Remarriage after divorce

Dear Theosis,

Thank you for your response. It triggered a lot of thoughts. It is one of my greatest faults that when my mind starts working my mouth opens and .... (In this case my fingers started typing and ....)

Your zeal for our Father's House is abundantly clear in your posting. It is most admirable. You, of course, are correct in that the Truth is Absolute and Universal. I would add Eternal and Immutable. I'm sure that other posters would add more. You and I call Him God.

Our Faith is our understanding of the Incomprehensible as He gives us to understand Him through His Churches. That basic Faith is, to my understanding, held by all of the Churches in Communion with our Servant who lives in Rome. We have been told by the Pope and our bishops that the Faith held by the Orthodox Churches is the same save for the role of the Pope; and the Pope is asking them to help clarify the service role of the Pope for the Churches.

What varies in the expression of that Faith. All of the Churches accept the expression of that Faith as found in the definitions of the first seven ecumenical councils and the early statements of belief we call creeds. These are verbal expressions of the reality of God and His Church that are necessary to be held if one is a Catholic or Orthodox Christian. We believe that this is so because the Spirit working through the Churches has said it is so.

Outside of these basic commonly accepted statements, there are attempts by humans to explain the Reality and His working with us to bring us, and I believe the world, to theosis. These explanations are theologies. They differ. Why?

God is so awesome that He shares Himself with us as we are. We are shaped by the world and groups of people into which He has brought us and by the institutions that He and we create to make life better and more orderly. We see everything through that world and those institutions.

Let me share an example. For those of us in the world's temperate zone and arctic and subartic zones, winter is a reality. Snow is a reality. We all have the experience of snow. It is fact, however, that the way that we express our experience of snow is different. Those of us who live in the arctic region and the areas immediately around it have multiple words for various kinds of snow. Those who live in more moderate regions have many fewer words for snow. The reality is the same, snow, our experiences of it are different and our ways of expressing that reality are different.

There are differences in the way that various peoples perceive reality and the way that they talk about it. These differences color what we see and how we speak about it.

Another example might help here. There is a very useful story about a group of wise people who are not able to see. They are asked to tell what an elephant is like. One man is placed by the trunk of the elephant; another is placed by the tail; a woman by the leg of the elephant; and the last by the side. They are asked to study elephant and each does so by feeling the part of the elephant nearest to him or her.

Then each is asked to tell about elephant. The first says that it is like a huge slinky hose that sprays water. The second says that elephant is like a whip that slaps around; while the third says that elephant is thick and round like a pillar. The last person says that elephant is like the side of a building.

Each has given a definition of elephant. No one definition is complete. No definition excludes the definition of the others. Each adds to the understanding of elephant.

God is the Incomprehensible One. He has revealed of Himself to us. We look to Him and we see Him as we are able to see Him and know Him. We say what we see and know in different ways.

He has given us assurance that we will come to know the Absolute and Universal, the Eternal and Immutable Truth in so far as He gives us to do so and in so far as we are able to know Him. His authoritative teachers, our bishops, our servant in Rome (though the Orthodox see that differently), and the body of believers as a whole take care that the truth is in our words and perceptions.

The theologians are like the blind wise persons. (No offense intended to theologians who might read this!) They develop "explanations" or theologies about the unexplainable and our authoritative teachers make use of these explanations to explain what is Real. The theologies explain the reality differently though it is the same reality (Reality).

One explanation does not deny the other; one explanation does not contradict the other; and no one explanation is complete. Each helps us see more clearly.

I think that your desire to be sure that the truth is taught without contradiction is commendable. That does not equate to the truth being expressed in exactly the same words and in exactly the same practices by all of His Churches. You are right, the Truth is the Truth. It is taught in all of the Churches Catholic and Orthodox.

Another way of saying the same thing is that God is presenting us with His image through His Churches. Since no human mind can comprehend Him or express Him and his dealing with us wholey; He is gracious enough to use the differences among us to help us see Him more clearly.

In a sense you are correct, ISTM, when you say that, "God cares less to the fact that Christianity developed in a Western or Eastern territory." He comes to us and draws us to Himself no matter where we are.

But it is important that the universe, and time, and the earth are creatures of God and that in His creation He is revealing Himself too. In His creation, he limits how we know about him by placing us on the earth and in the north or south or east or west or somewhere in between. He has given us limits to our understanding in the body we have and the mind that we have and the peoples to whom we belong. We cannot ignore the limits. They are His gift, too!

It is those limits which make it possible for us to steal glimpses of He Whom the world cannot contain nor the mind understand. Those limits help to shape our explanations. The differences in our theologies, in the final analysis, are not cause for alarm but for celebration for their power to enlighten us. They help us to see Aspects of God since that is the best we can do.

I think that may be one meaning of Pope John Paul II's words, "Do not be afraid!" The differences do not make us weak, they strengthen us, IMO.

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning or the love.

JOY!

[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 08-24-2001).]

>>> Now, Armstrong is not the Magesterium<<<

That's my nomination for understatement of the year.

Mr. Armstrong is, in fact, a polemicist and amateur apologist whose approach to the Orthodox Church is antogonistic at best. His opinions do not reflect those of the theologians of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches or of the Pontifical Oriental Institute. Most of his arguments are, in fact, tendentious in the extreme, and rely heavily on prooftexting of the Fathers in order to score points. He is, to be frank, a mirror-image of the anti-Catholic fundamentalist apologists who can be so annoying when they use the same approach on Scripture.

Those who really want to know more about this subject are advised to seek more objective sources of information.

>>>Methinks some Eastern Catholics tend to forget that they aren't Orthodox; that the Orthodox Church was not given the charism of
infallibility. That the Catholic Church alone has the right to teach true doctrine, not the Byzantine Emperors or Ceaseropapist
Patriarchs.<<<

Someone else respond to this drivel. I am far too livid to avoid saying something I am sure I will regret.

If you were to come to my parish asking for a change of ritual Church, I would either tell you to get off to a Byzantine monastery for a couple of years of seasoning, or simply recommend to my pastor that he turn you down cold. We are not that for which you are looking. We are not Roman Catholics with a cabaret license.

Inawe,
Thank you for 2 wonderfully informative posts.

Your self control was magnificent - and I thank you for this. I doubt very much whether I would have managed as well - no - let's be honest I know I would not.
Thank you for these 2 small essays which [ with your permission - I hope ! ] I have saved so I can sit and study / read/ and inwardly digest them them at my leisure.

May Our Blessed Lady, Mother of us all, keep us all in her tender care and lead us to her Blessed Son

Angela

To StuartK and Alex,

Thank you for your great wisdom! I find this thread to be utterly fascinating! Here it has been clearly presented how, dogmatically, the Catholic Churches (plural) can be consistent, yet in theological expressions so different! And still we are one! It also has been demonstrated that Byzantine Catholics truly are "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

I find one of the statements made by Archbishop Joseph to be quite troubling, yet (I believe) true: "In some instances, this system ['annulment'] has been extended by western Marriage Tribunals�rightfully or not, it is not for us to judge�to cases in which marriage were presently and actually dead, even though originally valid." This hits quite close to home; and sometimes it does seem as if the (American) Latin Church's annulment process is a sham.

Until now I had not been aware of Byzantine theology on divorce and remarriage. While I am still wrestling with the idea of the sacramental bond of marriage lasting through all eternity (an idea which, until now, I would have dismissed out-of-hand as a "Mormon" belief), the Orthodox concept of permitting only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime, but allowing (in limited circumstances) an individual to be non-sacramentally remarried in the church seems to me to be quite pastoral and charitable, and more genuine than the Latin Church concept.

Do you see the possibility of a Roman Catholic who believes strongly that his or her marriage was a valid one at its inception, and then had their spouse leave, switch their ritual to, say, a Melkite church in order to be remarried? (I suppose the point is moot since all Catholic Churches currently must adhere to Latin practice?)

This leads to another question: suppose I agree with some theological positions that the Latin Church takes in some matters, but with differing (or even contrasting) positions that another Catholic Church takes in other matters. I suppose I must be governed by the practice of the ritual patrimony of the Church to which I officially belong--no? I must admit that I have not seen as stark a difference in positions as in this divorce and remarriage issue!

Thanks again (oh, and I agree, Theosis should probably hold off on his plans to switch rituals--just my two cents! I think I'm finally "getting it!")

Martin

Martin --

The difference is not stark in practice. The Eastern Catholic churches follow the Latin practice, so for Eastern Catholics there is no separate praxis for this issue.

Brendan