/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>652962

Is it for or against orthodoxy? Actually, don t worry. I'll figure it out myself

>>652964

It is for Orthodoxy. As for Catechisms, here is one of the more well known http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#gen0

>>652965

Now I'm just gonna wait for someone from the other side to give me a book against orthodoxy or something.

>>652958

Read Russia and the Universal Church by Vladimir Solovyev. That's all you need.

>>652958

You can refute Orthodoxy with one simple fact: They have changed Christ's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. (Also more recently they have changed the 2000 year old teaching on the inherent evil of artificial contraception.)

>>652981

==THREAD CONNECTOR== >>652871

>>652981

You can refute Catholicism with one simple fact: family planning is a form of birth control.

We already have a thread on that shit. Go watch some Winnie the Pooh or something.

>>652981

>>652983

Our Lord Himself refutes your claim.

Matthew 19:9

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

>>652992

Not part of this family planning mess. Just drawing attention to fact that there was another thread.

>>652992

Yet Our Lord also says:

Luke 16:18

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:11-12

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Here we have no exceptions to the indissolubility of marriage. Your interpretation of Matt. 5:31-32 would mean that Our Lord contradicted Himself, which is of course not possible. The only interpretation of Matt. 5:31-32 which is in accordance with the rest of Scripture and Tradition is the Catholic interpretation: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-jesus-say-adultery-is-grounds-for-divorce

>>653006

I take Our Lord at His word, it's you who seek to omit what He says to fit your view.

>>652981

Says the guy who believes that God made homosexuality and pedophilia

>>653010

From the time it took you to answer I take that you didn't read the article. If you had, you'd know that Catholics are not trying to omit anything, but only trying to understand a seeming contradiction in Scripture (of course it proves to not actually be a contradiction).

Tell me, please, what you think the word "fornication", or in Greek, "porneia", in Matt. 5:31-32 means?

>>652984

Yeah, doing this now, next church father on my list is Irenaeus. I'm an artistic completist and so I'm reading all the church fathers chronologically.

>>653014

>of course it proves to not actually be a contradiction

There was never a contradiction to begin with. Catholics took the view of indissolubility, Christ didn't since He clearly and plainly made an exemption.

>Tell me, please, what you think the word "fornication", or in Greek, "porneia", in Matt. 5:31-32 means?

Maybe you can explain it to me since I'm not learned in Greek.

>>653020

No, I'm asking you what the "fornication" in Matt 5:31-32 is referring to, and so what kind of "fornication" do you think is grounds for divorce?

>>653025

Sex outside of marriage, cheating on your spouse.

>>653024

I feel as though the papacy is a medieval innovation. Something that was in the making due to romes geographical position. But, if you wanna talk about it then we definitely can

The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way sound sufficient, OP.

But the Orthodox Church has rejected the apostolic doctrine of papal supremacy, among other things, so you should only look with curiosity.

Read Edward Siecienski's "The Papacy and the Orthodox" for proof of papal supremacy (ironically, the author is Orthodox).

>>653027

>sex outside of marriage

So you think that, for example, if a man had sex with some other woman before getting married, his wife has the right to divorce him after they've been married?

>cheating on your spouse

The Greek word for adultery is "moicheia", which is even used in Matt 5:31 right after the word "fornication", or in Greek, "porneia". So clearly porneia does not mean adultery, don't you think?

>>653032

Was gonna ignore you until you said that the author is orthodox. Gonna look into it I guess.

>>653033

>So you think that, for example, if a man had sex with some other woman before getting married, his wife has the right to divorce him after they've been married?

Depends on the circumstance. If he lied about his past to her it could be valid grounds imo.

>The Greek word for adultery is "moicheia", which is even used in Matt 5:31 right after the word "fornication", or in Greek, "porneia". So clearly porneia does not mean adultery, don't you think?

It could mean Christ was not referring to adultery only, or specifically, but sexual immorality generally.

>>653028

>feel

Well, that definitely explains much.

There are many more, clearer examples of the special authority of Rome from later times (but still before the schism), but on account of its antiquity I think it's good to start with the First Epistle to the Corinthians by "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome", one of the very earliest Christian documents outside the Bible - indeed, perhaps the earliest still surviving (although it's true that the maximum date given is 140 AD, this seems very improbable; a late 1st century date is more probable), a document written when the Apostles (or at least John) were still alive, which in the early Church had great authority and which was seriously considered to be possibly canonical before the Bible's canon was set.

(1/2)

>>653041

>it could mean Christ was not referring to adultery only, or specifically, but sexual immorality generally.

Don't you think that this would pose a huge threat to marriage? Because who would have the authority to judge what exactly constitutes "sexual immorality"? Some people would probably say that something like holding hands would already constitute it, while others would not. It would be an extremely ambiguous teaching.

The best interpretation of the word "porneia" is the most prevalent Catholic interpretation of it: that it refers to incestuous union, which were thus not valid marriages to begin with. From the article I posted:

>Others have interpreted the Greek term used for "unchastity"— porneia—as a reference to incest, the idea being that divorce and remarriage is permissible in the case of incestuous marriages, since the marriage was never valid to begin with. If this is correct, then we have the principle that underlies modern annulments: Those who are not validly married are free to contract it.

>Advocates of this interpretation point out that porneia is not the usual Greek term for adultery. Indeed, in the passages cited above, Jesus uses the term for adultery (moicheia) and does not identify it with porneia. These advocates point out also that many peoples in the eastern-Mediterranean region had marriage practices that allowed unions forbidden by Leviticus 18. This caused problems when individuals wanted to convert to Judaism and Christianity. Did they have to leave their spouses? Matthew, writing in an eastern-Mediterranean context, would have had reason to insert a clarification to prevent such converts from using the unqualified statement as justification for staying with their current spouses.

>The idea that porneia is being used in this narrow way is suggested by two other biblical passages. In Acts 15:29, it is proposed that, to avoid offending Jewish believers, Gentile converts abstain from eating idol meat, blood, strangled animals, and from porneia. These objections are often regarded as being based directly on Leviticus 17–18, where the same things are prohibited in the same order.

>The second passage is 1 Corinthians 5:1, where Paul applies the word porneia to the case of a man who has married his stepmother—a case forbidden by Leviticus 18:8. These considerations make it reasonable to assume that porneia is being used in the exceptive clauses to refer to incestuous unions.

Don't you think that this interpretation makes the most sense?

>>653053

>Because who would have the authority to judge what exactly constitutes "sexual immorality"?

The Church.

>Don't you think that this interpretation makes the most sense?

That porneia refers only to incest? No.

>>653054

>The Church

But the Orthodox Church doesn't teach that divorce is only allowed in cases of "sexual immorality".

>>653056

And the Orthodox don't even have a clear doctrine of what constitutes sexual immorality.

>>653049

Ok, glad we're talking about the patristics. Appealing to Clement is a weak one to me. There's nothing to indicate that he was even speaking as pope. I can even give you examples where the bishop in rome tried to intervene with another church and got silenced.

what I really don't interesting is Ignatius' epistles. while I was reading Ignatius I did notice the he put a use emphasis on church structure. He uses very strong language about how we are to treat the bishop and that is like Christ. Like we are supposed to follow him and be subservient to him the same way we are to Christ. He also talks about Presbyters and deacons and how they all fall under the structure and even Clement talks about how we are not to cause problems in the church. But although it is important to note what he does say I feel as though it is also important to note what he doesn't say. And that is about a infallible pope in Roman who is the vicar of Christ and has authority above all bishops. It seems as though, Ignatius, whith his use emphasis on church structure and how we are to follow our leaders and treat them highly. It would be expected that he would mention a pope. This isn't even a argument from silence since it is a main part of his letters to address a pope in rome.

>>653056

It's not that simple:

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/why-does-the-orthodox-church-allow-divorce-and-more-than-one-marriage-do-annulments-exist-in-orthodox-canon-law/

https://oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage

The 1st marriage can be "divorced" only on a civil/legal level; same as in Catholicism. The Second and Third marriages are rare exceptions that are repentant and reconciliatory in nature.

Similar in how though the Bible asks for a Bishop to be married, the Catholic church made a concession with this due to said church being possibly unable to financially support a bishop/priest's family in the event of his death (and why the Orthodox Church requires a married priest to have a job/financial support arrangements outside of the church's support.)

And the Catholic view on divorce doesn't seem that cut and dry either:

https://www.quora.com/Does-Catholic-Church-allow-divorce-on-case-of-adultery

>>653059

Seems fairly clear and consistent to me:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Sex

https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/sexuality-marriage-and-family/sexuality

https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/marriage

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/10/05/why-is-sexual-immorality-bad/

>>653082

>It's not that simple

Yes it is. The reasons to dissolve a marriage are not limited by the Orthodox to sexual immorality, but rather include things like

>one party is imprisoned for more than seven years

>one partner is an addict, thereby creating undue economic hardship

And many others: http://www.saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce

>The 1st marriage can be "divorced" only on a civil/legal level; same as in Catholicism

No, it's not the same as in Catholicism. Catholicism teaches that the sacrament of marriage only ends at death. The Orthodox teach that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved by an ecclesiastic court and when that happens you can get into another sacramental marriage while your "former" spouse is still living.

>Similar in how though the Bible asks for a Bishop to be married, the Catholic church made a concession with this

Are you not aware that the Orthodox Church also requires its bishops to be unmarried? Also, clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline, not a "concession".

>And the Catholic view on divorce doesn't seem that cut and dry either

>posts a Quora page

The position of the Church is crystal clear.

>Seems fairly clear and consistent to me

Clearly it isn't, since for example in my post >>653033 I provided a case that is not clearly defined as whether it is grounds for divorce or not.

It really boils down to this: You claim that Matt 5:31-32 means that divorce is allowed, but only in cases of sexual immorality. However, the Orthodox Church teaches that sexual immorality is not the only grounds for divorce. How do you reconcile these two views?

>>652981

I never know what you Latins are on about when you bring this up. I have an uncle the Catholic church who got a divorce/annulment and later remarried within the church.

>>653089

"6. DIVORCE

The problem of divorce is a very delicate question as it often touches on a painful human reality.

The tradition of the Church of the first centuries — which continues to have authority for the Orthodox Church — put the emphasis very strongly on two related points:

the “uniqueness” of the authentic Christian marriage,

the permanence of married conjugal life.

We may recall here the analogy that Paul makes between the unity of Christ and his Church and that of the bride and bridegroom. This analogy that is as it were at the root of the mystery assumes the real and continuing unity of the married couple, which therefore totally excludes a simultaneous polygamy and views one single marriage as the ideal.

Divorce does not heal the diseased marriage but kills it. It is not a positive action or intervention. It is about dissolving the “mini-Church” that has been formed through the marriage relationship.[18] The Holy Scripture attributes divorce to the callousness of man.[19] This is seen as a fall and sin. And yet the Orthodox Church can however permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says in Matt. 19:9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” According to Bishop Kallistos Ware divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.[20]

A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”.[21]

The violation of a marriage relationship is divided into two groups:

those resulting from adultery (unfaithfulness and immoral behaviour)

those proceeding from the absence of one of the partners (this absence must however have certain distinctives).

According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony.[22] The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.[23]

The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. The Holy John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.[24] Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin."

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm#22

>>653089

>No, it's not the same as in Catholicism. Catholicism teaches that the sacrament of marriage only ends at death. The Orthodox teach that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved by an ecclesiastic court and when that happens you can get into another sacramental marriage while your "former" spouse is still living.

Not quite:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-orthodox-church.2875541/

>The OCA and Greek Orthodox Churches do NOT grant an ecclesiastical divorce.

>A couple must first obtain a divorce from the civil courts. However, since the Orthodox Church considers divorce and marital separation to be serious sins, once a person is separated, going through the divorce, and/or divorced, then they are usually placed under penance and not allowed to receive the Holy Sacraments.

>See the thread on Penance for further information about the reasons for placing a person under penance.

>After the divorce, and a time of prayer and repentance is fulfilled, then the party may request a meeting with his/her priest to have the penance lifted and to be received back in communion. Some jurisdictions have an ecclesiastical court or spiritual court composed of priests and the bishop to determine if the person is repentant. The goal, then, is to bring the person to repentance and to re-establish them into the life of the Church. In other cases, the priest will file a report with the Bishop who will make the final decision without calling a 'court.'

>Again, the spiritual court never grants a divorce but instead issues a blessing to receive the Holy Sacraments, which MAY include a blessing to have a second (or a third marriage if that is the case).

>In some cases, where there is immaturity, mental illness, or a lack of repentance, a blessing to remarry will not be granted.

>[This information is from an email from my OCA priest in consultation with a priest from the Greek Orthodox Church. This applies to the USA. In other countries, the situation may be different. However, the Church does not like to be involved in civil procedures, such as divorce, as it is not a sacrament, but is only acknowledges that a marriage has ceased.]

>The position of the Church is crystal clear.

And yet there are other sources which corroborate with the Quora source that the Catholic church utilizes annulments and other exception workarounds for potentially questionable marriages:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox_teaching_remarriage.cfm

> The Roman Catholic Church has responded in other ways to such difficult situations. In order to resolve the personal and pastoral issues of failed consummated marriages, it undertakes inquiries to establish whether there may have existed some initial defect in the marriage covenant which provides grounds for the Church to make a declaration of nullity, that is, a decision attesting that the marriage lacked validity. It also recognizes the possibility of dissolving sacramental non-consummated marriages through papal dispensation. While it true that the Roman Catholic Church does not grant dissolution of the bond of a consummated sacramental marriage, it remains a question among theologians whether this is founded on a prudential judgment or on the Church's perception that it lacks the power to dissolve such a bond."

>>653107

(cont'd)

And there's a specific reason for the Orthodox Church's approach:

>https://www.christianforums.com/threads/divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-orthodox-church.2875541/

>On the other hand, one could get annullment after annullment, after annullment because then the church says that a marriage never took place. OR, the church can deny an anullment, thereby denying the sacraments for the rest of someone's life. Even 20 years later, someone could realize their mistakes, repent, but yet be denied the Eucharist until their new spouse or their first spouse dies.

It seems to me that the Orthodox way is more compassionate and allows sinners the oppurtunity to repent and be reconciled with the Church body.

>http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

>According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony.[22] The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.[23]

>The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. The Holy John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.[24] Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin.

Read the article further for an elaboration on the concept of economia, but it boils down to this:

>It is the precise goal of economia that the weak person not be irrevocably banned from the church communion, according to Christ’s example, who came, after all, to save the lost.

>Clearly it isn't, since for example in my post >>653033 I provided a case that is not clearly defined as whether it is grounds for divorce or not.

The poster you mentioned obviously meant "sex outside of marriage within the confines of marriage." You're just playing semantic games here.

It really boils down to this: The sad truth is that both of our churches don't strictly abide by the "Marriage for life" doctrine and utilize different ways to concede and be merciful to human weakness. The Catholic Church via annulment, the Orthodox Church via economia.

>>653108

(cont'd)

Also, here's possibly a better and more elaborate article on the subject of economia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(religion)

>Ecclesiastical economy

>As noted above, economy also refers to the Church's "handling" or "management" or "disposition" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues. Here again, "economy" is used in several ways.

>In one sense, it refers to the discretionary power given to the Church by Christ himself to manage and govern the Church. Christ referred to this when he gave the apostles the authority to "bind and to loose".[5][6] This authority was transmitted to the bishops who came after the apostles. In this sense "economy" means, as already noted, "handling", "management", "disposition". In general then, "economy" refers to pastoral handling or discretion or management in a neutral sense.

>An example in the New Testament of the application of lenient economy, or "economy according to leniency", is found in Acts chapter 15, where the Apostles decided to limit the number and degree of Jewish observances that would be required of Gentile converts. An example in the New Testament of the application of strict economy, or "economy according to exactness (or, strictness, preciseness) [akribeia]", may be seen in Acts 16:3, when St. Paul set aside the usual rule to circumcise Timothy, whose father was a Gentile, to placate certain Jewish Christians. In both instances, economy was exercised to facilitate the salvation of some of the parties involved.

>In Orthodox Church history, examples and instances of economy abound. Since ancient times, converts to the Church who were coming from certain heretical groups were not required to be baptized, even though the normal path of entrance to the Church was through baptism. Thus the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that under specific conditions, the application of economy (i.e. according to leniency) would be the norm in this matter. But since the usual rule is baptism, such leniency can easily be, and sometimes has been, suspended (usually in periods when the heretical groups in question were actively opposing the Church). In these cases, the Church returned to her customary usual rule of "exactness," not applying economy (or not applying economy according to lenience). In calling for the reception of converts into Orthodoxy through means other than baptism in certain cases, the Ecumenical Councils made no determination regarding the existence of sacraments outside of Orthodoxy, but only addressed the situation of the convert to Orthodoxy.

>>653010

He says fornication not adultery if they were married then it would be adultery but its fornication so it indicates a invalid marriage and is grounds for a annulment, this is how Luke and Mark's Gospel that doesn't give a exception for divorce is reconciled with Matthew's.

>>653071

what I really find interesting* is Ignatius' epistles…

>>652958

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine VOLS. 1-2 by Jaroslav Pelikan looks good. Author was Lutheran that converted to Orthodoxy I think he wrote it before he became Orthodox.

>You guys barely even have a catechism

here is a catechism is pretty basic compared to the Catholic one: http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

a alternative catechism: http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx

Here is a (concise) dogmatics book: http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM

and another (basic) one: http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Alevizopoulos_Dogmatiki/perieh.htm

If you want to go more indepth you would probably want to pick up a fully fledged multi-volume dogmatics manual I think the ones by Dumitru Staniloae and Hilarion Alfeyev are popular

The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky is supposedly very good and more indepth than the Orthodox Way and probably give a good overview aside from catechisms and dogmatics manuals

>>653230

Since you're here, I just wanted to ask, what;s with the emphasis on spirituality and mysticism in orthodoxy? I feel as though they don't spend enough time really being biblical and so, for a lack of a better word, don't truly preach the gospel. You might say that all things point to Christ, the word of God. But how come you don't read the word of God?

>>653231

Im not orthodox but catholic I just know all these sources, nor do i pretend too be one (im not a ortholarper i swear!)

>>653232

Oh, ok. Why are you catholic instead of orthodox then?

>>653231

for the seeming emphasis on mysticism in orthodoxy, im not sure a orthodox will have to explain I think its mostly a meme.

>>653231

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/lossky_intro.aspx