Posted on 06/02/2015 11:07:22 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
“(1) Please cite where Catholic teaching states that there is no limit to the number of times a Catholic can marry.”
I can’t. I looked for a limitation like we have and couldn’t find one. Is there one? If so, I will happily stand corrected.
“Why are you equating divorce with the death of a spouse?”
Because that’s what the Orthodox Church does. We have done that since the Roman Church allowed a fourth marriage to one of the emperors in, I think, the 7th century. Traditionally, older widows/widowers were expected to enter monasteries. That is still the expectation in Greece and I believe in Russia. Monasticism and its sexual continence are viewed as the pinnacle of Orthodox life. The monastics are the spiritual Olympians of Orthodoxy!
“Given the Church’s long history of deferring to the local Bishop ... this is a likely reason for the Pope’s ‘silence’ ...”
There are very ancient canons about that, the penalty of interfering in another bishop’s diocese being defrockment. It is for this reason, primarily, that that so many Orthodox, from the hierarchs and monastics on down view Burke as a miserable heretic.
Even when the bishop in question is allowing sacrilege?
“Even when the bishop in question is allowing sacrilege?”
Yes. Then it is/was a matter of affirmative defense in the Synod. The appropriate course for the bishop wanting to challenge another is to present his claim in the Synod or, I suppose nin the case of the Church of Rome, to the Pope.
Good grief. It's going to take more work than I thought to get you people back in line.
IOW, it is officially permitted by the Orthodox (in disobedience to Sacred Scripture). Perhaps disobedience to the "economia" restriction among the Orthodox is the rule rather than the exception. The Orthodox families of my acquaintance have small families (three or fewer children).
Why is that? Could it be that it is an indication that Humanae Vitae is not true dogma?
Catholic teachings are based on Divine Revelation, not popular opinion.
Yes; that was the position of the One Church. It still is that of The Church in the East. I understand that you folks have felt differently since the schism.
“Good grief. It's going to take more work than I thought to get you people back in line.
Please don't give us another thought. What with your protestant spiritual children and the run away heresy within your own church, or so some would have us believe, you've plenty to occupy yourselves. We don't change much so when you get things straightened out in the West, you'll still have plenty to condemn in the East.
Well then I am sure it comforts you to be confident that I’ll be condemned to hell. I, on the other hand, am confident that if I am, I’ll be standing on some bishop’s shoulders!
It would seem that the permission of divorce and remarriage, and birth control, are but symptoms of something that is very deeply wrong in the East.
Let us hope for better things.
Fascinating. You know, that was not the position of The Church before Rome went into schism. Proclaimed “Dogma” was no dogma unless the Laos tou Theou, the People of God, accepted the dogmatic proclamation of a truly ecumenical council and lived it out in their lives. That was called the people giving their “Great Axios” to the proclamation. There are those among the Orthodox, hierarchs, monastics and laity, who think that the chaos in the Roman Church today is a product not of Vatican II, but rather of Humanae Vitae and the Latin hierarchy's refusal to accept the “Anaxios” of the Latin Catholic people as evidenced by their embrace of even abortifacient birth control at a rate equal to or exceeding that of the protestants.
“Consider what you just said. One can be a “miserable heretic” for no other reason than proclaiming the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
The canons of the One Church are the canons of the One Church. For a hierarch to violate them makes him a heretic.
“It would seem that the permission of divorce and remarriage, and birth control, are but symptoms of something that is very deeply wrong in the East.”
And what would that be; failure to grovel at the feet of the Bishop of Rome or a willing acceptance of Burke’s miserable heresy? It is Rome which has made innovations, not the Eastern Patriarchates.
You can stand by your assertions, Mrs. Don-O. My reply is that’s your choice, but it doesn’t carry any weight with me. I’ve considered your arguments, and they’re unsatisfying to me. My main point on 1933 Germany, for example, was that you were misrepresenting it. Whether you see it that way or not, I’m satisfied that’s the case.
You have yet to address the above sins your religion permits. Who was the schismatic genius who came up with only three spouses in polygamy and when exactly did your religion allow that sin? That's not at all what y'alls schism was about. Did you all allow polygamy before or after Joseph Smith?
>>“Why are you equating divorce with the death of a spouse?”<<
>>Because that’s what the Orthodox Church does. We have done that since the Roman Church allowed a fourth marriage to one of the emperors in, I think, the 7th century. Traditionally, older widows/widowers were expected to enter monasteries. That is still the expectation in Greece and I believe in Russia. Monasticism and its sexual continence are viewed as the pinnacle of Orthodox life. The monastics are the spiritual Olympians of Orthodoxy!<<
Yes, we’ve already seen that the Orthodox church does a lot things contrary to Christ.
In this case:
” [23] That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, [24] Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. [25] Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother.
[26] In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. [27] And last of all the woman died also. [28] At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. [29] And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. [30] For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22”
Your timeline doesn't add up. You earlier admitted that y'all didn't schism until the 11th century. Who split in the 7th?
As opposed to the heretics unleashed by the demon Martin Luther and the damage his minions have wrought?
The current Pope appears to be a retard, he disgraces the Jesuit order and embarrasses real Catholics world wide.
Ireland might as well be on Mars, they have no mozlems or feral blacks to contend with and are drunk, good luck to them.
Protestants have unleashed a HELL ON EARTH personified by the likes of the "Reverends" Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson.
Luther and his minions just wanted their piece of the action.
So you criticize this imbecile Pope, but where is your criticism of the likes of the PROTESTANT National Council of Churches, who CONSPIRED with the mass murderers "Bill" and "SHRILLARY" Clinton to send the SON OF A WOMAN WHO DROWNED SEEKING ASYLUM AND FREEDOM IN THE USA back to CUBA?
I have taken care to present historic facts, and so I am concerned about your assertion that what I said about 1933 Germany was incorrect. I am always open to correction. What did I write that was not factual?
Bingo. The fact he didn't speak out in opposition I think speaks volumes to this "pope's" credentials and commitment to the catholic church and it's historically traditional stand for traditional family.
Thanks for posting those bible verses. I had thought of them when I read Kolokotronis’ response to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.