Who Came First?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1697794' date='Nov 8 2008, 11:12 AM']Pre-marital counseling is often a joke, and the people entering marriage here are immature, or so poorly catechized, that they are unaware that marriage is permanent.[/quote]
The parents of a friend of mine were married for 30 years, and they had 6 children, and then suddenly one of them realized that they did not really know what marriage was about, and got an annulment. Truly amazing.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1697796' date='Nov 8 2008, 12:13 PM']We will have to agree to disagree. The whole annulment system in the USA is an abuse, and two Popes have -- at various times -- admitted that that is the case in speeches before the Roman Rota.[/quote]

I agree that there are too many annulments being granted. My point was that there are too many being granted because there are too many invalid marriages being attempted, not that too many valid marriages are being annulled. My experience is from a very small part of Oklahoma, so my grasp is probably small as well. If the Pope says that too many valid marriages are being annulled, then I will certainly yield to that.

[johnnydigit]

i think reading about the facts of [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=the+great+schism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3a%6ffficial&client=firefox-a"]The Great Schism[/url] may help in showing who has primacy. "you're excommunicated!" "no you're excommunicated!"

also it may help to read explanations from both sides, as Catholics have the Orthodox as breaking off, while Orthodox view the Catholics as breaking off.

google image search for "church timeline":

[img]http://choctawridgestudio.com/Church%20Timeline.jpg[/img]

[img]http://ocab.netfirms.com/timeline.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.scborromeo.org/images/fig1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://orgs.unt.edu/ocf/timeline.gif[/img]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1697849' date='Nov 8 2008, 12:53 PM']I agree that there are too many annulments being granted. My point was that there are too many being granted [b]because there are too many invalid marriages being attempted[/b], not that too many valid marriages are being annulled.[/quote]
I have put the portion of your comment that I disagree with in bold face.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i believe that another significant difference, is that the catholic church tends to believe in legal atonement. the orthodox believe in savior in a more general sense but not in the atonement sense.

the catholic church doesn't teach it definitively though. though it's all over their liturgy and writings etc. western legal atonment is surely the basis for prot legal atonement, where the belief is firmly held.

i consider it pretty significant, cause so many christians insist that legal atonement must be believed to be saved. if not from newbies to christianity, then at least from those familiar with christianity. i tend to think it's not necessarily as an important issue as these people do, but that there's a significant and adament portion who believe it (combined with the fact that it is at least theoretically significantly different) means that it should be included as a notable difference.

[LouisvilleFan]

I think it's plain to see the Catholic Church can't claim much of a moral ground on the divorce/annulment issue, but I don't understand why the Orthodox Church hasn't taken a firm, definitive stance against contraception. This is a teaching that held steady through history among all Christians until the 1930s, and while it's not surprising that most Protestants accept contraception, I'm surprised the Orthodox have left it open to personal conscience. Maybe Apotheoun can shed some light on this.

Edited November 11, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Apotheoun]

Orthodox in some Western countries have, like the vast majority of Catholics in the United States and Western Europe, embraced artificial contraception even though it is contrary to Orthodox tradition. That said, the Russian Orthodox Church has condemned contraception, and teaches that periodic continence is the sole moral means for spacing births.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Apotheoun

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1699214' date='Nov 10 2008, 11:07 PM']Orthodox in some Western countries have, like the vast majority of Catholics in the United States and Western Europe, embraced artificial contraception even though it is contrary to Orthodox tradition. That said, the Russian Orthodox Church has condemned contraception, and teaches that periodic continence is the sole moral means for spacing births.[/quote]

I prefer to leave the issue of widespread disobedience out of the question. Russians get abortions like flu shots, but not because the Russian Orthodox Church teaches in favor of it.

It is encouraging to learn that they have condemned contraception. Still, all other Orthodox believers are able to practice contraception while objectively remaining faithful to their Church. How is one Church able to make a definitive statement against contraception and in favor of periodic abstinence while all the other Churches continue to leave this very important matter open to discussion, especially when it's so easy to decide in light of Tradition?

[Apotheoun]

Widespread disobedience is a part of the problem, because Orthodox hierarchs that have either ignored the issue of contraception, or who have openly endorsed it, do not represent Orthodox tradition, anymore than Catholic bishops and priests who have contradicted the Magisterium on various topics are representative of Catholic doctrine (e.g., Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle who in the 1980s endorsed condom use, or Fr. Richard McBrien who has questioned magisterial teaching on various moral and dogmatic issues, or Fr. Charles Curran who has done the same, et al.). Moreover, Catholics must remember that Orthodoxy is synodally structured and so the fact that one group of hierarchs in one particular region (and who are representative of perhaps one percent of all Orthodox believers in the world) has weakened in the face of secularization does not mean that Orthodoxy has weakened its position any more than the disobedience of clerics in the Roman Church alters the teachings of the Magisterium. Tradition is the "magisterium" in Orthodoxy, and to contradict Tradition by endorsing a position that is innovative is to no longer be fully Orthodox. Thus, if a group of Orthodox hierarchs were to adopt an innovative position (either dogmatic or moral) it does not mean that Holy Orthodoxy has changed or that all Orthodox are bound to the innovative practice of a particular Church; in fact, Orthodoxy rejects the notion of "doctrinal development," and so what has always been taught by the God-inspired Fathers is normative regardless of the actions of a few hierarchs.

That said, it is true (as I indicated in an earlier post) that several Orthodox Churches in various Western countries have been influenced by the same trends that have affected the Roman Church in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, and have adopted practices contrary to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. But the thing that worries me most about this issue is that in recent years the Roman Church has decided to move toward reunion with the most liberal of all the Orthodox jurisdictions, i.e., the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has in varying degrees endorsed contraception, while also endorsing a certain degree of religious indifferentism with Islam. As an Eastern Catholic I am concerned by those activities, but Rome moves forward oblivious of any of the inherent problems that that activity involves hoping for a union that will recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, while simultaneously ignoring moral issues that could cause problems down the road for all concerned.

Now rather than promote the ongoing ecumenical dialogue, which will probably never bring about reunion anyway, the Roman Church should take up Archbishop Hilarion's call for a moral alliance between faithful Catholics and traditional Orthodox that promotes, as he puts it: the defense of "life, marriage and procreation, by struggling against legalization of contraception, abortion and euthanasia, against recognition of homosexual unions as equal to marital ones, against libertinage in all forms, Catholics and Orthodox are engaged in a battle for survival of the European civilization, of European peoples, of Europe as such. Let us unite our efforts and form a common front of traditional Christianity in order to protect Europe from being irrevocably devoured by secularism, liberalism and relativism."

Edited November 11, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1697622' date='Nov 8 2008, 10:02 AM']Um... never heard that. Maybe some Baptists believe that, but I'll bet the vast majority don't.[/quote]

The majority don't, it's one of those pseudo-speculative history things like the Freemason's ties to Templars or holy grail lore.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Maximilianus

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Maximilianus' post='1700504' date='Nov 13 2008, 12:57 AM']The majority don't, it's one of those pseudo-speculative history things like the Freemason's ties to Templars or holy grail lore.[/quote]
It's not theologically sound either, because anyone who was baptized with the baptism of John later had receive Christian baptism (Acts 19:1-10).