Thanks for making this video. I'm a Catholic and I've been looking into Orthodoxy for some time. The question of divorce and remarriage is one that comes up quite a bit. I had the impression that only the Catholic Church had maintained the true teachings on marriage.
An annulment means the marriage was never valid in the first place. Most people have no idea how annulments work. For example: If you marry a woman and you two agreed and vowed to have children,then your wife right after the marriage says "I actually don't want kids with you" then that marriage is annulled because that wasn't the vow you made before God. @@johnnyd2383
@TruLuan It is a cop-out. You do realize that the "catholic church" accepted what the orthodox accepts before the schism as it was in the canons of saint Basil, right? You also realize that eastern Catholics such as melkites also assume the position of the orthodox on divorce?
@@icxcnika2037 Don't care. That will change in 2025. Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit. To reject a council of Bishops is to assume your stance is absolutely correct and that the Holy Spirit is incorrect. This is why the filioque (which does not contradict scripture) and every decision made at each council is acceptable. If it contradicts it's because of binding and loosing. You guys need to do more homework by reading the Bible and learning more about the Holy Spirit and how it's called upon and how he is infallible. God bless you in your journey 🙏
I'm researching that one next. I don't know when it'll come out, though. February's video is on annulments, marriage as a Eucharistic union, and whether marriage is indissoluble in the OC.
@@ubipetrus3882"licit contraception" hinges on increase and multiply being duty rather than nature. The first to make babies "duty" was the 1930 Lambeth anglicans
@@AnnulmentProof is it true that under pre V2 interpretation on the Holy Tradition before 1965 Michael Lofton annulment would be invalid and incur mortal sin of adultery by entering a second marriage? Novus Ordo Watch argue that annulment process post V2 violated pre V2 process making it a Catholic divorce and remarriage analogy.
@@AdithiaKusno there can be varying abortion processes, but always the same result. Same with varying annulment processes. 1965 defacto injected "love" into the legal definition, thereby making consent impossible and annulment on demand. Can you send us a link re Michael lofton annulment? I've heard a little about it but don't know anything.
I've answered this so many times I should make a video on it: it was made specifically for us by a sound engineer - there is no other version of this song except what you hear in this video.
When God divorced Israel, he said he will wait until she comes back. Return, faithless Israel, declares the Lord, I will frown on you no longer, for I am faithful, declares the Lord, I will not be angry forever (Jeremiah 3:12). If you put away your wife for cheating and not forgive her, then God will put you away for sinning and not forgive you. As we say And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
That is the ideal, you should forgive your wife for cheating but if she is clearly not coming back, or repeats the offense after repenting once (like the early Shepherd of Hermas part in the video said), then its pretty ridiculous to disallow him a second wife due to man's weakness and the wife's negative impact on any future children. In that case, she lost her chance and chose to either be forever in sin or forever alone and repentant. Jeremiah 3:12 is about God's forgiveness, not saying what men should do in the case of divorce because earlier in the passage its referencing the Deut. 24 law about NOT accepting a woman back who has married another man. That woman who choses to commit adultery and is divorced as a consequence can still be forgiven by God if she remains alone, or maybe is reconciled to her first husband if his second wife dies.
It seems clear you are quoting a lot of people you think are saints (when Romans chapter 1 says all Christians are) and some of them seem to say marriage is for life with the exception of premarital sin (falsely claiming virginity - discovered on the marriage bed), but others allow remarriage after adultery occurs. You then have decided the latter are right, and that "porneia" in the context of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 includes adultery, allowing for the remarriage of the innocent party. What I want to ask is - do you believe the guilty party can remarry? IF SO - does not the Catholic logic "adultery is therefore the easy way out of an unhappy marriage for both parties" apply as a good refutation. IF NOT - what are the grounds the guilty party cannot also remarry? If you say "the guilty party commits adultery by remarriage" you self contradict yourself, as by using the phrase: "committeth adultery" you have God seeing the first marriage as still in tact, regardless of paperwork to say otherwise.
You do realize that the "catholic church" accepted what the orthodox accepts before the schism as it was in the canons of saint Basil, right? You also realize that eastern Catholics such as melkites also assume the position of the orthodox on divorce?
So you’re trying to defend being allowed to remarry three times but I watched nearly all of your video and nearly all the quotes say the same thing, after one marriage stay single. So how does that help your case?
10:48 I've read Shepherd of Hermas a while back and I remember thinking that the views on repentance left me wondering what the author was trying to say at times, but I remember the text saying that forgiveness of sins can happen after baptism. Could you please elucidate the extent of its errors so I could refer back to it and see how I missed that? Assuming it's not this part about 'one repentance to the servant of God'.
For a certain portion of church history the sacrament of confession was only offered once. My understanding is that it was reserved for mortal sins. This is most likely what the shepherd is referring to. You’ll notice in our prayers though that we describe the act of taking the Eucharist as being for the forgiveness of sins. The early church fathers also talk about alms, suffering and other things as resulting in the forgiveness of sins. We can see these same things mentioned in the scriptures too, old and New Testament. However, while they are effective for the forgiveness of sins, it’s not the same as confession. Hence why even the early church fathers call tears a second baptism, just like martyrdom. Tears here being roughly synonymous with confession. The desert fathers likewise call monasticism another baptism; because you have entered a new life of repentance, dead to the world and your former life. When a person takes on the monastic life, their former sins are no longer counted against them. Like with all things the church has given more leniency over time as we as Christians have become weaker in faith and body compared to the Christians of former times. Penances have become lighter, fasting less strict, the divine services shorter, requirements to ordination more lenient, etc. In the earliest days they were the strictest and everyone was essentially expecting to be martyred. Hence why confession was only offered once. With this in mind, read the epistle to the Hebrews chapter 6 up to verse 8 or so. It really does fit in with the concept of not being able to repent after baptism.
@@campomambo I'm trying to stay Christian at the moment and the topic of forgiveness and repentance is one that troubles me a bit. Would you say this leniency now or the rigor of the early Church is something that matters, or is it just something the Church adapts to help people in a more effective way?
@@theimaginator7232well we can go to one of the desert fathers who were so strict, but they said that the earlier Christians were much stronger than them. Or the case of one of their disciples who came to them and asked what would the next generation of Christian’s be like. The abba responded by saying, “they will do half as much as we have done” the disciple asked, what about the next after that? The abba again said, they will do half of what they had done. The disciple said, and what about the ones after them? The abba said the last generation of Christians will have no works, but because of the greatness of their temptations they will be the holiest of all. In other words, the church has always known that future generations needed more leniency. But that doesn’t mean we are any less Christian or that we aren’t able to have the same heights of spirituality. We just can’t do the amazing feats of asceticism and miracles like them.
Another abba said that in the last days, sexual temptations will be so great that a person remaining a virgin will be the same as the martyrs of the early church.
This video was quite good. Is there a video on the definition of the first marriage? Is it defined by Caesars? Vows before God? The first sexual partner? In other words; how did the early church Father's define a marriage?. Ty 👍
@@ubipetrus3882 Awesome! There is so much confusion on this issue these days among various Christians. Some say Caesar defines it. Others say Christian vows make it a marriage. Are the unbelievers married then? Some say it is just the consent to live together, assuming one man and one woman. Thanks for considering the topic. I look forward to watching. God speed 🙏
@@davidw.5185great question, because even in the church many don't recognize the sacrament outside the church and therefore will forbid communion until a marriage in the church is done, or demand celibacy if one is to partake of the eucharist.
@@countryboyred They're incredibly rigid and judgemental people who typically like to show one another up. That, combined with the general lack of moansticism, creates an atmosphere in which humility runs low but there are plenty of rules with which to judge one another.
@@California4Christ That comment is from two years ago because this is the original link that was hidden behind the Patreon and SubscribeStar paywalls. I think, perhaps, that we will start re-uploading material because that plays the RUclips algorithm in our favor since YT just treats this as a two year old video.
Can we talk sometime about why a majority of clergy and laypersons refuse to reject anti-theist propaganda of disproven nihilistic science fiction theories and refuse to embrace the six-day creation consensus of ancient and modern holy fathers and saints?
I get that this isn't even tangentially related to the topic of the video, but I think it's because in certain Orthodox circles (could be laity, could be clergy) there's a desire to seem 'relevant' and 'scientific' to the modern secular world. I feel like things are changing though; Father Seraphim Rose's book Genesis Creation and Early Man was a game-changer and makes it far more difficult for a denier of the historicity of Genesis to make blanket statements about the Church Fathers dismissing the entire thing as allegory.
Thanks for all your hard work preparing this great video! As a Roman Catholic Priest, my concern with the Orthodox position on Divorce and Remarriage remains the same. The Church Fathers cannot be a reliable source of doctrine because they disagree among themselves. Just in this video alone, you have shown that the Father's position on divorce and remarriage for a woman changes depending on the particular Father (and most are unapologetically partial to men). Without an infalible authority, you cannot have certainty. Without the Pope, it seems to me that there is no way to be sure that you are doing the will of God in this area of discipline.
Ok, setting the rest of that aside: 1) What do you do when there are multiple claimants to the Papacy as in the Western Schism? 2) Why can councils accepted by all of the synods that are in communion not be considered infallible?
You do realize that the "catholic church" accepted what the orthodox accepts before the schism as it was in the canons of saint Basil, right? You also realize that eastern Catholics such as melkites also assume the position of the orthodox on divorce?
@@icxcnika2037 Im not familiar with the Canons of St. Basil, but I do know that the Catholic Church has developed its doctrine over time, and certainly has improved its many disciplines. That is kind of my point. What the Catholic Church teaches today is the same in its essence, but it has been clarified and deepened over time. What St. Basil said was good, but God has continued to work and our more perfect disciplines reflect that today. You don't see this kind of development in Orthodoxy when it comes to marriage sadly, and even our Eastern Catholic brothers suffer something similar.
"you have shown that the Father's position on divorce and remarriage for a woman changes depending on the particular Father" "Without the Pope, it seems to me that there is no way to be sure that you are doing the will of God in this area of discipline." Would the differences in interpretation and opinion not disprove that papal infallibility and supremacy defined at vatican 1 was always understood by the church? If the church held to papal infallibility, they would not have differing opinions but rather all copy whatever the pope said on the matter. Papal infallibility does not fix the dilemma of certitude, for a few reasons including: You as a fallible man have to use fallible reasoning to come to the conclusion that the pope is infallible. You have to fallibly interpret the pope's writings. You have to fallibly determine which of the pope's writings are infallible. You have to fallibly determine who is a true pope due to the supposed possibility of anti popes. The papal claim to infallibility is based on the claim of knowing the interpretation of scriptures and correct canon of scripture using that very thing in question (infallibility) which is circular reasoning. Its funny when catholics go after protestants for being sola scriptura when "trad" catholics are literally sola papal scritura but they dont even have a canon of what is infallible and what isnt.
@@venomouswolfThe Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is actually the answer to problem of differences in interpretation. Good men still often disagree (such as the Church Fathers). We are all infallible, and so God gave one man the grace to govern His Church as the Vicar of Christ. Though a fallible man in every other way, the Pope is given the grace to discern what truly is the teaching of Christ and declare it for all to obey. The lack of unanimity in the Early Church shows the need for an infallible source of teaching. At least, that is how I see it. Even as a "fallible man," which I surely am, that makes perfect sense to me :)
Whenever someone starts out trying to qualify disagreeing with a quote by saying “now at first glance…” 😂 excuses, excuses. Three times and Jesus says once. Nice excuses for not following the law though 👍🏻
Doesnt Jesus commentary in Mark makes this explcitly clear? It was only allowed for hardness of heart, and doea he not say explicitly that So wouldnt it stand that celibacy is the proper choice after divorce. If you are one flesh becauae of rhe nature of marriage, how can you remarry and be another "single flesh" wirh another? Especially since its clear here, If you divorce, which implies there was a reason to divorce to begin with. Made worse by the fact of hardness of heart off comment in conjunction with forgiving 77x7 times. Compounded yet again by the comment, there are thoae made for marriage and those that are not, Made worse by what Paul says in 1 corinthians abiut it being hard and paul teying to spare the congregation from something they themselves didnt underatand. Mark 10: 6-12 [6]But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. [7]For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, [8]and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. [9]What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." [10]In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. [11]And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; [12]and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Jesus Blesses Little Children
>"If you are one flesh becauae of rhe nature of marriage, how can you remarry and be another "single flesh" wirh another?" You become "one flesh" with anyone you have intercourse with, shown by how Paul talks about why its horrible for the soul to have intercourse with a prostitute in 1 Corinthians 6. If youre trying to come up with some legalistic solution to this dilemma youre going to have to exactly define marriage, making it into a legal contract rather than mystical union. If you dont you will have to continue in your flaw to go off of the "become one flesh" equaling marriage in which case you are stuck with the first person you have intercourse with for life or have to remain alone according to the RC dogma on marriage lol.
@@venomouswolf im not coming up with anything, Christ's own marriage is pretty clear on this, and why he didn't marry anybody as a man since he was already married to "Isreal" the whore. And why he didn't marry another woman, but True Israel, the Church. If Christ is the example, then its becomes clear how we OUGHT to view and model divorce and marriage and remarriage. This doesn't detract from the mystical aspect of bonding and growth within the context of marriage, but the mystical aspects of union also do not negate the legal framework of marriage neither. marriage is a covenant, which demands terms and conditions, but at the same time Christ also stressed that you have a duty and obligation to fullfil them despite the other's fidelity, and why Paul stressed this when he compared Christ and the Church to us. Its not either or, its both. you are also being more obtuse than the most rigorous Roman Catholic autist with your characterization of being stuck with the first person you marry. no RC worth his salt would tell a victim of child rape that she has to marry her rapist. Come one dude, think your reductionist claims through. if your goign to make fun and insult people, do it right.
Stopped listening at minute 1:45:00 and I'm not an RC. But marrying another after a divorce has adultery written all over it. It's the one sin the Lord spoke of the most - 8 mentions in 6 passages (and twice found in Romans). You'd think the shepherds of a church would steer their flock away from such a dangerous course. They should seek to protect the work of God in them which is the saving of their souls from such sins that, as the Apostle says, make it impossible to inherit the Kingdom of God if unrepentantly practiced.
@@ubipetrus3882 Yes, that's how I read it too. The Lord charges both she and the man who marries her with adultery. If the first husband, being an innocent party, is able to remarry because of the exception it must mean he is single again. However, it's impossible to commit adultery against a single man. Adultery is only against a married man. So the Lord is showing by the charge of adultery that the original marriage is undissolved in God's sight despite the divorce for porneia.
What is the case when a man marries a divorced woman (his only marriage), when she committed adultery during a previous marriage? Is the man an adulterer? Can that man put her away and remarry?
I would start with framing the situation thus: 1) Was the first marriage recognized as ended by the Church thereby allowing her to remarry? If the answer is yes, then... 2) If she has not cheated on him, what grounds would he have for divorcing her?
This is something that would probably be discussed between Spiritual Fathers and maybe even the Bishop. But generally those guilty of Adultery, and especially when ecclesiastical divorce is involved, are not generally allowed to remarry unless they are visible in their repentance.
What about a woman who marries a man who was married two times before her and both of those marriage ended because of adultery? And then the third wife he attempts to end her life? Is that woman allowed to remarry?
I'd definitely say so but that is ultimately up to the synod of bishops to interpret and apply the canons. That being said, supposing ample evidence is presented, I cannot imagine them refusing.
@@thomascrissman1124 your church allows annulment (legalistic divorce) if there is some BS excuse that one spouse did not intend to remain faithful, AND THEN ALLOWS THE GUILTY PARTY TO REMARRY.
![Catholic Answers' Michael Lofton Fails on Orthodoxy & Misses the Mark on Church History [FULL]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o1e8--o9d6c/mqdefault.jpg)
![Catholic Answers' Michael Lofton Fails on Orthodoxy & Misses the Mark on Church History [FULL]](/img/tr.png)
brotha' is posting the FULL video!!! LET'S GO!!!
Thanks for making this video. I'm a Catholic and I've been looking into Orthodoxy for some time. The question of divorce and remarriage is one that comes up quite a bit. I had the impression that only the Catholic Church had maintained the true teachings on marriage.
How marriage annulment as practiced by RC is not a divorce.?
We have lol
An annulment means the marriage was never valid in the first place. Most people have no idea how annulments work. For example: If you marry a woman and you two agreed and vowed to have children,then your wife right after the marriage says "I actually don't want kids with you" then that marriage is annulled because that wasn't the vow you made before God. @@johnnyd2383
@TruLuan It is a cop-out. You do realize that the "catholic church" accepted what the orthodox accepts before the schism as it was in the canons of saint Basil, right? You also realize that eastern Catholics such as melkites also assume the position of the orthodox on divorce?
@@icxcnika2037 Don't care. That will change in 2025. Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit. To reject a council of Bishops is to assume your stance is absolutely correct and that the Holy Spirit is incorrect. This is why the filioque (which does not contradict scripture) and every decision made at each council is acceptable. If it contradicts it's because of binding and loosing. You guys need to do more homework by reading the Bible and learning more about the Holy Spirit and how it's called upon and how he is infallible. God bless you in your journey 🙏
Great video, maybe some time in the future you could also clear up contraception & Church Fathers! Thanks
I'm researching that one next. I don't know when it'll come out, though. February's video is on annulments, marriage as a Eucharistic union, and whether marriage is indissoluble in the OC.
@@ubipetrus3882 Great! Looking forward to all of it!! Amazing vid
@@ubipetrus3882"licit contraception" hinges on increase and multiply being duty rather than nature. The first to make babies "duty" was the 1930 Lambeth anglicans
How is this comment 2 years old...
@@ravenclaw_3160good question.
Poor Romans and their magic annulment golden ticket...
They're Franks not Romans really.
If you define marriage as it was before 1965, the McNullments disappear.
@@AnnulmentProof is it true that under pre V2 interpretation on the Holy Tradition before 1965 Michael Lofton annulment would be invalid and incur mortal sin of adultery by entering a second marriage? Novus Ordo Watch argue that annulment process post V2 violated pre V2 process making it a Catholic divorce and remarriage analogy.
@@AdithiaKusno there can be varying abortion processes, but always the same result. Same with varying annulment processes. 1965 defacto injected "love" into the legal definition, thereby making consent impossible and annulment on demand. Can you send us a link re Michael lofton annulment? I've heard a little about it but don't know anything.
Roma has expertise in Sophistry
Great video! Also, what's the music in the intro?
I've answered this so many times I should make a video on it: it was made specifically for us by a sound engineer - there is no other version of this song except what you hear in this video.
@@ubipetrus3882 I sincerely apologize about this inconvenience. But it is really elevating and sublime. And that's why I asked.
@@ubipetrus3882
One suggestion maybe is just posting the intro stand-alone.
Wow that was thourough. Nice work
Matt19:9...put away innocent spouse = adultery.
Waiting for the defense of contraception
When God divorced Israel, he said he will wait until she comes back. Return, faithless Israel, declares the Lord, I will frown on you no longer, for I am faithful, declares the Lord, I will not be angry forever (Jeremiah 3:12).
If you put away your wife for cheating and not forgive her, then God will put you away for sinning and not forgive you. As we say And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
That is the ideal, you should forgive your wife for cheating but if she is clearly not coming back, or repeats the offense after repenting once (like the early Shepherd of Hermas part in the video said), then its pretty ridiculous to disallow him a second wife due to man's weakness and the wife's negative impact on any future children. In that case, she lost her chance and chose to either be forever in sin or forever alone and repentant.
Jeremiah 3:12 is about God's forgiveness, not saying what men should do in the case of divorce because earlier in the passage its referencing the Deut. 24 law about NOT accepting a woman back who has married another man. That woman who choses to commit adultery and is divorced as a consequence can still be forgiven by God if she remains alone, or maybe is reconciled to her first husband if his second wife dies.
Thank you
It seems clear you are quoting a lot of people you think are saints (when Romans chapter 1 says all Christians are) and some of them seem to say marriage is for life with the exception of premarital sin (falsely claiming virginity - discovered on the marriage bed), but others allow remarriage after adultery occurs. You then have decided the latter are right, and that "porneia" in the context of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 includes adultery, allowing for the remarriage of the innocent party. What I want to ask is - do you believe the guilty party can remarry? IF SO - does not the Catholic logic "adultery is therefore the easy way out of an unhappy marriage for both parties" apply as a good refutation. IF NOT - what are the grounds the guilty party cannot also remarry? If you say "the guilty party commits adultery by remarriage" you self contradict yourself, as by using the phrase: "committeth adultery" you have God seeing the first marriage as still in tact, regardless of paperwork to say otherwise.
You do realize that the "catholic church" accepted what the orthodox accepts before the schism as it was in the canons of saint Basil, right? You also realize that eastern Catholics such as melkites also assume the position of the orthodox on divorce?
So you’re trying to defend being allowed to remarry three times but I watched nearly all of your video and nearly all the quotes say the same thing, after one marriage stay single. So how does that help your case?
I don't think you watched the video: can you time-stamp three quotations that say the man must remain single after a divorce?
10:48 I've read Shepherd of Hermas a while back and I remember thinking that the views on repentance left me wondering what the author was trying to say at times, but I remember the text saying that forgiveness of sins can happen after baptism. Could you please elucidate the extent of its errors so I could refer back to it and see how I missed that? Assuming it's not this part about 'one repentance to the servant of God'.
For a certain portion of church history the sacrament of confession was only offered once. My understanding is that it was reserved for mortal sins. This is most likely what the shepherd is referring to. You’ll notice in our prayers though that we describe the act of taking the Eucharist as being for the forgiveness of sins. The early church fathers also talk about alms, suffering and other things as resulting in the forgiveness of sins. We can see these same things mentioned in the scriptures too, old and New Testament. However, while they are effective for the forgiveness of sins, it’s not the same as confession. Hence why even the early church fathers call tears a second baptism, just like martyrdom. Tears here being roughly synonymous with confession. The desert fathers likewise call monasticism another baptism; because you have entered a new life of repentance, dead to the world and your former life. When a person takes on the monastic life, their former sins are no longer counted against them. Like with all things the church has given more leniency over time as we as Christians have become weaker in faith and body compared to the Christians of former times. Penances have become lighter, fasting less strict, the divine services shorter, requirements to ordination more lenient, etc. In the earliest days they were the strictest and everyone was essentially expecting to be martyred. Hence why confession was only offered once. With this in mind, read the epistle to the Hebrews chapter 6 up to verse 8 or so. It really does fit in with the concept of not being able to repent after baptism.
@@campomambo I'm trying to stay Christian at the moment and the topic of forgiveness and repentance is one that troubles me a bit. Would you say this leniency now or the rigor of the early Church is something that matters, or is it just something the Church adapts to help people in a more effective way?
@@theimaginator7232well we can go to one of the desert fathers who were so strict, but they said that the earlier Christians were much stronger than them. Or the case of one of their disciples who came to them and asked what would the next generation of Christian’s be like. The abba responded by saying, “they will do half as much as we have done” the disciple asked, what about the next after that? The abba again said, they will do half of what they had done. The disciple said, and what about the ones after them? The abba said the last generation of Christians will have no works, but because of the greatness of their temptations they will be the holiest of all.
In other words, the church has always known that future generations needed more leniency. But that doesn’t mean we are any less Christian or that we aren’t able to have the same heights of spirituality. We just can’t do the amazing feats of asceticism and miracles like them.
Another abba said that in the last days, sexual temptations will be so great that a person remaining a virgin will be the same as the martyrs of the early church.
This video was quite good. Is there a video on the definition of the first marriage? Is it defined by Caesars? Vows before God? The first sexual partner? In other words; how did the early church Father's define a marriage?. Ty 👍
That's covered in the video we'll release in a few weeks on the Orthodox view of marriage.
@@ubipetrus3882 Awesome! There is so much confusion on this issue these days among various Christians. Some say Caesar defines it. Others say Christian vows make it a marriage. Are the unbelievers married then? Some say it is just the consent to live together, assuming one man and one woman. Thanks for considering the topic. I look forward to watching. God speed 🙏
@@davidw.5185great question, because even in the church many don't recognize the sacrament outside the church and therefore will forbid communion until a marriage in the church is done, or demand celibacy if one is to partake of the eucharist.
By now we should call all believers of R&T the heretics of Ybarraism
@@California4Christwonder why they had a falling out? Seems to happen a lot in the tradcat circles
@@countryboyred They're incredibly rigid and judgemental people who typically like to show one another up. That, combined with the general lack of moansticism, creates an atmosphere in which humility runs low but there are plenty of rules with which to judge one another.
@@California4Christ That comment is from two years ago because this is the original link that was hidden behind the Patreon and SubscribeStar paywalls. I think, perhaps, that we will start re-uploading material because that plays the RUclips algorithm in our favor since YT just treats this as a two year old video.
@@ubipetrus3882 I agree with you Ubi. Keep up the great work👍🏼
Can we talk sometime about why a majority of clergy and laypersons refuse to reject anti-theist propaganda of disproven nihilistic science fiction theories and refuse to embrace the six-day creation consensus of ancient and modern holy fathers and saints?
Please keep the comments focused on the content of the video.
@@ubipetrus3882 it was a question.. thanks.
I get that this isn't even tangentially related to the topic of the video, but I think it's because in certain Orthodox circles (could be laity, could be clergy) there's a desire to seem 'relevant' and 'scientific' to the modern secular world. I feel like things are changing though; Father Seraphim Rose's book Genesis Creation and Early Man was a game-changer and makes it far more difficult for a denier of the historicity of Genesis to make blanket statements about the Church Fathers dismissing the entire thing as allegory.
@@OrthodoxInquiry thanks for the input. I subbed your channel.
Thanks for all your hard work preparing this great video! As a Roman Catholic Priest, my concern with the Orthodox position on Divorce and Remarriage remains the same. The Church Fathers cannot be a reliable source of doctrine because they disagree among themselves. Just in this video alone, you have shown that the Father's position on divorce and remarriage for a woman changes depending on the particular Father (and most are unapologetically partial to men). Without an infalible authority, you cannot have certainty. Without the Pope, it seems to me that there is no way to be sure that you are doing the will of God in this area of discipline.
Ok, setting the rest of that aside:
1) What do you do when there are multiple claimants to the Papacy as in the Western Schism?
2) Why can councils accepted by all of the synods that are in communion not be considered infallible?
You do realize that the "catholic church" accepted what the orthodox accepts before the schism as it was in the canons of saint Basil, right? You also realize that eastern Catholics such as melkites also assume the position of the orthodox on divorce?
@@icxcnika2037 Im not familiar with the Canons of St. Basil, but I do know that the Catholic Church has developed its doctrine over time, and certainly has improved its many disciplines. That is kind of my point. What the Catholic Church teaches today is the same in its essence, but it has been clarified and deepened over time. What St. Basil said was good, but God has continued to work and our more perfect disciplines reflect that today. You don't see this kind of development in Orthodoxy when it comes to marriage sadly, and even our Eastern Catholic brothers suffer something similar.
"you have shown that the Father's position on divorce and remarriage for a woman changes depending on the particular Father"
"Without the Pope, it seems to me that there is no way to be sure that you are doing the will of God in this area of discipline."
Would the differences in interpretation and opinion not disprove that papal infallibility and supremacy defined at vatican 1 was always understood by the church? If the church held to papal infallibility, they would not have differing opinions but rather all copy whatever the pope said on the matter.
Papal infallibility does not fix the dilemma of certitude, for a few reasons including:
You as a fallible man have to use fallible reasoning to come to the conclusion that the pope is infallible.
You have to fallibly interpret the pope's writings.
You have to fallibly determine which of the pope's writings are infallible.
You have to fallibly determine who is a true pope due to the supposed possibility of anti popes.
The papal claim to infallibility is based on the claim of knowing the interpretation of scriptures and correct canon of scripture using that very thing in question (infallibility) which is circular reasoning.
Its funny when catholics go after protestants for being sola scriptura when "trad" catholics are literally sola papal scritura but they dont even have a canon of what is infallible and what isnt.
@@venomouswolfThe Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is actually the answer to problem of differences in interpretation. Good men still often disagree (such as the Church Fathers). We are all infallible, and so God gave one man the grace to govern His Church as the Vicar of Christ. Though a fallible man in every other way, the Pope is given the grace to discern what truly is the teaching of Christ and declare it for all to obey. The lack of unanimity in the Early Church shows the need for an infallible source of teaching. At least, that is how I see it. Even as a "fallible man," which I surely am, that makes perfect sense to me :)
Whenever someone starts out trying to qualify disagreeing with a quote by saying “now at first glance…” 😂 excuses, excuses. Three times and Jesus says once. Nice excuses for not following the law though 👍🏻
Can you provide an argument explaining why quote X at time-stamp Y actually says Z and explain why my argument fails?
Doesnt Jesus commentary in Mark makes this explcitly clear?
It was only allowed for hardness of heart, and doea he not say explicitly that
So wouldnt it stand that celibacy is the proper choice after divorce. If you are one flesh becauae of rhe nature of marriage, how can you remarry and be another "single flesh" wirh another? Especially since its clear here,
If you divorce, which implies there was a reason to divorce to begin with.
Made worse by the fact of hardness of heart off comment in conjunction with forgiving 77x7 times. Compounded yet again by the comment, there are thoae made for marriage and those that are not,
Made worse by what Paul says in 1 corinthians abiut it being hard and paul teying to spare the congregation from something they themselves didnt underatand.
Mark 10: 6-12
[6]But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
[7]For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother,
[8]and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
[9]What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
[10]In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
[11]And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
[12]and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Jesus Blesses Little Children
>"If you are one flesh becauae of rhe nature of marriage, how can you remarry and be another "single flesh" wirh another?"
You become "one flesh" with anyone you have intercourse with, shown by how Paul talks about why its horrible for the soul to have intercourse with a prostitute in 1 Corinthians 6. If youre trying to come up with some legalistic solution to this dilemma youre going to have to exactly define marriage, making it into a legal contract rather than mystical union. If you dont you will have to continue in your flaw to go off of the "become one flesh" equaling marriage in which case you are stuck with the first person you have intercourse with for life or have to remain alone according to the RC dogma on marriage lol.
@@venomouswolf im not coming up with anything, Christ's own marriage is pretty clear on this, and why he didn't marry anybody as a man since he was already married to "Isreal" the whore. And why he didn't marry another woman, but True Israel, the Church.
If Christ is the example, then its becomes clear how we OUGHT to view and model divorce and marriage and remarriage. This doesn't detract from the mystical aspect of bonding and growth within the context of marriage, but the mystical aspects of union also do not negate the legal framework of marriage neither. marriage is a covenant, which demands terms and conditions, but at the same time Christ also stressed that you have a duty and obligation to fullfil them despite the other's fidelity, and why Paul stressed this when he compared Christ and the Church to us. Its not either or, its both.
you are also being more obtuse than the most rigorous Roman Catholic autist with your characterization of being stuck with the first person you marry.
no RC worth his salt would tell a victim of child rape that she has to marry her rapist. Come one dude, think your reductionist claims through. if your goign to make fun and insult people, do it right.
Stopped listening at minute 1:45:00 and I'm not an RC. But marrying another after a divorce has adultery written all over it. It's the one sin the Lord spoke of the most - 8 mentions in 6 passages (and twice found in Romans). You'd think the shepherds of a church would steer their flock away from such a dangerous course. They should seek to protect the work of God in them which is the saving of their souls from such sins that, as the Apostle says, make it impossible to inherit the Kingdom of God if unrepentantly practiced.
What then about the exception for porneia?
@@ubipetrus3882 If the wife is divorced over her porneia and marries another she commits adultery, correct?
@@Jere616 That is the simplest meaning of the text.
@@ubipetrus3882 Yes, that's how I read it too. The Lord charges both she and the man who marries her with adultery. If the first husband, being an innocent party, is able to remarry because of the exception it must mean he is single again. However, it's impossible to commit adultery against a single man. Adultery is only against a married man. So the Lord is showing by the charge of adultery that the original marriage is undissolved in God's sight despite the divorce for porneia.
@Jere616 what are you talking about? The Lord says nothing about the innocent party committing adultery if he remarries.
Mono Fizzites
What is the case when a man marries a divorced woman (his only marriage), when she committed adultery during a previous marriage? Is the man an adulterer? Can that man put her away and remarry?
Yes
I would start with framing the situation thus:
1) Was the first marriage recognized as ended by the Church thereby allowing her to remarry? If the answer is yes, then...
2) If she has not cheated on him, what grounds would he have for divorcing her?
This is something that would probably be discussed between Spiritual Fathers and maybe even the Bishop.
But generally those guilty of Adultery, and especially when ecclesiastical divorce is involved, are not generally allowed to remarry unless they are visible in their repentance.
What about a woman who marries a man who was married two times before her and both of those marriage ended because of adultery? And then the third wife he attempts to end her life? Is that woman allowed to remarry?
I'd definitely say so but that is ultimately up to the synod of bishops to interpret and apply the canons. That being said, supposing ample evidence is presented, I cannot imagine them refusing.
Ephraim? ? ?
Wait, so you guys are arguing for divorce? Yikes
Wait, so you condemn all of the Church Fathers? Yikes.
Wait, so you condemn the scriptures, canons, and the Church Father's witness to it? Yikes.
@@symphonymph3562 all the church fathers? Orthodox sure love their precious divorce.
@@thomascrissman1124Another strawman from papists who have no clue on how serious divorce is viewed in the OC.
@@thomascrissman1124 your church allows annulment (legalistic divorce) if there is some BS excuse that one spouse did not intend to remain faithful, AND THEN ALLOWS THE GUILTY PARTY TO REMARRY.