Why I converted from Orthodoxy, by Gideon Lazar, Catholic University of America.

Started by Xavier, November 25, 2019, 03:45:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

christulsa

Quote from: Gardener on December 04, 2019, 08:27:02 AM
Natural law marriages can be dissolved by Pauline privilege (2 non-baptized, one converting) or Petrine privilege (1 baptized and one not at the time of the marriage).

Well except for that of course.

Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:58:57 PMIt's as plain as the fact that marriage validly contracted, even according to the Natural Law, is absolutely indissoluble except by death.  Reason alone proves that.

Let's see you "prove" it then.

1. The pope's have taught that marriage is of the natural law, including its permanence and indissolubility, of course if you are a member of this forum who is doubting the Catholic faith you wouldn't accept this "proof from church authority."  Usually for Catholics, proof in a theological argument begins with the authority.

2. Children by nature need two parents committed for life, to each other and to them, for the good of their soul, the family which is the foundation of society, and for social order.

3. Male and female are by biological and psychological design sexual and monogamous, with exceptions deviations from that law of nature found in polygamous or promiscuous culture's.  It is an undeniable fact that according to nature itself human beings are driven to marry for life.  It is social custom, religion, and law that ratifies that.

But none of that may make sense to you if you are a skeptic about Catholicism in the first place, because it is Catholicism that makes these natural law arguments in the first place.

You said  reason alone proves that. Nothing you've said above demonstrates this.

christulsa

Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 09:27:25 AM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:58:57 PMIt's as plain as the fact that marriage validly contracted, even according to the Natural Law, is absolutely indissoluble except by death.  Reason alone proves that.

Let's see you "prove" it then.

1. The pope's have taught that marriage is of the natural law, including its permanence and indissolubility, of course if you are a member of this forum who is doubting the Catholic faith you wouldn't accept this "proof from church authority."  Usually for Catholics, proof in a theological argument begins with the authority.

2. Children by nature need two parents committed for life, to each other and to them, for the good of their soul, the family which is the foundation of society, and for social order.

3. Male and female are by biological and psychological design sexual and monogamous, with exceptions deviations from that law of nature found in polygamous or promiscuous culture's.  It is an undeniable fact that according to nature itself human beings are driven to marry for life.  It is social custom, religion, and law that ratifies that.

But none of that may make sense to you if you are a skeptic about Catholicism in the first place, because it is Catholicism that makes these natural law arguments in the first place.

You said  reason alone proves that. Nothing you've said above demonstrates this.

Well then you are not in full possession of the faculty of reason.   Even a pagan with normal cognition would be able to follow the standard natural law arguments.   This isn't exactly quantum physics.  An illiterate peasant wife cooking the morning pot of porridge in her hut would understand it.

Gardener

"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 09:27:25 AM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: christulsa on December 03, 2019, 07:58:57 PMIt's as plain as the fact that marriage validly contracted, even according to the Natural Law, is absolutely indissoluble except by death.  Reason alone proves that.

Let's see you "prove" it then.

1. The pope's have taught that marriage is of the natural law, including its permanence and indissolubility, of course if you are a member of this forum who is doubting the Catholic faith you wouldn't accept this "proof from church authority."  Usually for Catholics, proof in a theological argument begins with the authority.

2. Children by nature need two parents committed for life, to each other and to them, for the good of their soul, the family which is the foundation of society, and for social order.

3. Male and female are by biological and psychological design sexual and monogamous, with exceptions deviations from that law of nature found in polygamous or promiscuous culture's.  It is an undeniable fact that according to nature itself human beings are driven to marry for life.  It is social custom, religion, and law that ratifies that.

But none of that may make sense to you if you are a skeptic about Catholicism in the first place, because it is Catholicism that makes these natural law arguments in the first place.

You said  reason alone proves that. Nothing you've said above demonstrates this.

Well then you are not in full possession of the faculty of reason.   Even a pagan with normal cognition would be able to follow the standard natural law arguments.   This isn't exactly quantum physics.  An illiterate peasant wife cooking the morning pot of porridge in her hut would understand it.


christulsa

Quote from: Gardener on December 04, 2019, 09:52:46 AM
Perhaps he would be satisfied with a syllogism.

Ok lets use a simple syllogism!  If A=B, B=C, then A=C. 


If (A) Kreutzitter is (B) rejecting the basic natural law argument against divorce (as expressed by me or anyone else)

And (B) if to reject the basic natural law arguments against divorce is (C) to act like a fool (objectively).

Then (A) Kreutzitter is (C) acting like a fool (objectively, no offense Kreut).


Or did we need a syllogism to break down the NL argument itself?   ;)  If so, I'll require a donation via paypal for my time!   


Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: Gardener on December 04, 2019, 09:52:46 AM
Perhaps he would be satisfied with a syllogism.

Ok lets use a simple syllogism!  If A=B, B=C, then A=C. 


If (A) Kreutzitter is (B) rejecting the basic natural law argument against divorce (as expressed by me or anyone else)

And (B) if to reject the basic natural law arguments against divorce is (C) to act like a fool (objectively).

Then (A) Kreutzitter is (C) acting like a fool (objectively, no offense Kreut).

Oh, I reject the very concept of "natural law" and dismiss "natural law theory" in toto as demonstrably false, besides being a pagan invention of pagan philosophers transplanted into Catholic theology via Hellenizers obsessed with Stoicism. That's beside the point. You've done nothing to "prove" by "reason alone" that "marriage is for life".

Quote1. The pope's have taught that marriage is of the natural law, including its permanence and indissolubility, of course if you are a member of this forum who is doubting the Catholic faith you wouldn't accept this "proof from church authority."  Usually for Catholics, proof in a theological argument begins with the authority.

The moment you invoke the authority of papal teaching you have left the realm of "by reason alone".

Quote2. Children by nature need two parents committed for life, to each other and to them, for the good of their soul, the family which is the foundation of society, and for social order.

Children don't take a lifetime to mature, and women aren't fertile for life, so this premise is deficient right off the bat. Even then, you do nothing to show how the conclusion "marriage is for life" can be drawn from it as a truth. At most it would imply that marriage for the lifetime of the child is better for the child. But even that is patently untrue, contradicted by, say, the case of a violent, abusive husband.


Quote3. Male and female are by biological and psychological design sexual and monogamous, with exceptions deviations from that law of nature found in polygamous or promiscuous culture's.  It is an undeniable fact that according to nature itself human beings are driven to marry for life.  It is social custom, religion, and law that ratifies that.

Yes. The old Stoic canard. "Natural law" can be known without divine revelation by "reason". "It's an undeniable fact", except in those cases where this "nature" is individually or socially contradicted by human action, in which case it's a "deviation". Of course what is "natural" always happens to fall in lien with the philosopher's own moral prejudices or cultural conventions.



Kreuzritter

Here's a natural law "argument" for polygamy in the same form as yours, to show just what a load of presuppositional bunkum "natural law" is. Men are by nature fertile for decades more than women. It's patently obvious to every washerwoman that this implies that, by nature, man is supposed to take a second, younger wife when his first one hits menopause. Why else would he still be able to produce offspring while she cannot? Waiting until he is older to take a much younger first wife also doesn't make sense by nature, because he'd be wasting the most fertile period of his life. Q.E.D. Polygamy is clearly natural.

Kreuzritter

Marriage for life is not a law of nature; it's a law of supernature, of supernatural grace infused in man to bring forth the divine virtue of charity it takes to sacrifice of oneself for another in this way. It comes from the transformed heart, not from the passions and not from the mind.


Xavier

Just passing through for now. The Council of Florence had said, "The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the church. [quoting Ephesians 5:32] The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage  is perpetual." As the union between Christ and His Church is indissoluble (and they who deny this are in danger of being rejected by Jesus Christ), so also a sacramental marriage is indissoluble.

That a Sacramental Marriage is indissoluble can also easily be proven from our Liturgical Tradition, for each partner says, "I, N. N., take thee, N. N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." From which it necessarily follows, that sacramental marriage is lifelong.

4 passages from Sacred Scripture: "But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." (Mat 5:32)

Mark 10:11 "So He told them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."

Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Comment: Notice that St. Mark and St. Luke report the same prohibition absolutely. That is because an unlawful union is not a marriage.

Hence, for e.g. if a man elopes with and claims to "marry" his first cousin, the attempted union is unlawful and void ab initio. But every true Catholic marriage, like the Union between Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church, cannot ever legitimately be dissolved by anyone.

1 Cor 7:11 "And if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife."

"Before the legalization of Christianity, the Council of Elvira made several declarations in AD 309. It declared in its eighth canon that women who leave their husbands and live with another are not to be given communion, even at the end of their lives." https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/tradition-speaks-one-voice-divorce-remarriage

Also, contrary to the pagans and worldlings of today, it is the greatest Mercy of all, shown toward the offended party, by Christ and the Church, not to permit an adulterous husband, for e.g. to pretend he has now lawfully married a "second wife" (both of them commit adultery in doing this, according to the Word of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels) of his; it is Mercy toward the abandoned wife, for it alone safeguards the hope that she may be re-united with her truly married husband one day, and it is also Mercy even toward the soul of the very adulterous partner himself, for it draws him back to repentance. Even in Protestant Bibles God says, "I hate divorce" but they don't. Henry VIII wanted his divorce, just as he wanted England's rebellious divorce from Christ's Church.

And in a similar way in the Photian Schism - when those God-forsaken and terribly wicked madmen, the politician Photius, and that blasphemous, insane, wicked devil sent from hell named Michael Caerularius who had the Holy Eucharist in Azyme Bread trampled under feet - having wickedly rent the Sacred Unity of the Body of Christ, and themselves having become divorced from Christ's Church and cut off from all hope of salvation, the falsehoods of additional marriages were invented, until these abuses were corrected by the Ecumenical Council of Florence. Florence is an Ecumenical Council and was practically very widely accepted, even despite Turkish influence, until about 1484. Eastern Catholics rightly still accept it together with us. Eastern Orthodox unhappily and vainly try to contest its Ecumenical decisions, which are nevertheless infallible and eternally binding.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

christulsa

Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: Gardener on December 04, 2019, 09:52:46 AM
Perhaps he would be satisfied with a syllogism.

Ok lets use a simple syllogism!  If A=B, B=C, then A=C. 


If (A) Kreutzitter is (B) rejecting the basic natural law argument against divorce (as expressed by me or anyone else)

And (B) if to reject the basic natural law arguments against divorce is (C) to act like a fool (objectively).

Then (A) Kreutzitter is (C) acting like a fool (objectively, no offense Kreut).

Oh, I reject the very concept of "natural law" and dismiss "natural law theory" in toto as demonstrably false, besides being a pagan invention of pagan philosophers transplanted into Catholic theology via Hellenizers obsessed with Stoicism. That's beside the point. You've done nothing to "prove" by "reason alone" that "marriage is for life".

Quote1. The pope's have taught that marriage is of the natural law, including its permanence and indissolubility, of course if you are a member of this forum who is doubting the Catholic faith you wouldn't accept this "proof from church authority."  Usually for Catholics, proof in a theological argument begins with the authority.

The moment you invoke the authority of papal teaching you have left the realm of "by reason alone".

Quote2. Children by nature need two parents committed for life, to each other and to them, for the good of their soul, the family which is the foundation of society, and for social order.

Children don't take a lifetime to mature, and women aren't fertile for life, so this premise is deficient right off the bat. Even then, you do nothing to show how the conclusion "marriage is for life" can be drawn from it as a truth. At most it would imply that marriage for the lifetime of the child is better for the child. But even that is patently untrue, contradicted by, say, the case of a violent, abusive husband.


Quote3. Male and female are by biological and psychological design sexual and monogamous, with exceptions deviations from that law of nature found in polygamous or promiscuous culture's.  It is an undeniable fact that according to nature itself human beings are driven to marry for life.  It is social custom, religion, and law that ratifies that.

Yes. The old Stoic canard. "Natural law" can be known without divine revelation by "reason". "It's an undeniable fact", except in those cases where this "nature" is individually or socially contradicted by human action, in which case it's a "deviation". Of course what is "natural" always happens to fall in lien with the philosopher's own moral prejudices or cultural conventions.

Here is how I would answer.   The Popes have consistently taught at least since Trent that natural law ethics is sound Catholic philosophy, AND that Catholic philosophy is integral to understanding questions of Catholic faith and morals.  Even the Early Church Fathers (of the West and East) often embraced philosophy, especially of the Greeks.  Pope John Paul II, for all his progressive orientations, taught in Fides et Ratio what Pope Leo XIII taught in Aeternae Patris:  that the sphere of faith and the sphere of reason, by divine design, are to be in harmony;  that the basic "preambles of faith," ie the basic moral teachings, can be proven by reason itself.   By "reason alone" I was not meaning "reason separate from faith," but "reason standing on its own, enlightened by faith."   The Popes taught this too, that fundamental moral doctrines can be proven by reason itself, even within the context of the Church.  Regardless of your opinion about scholasticism, that is what Tradition and the Magisterium teaches. 

Answering your objections:

1.  The "realm of reason" is not something separate from the authority of the pope (or Church for that matter).  The pope has the authority to teach the veracity of the natural law, and recommend it.  That is the point.   That is where we Catholics should begin

2.  a) Adults are always maturing spiritually and morally, needing on occasion the counsel of their parents, which is why by natural design marriage is for lie  b)  The primary purpose of marriage is actually not mere biological procreation, but the moral education of their offspring, and that education does not end when the child becomes an adult;  c) grave abuse of a spouse is grounds for separation, not divorce.

3. See what I wrote above about natural law/philosophy.

Conclusion:  if you are biased against the natural law and philosophy, then there is no argument with you from reason itself.   Hence the sarcasm of my syllogism.  You're not being intelligent or logical here about a serious Catholic subject.

christulsa

Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 11:44:55 AM
Marriage for life is not a law of nature; it's a law of supernature, of supernatural grace infused in man to bring forth the divine virtue of charity it takes to sacrifice of oneself for another in this way. It comes from the transformed heart, not from the passions and not from the mind.

bingo.  Which is the whole point of the argument.  We're not just spinning our wheels for the kick of it.   If marriage for life is a "law of supernature" then the Eastern Orthodox Church is violating a divine, supernatural revelation by allowing divorce and remarriage (Without annulment).   You've just proven that they are in a state of doctrinal contradiction! well done!   you can have the last word...

Xavier

The article from Crisis Magazine is so good that it is worth posting here nearly in its entirety. All who desire to gain Christ's Wisdom on the subject should kindly read it very carefully: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/tradition-speaks-one-voice-divorce-remarriage

"What should be particularly noted in the following examples is the solicitude of the Roman Church for the maintenance of the bond.


  • Indissolubility is presumed throughout the entirety of the subapostolic Fathers. The Shepherd of Hermas, St. Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras clearly reaffirm Christ's command that marriage be indissoluble. Hermas is representative: "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? And he said, The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery."
  • The subapostolic Church was so concerned for the indissolubility and sanctity of the marriage bond, that doubts were raised as to whether a second marriage was possible, even after the first spouse died. Indeed even in the Post Nicene period, penance was still imposed upon men who remarried after their wife's death. (St. Basil ep. 188.4, PG 32, 673a) While the Church gradually discerned the liceity of such marriages, it offers startling testimony to the early Church's commitment to the bond. Not only that, but such second marriages were distinguished from those who divorced and civilly remarried, who were never permitted to be readmitted to communion.
  • The great theologian Origen mentioned that he had heard that some bishops allowed communion after remarriage, and then proceeds to condemn the practice no fewer than three times (In evang. Mt. 14:23-24). Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Augustine too mention such practices, and denounce them in no uncertain terms.
  • Pope Callistus I (r. 218-222) effectively made an ecclesiastical "declaration of independence" regarding marriage and, in contravention to civil law, determined that Christians were free to marry across social classes. This established the principle that the laws of God were above those of the state, especially those that contradicted the divine law regarding marriage.
  • Before the legalization of Christianity, the Council of Elvira made several declarations in AD 309. It declared in its eighth canon that women who leave their husbands and live with another are not to be given communion, even at the end of their lives. Canon 9 further comments that a woman who leaves her adulterous husband may not receive communion while he lives. Such a one may however be given last rites. These decisions appear repeatedly in the local councils of the first millennium.
...
  • Pope Siricius (r. 384-399) took indissolubility so seriously that he prohibited even those who were solemnly betrothed to marry someone other than their intended. (Epist. Ad Himerium, 5)
  • Innocent I (r. 401-417) was most clear "In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died." (Ep. ad Victricius, bishop of Rouen, PL 20, 479) Innocent agreed with St. Basil, that women who were remarried were not even to be given permission to do public penance, because in the Church permission for penance was always intended to come after the renunciation of the sin to be atoned.
  • Gregory the Great (r. 590-604) spoke of the dissolution of marriage for the ostensibly good reason to enter the religious life. He wrote to his friend Theoctista, the sister of the Byzantine emperor: "And such both I, and all Catholic bishops, and the universal Church, anathematize, because they think what is contrary to the truth, and speak what is contrary. For, if they say that marriages should be dissolved for the sake of religion, be it known that, though human law has conceded this, yet divine law has forbidden it. For the Truth in person says, 'What God has joined together let not man put asunder' (Mt. 19:6). He says also, 'It is not lawful for a man to put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication (Mt. 16:9).' Who then may contradict this heavenly legislator?" (PL 77, 1161, Epistolae, Bk. 11, Ep. 45) Even for the sake of entering religious life, no one could leave their spouse. This became the common teaching in the west. A couple could mutually choose to enter the religious life, but they were still married to one another, they simply chose a life of celibacy.
    The Church had to confront new challenges in the period of the barbarian migrations. These new groups brought with them laxer customs regarding marriage, so the papacy had to reinforce indissolubility in a new context, knowing that the moral commands of God transcend cultural differences. Pope Zachary I declared to Pepin in 747 "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion." (MGH ep. III. Ep. Merov. Et. Karol. Aevi I, 482) Adrian I reinforced this in a letter to the Spanish bishops in the 780s.
  • Even with such fulminations the successor states continued to do much as they pleased. A salient example was the defense of Theutberga by Pope St. Nicholas the Great (r. 859-867). Lothair II decided he did not like his new wife, and decided to put her away to marry his mistress Waldrada. Nicholas contradicted this, and held out even under threat of invasion from Lothair, all to maintain the rights of the wife Theutberga. At length in 865, Nicholas triumphed, and Theutberga was returned to Lothair, and he was deprived of his bigamous second wife. It was a sterling example of the defense of the popes in favor of the indissolubility of marriage.
  • When Gratian completed his mighty compilation of Canon Law in the 1140s, the Decretum (destined to remain the book of Church law until 1917), he was absolutely certain on the normative and infallible dogma of indissolubility. Indeed the canonical praxis of the Middle Ages was so fixed that women could (and did) sue in Church courts for their husbands to be forcibly remanded to their common home, there ordered by the Church to treat their legitimate wives with "marital affection."
  • Following the Decretum the popes continued to add laws to strengthen and undergird the tradition (called Decretals). Alexander III (r. 1159-1181) interprets the "fornication" exception of Matthew 19 as one of permission to separate, not remarry. He further specifies that "perfect divorce," which is the dissolution of an existing bond, can only be of a ratified, non-consummated marriage, that is, one in which the vows have been exchanged, but has not yet resulted in sexual union, and only with the express permission of the pope himself. By Alexander's time, it had become the prevalent opinion that the exchange of vows plus sex made a marriage absolutely indivisible, no power on earth, not even the pope's could dissolve it. (Liber Extra, 32.2, 32.7)
  • Innocent III (r. 1198-1216) one of the most innovative pontiffs in history, not only wrote a beautiful book on marriage, but also canonized the first non-royal married saint, Omobono of Cremona. He too makes clear the absolute indissolubility of marriage in his profession of faith for Waldensian heretics. In his reconciliation of Durand of Huesca, the Waldensian was compelled to confess that, "We do not deny that carnal marriage may be contracted as the Apostle says, and we utterly forbid that those united in lawful fashion shall separate." (PL 216, 289ff)
  • Innocent III put his words into action when the powerful French King Philip II attempted to put away his Danish wife Ingeborg. Philip ignored papal commands and attempted to marry again. So concerned with the bond of marriage was Innocent, that in 1200 he placed the entire French kingdom under an interdict (i.e. the Church was shut for business, except baptism and last rites in emergencies). After 13 years of resisting, Philip finally relented and Innocent had the pleasure of seeing Ingeborg restored to her proper rights. The papacy had again sacrificed much for the defense of marriage.
  • At the ecumenical council of Florence in 1439, the first of a series of reunions were decreed between the Roman church and various separated Churches of the east. The Armenians were required to confess the Augustinian goods of marriage: offspring, faith, and indissolubility. They were required to hold that, while a separation may be effected for causes of sexual immorality, remarriage was never to be permitted as long as the spouse lived. (Mansi, 31, 1054ff) Such a profession was required in nearly every case of eastern Christians returning to communion. (See Benedict XIV's reconciliation of the Maronites in 1743.)"
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Kreuzritter

Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 12:06:45 PM
bingo.  Which is the whole point of the argument.  We're not just spinning our wheels for the kick of it.   If marriage for life is a "law of supernature" then the Eastern Orthodox Church is violating a divine, supernatural revelation by allowing divorce and remarriage (Without annulment).   You've just proven that they are in a state of doctrinal contradiction! well done!   you can have the last word...

No, that doesn't follow, and no, I haven't.

christulsa

Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 04, 2019, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: christulsa on December 04, 2019, 12:06:45 PM
bingo.  Which is the whole point of the argument.  We're not just spinning our wheels for the kick of it.   If marriage for life is a "law of supernature" then the Eastern Orthodox Church is violating a divine, supernatural revelation by allowing divorce and remarriage (Without annulment).   You've just proven that they are in a state of doctrinal contradiction! well done!   you can have the last word...

No, that doesn't follow, and no, I haven't.

::)