Divorce

[Oana Vlad]

Why is there such a difference between Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints about divorce? Why is it such an irretrievable sin in Catholicism, while Orthodoxy allows it? Personally, I am 100% in favour of divorce. I`ve seen too many unhappy marriages. Why be forced to drag along an unhappy marriage while one could be sincere and start it up again?

Oana

[Iordanis]

Are there actually any "official" statements on divorce that the church has issued?

[Moses Anthony]

Oana,

This is personal opinion. Other than the fact that marriage is a sacrament of the Church, of which the Apostle Paul says that we are to be good stewards of the mysteries of God, marriage is a divine covenant (rejoice in the wife of your youth, whom you have from God), and from everything we've seen in history, breaking covenant with God isn't something one wants to make a habit of doing.

Why is there such stigma attached to divorce, probably because somewhere inside each of us is the witness that divorce isn't how it is supposed to be. I don't think Catholics hold a candle to Southern Baptists treat divorcees, and probably because the first idea in everyones mind is; Was one or both of them unfaithful?

There's spousal abuse from both sides, child abuse that's physical, emotional and sexual, and the proverbial cold heart which usually results in unfaithfulness. In spite of all that, I'm not 100% in favor of it as you say you are.

It is a Mystery, a Grace of God, of which we/I can learn how to be a good steward (read counseling, marriage enrichment, etc; etc, here). The problem with the 'cold heart' aspect is that covenants are founded upon mutual love. This is what you will find in the covenants between Abraham & God, Jonathan & David, and the covenant between God and His people. Besides that before the ceremony is over, you'll remember the parties make a vow, something else God frowns upon breaking.

Is divorce irretrievable, NO!! If that was true, then what would be the reason for mercy, and particularly God's mercy, for which we Orthodox constantly cry. However; at no time should we take a cavalier attitude, to any form of sin. The emotional barb is so deep, the pain so excruciating, that we find it difficult to forgive "...those who have trespassed against us".

I on no account advocate a spouse staying in an abusive relationship. However, abused relationships can be healed. That is the whole point of redemption. And the whole point of hell, is that it's occupants have refused the healing of body, soul and spirit, redemptions Provider has provided. The commands of Almighty God, are not a buffet line at your local dining facility, but then; in God justice and mercy have kissed each other.
As I said at the start of this rant, this is nothing more than my personal opinion/belief. You would have a better opportunity of getting the Orthodox viewpoint from Matthew or Owen.

t.u.s

[Oana Vlad]

James,

I am not advocating divorce, on the contrary. God help me never need such thing! I`m only saying that I am in favour of the possibility of divorce in case of urgent need. That is, those painful cases of violence etc. One of my friends went through this. I`m glad she managed to end up such a painful relationship. I`m only interested in the theoretical aspect of the matter. How come there is such a difference between the churches concerning divorce? What is the Orthodox perspective on the matter? It would be great if nobody needed divorce, it would be great if we could all keep our vows. But unfortunately, life offers a different perspective.

[Deiniol Clarke]

Doesn't Jesus say that if we marry a divorced person, we are commiting adultary - in other words, when married, we will always be married - marrying another will commit adultary against your other wife [your past wife, your x-wife.]?

Yours in Christ,
Deiniol

[A Desert Aspirant]

Generalizations about divorce are often unfair.

Even extremely happy marriages have their trials and tribulations, their emotional struggles, and days when both husband and wife want to get away from each other. (And sometimes best that they do!)

Unhappy marriages -- never really planned on -- are something one cannot completely empathize with unless one has experienced it.

Recall the worst days of your union. Remember those unhappy moments, your upset feelings, and imagine those emotions -- anger and/or sadness --amplified by ten. Could you live with it?

It is good to try and make one's marriage work out; not to give up too soon. But waiting too long to get out of an empty or truly toxic marriage can be damaging to both husband and wife also.

First, there is the irritation setting in, the frequent difference in opinion, the collapse of closeness, eroding of intimacy, a noticeable drifting apart, and the painful realization of it all.

How does arguing all the time glorify God? How does never communicating or not enjoying life together witness love of God to others?

Perhaps the couple continues on like this for many years, in a joyless relationship. If there are children, undoubtably they will be affected by this toxicity, perhaps suffering emotionally, until they work through their own pain later in life.

Divorce is always a sad event, most unfortunate.
But an even more dismal picture is seeing people go through life so unhappy that they get depressed and ill.

Would you really want to continue living with a spouse who you knew didn't love you anymore? That would be just as difficult -- or even moreso -- than living with a spouse that you didn't love.

If I KNEW my husband didn't love me, and would be happier with someone else, then I'd probably be happier without him, too. (But people CAN and DO fall back into love, so don't give up too soon.)

When divorce appears to be the lesser of two evils, it should be allowed.

If children are involved, the husband and wife should try even harder to keep the marriage together.

In church we sing "the Lord is kind and merciful." God can repair a failing or broken relationship. But if after a long period of sincere prayer and effort, both husband and wife would still rather divorce, then let them be free, and without the judgement of those who've not experienced this sort of grief.

Those who have never divorced because they are absolutely thrilled and happy to be together, should count their blessings! Count your blessings happily married couples -- without being overly judgemental of those who haven't stayed together. (It may have been for good reason, and the smartest thing to do.)

There are a tremendous amount of couples who have remained married out of emotional insecurities, or for financial reasons, and not because they are still in love with one another. Do years of misery glorify God?

If people stay together because they have children, and have even some degree of happiness and family strength, then that is good.

But years of misery don't help anyone, and could possibly produce maladjusted children.

Attempts to stay together glorify God when their happiness, togetherness, and love is evident to others!

Most often, when divorce makes both happier, and seems the lesser of wrongs, then it is right.

Everyone's circumstances are different.

Social structure, daily life, and conduct is different than it was 2000 years ago. But back then, even St. Paul made leeway for marriage break up: the "Pauline Principle."

We really shouldn't judge in generalizations. Peoples' circumstances are unique.

Sincerely, the know-it-all,
A Desert Aspirant

[A Desert Aspirant]

CORRECTION: The formal allowance the church has had for divorce, rooted in St. Paul's philosphy has been known as the Pauline PRIVILEDGE, not principle. St. Paul writes about this in I Corinthians7.

(Not such a know-it-all afterall! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif )

[Richard Leigh]

The Roman Catholic teaching on marriage comes from Jesus' teaching that the sacrament is found instituted in the Garden and defines it there as "one flesh union." which union is not disolved until at least one of the fleshes is diceased. Thus, marriage is inviolable, and polygamy (where legal) is nothing more than legalized adultery.

I can't speak for the Orthodox position except that it is known that there is something missing either in what was just said, or that the church has a right to be lenient in certain cases. Catholocism also reserves the right to anull marriages, which is tantamoung to the same thing IMO.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Oana,

The Orthodox Church does not grant a divorce - that is a matter for the civil authorities. The Church does allow for the dissolution of a marriage. At the All-Church Sobor ( council) of the Russian Orthdox Church just at the time of the Revolution, seven reasons were given for ther ending of a marriage in the eyes of the Church. Among them are, adultery, abandonment, insanity, the failure of the marriage to consummated, and three others, which do not come to mind at the moment.

Since the Holy Spirit has to be active in the completion of any sacrament, when one spouse has fallen into adultery, "The Spirit of Truth" can no longer abide there. This would now be also seen when one of the people is a violent alcoholic and verbally and/or physically abusive, for the person is certainly not in their right mind at such times. The Church does not "agree" with the concept of divorce, for she sees the union of a man and a woman as being blessed by God and the Church for their mutual salvation - but when this is not possible, then the Church sorrowfully permits the local parish priest, after he has done all he could to save the marriage, to turn the matter over to the diocesan court, which meets and passes its recommendtion on to the local bishop. Should the marriage be dissolved, the party deemed guilty is given a penance, or sometimes, both parties are. As in cases of "Econimia," that much abused word, the local bishop, many times with the aid of the priest who knows the Canons very well, takes the councils recommendations and then makes the final judgemnet.

I believe that in the Roman Catholic Church, and I may be wrong, that an anullment can be granted when something can be determined by a Church tribunal which says that the marriage never really took place in the first place, given certain circumstances. If the tribunal can find no substantive reason, an anullment will not be grtanted, and a divorce is out of the question.

The Roman Church uses the phrase "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder," as its reasons for not granting a divorce, bit later in the same Gospel, our Lord says, "if a man put his wife aside for a reason other than adultery...," and it is from this phrase that the Orthodox Church takes her stand on the ending of marriage.

Fr. A.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dear Father A.

As a former Roman Catholic, I knew two priests who were on the Marriage Tribunal. The parish would have evening discussions on the sacraments including marriage.

Today it is relatively easy for Catholics to obtain annulments especially here in the USA. If the couple never consummated the marriage, concealed information (i.e. alcoholism, mental illness) from each other so they could not make a fully informed decision, or lied about their intention to never have children, or knew they were impotent but failed to disclose that fact, or were forced into the marriage by fear, pregnancy, poverty, or a desire to get away from their parents, these are some of the grounds for an annulment. The people who petition for an annulment have to obtain a legal divorce first. If the annulment is granted (a declaration that no sacramental marriage had ever taken place), then one or both parties may be allowed to "remarry." Sometimes a party will not be allowed to "remarry" until they have undergone appropriate professional counseling. Othertimes they are deemed unfit to ever marry.

If the annulment is not granted, then the couple can remained legally divorced, but their marriage is still considered to be a reality by the Catholic Church so they cannot marry again, unless one of the parties dies. If one of the parties does remarry, that party would be excommunicated, and the marriage can not take place in the Catholic Church.

Understanding the Orthodox perspective on marriage and divorce was very hard for me, especially when a priest says that the Church doesn't grant divorces but blesses a second marriage. This sounds like an apparent contradiction to me. I understand that the legal courts grant the divorce. After the divorce, does the Spiritual Court of the Orthodox Church determine whether the marriage is either still intact or has ended? Or does the Spiritual Court rule before the divorce proceeding?

I also understand the Orthodox frustration with the Roman Catholic use of the term "annulment," especially when the couple has children from that marriage. There appears to be a contradiction here.

Respectfully yours,
Elizabeth

P.S. I used the word "remarry" for lack of a better word. Notice the apparent contradiction.

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 21 July, 2003)

[Fr Averky]

Dear Elizabeth,

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. When I said that the Orthodox Churh does not grant a "divorce," I meant that the Church does not use this term. It recognizes the "dissolution," or temination of marriage, because, for the reasons I have given and others, the marriage has ceased to exist. Of course, if the Church did not officially enact and pronounce the dissolution of a mariage, then the parties involved would not be free to marry again. I know of one case where a very fine deacon after many years of an ubhappy marriage, finally decided to divorce his wife. I believe that his original plan was to become a monk, but, perhaps out of spite, the woman has never agreed to end the marriage in the Church. This a great rarity, but the Orthodox Church does not have the "fixed" rules of the Roman Catholic Church. From what I understand, the Vartican has complained that the Catholic Church in the U.S. grants anullments too readily.

I have not participated in a marriage tribunal or really had anything to do with a dissolution of a marriage, but I do know that the Church will first try everything it can to save a marriage, but when it sees that this is not possible, then it will proceed. In some cases, the civil divorce comes first, then the Church court is convened, but then, sometimes the reverse is the case. If this sounds confusing, it is perhaps only because it is not complex at all.

A person can marry in the Orthodox Church three times. The first time, it is filled with joy and is a great celebration, while the second and third have penitential elements to them. As to why three are allowed, I might be wrong here ( marriage is not one of my big interests, since I am a monk), but I remember beeing told long ago, that one of the Byzantine emperors had wanted to marry for the fourth time, and the patriarch of Constantinople ruled that three times was enough for any Christian. I will happily stand corrected on this one, and ask anyone who might know to inform the rest of us.

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Elizabeth,

a short word of clarification: the civil authorities grant divorces; that is a legal matter. The Orthodox Church grants dissolutions, and the Roman Catholic Church grants anullments- these are handled by a spiritual court, because they are a spiritual matter, not a legal one-for instance the Church does not grant alimony, determine child support, or divide assets, that is the duty of the civil court system. It is like saying, "Render unto Ceasar..." I hope that this makes more sense to you.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

To: Father A

Clarification

"remarry" in the context in which I used it could be rephrased as "enter into a sacramental marriage."

Yours in Christ-God,
Elizabeth

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 21 July, 2003)

[A Desert Aspirant]

Richard,

Yes, of course the Roman Catholic church considers marriage a sacrament, based on Christian teachings.

But, there are times when a marriage just plain and simply doesn't turn out to reflect this wonderful, holy sacrament the way God intended.

Yes, the Bible says "God hates divorce." But that was written when husbands were haphazardly disposing of their wives for shallow and selfish reasons.

It is always too bad when a marriage doesn't work out. God does hate divorce, but He hates to see people in marriages that are demeaning, too.

Marriage is a functioning relationship between husband and wife that provides family support. Marriage is more than a legal covenant, it is an emotional union.

It can be apparent early on, or it can take time for a man and woman to realize they are not going to be happy together afterall. Would a good and merciful God force a man and woman to go through life without a true sense of family? What about the "joy of the Lord?"

If the "marriage" isn't there, it simply isn't there. Marriage is more than residing under the same roof.

I am in NO WAY ADVOCATING divorce. But for the good of all, it must remain an option.

You cannot know and judge a stranger's circumstance. I stand firm in purporting what I stated in the previous post. And many others believe this, too, they are just unwilling to admit it.

Children who grow up in negative, highly critical atomospheres are often adversely affected.

It may be more of a sin to keep another in a spiritually and emotionally unfullfilling situation.

As stated previously -- if you've not been there, you cannot comprehend what it is like, and you are not to judge.

Yes, the Bible emphasizes the importance of staying together. That was to deter any frivolous getting "fed up" and leaving a marriage for the wrong reasons, as men were doing in that day.

You can take a particular scripture and interpret it literally, and wave it in front of someone else's face. But people pick and choose which scripture they will take literally, and which are merely indicative of an abstract concept or moral ideal we want to uphold.

What about the scripture where Jesus said "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." Is that to be taken literally? No. It means we are to put God first in our lives.

Marriage is meant to create a harmonious family unit that glorifies God; and provides a supportive base for all members, a loving "homefront" from which they interact with others. A family home should be a happy retreat from the rest of the world.

Both husband and wife should be able look at each other and truthfully declare to their spouse,"There is NOONE in the world I'd rather be with than you. You are the best one for me, we are wonderful together!" If they cannot do that, then before they have children, they should be given the option to split without judgement from their spiritual community.

A husband and wife should be willing to express to others, "I love my spouse! They are a most wonderful person, and I am so happy to have this person as my mate. I trust them. I want their utmost happiness! We couldn't be a better match."
If they cannot say honestly pronounce such love, or even feign it convincingly, should they be forced to stay together? Is that what a merciful God wants?

Remember, (since you prefer a rigid interpretation of scripture) judging others is a sin as much as a wrongful divorce may be.

Staying together for fifty years in an unhappy, lifeless and toxic union is nothing to boast about.

Think about it. Pray about it.

Would you want your son or daughter to remain in a lifelong miserable relationship? (Of course, in these cases, it is always the in-law's fault! Ha. Ha.)

[A Desert Aspirant]

Two thousand years ago, when husbands were disposing of their wives on a whim, greater enforcement of rules was needed to keep them together during periods of conflict and adjustment. (You have to hang on for awhile, and endure the initial becoming-too-familiar stages.)

Abandonment of spouses (mostly wives) needed to be curtailed. (And today there is still such a concern, to ensure the well-being and care of children and dependent spouses.

But life in general is slightly different today. Not everything is so cut and dry. Christ was watching over those who might be cruelly disserted and left unable to care for themselves.

(By the way, wives were not permitted to leave their husbands for any reason, even ones that may have been life threatening.)

Unfortunately, today, people still leave spouses with weak excuses. But -- much of the time there is GOOD reason to allow a divorce.

Call it dissolution, divorce, or annullment -- that unfortunate road must remain an option.

A

[A Desert Aspirant]

Another emendation.

The following sentence should be reworded:

"Unfortunately, today, people still leave spouses with weak excuses. But -- much of the time there is GOOD reason to allow a divorce."

To clarify, a revision of words:

"Unfortunately, people still have weak excuses for leaving their spouses." Meaning people should not leave another without understandable cause.

Also, instead of "much of the time there is good reason to allow a divorce," it should be stated, "many times, there has been sufficient and understandable cause to divorce."

Not that people file for divorce because a husband or wife is giving them a weak excuse for something -- unless it is a weak excuse for why they've not been coming home at night for the last three weeks. Ha Ha.

A Desert Aspirant

[Owen Jones]

to what extent should a church lobby a secular government to adopt policies that reflect a Christian, sacred understanding of marriage, or any issue for that matter? In a secular society, in which most marriages receive only a Christian veneer, if that, and where there are more and more civil marriages and no married cohabitation, it seems to me the primary responsibility of the Church is to look out for its own flock. It may be that in America the best thing to do is privatize marriage.

[John2]

To "A Desert Aspirant" -- Do you have any support from the teachings of the church for what you are saying? Or are these just your personal opinions, which you believe must be the teachings of the church?

I'm not saying that I disagree with you necessarily. But you seem to be offering just your thoughts on the matter, and not the teaching of the church.

[M.C. Steenberg]

As an aside to the conversation, the technical question was asked:


Is it possible to edit a posting once it is posted if typographical errors are noticed?

Yes, this is possible. Registered members can find a listing of their most recent posts in the Profile Editor (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/board-profile.cgi). Next to each post, an 'Edit' icon appears for 24 hours after the initial posting. During this time, you may click that icon to re-load your message text and make any alterations to the text you so desire, then re-save it to the board (a notice is appended to the bottom of edited messages, informing readers that the content has been changed from the original message). Post revision of this sort is only possible for 24 hours after the initial posting of the message, after which time the message becomes 'permanent' and can only be edited via a request to the moderator.

(Note: When changing and re-saving a post, this effects the version stored on the host and accessed via the web-interface. Those members who receive posts by email will not receive a new copy of the message.)

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Desert Aspirant,

I hear you Loud and Clear.

As to the terminology Fr. A alerted us to (information I am very glad to receive), it would seem that the R.Catholics, anull, i.e., make null and void marriages that had been, on the observation that they had not actually been, while Orthodoxy, willing to ossify rulings (keeping themselves room to operate under God and not under rule of manmade law) "dissolve" marriages that everyone can readily admitt had occurred. One might say it is all a matter of semantics, I suppose, but by all accounts given here, the bottom line seems to be that the church, both East and West, truly seeks to have both parties in maritial relationship work our their relationship in the power available in the Holy Spirit.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for clarifying my words for me, and with less wordiness.

Fr. A.

[A Desert Aspirant]

To John2,

You should ask your priest that question. All I have to say on the matter was said earlier. Have you misinterpreted anything?

The church, whether Catholic or Orthdox, is more than a set of rigid rules; it is the love of God.

What I've stated is basically my thoughts. I don't think I've said anything contrary or out of line with what the church advocates or allows.

Everyone would love to have the best marriage they could possibly imagine, where they honestly cherish their spouse and know for certain their spouse thinks the world of them.

Sometimes, unfortunately, divorce may be the right course of action. It cannot be generalized as always bad. Though, always most unfortunate.

Both churches emphatically emphasize that marriage is one of the holy sacraments. Both attempt to make certain the betrothed are serious and clear about what they are doing before they perform the marriage ceremony.

But clergy I've heard speak on the matter also have the hearts and minds to know that sometimes things just aren't right, and shouldn't continue if the people decide they've tried their best.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the church now takes the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of those involved into consideration. (We're not saying a spare tire, double chin, or a wrinkle or two are grounds for divorce.)


There also may be situations where a husband and wife have no children, no common interests, no common purpose, etc., and simply decide they want to spend their time differently.

Divorce doesn't mean people are bad. There may be divorced persons who are living more holy or honest lives than someone who has remained in an unhappy marriage.

Not every divorce is wrong. That is all I was saying. You must make that allowance for those that need it.

Who would sentence their child to a life of tears? And we are God's children.

Read the Bible, and think about it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Signed, the know-it-all http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif,
A Desert Aspirant

[A Desert Aspirant]

Message to Matthew,

The Profile Editor doesn't seem to go anywhere.
I think I've followed your instructions on how to edit after posting, but it isn't working. It just goes in circles and I end up right back here. Heeeeelp!

[A Desert Aspirant]

To Father A,

You stated that the first time a person marries, the marriage is a tremendously joyous occasion, but any subsequent marriages carry a penance.

How come second marriages, or in some cases a third, turn out to be happier than the first for so many? I have a friend who has had three marriages. Her first two were quite short, then she and her third husband had many children, and they are one of the happiest families you could meet! She says it was through trial and error she finally married a fellow who was right for her. They have a terrific family life - much better than the previous attempts.

This happens! That is why I say, there are always exceptions, and we shouldn't generalize.

Signed,
A Desert Aspirant

[Justin]

Who would sentence their child to a life of tears? And we are God's children.

This is a nonsensical question. Could one also ask "who would sentence their child to a life of hurt? therefore no one will ever get cancer from cigarettes". The fact is, people do get cancer from them, and even "innocent" people can get health problems from them. Does God "allow his children this hurt"? Obviously he does.

Also, your question was based on an expected reaction, but as an Orthodox Christian I will not have the type of reaction you require. You want me to say "oh of course God doesn't want someone suffering". When I read the Bible and the Saints I see something totally different than this, though: we are not saved in spite of suffering, but through. It is certainly my duty to help those who are suffering--yet paradoxically suffereing leads to salvation, and so we should not be so quick to fix or change a situation out of some notion that people should never suffer.

This is not to say that someone cannot or should not get divorced. But divorce is never, ever a good thing. Having watched my parents (together) go through 7 divorces (including ones to get away from abusive spouses) I feel that I can say this with some certainty. Even "escaping" the worst situation is never a "good" thing. I don't know that every divorce is a sin, but I don't believe that there is such a thing as a righteous and God-pleasing divorce.

[Justin]

PS. I'm sorry for the typos, and I'm also sorry for using the word "nonsensical," that was a poor choice.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Justin,

No apologies are necessary. You have a point. This subject brings up a lot of feelings for many people.

However, it seems you have mistaken my opinion as being one that lightly advocates divorce.

No, I've also seen the sorrow it can bring. But the sorrows of an unhappy homelife can be equally destructive.

I've also said divorce is always unfortunate. Some divorces are wrong, when due to immaturity selfishness, and being too egocentric.

But I believe God would not want someone to spend fifty years in absolute misery (if they live that long) when they could lead a much happier life apart,if both deem a dissolution best. "Marriage" is a union of souls, too. When this doesn't happen, "marriage" doesn't really exist.

The example of my friend who divorced twice before having a happy family life in a third marriage is representative of this. She's got many children now, a good relationship with in-laws, and they have an active spiritual/church life together. This is what God intended. Her third marriage is better than some peoples' longtime first.

I'm sorry to hear about the sadness experienced in your life. Seven divorces is a bit much. There must have been a problem at the root of circumstances that was never detected and resolved. Since you are in the church, hopefully it will help you heal from the memories, and provide you with a sense of family cohesiveness.

Most of the saints that the churches rever were never married. That implies it can be a tough road. Why should a holy sacrament (which marriage is considered) interfere with reaching the summits of sainthood? Can husband and wife not be saints together? Had they married, how many of our revered saints would still be canonized as saints? This is either unfair to married people, or indicates marriage is a very difficult path. (Though so is the path to true sainthood.)

At any rate, in the beginning I mentioned that it is very difficult for a person who has not been in an unhappy marriage to empathize with those who have divorced.

Either divorcing or staying in a toxic environment can be harmful to any offspring. Hopefully the parents will use their best judgement, and decide on that which is less painful for all involved.

This thread has suddenly come back to life.

A Desert Aspirant

[John2]

To "A Desert Aspirant":

"You should ask your priest that question. All I have to say on the matter was said earlier. Have you misinterpreted anything?"

No, this was a question for you. Are you here to discuss what the church teaches, or just to tell us what you think about divorce?

"The church, whether Catholic or Orthdox, is more than a set of rigid rules; it is the love of God."

No one would deny this. But you seem to think that unless we agree with your opinions, we are just following "a set of rigid rules." This isn't what it means to follow the Church.

"Read the Bible, and think about it. Correct me if I'm wrong."

This isn't the way Orthodox Christians approach our faith.

John

[John2]

"You stated that the first time a person marries, the marriage is a tremendously joyous occasion, but any subsequent marriages carry a penance. How come second marriages, or in some cases a third, turn out to be happier than the first for so many?"

Father A. was, I'd imagine, referring to the marriage service itself. For second or third marriages, the service includes prayers of penitence. This isn't a generalization... it's a fact of the services.

"This happens! That is why I say, there are always exceptions, and we shouldn't generalize."

Divorce is always evil. It is always sad. It is always a failure.

This isn't a generalization, it's the truth.

It doesn't mean that divorce should never happen. Living as fallen people in a fallen world means sometimes we must choose one evil in order to prevent, stop or minimize others. But we don't call evil good just because it's necessary.

"The example of my friend who divorced twice before having a happy family life in a third marriage is representative of this. She's got many children now, a good relationship with in-laws, and they have an active spiritual/church life together. This is what God intended."

This seems really, really presumptuous. Just because God continues to bless people in a bad situation doesn't mean it was therefore a good situation. I stole when I was younger, and as a result of the chain reaction of responses to that (getting caught, punished, corrected...) I think I have become a better person. God has blessed my life in ways that have a direct bearing on my choices when I was younger. But that doesn't make my stealing a good thing. It's a bad thing. God works with it.

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

The Profile Editor doesn't seem to go anywhere. I think I've followed your instructions on how to edit after posting, but it isn't working. It just goes in circles and I end up right back here. Heeeeelp!

The profile and its associated features (seaching for new messages, editing posts, etc) are only available to registered users. You must register for an account before you can use these features.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Averky]

Aspirant,

When I was talking about second and third marriages being more penitential in character, I was not talking about the happiness or lack thereof of the parties involved, I was talking about the actual ceremony of the Church. I do not imagine that I would be in any position to generalize about the conditions of any marriage unknown to me.

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ John2,

Thank you.

Fr. A.

[A Desert Aspirant]

To John2,

About my friend's third marriage being a good example and a blessing for them all, you have said,

"This seems really, really presumptuous. Just because God continues to bless people in a bad situation doesn't mean it was therefore a good situation."

That family is in a very GOOD situation! You are the one being presumptuous. They are a delightful Christian family. The friend is an excellent mother, her husband adores her, and their children are happy and well-adjusted. They laugh together, cry together, and pray together.

Would you deny our society this happy family by that by taking them back in time and having her remain in a relationship that didn't produce these same positive results? This is one instance where divorce had positive results.

All I've asserted is that divorce isn't always the worst case scenario. You are overreacting somewhat. Noone is advocating divorce at the drop of a hat.


You say divorce is always evil. I say divorce is always unfortunate, sometimes evil when the divorce is from egocentric reason.

My guess is that you yourself have never been in a seriously unhappy marriage?

The suggestion that divorce can sometimes be more healthy than staying in a bad marriage seems to be threatening to you. It sounds as if you haven't healed from the experiences of your youth. You blame divorce for the sad years you experienced, and that may very well be true! Sounds like your parents were NOT watching over you very well. But SOMETIMES divorce frees people from circumstances that are worse than those a divorce would create.

A marriage is a union of souls. It is to provide lifetime companionship, love, family, and a proper homebase. When there is no harmony, no union of souls, absolutely no togetherness, then there really is no marriage. Years of this can produce very unhappy, neurotic people.

You cannot generalize about divorce.

[A Desert Aspirant]

To John2,

About my friend's third marriage being a good example and a blessing for them all, you have said,

"This seems really, really presumptuous. Just because God continues to bless people in a bad situation doesn't mean it was therefore a good situation."

That family is in a very GOOD situation! You are the one being presumptuous. They are a delightful Christian family. The friend is an excellent mother, her husband adores her, and their children are happy and well-adjusted. They laugh together, cry together, and pray together.

Would you deny our society this happy family by taking them back in time and having her remain in a relationship that didn't produce these same positive results? This is one instance where divorce led to a better life.

All I've asserted is that divorce isn't always the worst case scenario. You are overreacting somewhat. Noone is advocating divorce at the drop of a hat.

You say divorce is always evil. I say divorce is always unfortunate, sometimes evil when the divorce is from egocentric reason.

My guess is that you yourself have never been in a seriously unhappy marriage?

The suggestion that divorce can sometimes be more healthy than staying in a bad marriage seems to be threatening to you. It sounds as if you haven't healed from the experiences of your youth. You blame divorce for the sad years you experienced, and that may very well be true! Sounds like your parents were NOT watching over you very well. But SOMETIMES divorce frees people from circumstances that are worse than those a divorce would create.

A marriage is a union of souls. It is to provide lifetime companionship, love, family, and a proper homebase. When there is no harmony, no union of souls, absolutely no togetherness, then there really is no marriage. Years of this can produce very unhappy, neurotic people.

You cannot generalize about divorce.

[A Desert Aspirant]

To Matthew the moderator,

I've just posted the same message twice. The second has some minor corrections. Can you please delete the first?

If I'm going to continue joining in the conversations perhaps I should register for the forum, in order to use the editing tools available.

Thank you.

[A Desert Aspirant]

To Richard L.,

Excuse me for not acknowledging your post of two days ago.

You mentioned that annulment or dissolution is a matter of semantics. The difference is very subtle, but does exist. And I think not just because of east/west cultural perspective.

Tell any just-married couple that they are not really married and they'll hiss at you! At one point in their relationship they would have been very upset if anyone tried to tell them their marriage had no foundation. Some time later they may be begging a priest to let them out of it -- trying their darndest to make a church council see that the marriage never existed. What happened?

So, in this sense, I can understand the Orthodox viewpoint -- that the marriage was dissolved -- especially if there were children born (or adopted) to the couple.

But I can see the Catholic church perspective also; that if union-of-souls was absent, that there always seemed to be something missing, that a genuine marriage never occurred.

Perhaps both are true at times.

[A Desert Aspirant]

To Father A,

Thank you for your explanation. Hope all is well with you.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

A Desert Aspirant

[A Desert Aspirant]

John2,

Divorce is always unfortunate.

But divorce is not always evil. If it might save a life, how can it be wrong? If divorce saves people from neurosis is it evil? No.

Even Christ made necessary allowances for the official ending of a marriage.

Some divorces are evil. But not all. There are situations where the "marriage" is more hurtful than a divorce.

The church is more than a rigid set of rules. The rules are necessary, but God-given intellects and capacity for compassion are always to be exercised along with the rules.

All aspects of a situation should be taken into consideration.

Christ enforced His teachings on the matter in order to deter divorce on a whim (which was happening in His day, too), to deter divorce without substantial grounds, and to curtail abandonment of responsibility.

A person who has been through a divorce may actually lead a more holy life than some who have never been divorced.

This condition -- SOME INSTANCES -- must be kept in mind when reading this opinion, John2. Generalizations often lack insight and compassion.

A Desert Aspirant

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dear Aspirant:

I do hope you will register.

Divorce is evil, but sometimes necessary as when the husband threatens and abuses his wife. When abusive situations continue, the Orthodox Church (and the Catholic Church) will encourage the woman to divorce her husband for protection, but will also encourage her to remain celibate and not remarry, unless the Spiritual Court rectifies the situation.

Hope this helps,
Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest Aspirant:

Perhaps one biblical reference can be made:

Look up (my eyes are blurred at this point) in the scriptures where it says that Christians should not be taking each other before the magistrates.

When a spouse divorces, then it becomes a public spectacle. It becomes scandalous. I think Father would agree with me here. Any comments?

Your move!

Elizabeth

[A Desert Aspirant]

Hello Elizabeth,

Thank you for your input. I still hold firmly to the belief that divorce is allowable when it is less "evil" (since you use that word) than a bad marriage.

The Bible lists situations where divorce is excused (though in a double-standard) and the church has updated situations where it is considered the lesser of wrongs.

Sometimes, divorce is NOT even wrong. Unless one has been completely informed of the specifics, one should not judge.

There are persons who have divorced who live holier lives than some who have never divorced.

There are circumstances where most of the "evil" associated with divorce occurs before the divorce. In situations like these, the divorce alleviates the "evil."

Even happy marriages have their trying times, those days where husband and wife are at wits end with each other. Reflect on the most difficult, painful moments of your marriage, and imagine that amplified ten times or even more. People who have never experienced it cannot empathize or understand.

I am very well aware of what the Bible says. And because of the great mercy attributed to our God, I continue to stand by my opinion. He would not want someone continuing in a situation where their physical, emotional, or spiritual health is adversely affected.

Too often divorce is wrong. However, sometimes it proves to be understandable and justified.

An example was given in a previous post, where a friend's third marriage flourishes, and gives honor to the church. The first two attempts turned out to be mere ceremonies that never blossomed into the essense of a fullfleged marriage. They were mere civil shells that lacked the union of souls. In her life, God bountifully restored the "years the locusts had eaten."

Praise God! We should be like Him: nonjudgmental and compassionate!

Another acquaintance was widowed, and remarried too soon. It was a bad experience for both husband and wife. They divorced. Eventually that acquaintance married again, and is now doing fine. The one who married the widowed was hurt deeply by the fact that the widowed turned out not to have been ready to remarry. But that individual went on to better circumstances, too.

There are situations where divorce is less a negative than remaining in a prolonged unsupportive atmosphere. The real "evil" is often what preceeds the divorce.

We cannot generalize. Every situation is different.

There are divorced persons who lead more exemplar spiritual lives than people who have never divorced.

We must be careful not to self-righteously judge those who have undergone painful circumstances we've not experienced ourselves. The sin of judging others is more frequently mentioned in the Bible than the wrongs of divorce.

Christ dealt more with the spirit than the rules.

There are a multitude of varying reasons as to why couples divorce. We should not generalize and group them all into one. Sometimes there are legitimate and understandable reasons for people divorcing.

I stand by that opinion. I believe the scriptures support it.

Lord bless your day. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[John2]

"That family is in a very GOOD situation! You are the one being presumptuous. They are a delightful Christian family. The friend is an excellent mother, her husband adores her, and their children are happy and well-adjusted. They laugh together, cry together, and pray together."

You are demonstrating an inability to distinguish between goodness in the sense of Christian truth, and the goodness that is revealed when God continues to bless people in spite of sinfulness.

"Would you deny our society this happy family by taking them back in time and having her remain in a relationship that didn't produce these same positive results? This is one instance where divorce led to a better life."

This is a nonsensical question. First of all the church doesn't decide its actions based on what it can "deny" or "give" to society.

And no one is arguing that divorce doesn't sometimes lead to better lives. This has nothing to do with it being right or wrong. I already said this:

"It doesn't mean that divorce should never happen. Living as fallen people in a fallen world means sometimes we must choose one evil in order to prevent, stop or minimize others. But we don't call evil good just because it's necessary."

"You say divorce is always evil. I say divorce is always unfortunate, sometimes evil when the divorce is from egocentric reason."

You can say whatever you want. What you say has no bearing on the teaching of the church, which becomes more obvious with each of your posts.

The church teaches that divorce is always evil. It is a great evil, because it represents the failure due to human sin of a sacrament of God's love. The old covenant is clear about this, and so is Jesus, and so is the early church. Your beliefs on the subject are not relevant.

Divorce is evil and sad. Always. But it is sometimes best. We live in a world where good and best don't always coincide, and God works with uys in this world and can richly bless people through these best situations. But that doesn't make the sin itself "good".

When you can understand this distinction, you may start to understand what the church teaches about marriage and divorce.

"My guess is that you yourself have never been in a seriously unhappy marriage? The suggestion that divorce can sometimes be more healthy than staying in a bad marriage seems to be threatening to you. It sounds as if you haven't healed from the experiences of your youth. You blame divorce for the sad years you experienced, and that may very well be true! Sounds like your parents were NOT watching over you very well. But SOMETIMES divorce frees people from circumstances that are worse than those a divorce would create."

Here you go again. Your presumption is baffling. In a few sentences, you've simply presumed that (a) I've never been in a bad marriage, (b) that I blame divorce for some sorts of bad experiences I've gone through, (c) that my parents didn't watch over me well??!! Come on.

I don't know what situations you've gone through in life that have led to your obsession with justifying divorce as a good. But your views on divorce are not those of the church. It becomes tiresome when you simply accuse people of being too shallow, inexperienced, or threatened to deal with the subject when they present you with the church's view, instead of yours.

[John2]

"Sometimes, divorce is NOT even wrong. Unless one has been completely informed of the specifics, one should not judge.

There are persons who have divorced who live holier lives than some who have never divorced."

Sorry, I can't help it: this is exactly what I was talking about in my last message. The first section in this quote is just not Christian. And the second section has nothing to do with the first. This demonstrates a radical lack of understanding between good and evil as God-given, unchangeable realities and best actions as life in the face of sin.

"I am very well aware of what the Bible says."

Strange. I was just beginning to wonder if you'd ever read it.

"And because of the great mercy attributed to our God, I continue to stand by my opinion."

This pretty much encapsulates it all, doesn't it.

[A Desert Aspirant]

John2,

Obviously we do not agree, and you are not listening closely enough.

If you were so delinquent in your youth (which you yourself stated) your parents obviously were too busy with all their divorces to have been watching over you very closely. Most likely they wouldn't have let you continue in those serious antics if they had been watching out for you properly. Often that kind of behavior in adolescents is an "acting out" of their pain. This may have been what you were doing -- acting out your heartbreak.

You obviously still feel the pain. Otherwise you wouldn't get so angry over the mere mention of divorce.

You are the one not distinguishing here. Noone is saying divorce is always OK. Often divorce is very wrong, and always unfortunate.

You are also being presumptuous in assuming I don't know what the church says about divorce. I know very well what the Bible and church say. I've also heard many religious say that divorce is often justified, and even heard them advise it.

That doesn't mean the church upholds divorce. Just that they have the heart to know sometimes is it the lesser of two wrongs.

On to a slight diversion of subject. Have you tried my muffin recipe suggested on the thread pertaining to fasting from oils and dairy? Your uptightness reflects a condition that makes me sense you'd benefit from eating about a dozen of these muffins at once. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

This is an opinion forum, John2. You state yours, I state mine.

A Desert Aspirant

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest Aspirant -

It seems that you have just come to this board to vent your feelings and justify your position.

We have asked you to quote scriptures, please do so, and please find the scripture which says that Christians should not be taking each other before the magistrates (judges), nor should they be suing each other.

Sincerely in Christ,
Elizabeth

[A Desert Aspirant]

John2,

Noone is condoning divorce. Only stating that there are times it is justified and the lesser of wrongs. I've even heard of clergy advising divorce in particular situations.

Divorce is always unfortunate, but SOMETIMES the lesser of wrongs.

That shouldn't bother you so much. You might consider talking to a priest about the intensity of your reaction. (Maybe consult Dr. Phil, too.)

Jesus, in his New Covenant, dealt MORE with the spirit than the law.

You need to deal with the remnants of your pain, and with your anger.

A Desert Aspirant

[John2]

To "A desert aspirant":

My parents were divorced? Astonishing. I'll be sure to phone them up and let them know, as it will be of (I can only assume) the source of pretty substantial interest to them. But thanks for your analysis of their parenting. I had thought your previous posts were presumptuous.

"You obviously still feel the pain. Otherwise you wouldn't get so angry over the mere mention of divorce."

::Sigh:: I'm not remotely angry "Over the mere mention of divorce." I have counseled people for divorce. I've walked them through it and seen lives blossom after it.

I get upset with people who think their opinions are the foundation of Christian truth. You're obviously not Orthodox, so I guess it shouldn't bother me as much. But I find people with ideas like yours very spiritually dangerous. You don't understand the difference between the sanctity of good/evil as truths given by God on the one hand, and the fact of existing in a sinful world and God blessing conditions that grow out of sins on the other. And so you formulate "what you believe" by substituting the second category for the first, putting the faith and growth of others at risk.

"You are also being presumptuous in assuming I don't know what the church says about divorce. I know very well what the Bible and church say."

Then please, please show us. Give us some evidence that this statement is true.

Show us a text from holy scripture that supports the idea that divorce is ever 'good' as a definite moral category. Or better, show us any support in scripture for the idea that divorce is ever not evil. By this, I mean show a situation from scripture where the granting of divorce was not associated with an admission of evil and sin - where the divorce was not simply a compensation, an act of oikonomia.

Show us a church teaching that supports your claims. Not a thought of yours, but a church teaching. You've been asked for this before, but twice you simply said something like "The faith is more than a set of rules." Quit dodging the question. You say you understand the Bible and the Church, but you show no evidence of either.

This is an opinion forum, John2. You state yours, I state mine.

No it's not.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Hi Elizabeth,

Several days ago there had been no comments on this thread since February. I added a few, and now it is busy.

Elizabeth, there is a big difference between expressing an opinion and venting. Since I initially added my opinion, others have made comments, to which I've responded.

The church is more than a set of rigid rules and laws. Christ referred to the Old Testament at times, but He brought in a New Covenant full of compassion and understanding.

Jesus would want the best for all. He often surprized people with His actions; he was much more accepting than those who adhered too closely to the "law." Jesus corrected them when they were too rigid in their literal interpretations of scripture.

He takes the well-being of all into consideration.

God is good.

A Desert Aspirant

[A Desert Aspirant]

John2,

It was Justin who said he watched his parents go through seven divorces between the two of them. Excuse me for making that error. You stated you had other kinds of difficulties.

I continue to stand by my opinions.

Christ's New Covenant was for a purpose. Circumcision is a matter of heart, not to be taken literally. We are given a capacity for compassion, understanding and logic in which to apply to situations that arise in life. Such capacity must have been created for some reason -- like to use it.

There are times when a divorce is an understandable action. There are divorced persons who live more holy lives than some who have never been divorced.

When the group was stoning Stephen, who was in the wrong?

Sometimes divorce is the lesser of two wrongs.

Nothing more to say on the issue. That's it. That's my opinion. It adheres to the gospel's teaching derived from Christ's numerous examples.

A Desert Aspirant

[John2]

"I continue to stand by my opinions. .... Nothing more to say on the issue. That's it. That's my opinion. It adheres to the gospel's teaching derived from Christ's numerous examples."

This is fine. You've still not offered a single iota of support for what you claim is Gospel teaching. It's all just the vanity of your mind.

You don't seem to understand a thing about the Christian faith.

[A Desert Aspirant]

John2,

You are entitled to your opinion.

My husband is forever telling me my opinions on many issues are too Christian.

So, I'll just stick to what the Holy Spirit confirms as true.

I cannot stay on the computer all day long. There is work for me to do.

Have a nice evening.

A Desert Aspirant

[A Desert Aspirant]

P.S. to John2,

You assert:

"You don't seem to understand a thing about the Christian faith." You are trying very, very hard to insult me. How Christian is that?

Now, I've got to get off the computer and tend to other responsibilities.

Thank you for the conversation, John2. Let's both pray for a better world, where peace and harmony permeate every domestic homefront.

A Desert Aspirant http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[A Desert Aspirant]

P.S. to John2,

You assert:

"You don't seem to understand a thing about the Christian faith."

But you are trying very, very hard to insult me. How Christian is that?

Now, I've got to get off the computer and tend to other responsibilities.

Thank you for the conversation, John2. Let's both pray for a better world, where peace and harmony permeate every domestic homefront.

A Desert Aspirant

[Justin]

A Desert Aspirant,

Sheesh, you leave one day and your posts get lost! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif


I've also said divorce is always unfortunate. Some divorces are wrong, when due to immaturity selfishness, and being too egocentric... But I believe God would not want someone to spend fifty years in absolute misery (if they live that long) when they could lead a much happier life apart,if both deem a dissolution best.

Ok, it does seem that I misunderstood part of what you were saying earlier, I could agree with that. Unfortunately, I now disagree with some of the new stuff you said! :-)


Most of the saints that the churches rever were never married. That implies it can be a tough road.

Well, actually marriage is the easier road according to most saints. Of course, when they said that, they assumed that virgins were especially dedicating their lives to God. To be a virgin and just a "Sunday Christian" was inconceivable. To choose virginity meant that you had to dedicate your life to God--either as a monastic, or at least as someone who far out-sought regular non-monastics in their ascetic endeavors and prayer lives. Virginity was a complete dedication of oneself to God, while marriage was the "normal" path, if someone wasn't strong enough (or called) to be celibate (though some chose celibacy within marriage, which is a whole different thread altogether).

Of course, anyone who has been married (unless both are extremely pious going in) knows that marriage too is a difficult road to walk. Saint Paul says that when we have spouses, we need to worry about earthly things: how to please our wife; without a spouse we can focus on spiritual things, though. This doesn't mean that the trials in marriage can't have spiritual fruit, but there is a difference, and it's not small. Certainly even married couples can and do become saints, but this is a much harder path to sainthood, and there is a good reason that most saints were not married.

Justin http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Fr Averky]

Aspirant:

What are your "aspirations?"
Are they spiritual, or are they to teach and not to learn? Who are you? Are you an Orthodox Christian? Too many unknowns about you, making it not worth it to answer you.
Have a great time!

[A Desert Aspirant]

Hello Justin,

In your second to the last paragraph you state, "Well, actually marriage is the easier road according to most saints."

Then later, in the very last paragraph you say that saints considered marriage a much harder path to sainthood, "Certainly even married couples can and do become saints, but this is a much harder path to sainthood, and there is a good reason that most saints were not married."

So, which is the more difficult or easier path?Can you see how you've stated both are right?

Sometimes it seems the grass is always greener on the other side, even on the spiritual path. Both roads are difficult, but Jesus did say that His "burden" becomes light after we mature spiritually.

That "burden" is not to always be interpreted as abstaining from marital relations. Christ's "burden" encompasses more "giving up" of worldly ways. For instance, can one accept the idea of never having children or grandchildren? Can one cope with not having their privacy? (Unless you become an Athos hermit, of course.)

Celibacy is not the prime factor in sainthood, it is more a helpful means to an end. God helps those who choose this path by giving them great spiritual experiences that encourage them to stick to it. But saintliness entails much more than just celibacy/virginity.

If virgins cheat, lie, and try to hurt others -- then they are not saints. There are many aspects to saintliness. Like unselfishness, self-control, humility and simplicity.

What made the Theotokos blessed was not just that she never had marital relations. Her "virginity" was more. The Theotokos was pure in spirit, and pure in heart, always honest, not selfish; she did right in the eyes of God. Hers was also a spiritual "virginity" so to speak. She was humble and simple, and cared about others.

The Beatitudes don't mention anything about abstaining from marital relations in order to see God. The Beatitudes talk about meekness, purity of heart, spiritual poverty, and the thirst for holiness.

Either a monk or a married individual can strive for this.

Marriage, however, is very time consuming. If there are children one's time becomes even more limited. That is why some who thirst much for God decide to become monks or nuns. They want to devote most of their time to contemplation, and to spend more time in prayer.

If one truly has the calling, the celibate road is not considered so much a burden. Things like lack of possessions won't trouble a monk so much. He won't care if he drives a new SUV or not, or if he drives at all perhaps! But remember, that St. Paul gives a warning to those considering lifelong celibacy: "but it is better to marry than to burn." One must become a monastic with the right intention! This would be a matter to discuss with heiromonk or priest. He'd be the appropriate consultant.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Have a good evening. Hope all is well with you.

A Desert Aspirant

[Justin]

I didn't contradict myself. One is easier in the world (marriage), and one is an easier path to sainthood (unworldliness), that being virginity. Stated another way, I said that both were difficult, but I was speaking of opposite things: virginity is hard in the world, but the easier path to sainthood; marriage is a hard path to sainthood, but the easier path in the world. Sorry for any confusion! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[A Desert Aspirant]

Hi Father A,

You have said you don't care to answer me. That's ok. You don't need to answer me if I haven't asked you any questions! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

You've inquired as to what my aspirations may be. My aspirations are, and have been for a very long time, to get as close to God as possible, and to know God. Also, when God gives us the gift of prayer, and we know our prayers get can get results, we are to pray for the benefit of others.

You ask, "...are they spiritual? or are they to teach, and not to learn?" Spiritual aspirations indicate learning. Growth implies the acquiring of knowledge.

I'm not too much younger than you are. And instead of raising children for the last twenty-five years I've been raising questions.

I've no intention to teach. What could I teach you? I only offer my opinions here sometime, as do others.

I'm an Orthodox Christian if you will allow me to be. I do have my own mind though, and I'm certain of a few things about the spiritual life.

Thank you for your blessing ("Have a great time.").

Lord bless you, too. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

A Desert Aspirant

[A Desert Aspirant]

Hi Justin,

That's a good explanation. Thank you.

You've read the saints. They mention how what is considered a blessing in the world can be a hindrance to a monk; and what is a hindrance to a spiritual aspirant can be blessing to someone in the world.

Are you a monk? Considering being one?

[A Desert Aspirant]

Justin, here is a passage that pertains to your comments,

"When someone is free, he has rights and responsibilities. When he marries, he has few rights and very many responsibilities. When, however, he has children, he doesn't have ANY rights at all, but ONLY responsibilities!" http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

(Quote of Elder Epiphanios, from Precious Vessels of the Holy Spirit.)

Stumbled across that in my reading last night.
Thought it was very pertinent to the discussion.

May God bless your chosen path,
A Desert Aspirant

[Justin]

A Desert Aspirant


You've read the saints.

Well, not really. I've read some stuff by the saints. ;-) For a couple different reasons, I have researched celibacy and related topics, though.


Are you a monk? Considering being one?

First, just so there's no confusion, I'm very young, both in normal terms (24), the number of years I've been a Christian (6), and the number of years I've been Orthodox (2). Just wanted to make that clear so that you know who you are talking to. :-) I had considered becoming a monk, though it became increasingly obvious to me that I wasn't "cut out" for monastic life. I have a hard time going without showers (ie. bathing), for instance. Maybe that seems like something silly to some people, but from a monastic standpoint that says quite a bit about how attached I am to worldly comforts and worldly habits. It was a matter of seeing that, at least at this part of my life, I was way too self-willed. So... I got married. :-) After my wife dies (if she dies first) I'll see about becoming a monastic--if I'm ready and they'll have me.

That was a very interesting quote you gave, I will definately have to think about that (luckily I don't have any kids yet so I still have time to think about it today! ;-) )

[A Desert Aspirant]

Justin,

Though my husband and I have none of our own, I know that having a family -- while it is a tremendous responsibility -- can also be a tremendous blessing!

Seeing some of the families at liturgies (or masses) is such a delight. To hear the smallest children start singing loudly along with the chanters -- even when they are not supposed to --makes everyone smile. Sometimes their voices carry clear across the sanctuary. These moments are heartwarming to all. Their parents are very fortunate.

A Desert Aspirant

[Rachel]

Dear A Desert Aspirant,

Are you ever going to tell us anything about yourself? What religion are you?

-- r

[Fr Averky]

Dear Aspirant,

A clarification or two: when I said, "have a great time," it was neither blessing or an insult - it was said wanting to end like you do, but I had not read it: turns out , you say something like "hope all is well with you"

I am still confused to whether you are Orthodox or not for your answer "I am Orthodox Christian if you allow me to be" really does not answer the question of several people. We have asked, because if you are not Orthodox, then our response will be different from our response if you are. We don't respond to Richard Leigh as we do to Jurretta, for example, for Richard tells us quite openly that he is a Lutheran. I also do not know what is meant when you say your husband says your answers are "too Christian." Does that imply that ours are not? It is only fair to know with whom we are dealing so that no one will be offended or left in the dark. I have been surprized at how you have spoken to Justin at times, and I simply would like to be able to feel more comfortable with you,and I think so would others in this community. We all have taken each other to task at times, but we do care for one another. You don't have to "hide" you can take care of yourself, and that is for sure!

God Bless you and your husband, Aspirant.

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Another question dear Aspirant:


" My husband is forever telling me that my opinions on many issues are too Christian. So I'll just stick to what the Holy Spirit confirms as true."

Could you please tell me what is meant by this? It sounds ( and I am not clear, thus my question) like you are saying that your personal opinons are Too Christian -does that imply that what others say is not?-and that you are confirmed in your opinion by the Holy Spirit, or are you saying that you are relying on certain truths that your Church teaches that have been confirmed by the Holy Spirit? Now, please, tell me what you really wanted to say, so that I can understand your comment.

Thank you.

Fr. A.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Dear Father A.,
"We have asked, because if you are not Orthodox, then our response will be different from our response if you are." Why? That seems assumptively exclusive.

[A Desert Aspirant]

Dear Father A.,

My husband is not of the Christian faith. He has different opinions on some issues.

All the best to you. A Desert Aspirant

[Photini]

Hello all.
What kind of steps are taken prior to a couple being married to help prevent the outcome of divorce? Does the priest usually counsel the couple for some time prior to the wedding? What happens if the priest strongly feels that the couple should not be married?
Thanks,
Photini

[Xenia Rose]

Photini, I can only speak to personal experience. My priest insists upon premarital counseling with him prior to doing a wedding. He also offers counsel to married couples as needed.

[katya the nurse-aid]

Lets bend that green vine which is still alive...
Back, forward, back lets use the knife..
Lets cut in pieces, lets shredded into dust...
Because no porpoises in it, it can't hold on that blast...
It is without aim just hanging on the wall...
Without leaves, because its Fall for all...
And its so lonely ugly and its almost dead..
So lets just tears it down before sunset...
No blood in it, no life in veins of tiny stick...
And blast of wind is tearing down to the ground
vines against its will...
Against...to hold that wall like only harbor of the
spring time hope...
When sun will give new blood into the branche’s veins,
new hope..
And then against all deadly rules,
wind of the death,
or force of earthly fools...
New vine so green and fresh
will live again without tearing own flesh!