Posted on 03/11/2013 11:33:25 AM PDT by xzins
I see a good path to agreement in an effort to restore the religious nature of marriage. To separate it from the secular realm and return to appreciating its sanctity.
Other than the definition of marriage in which they all agree, the one thing they must do is to only recognize marriages that fit this definition.
That is, if a couple enter any of those churches, no matter the denomination, and claim to be married, that marriage must be certified as a “real” marriage, by the rules. If it does not conform, then they must be “remarried” by that church, but only if they *can* be married.
This would be the minimum requirements, and denominations could add on to these requirements. The same rules apply to divorce. If it is permitted, it must be done by the church, or it will not be recognized.
Unfortunately, they don't all agree. Very few groups outside orthodoxy steadfastly hold to the sacrament of marriage -- the entire state churches in Western and northern europe accept gay marriage and in the USA we have the ECUSA, PCUSA, ELCA etc.
well, for Catholics and Orthodox and Lutherans, marriage is a sacrament.
All quotes from the book, A Sketch on the Romish Controversy:
POPE GREGORY THE FIRST
Peter, although the first of the Apostles, a Member and not the Head of the Church.
“Certainly, Peter the first of the apostles, was a member of the holy and universal church : Paul, Andrew and John, what were they but the heads of particular people ? And yet all were members under one head. And that I may comprise all things in a short sentence, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, and the saints under grace, all forming the body of the Lord, are constituted among the members of the church, and no one ever desired to call himself universal.” — Register of Letters, index 13, book 5, torn. 2, p. 743. (printed at Paris, 1705.)
“But I confidently say, that whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires to be called so, in his pride is the forerunner of antichrist, because in his pride he prefers himself to the rest. And he is conducted to error with a similar pride; for as that wicked one wishes to appear a God above all men, so whosoever he is who alone desires to be called a bishop, extols himself above all other bishops.” — Book 7,indictioa 15, epist. S3. To Mauritius Augustus. (Edit, at above.)
St. Peter’s Primacy descended to three Bishopricks, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome.
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria (Paris, 1705.)
Against the Judicial Power of the Priests in forgiving Sins.
“Thou, who alone sparest, who alone forgivest sins. For who can forgive sins, but God only?” — Exposition £, on the seven Penitential Psalms.
The Maccabees not in the Canon
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
JEROME
Against the judicial Power of the Priests in forgiving Sins.
“The bishops and priests not understanding that passage, assume to themselves somewhat of the arrogance of the Pharisees, so far as to imagine that they may condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas with God, it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life* of the guilty that is looked into. We read in Leviticus concerning the lepers, where they were commanded to show themselves to the priests, in order that if they had a leprosy, they might be made unclean by the priests : not that the priests made them lepers and unclean, but be cause they knew who were lepers and who were not, and could dis cover who were clean and who were unclean. In the same manner therefore as the priest there made a man clean or unclean, so here the bishop or priest either binds or loosens, not those who are innocent or guilty, but officially, when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened.” — On the 16th chap, of Mat. vol. 6.
Canon of Scripture.
“But you must know that there are other books, which are not canonical, but were called by the ancients ecclesiastical, that is to say, the book of Wisdom, which is said to be Solomon’s, and the other Wisdom, which is said to be the son of Sirach’s, which book is called by the Latins by the general name of Ecclesiasticus, by which name not the author of the book, but the nature of the writing is declared. Of the same class is the book of Tobit, and Judith, and the books of Maccabees. And in the New Testament the book of the Shepherd, or Hermes, which is called the two roads, or the judgment of Peter, all of which they have thought fit to be read in the churches, but not to be brought forward for the confirmation of the faith. — Symbol of Ruffinus, vol. 9, p. 186.
“Whatsoever is without these, is to be placed among the Apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.” — Preface to the Book of Kings, vol. 3, book 24.
ATHANASIUS
Canon of the Old Testament.
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and in cluded in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zacha- riah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.” — Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures. (Paris, 1627.)
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
The Confession, and not the Person of Peter, the rock on which the Church was founded.
“When Christ said, Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood have not revealed it to you, but my Father, which is in heaven ; and verily I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He called, I think, denominatively, nothing but the immovable and firm faith of the disciple the rock, upon which the church of Christ was founded without the possibility of falling.” — Dialog. 4, on the Holy Trinity. vol. 5
I could go on, but this is what I was referring to.
well, for Catholics and Orthodox and Lutherans, marriage is a sacrament.
It has to be considered more than a contract between woman and man but a union of woman, man WITH God.
A civil union can be between man & woman, man and man or man and tree, whatever, that's gubmint, but the sacrament of marriage is holy
however, note that with the exception of Pope Gregory, the others were not Popes and you said quotes from supposed early Popes
now to your points -- from Pope Gregory, they affirm the belief that to be a priest, more a bishop, more a Pope is a difficult job but it does not contradict the concept of Papal primacy, on the contrary it affirms it as you point out the sees of Antioch and Alexandria -- Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. -- the role of Bishop of Rome is first among equals. The other Patriarchs including the Bishop of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch were of equal "respect" as conveyed in that letter
SEcondly -- have you cross verified that these are even authentic? It says for the first "book 5, torn" -- and I don't see htat in the list of Pope Gregory's letters
Thirdly, would you really take a book that called itself "A Sketch on the Honkey primacy and the sin of the White man" published by the Nation of Islam as a valid, unbiased source of European history? Similary, why would you take this book as an unbiased source? The quotes from the book do not "prove" any of their points and the headings lead into the questions -- a warning point even in a book akin to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
“... the role of Bishop of Rome is first among equals. The other Patriarchs including the Bishop of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch were of equal “respect” as conveyed in that letter”
From the Catechism:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404
884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.”405 But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”406
If the Pope is first of equals, it certainly is not equality in power. The Pope is described as having “supreme” and “universal” power over the whole church. No Bishop can claim to possess those powers, or claim that he is immune from a decision of the Pope.
That is what makes Gregory’s quotes so interesting, since he specifically affirms that “three Bishops preside” with divine authority over the See of Peter. As well as condemning the concept of the “universal Bishop.” Interestingly, the Pope immediately following Gregory had the Emperor affirm his title of “Universal Bishop.” A title that has stuck, apparently. While Gregory did believe that Peter had special primacy, this authority was shared equally by the Bishops, in three places, who nevertheless represented one See.
Theodoret references the same belief:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
As for the veracity of all the quotes present, I’m aware that the references are funky, which was why I introduced it as coming from a particular book. The book itself is maybe around 200 years old, so all the citations are necessarily about 200 years old, and older. The quotes, however, can be found with a quick google search, quoted over and over again on Catholic and Protestant websites, being debated.
And government does all it can to try and extend its province into marriage.
I frequently post about the purely biological advantages to heterosexual marriage for reproductive and child rearing purposes. These advantages impressively benefit the man and the woman, but especially their children.
However, people are always able and willing to mess up a good thing.
Because marriage is a superior means of producing better offspring, it creates a situation of reproductive discrimination.
That is, many, or even most people are not optimal to produce offspring, for all sorts of different reasons, though they still want to.
Other people are seemingly designed to have and raise children.
Thus, people who should not reproduce are often naturally handicapped to prevent them from reproducing, *or* interfering with those who should be reproducing. This may explain the reason for things like homosexuality, prostitution, and some of the sterility inducing medical conditions.
However, the worst corruption people have achieved to marriage is the dowry. By turning optimizing biology into a financial contract, the system is perverted. Old men should not marry young girls, ever.
Dowry was and is so vile that it convinced many that marriage was just a social contrivance of little importance, and that animalistic reproduction is all that matters.
Reproduction which can be directed by government, not biological advantage. So marriage as an institution was attacked. Social enforcement of marriage was forgotten, though some of the enforcement has been duplicated by the courts.
Children raised by a single parent are 60% more likely to become criminal offenders than are children raised by two heterosexual parents. This is because unlike children raised by two heterosexual parents, which puts the children on a “success” oriented path, the children of single parents are on a “survival” path.
Just as bad is the fact that people only have a finite supply of energy with which to make and raise children. If they engage in empty, reproduction-less sex with multiple partners, they exhaust themselves. That is, they have less energy devoted to their offspring, reducing their strength and health, and their quality of life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.