To my fellow Christians I want your opinion about divorce

[Sherif Fadel]

I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches. I also believe that some
protestant churches allow divorce. In light of the verses in the gospels
bellow, could you tell me the theological justification for divorce? I am
really interested in the theology behind this, please do not take this as an
attack on a particular church (I believe all Christian churches are valid)

Matthew 5:31-32 (King James Version)

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a
writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:1-10 (King James Version)

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he
departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it
lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered
you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso
marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife,
it is not good to marry.

-----

[The usual argument is that in some situations it can be a lesser evil.
No one thinks it's good or was God's original intention. --clh]

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches.

The Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do allow divorce in certain
circumstances, through the principle of ekonomia. Which circumstances
tend to differ from time to place, but always include sexual infidelity
and abandonment by a non-believing spouse. There is even a process for
an ecclesiastical divorce. I don't know much beyond this, however; I
didn't get around to getting married for the first time until earlier
this year and have no interest in getting a divorce! ;)

Post by Sherif Fadel
I also believe that some protestant churches allow divorce.

The vast majority allow divorce in certain circumstances, and a majority
allow divorce in most circumstances. Even the Churches of Christ, the
conservative branch of the American Restoration Movement, allow divorce
in cases of adultry. Other than the Hutterites and a couple of other
fairly extreme sects, I know of no Protestant church that takes the
extreme position against divorce that the Catholic church takes.

<Snip a quote from the Gospel, where Christ discusses divorce, and which
I mention above.>

Post by Sherif Fadel
[The usual argument is that in some situations it can be a lesser evil.
No one thinks it's good or was God's original intention. --clh]

That's pretty much what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, as best I
can tell. The principle of "ekonomia" is precisely the principle that
it is permissible for the Church to relax enforcement of certain laws of
God when strict enforcement will tend to push a person away from Christ
or do more harm than good. Christ's comments about divorce in the
passage I snipped make it clear that God Himself was willing to allow
divorce, although He hates it, because of the weakness of human beings.
I have no reason to believe human beings have become less weak over
the past two thousand years. :/

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches.

The Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do allow divorce in certain
circumstances, through the principle of ekonomia. Which circumstances
tend to differ from time to place, but always include sexual infidelity
and abandonment by a non-believing spouse. There is even a process for
an ecclesiastical divorce. I don't know much beyond this, however; I
didn't get around to getting married for the first time until earlier
this year and have no interest in getting a divorce! ;)

Congratulations on your marriage! I am sure you will never feel the need to
get a divorce!

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I also believe that some protestant churches allow divorce.

The vast majority allow divorce in certain circumstances, and a majority
allow divorce in most circumstances. Even the Churches of Christ, the
conservative branch of the American Restoration Movement, allow divorce
in cases of adultry. Other than the Hutterites and a couple of other
fairly extreme sects, I know of no Protestant church that takes the
extreme position against divorce that the Catholic church takes.
<Snip a quote from the Gospel, where Christ discusses divorce, and which
I mention above.>

All churches allow divorce in cases of adultery; the gospels clearly states
that divorce in such cases are permitted. However, Jesus Christ CLEARLY says
that the divorced partners are committing adultery if they remarry. Surely,
this verse from Mathew is clear enough "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
adultery". How can we then say that committing such a sin is justifiable? In
addition, this statement "What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder" is quite clear and, IMHO, bears no other interpretation.
The fact that mosaic law allowed divorce is surely irrelevant, after all we
do not follow the dietary laws and other practices of the old testament
because the gospels taugh us otherwise. It is from the gospels that the main
tenents of Christianity come. Therefore, when Jesus Christ makes a clear
statement that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that no man can "put
asunder" what "God hath joined together" how is it possible to argue that
divorce is permitted?

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
[The usual argument is that in some situations it can be a lesser evil.
No one thinks it's good or was God's original intention. --clh]

That's pretty much what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, as best I
can tell. The principle of "ekonomia" is precisely the principle that
it is permissible for the Church to relax enforcement of certain laws of
God when strict enforcement will tend to push a person away from Christ
or do more harm than good. Christ's comments about divorce in the
passage I snipped make it clear that God Himself was willing to allow
divorce, although He hates it, because of the weakness of human beings.
I have no reason to believe human beings have become less weak over
the past two thousand years. :/

God, in His human incarnation in our savior Jesus Christ, clear states that
remarriage after divorce is adultery and that "What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder". I interpret that second statement
as meaning that divorce is not allowed and the first as meaning that if two
people get a divorce and then remarry, they are considered to be committing
adultery. Surely we cannot condone an act that leads to adultery. Please let
me know if my interpretation of these passages is flawed and if so, what the
correct interpretation is. I am really trying to understand this!

Post by Catherine Jefferson
--
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches.

The Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do allow divorce in certain
circumstances, through the principle of ekonomia.

Which is also often spelled 'oeconomia', 'oekonomia' 'economy'...

I will be interested in hearing from the OP whether or not the non-chalcedonian
churches even _have_ a concept of 'oeconomia'.

[snip]

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Sherif Fadel
Congratulations on your marriage! I am sure you will never feel the need to
get a divorce!

To quote a Jewish friend, "From your mouth to God's ears." ;) At least
I'm feeling no need or interest yet....

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I also believe that some protestant churches allow divorce.

The vast majority allow divorce in certain circumstances, and a majority
allow divorce in most circumstances. Even the Churches of Christ, the
conservative branch of the American Restoration Movement, allow divorce
in cases of adultry. Other than the Hutterites and a couple of other
fairly extreme sects, I know of no Protestant church that takes the
extreme position against divorce that the Catholic church takes.

All churches allow divorce in cases of adultery; the gospels clearly states
that divorce in such cases are permitted.

This is not correct. The Catholic Church, which represents about half
the Christians on earth when I last checked, does not allow divorce for
any reason, even adultry or abandonment. A very few Protestant sects,
all small and most rather extreme, also do not allow divorce in any
circumstances. I agree with you that the Holy Scriptures and
particularly Christ's own words make it clear that divorce should be
allowed in some circumstances. But not everyone agrees with us. :)

Post by Sherif Fadel
However, Jesus Christ CLEARLY says
that the divorced partners are committing adultery if they remarry.
Surely,
this verse from Mathew is clear enough "And I say unto you, Whosoever

shall

Post by Sherif Fadel
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry

another,

Post by Sherif Fadel
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth

commit

Post by Sherif Fadel
adultery".
How can we then say that committing such a sin is justifiable? In
addition, this statement "What therefore God hath joined together,

let not

Post by Sherif Fadel
man put asunder" is quite clear and, IMHO, bears no other

interpretation.

Does he say that? I've read that passage repeatedly, not just here, and
it appears to me that he is saying that those who divorce *except in
cases of adultery* are committing adultery when they remarry. As I read
it, that passage specifically allows divorce and remarriage in cases of
adultery. In addition, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 discusses the
issue of a believer married to an unbeliever. If the unbeliever is not
willing to stay in the marriage, he allows the abandoned partner to
remarry.

I can make no sense of either of those passages unless divorce and
remarriage were allowed by the Lord and the Apostles in at least certain
circumstances. And if they allowed these things, I have to wonder at
the wisdom of our forbidding them outright or referring to their doing
so as a sin.

An aside.... In the US (or those parts where I've lived) the term
"divorce" usually means a severing a marriage completely in a manner
that allows remarriage. In other words, if the parties are not allowed
to remarry, they were not divorced at all as we use the word. "Legal
separation" or just "separated" is what I normally hear to describe a
situation where the marriage is dead, but the parties are not free to
remarry.

But that's just a terminology issue -- useful for avoiding
misunderstandings, not to argue about. ;)

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches.

The Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do allow divorce in certain
circumstances, through the principle of ekonomia.

Which is also often spelled 'oeconomia', 'oekonomia' 'economy'...
I will be interested in hearing from the OP whether or not the
non-chalcedonian
churches even _have_ a concept of 'oeconomia'.
[snip]

I am a lay person and so do not have a very deep understanding of the
detailed theology of the Coptic Church. I did a quick Google search about
'oekonomia' and the Coptic Church. It turned up several links but most of
them seem irrelevant. I will ask people who are more knowledgeable about
this than I am and get back to you. The teaching of the Coptic Orthodox
Church about divorce is clear however, here is a statement from the Coptic
Encyclopedia relevant to divorce:

"Divorce is not allowed except in the case of adultery, annulment due to
bigamy, or other extreme circumstances, which must be reviewed by a special
council of Bishops. Divorce can be requested by either husband or wife.
Civil divorce is not recognized by the Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church
does not have and does not mind any civil law of the land as long as it does
not interfere with the Church's sacraments"
http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

They only piece of information I could find on the net that seems to be
relevant to your query about the existents of oekonomia in the Coptic Church
is this paragraph from
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=474

"In the Coptic works, all the rites "serve a single oekonomia, i.e., the
gathering in of the spirits who have received the mysteries, so that they
can be sealed . . . and proceed to the kleronomia (heritage) of Light . . .
called in the literal sense of the word of the Treasure of Light."

No idea if this means that the concept exists in the Coptic Church or not :)

Post by Matthew Johnson
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson
I will be interested in hearing from the OP whether or not the
non-chalcedonian
churches even _have_ a concept of 'oeconomia'.

I will ask people who are more knowledgeable about
this than I am and get back to you.

I'll be waiting;)


[snip]

Post by Sherif Fadel
They only piece of information I could find on the net that seems to be
relevant to your query about the existents of oekonomia in the Coptic Church
is this paragraph from
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=474
"In the Coptic works, all the rites "serve a single oekonomia, i.e., the
gathering in of the spirits who have received the mysteries, so that they
can be sealed . . . and proceed to the kleronomia (heritage) of Light . . .
called in the literal sense of the word of the Treasure of Light."

This is clearly a different sense of the word. I have not seen this sense to
that word in the Chalcedonian theologians.

[B.G. Kent]

I think that if you can stay together...then that is great. I think that
if you are so sick of each other that no amount of councilling will
help..you best divorce.

I think most human beings are naturally serial monogamists and that
staying with one person your whole life is unnnatural...so no wonder we
have a tough time with it.


Bren

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
Congratulations on your marriage! I am sure you will never feel the need
to
get a divorce!

To quote a Jewish friend, "From your mouth to God's ears." ;) At least
I'm feeling no need or interest yet....

Yep, that is a quite common quote in the Middle East. In Egypt our variant
is "From your mouth to heaven's door".

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
All churches allow divorce in cases of adultery; the gospels clearly
states
that divorce in such cases are permitted.

This is not correct. The Catholic Church, which represents about half
the Christians on earth when I last checked, does not allow divorce for
any reason, even adultry or abandonment. A very few Protestant sects,
all small and most rather extreme, also do not allow divorce in any
circumstances. I agree with you that the Holy Scriptures and
particularly Christ's own words make it clear that divorce should be
allowed in some circumstances. But not everyone agrees with us. :)

Wow! I did not know that. I thought that the Catholic Church allowed divorce
in cases of adultery. I searched a bit on the web for more information about
this and discovered that annulment of marraige is allowed in certain cases
( http://www.idotaketwo.com/christian_remarriage.html ). Still adultery is
not listed as one of the grounds for annulment. Weird, I thought the Bible
is pretty clear that adultery was a ground for divorce.

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
However, Jesus Christ CLEARLY says
that the divorced partners are committing adultery if they remarry.

...

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Does he say that? I've read that passage repeatedly, not just here, and
it appears to me that he is saying that those who divorce *except in
cases of adultery* are committing adultery when they remarry. As I read
it, that passage specifically allows divorce and remarriage in cases of

...

Post by Catherine Jefferson
An aside.... In the US (or those parts where I've lived) the term
"divorce" usually means a severing a marriage completely in a manner
that allows remarriage. In other words, if the parties are not allowed
to remarry, they were not divorced at all as we use the word. "Legal
separation" or just "separated" is what I normally hear to describe a
situation where the marriage is dead, but the parties are not free to
remarry.
But that's just a terminology issue -- useful for avoiding
misunderstandings, not to argue about. ;)

I agree with you entirely, I did not mean to imply that divorce should not
be allowed under ANY circumstances. Like you, I interpret the Bible to say
that the re-marriage of the innocent party after a divorce based on adultery
does not result in adultery. Forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression
in my post, but English is not my first language :) I was referring to the
cases where divorce is allowed for trivial reasons, like the partners
"falling out of love" etc. It seems that some churches allow divorce in such
cases (correct me if I am wrong here), and in that case I believe that the
remarrying divorcees are engaging in adultery. There are cases were divorce
is necessary such as adultery and, in my opinion, cases of domestic violence
etc. As you mention in your previous post, most Protestant Churches allow
divorce in general, and it was this case which I was trying to understand
and now that you have brought it up, I will also try to understand why the
Catholic Church does not allow divorce even in the case of adultery. Thanks
for taking the time to answer my question.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
--
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by B.G. Kent
I think that if you can stay together...then that is great. I think that
if you are so sick of each other that no amount of councilling will
help..you best divorce.
I think most human beings are naturally serial monogamists and that
staying with one person your whole life is unnnatural...so no wonder we
have a tough time with it.

If you define "unnatural" as "not in accordance with our fallen nature",
I agree with you -- keeping faith with and loving one person all of our
lives is "unnatural" behavior for fallen humanity. If you define
"unnatural" as "not as God created us", then I don't agree with you --
God created us to love and to be faithful. The teaching in the New
Testament is that Christians have the Holy Spirit Himself, and the
Church, to provide them the assistance they need to live above their
fallen natures, and to fulfill what God intended for them in the first
place.

The Church is, I think, wise to recognize that in some cases, the fallen
nature will temporarily win and it might be best for the salvation and
spiritual health of its members not to enforce the full law and
intentions of God. Some people are too badly broken not to do repeated
harm (be it physical, mental, spiritual, or some combination of those)
to their spouses. It would be unloving and wrongheaded to require a
spouse to remain in a marriage where this is true.

But that doesn't make divorce anything but a terrible thing born of our
fallen nature, and it is something a Christian couple with some sense
and humility should be able to avoid.

Which makes the whole thing easy to do, right? </tongue in cheek> I
have no illusions on that score -- I'm in my mid-forties and have seen
too much. But with prayer and active work at attaining the virtues, I
think that divorce is avoidable. With God's help, I plan to avoid it. :)

Under His mercy,

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson
To quote a Jewish friend, "From your mouth to God's ears." ;) At
least I'm feeling no need or interest yet....

Yep, that is a quite common quote in the Middle East. In Egypt our
variant is "From your mouth to heaven's door".

I like that one. :-) <making a note> By the way, I would like
translations of two things into Coptic, if you don't mind playing
translator -- that phrase, and (if it is traditional to say this on
Easter/Pascha in the Coptic church) the phrase "Christ is risen!" Can
you provide those two phrases for me in Coptic? (I daresay a few other
participants here would like to know them too.)

Post by Sherif Fadel
Wow! I did not know that. I thought that the Catholic Church allowed
divorce in cases of adultery. I searched a bit on the web for more
information about this and discovered that annulment of marraige is
allowed in certain cases (
http://www.idotaketwo.com/christian_remarriage.html ). Still adultery
is not listed as one of the grounds for annulment. Weird, I thought
the Bible is pretty clear that adultery was a ground for divorce.

Exactly. The Catholic Church will allow an annulment -- a formal ruling
that because of some defect in the original conditions of a marriage,
the marriage itself never existed. That is different from a divorce,
which is a ruling that a marriage that did exist has been dissolved and
no longer exists. The Catholic Church does allow legal separation, and
until recently in the United States, devout Catholics usually opted for
that if their marriage was irretrievably broken.

In the last couple of decades in the United States, and to a lesser
extent elsewhere, the Catholic Church has in fact allowed a far wider
use of "annulment", to the point that the practical differences between
annulment and divorce have faded. But the Catholic Church has not (at
least in theory) given up its position that a marriage properly entered
into cannot be dissolved by anything but the death of one of the partners.

I think I got confused in what you said later because it sounded like
you were agreeing with the Catholic Church's position, not simply taking
the position that divorce (and remarriage) were only allowed in cases of
adultery. A number of Christian churches take this second position,
although the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do not enforce
that degree of strictness.

Post by Sherif Fadel
...

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Does he say that? I've read that passage repeatedly, not just
here, and it appears to me that he is saying that those who divorce
*except in cases of adultery* are committing adultery when they
remarry. As I read it, that passage specifically allows divorce
and remarriage in cases of

...
I agree with you entirely, I did not mean to imply that divorce
should not be allowed under ANY circumstances. Like you, I interpret
the Bible to say that the re-marriage of the innocent party after a
divorce based on adultery does not result in adultery.

I don't see any mention in the Gospel passage you quoted of "innocent
party" or a restriction against the guilty party remarrying. Later
there were Church fathers who did in fact require that a person guilty
of adultery not remarry as one of the conditions of their penance.
Various Christian churches do not allow adulterers to remarry, probably
as a result of this early practice. I don't object to this practice in
general, although it isn't strictly followed in most parts of the
Orthodox Church as best I know.

I believe that Christ Himself never stated that he did not allow an
adulterer/adulteress whose spouse divorced him or her for adultery to
remarry, however. And we are wisest not to be putting words He never
said in His mouth. :-)

Post by Sherif Fadel
Forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression in my post, but English
is not my first language :)

Tis quite okay. Your English is definitely better than my Coptic or my
Arabic, and I assume that you spoke both of those before you ever
started learning English. ;)

Post by Sherif Fadel
I was referring to the cases where divorce is allowed for trivial
reasons, like the partners "falling out of love" etc. It seems that
some churches allow divorce in such cases (correct me if I am wrong
here), and in that case I believe that the remarrying divorcees are
engaging in adultery. There are cases were divorce is necessary such
as adultery and, in my opinion, cases of domestic violence etc.

Precisely, and that is one of the reasons why I do not agree with those
who want to restrict divorce only to adultery or abandonment. There are
situations that arise, from time to time, that require that the Church
make a judgement call about whether to apply a law strictly or not if
the Church does not want to harm people in its application of the Laws
of God rather than sustain them.

For example, take the case of a Christian who has children living with
them at home and who is married to a physically abusive spouse, or one
with problems with child sexual abuse. In my opinion, at least, that
spouse would be sinning against those children if he or she remained
with the abuser. :/ That doesn't mean that they must divorce rather
than separate, of course, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to them and
to the children to require them to remain celibate when remarriage to
someone who can provide real love and real faithfulness might make all
the difference in their lives.

Since St. Paul felt free to allow divorce and remarriage in the case of
a Christian abandoned by a non-believing spouse, I think it's fair to
conclude that the Church (although not an individual Christian) has the
authority to exercise judgement on this issue. Whether the Church has
exercised that authority wisely in all cases is another matter, of
course. <sigh>

Post by Sherif Fadel
As you mention in your previous post, most Protestant Churches allow
divorce in general, and it was this case which I was trying to
understand and now that you have brought it up, I will also try to
understand why the Catholic Church does not allow divorce even in the
case of adultery. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

As best I could, anyway. I've never been Catholic, and while I spent
some years in a Protestant church on my way into Orthodoxy, I can't
claim any greater general knowledge of Protestantism than any reasonably
well educated American who isn't Protestant would have. The moderator
and some of the regular participants here are a lot better versed in the
beliefs of various Protestant churches and the Catholic church than I am.

You're posting from a college/university address. Are you in the United
States to go to university/college, perhaps?

[Bob]

Post by Sherif Fadel
Wow! I did not know that. I thought that the Catholic Church allowed divorce
in cases of adultery. I searched a bit on the web for more information about
this and discovered that annulment of marraige is allowed in certain cases
(http://www.idotaketwo.com/christian_remarriage.html). Still adultery is
not listed as one of the grounds for annulment.

The RCC has tribunals that investigate requests for annulment. What
they look for is evidence that there was a wedding but not a
marriage. In other words, did the man and woman possess all the
criteria to become "one flesh" in Gods eyes as the bible states. If
they did, they cannot get an annulment. If they did not, a marriage
did not occur and an annulment is granted. For example, marrying for
money instead of love; being forced into a wedding for whatever
reason, mental incapacity, not willing to have a family, etc. If any
reasons like this occurred, the church determines that a true marriage
in the eyes of God did not occur so the "marriage" is annuled. There
is no difference between an annulment & divorce in a civil court, but
there is in the eyes of the church. Conversely, a couple who entered
a marriage with all the right intentions is married and cannot change
their minds at a later time.
Also, the RCC does not view divorce as a sin. It is viewed the same
as a legal separation. The sin occurs only when remarriage occurs.
Even then, they are welcome in the church but they cannot partake of
the sacraments as other Catholics do.

-as I understand it--
Bob

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches.

The Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do allow divorce in certain
circumstances, through the principle of ekonomia. Which circumstances
tend to differ from time to place, but always include sexual infidelity
and abandonment by a non-believing spouse. There is even a process for
an ecclesiastical divorce. I don't know much beyond this, however; I
didn't get around to getting married for the first time until earlier
this year and have no interest in getting a divorce! ;)

Dears,

First of all I which to clarify that the Coptic Orthodox church is
not Chalcedonian as it didn't attend that council which caused some
separation in the easter churches however due to recent council it has
been overcome (Almost)
Except for fornication,divorce is not allowed in the Orthodox
Churches, however, in some extreme circumstances it might be allowed,
such as changing from being believer to unbeliever, God says, "I have
children who bear no spiritual resemblance to me." He shows the cause
to have been spiritual adultery-going after other gods and other ways
of life.So in case a Christian change his religion to Muslim for
example, the Coptic Orthodox church allow the spouse to divorce and
can get married after to a believer

Annulment due to bigamy is considered fornication, which allow the
divorce.
for the divorced couple, the person who committed adultery during
marriage is not allowed to remarry, while the church allow the spouse
to get married again
this for all the Eastern Orthodox churches

for the Catholic church, Although the verse is clear, they r not
allowing divorcing even for fornication, but this may have some
historical reasons in the early centuries that might made the church
take this decision, which I don't know actually.

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by B.G. Kent
I think that if you can stay together...then that is great. I think that
if you are so sick of each other that no amount of councilling will
help..you best divorce.
I think most human beings are naturally serial monogamists and that
staying with one person your whole life is unnnatural...so no wonder we
have a tough time with it.

If you define "unnatural" as "not in accordance with our fallen nature",
I agree with you -- keeping faith with and loving one person all of our
lives is "unnatural" behavior for fallen humanity. If you define
"unnatural" as "not as God created us", then I don't agree with you --
God created us to love and to be faithful. The teaching in the New
Testament is that Christians have the Holy Spirit Himself, and the
Church, to provide them the assistance they need to live above their
fallen natures, and to fulfill what God intended for them in the first
place.

The Church is, I think, wise to recognize that in some cases, the fallen
nature will temporarily win and it might be best for the salvation and
spiritual health of its members not to enforce the full law and
intentions of God. Some people are too badly broken not to do repeated
harm (be it physical, mental, spiritual, or some combination of those)
to their spouses. It would be unloving and wrongheaded to require a
spouse to remain in a marriage where this is true.

But that doesn't make divorce anything but a terrible thing born of our
fallen nature, and it is something a Christian couple with some sense
and humility should be able to avoid.

Which makes the whole thing easy to do, right? </tongue in cheek> I
have no illusions on that score -- I'm in my mid-forties and have seen
too much. But with prayer and active work at attaining the virtues, I
think that divorce is avoidable. With God's help, I plan to avoid it. :)

Under His mercy,

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson
To quote a Jewish friend, "From your mouth to God's ears." ;) At
least I'm feeling no need or interest yet....

Yep, that is a quite common quote in the Middle East. In Egypt our
variant is "From your mouth to heaven's door".

I like that one. :-) <making a note> By the way, I would like
translations of two things into Coptic, if you don't mind playing
translator -- that phrase, and (if it is traditional to say this on
Easter/Pascha in the Coptic church) the phrase "Christ is risen!" Can
you provide those two phrases for me in Coptic? (I daresay a few other
participants here would like to know them too.)

Post by Sherif Fadel
Wow! I did not know that. I thought that the Catholic Church allowed
divorce in cases of adultery. I searched a bit on the web for more
information about this and discovered that annulment of marraige is
allowed in certain cases (
http://www.idotaketwo.com/christian_remarriage.html ). Still adultery
is not listed as one of the grounds for annulment. Weird, I thought
the Bible is pretty clear that adultery was a ground for divorce.

Exactly. The Catholic Church will allow an annulment -- a formal ruling
that because of some defect in the original conditions of a marriage,
the marriage itself never existed. That is different from a divorce,
which is a ruling that a marriage that did exist has been dissolved and
no longer exists. The Catholic Church does allow legal separation, and
until recently in the United States, devout Catholics usually opted for
that if their marriage was irretrievably broken.

In the last couple of decades in the United States, and to a lesser
extent elsewhere, the Catholic Church has in fact allowed a far wider
use of "annulment", to the point that the practical differences between
annulment and divorce have faded. But the Catholic Church has not (at
least in theory) given up its position that a marriage properly entered
into cannot be dissolved by anything but the death of one of the partners.

I think I got confused in what you said later because it sounded like
you were agreeing with the Catholic Church's position, not simply taking
the position that divorce (and remarriage) were only allowed in cases of
adultery. A number of Christian churches take this second position,
although the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do not enforce
that degree of strictness.

Post by Sherif Fadel
...

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Does he say that? I've read that passage repeatedly, not just
here, and it appears to me that he is saying that those who divorce
*except in cases of adultery* are committing adultery when they
remarry. As I read it, that passage specifically allows divorce
and remarriage in cases of

...
I agree with you entirely, I did not mean to imply that divorce
should not be allowed under ANY circumstances. Like you, I interpret
the Bible to say that the re-marriage of the innocent party after a
divorce based on adultery does not result in adultery.

I don't see any mention in the Gospel passage you quoted of "innocent
party" or a restriction against the guilty party remarrying. Later
there were Church fathers who did in fact require that a person guilty
of adultery not remarry as one of the conditions of their penance.
Various Christian churches do not allow adulterers to remarry, probably
as a result of this early practice. I don't object to this practice in
general, although it isn't strictly followed in most parts of the
Orthodox Church as best I know.

I believe that Christ Himself never stated that he did not allow an
adulterer/adulteress whose spouse divorced him or her for adultery to
remarry, however. And we are wisest not to be putting words He never
said in His mouth. :-)

Post by Sherif Fadel
Forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression in my post, but English
is not my first language :)

Tis quite okay. Your English is definitely better than my Coptic or my
Arabic, and I assume that you spoke both of those before you ever
started learning English. ;)

Post by Sherif Fadel
I was referring to the cases where divorce is allowed for trivial
reasons, like the partners "falling out of love" etc. It seems that
some churches allow divorce in such cases (correct me if I am wrong
here), and in that case I believe that the remarrying divorcees are
engaging in adultery. There are cases were divorce is necessary such
as adultery and, in my opinion, cases of domestic violence etc.

Precisely, and that is one of the reasons why I do not agree with those
who want to restrict divorce only to adultery or abandonment. There are
situations that arise, from time to time, that require that the Church
make a judgement call about whether to apply a law strictly or not if
the Church does not want to harm people in its application of the Laws
of God rather than sustain them.

For example, take the case of a Christian who has children living with
them at home and who is married to a physically abusive spouse, or one
with problems with child sexual abuse. In my opinion, at least, that
spouse would be sinning against those children if he or she remained
with the abuser. :/ That doesn't mean that they must divorce rather
than separate, of course, but it seems unnecessarily cruel to them and
to the children to require them to remain celibate when remarriage to
someone who can provide real love and real faithfulness might make all
the difference in their lives.

Since St. Paul felt free to allow divorce and remarriage in the case of
a Christian abandoned by a non-believing spouse, I think it's fair to
conclude that the Church (although not an individual Christian) has the
authority to exercise judgement on this issue. Whether the Church has
exercised that authority wisely in all cases is another matter, of
course. <sigh>

Post by Sherif Fadel
As you mention in your previous post, most Protestant Churches allow
divorce in general, and it was this case which I was trying to
understand and now that you have brought it up, I will also try to
understand why the Catholic Church does not allow divorce even in the
case of adultery. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

As best I could, anyway. I've never been Catholic, and while I spent
some years in a Protestant church on my way into Orthodoxy, I can't
claim any greater general knowledge of Protestantism than any reasonably
well educated American who isn't Protestant would have. The moderator
and some of the regular participants here are a lot better versed in the
beliefs of various Protestant churches and the Catholic church than I am.

You're posting from a college/university address. Are you in the United
States to go to university/college, perhaps?

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Catherine Jefferson
As best I could, anyway. I've never been Catholic, and while I spent
some years in a Protestant church on my way into Orthodoxy, I can't
claim any greater general knowledge of Protestantism than any reasonably
well educated American who isn't Protestant would have. The moderator
and some of the regular participants here are a lot better versed in the
beliefs of various Protestant churches and the Catholic church than I am.

Protestants are, as usual, less systematic than Catholics.

For one thing, there are differences between liberal and conservative
(not unknown among Catholics and Orthodox, of course). Conservative
Protestants take a somewhat more literal view of the prohibition of
divorce.

There's also a different approach to making exceptions. Protestants
are more likely to say that in this situation divorce is the lesser of
evils. Catholics will avoid openly permitting divorce by looking for a
way they can say that the marriage never existed in the first place.
The Catholic approach looks like legalistic hair-splitting to
Protestants, while the Protestant approach looks to Catholics like
it's ignoring Christ's command.

The more liberal Protestant approach (remember, conservatives agree
that divorce is not allowed except for adultery, without the escape
hatch of annulment) is that Jesus didn't intend to create a law that
would be applied without judgement.

Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-9 give something of Jesus' reasoning. In
Mark (which I would say is the earlier), Jesus doesn't really prohibit
divorce. He says that it is a concession to sin, and not part of God's
real plan. Mark gives no specific exceptions. Matthew gives unchastity
as the only exception. I Cor 7:10-16 gives an additional exception for
someone married to an unbelieving spouse (thus casting doubt on a
literal reading of Matthew in which unchastity is the only exception).

Given Jesus' general negative view of legalism, and his emphasis on
right intent, I believe it's reasonable for churches to make
exceptions in situations where staying in marriage would be a real
problem.

As in many areas, there's no way to avoid requiring Christians to
exercize good judgement. An overly legalistic interpretation can put
people into impossible situations. An overly casual one devalues
marriage. It's the job of the Church, with the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, to avoid both dangers.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches.

The Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches do allow divorce in certain
circumstances, through the principle of ekonomia. Which circumstances
tend to differ from time to place, but always include sexual infidelity
and abandonment by a non-believing spouse. There is even a process for
an ecclesiastical divorce. I don't know much beyond this, however; I
didn't get around to getting married for the first time until earlier
this year and have no interest in getting a divorce! ;)

Dears,
First of all I which to clarify that the Coptic Orthodox church is
not Chalcedonian as it didn't attend that council

What are you talking about? If it it the Fourth Council, Chalcedon, you are
referring to, _of course_ the Coptic Church was there. You were represented by
sixty bishops at that Council.

Post by h***@gmail.com
which caused some
separation in the easter churches however due to recent council it has
been overcome (Almost)

And you think Chalcedon caused more separation than the 'Council' at Ephesus in
449? The Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus himself was there.

[snip]

[Helmut Richter]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-9 give something of Jesus' reasoning. In
Mark (which I would say is the earlier), Jesus doesn't really prohibit
divorce. He says that it is a concession to sin, and not part of God's
real plan. Mark gives no specific exceptions.

Moreover, the whole passage is located in a series of statements about the
kindom of God, hence the reference to the state "at the beginning of
creation", that is, a state that is as little disturbed by the "hard
hearts" as the kingdom of God is. It think is it fair to say that Jesus is
rather disinterested in ruling the affairs of those outside the kingdom of
God. This explains also why the more detailed explanantions occured "when
they were in the house again", and that even these do not take the form of
law but of statements of spiritual facts.

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Post by Catherine Jefferson
As best I could, anyway. I've never been Catholic, and while I spent
some years in a Protestant church on my way into Orthodoxy, I can't
claim any greater general knowledge of Protestantism than any reasonably
well educated American who isn't Protestant would have. The moderator
and some of the regular participants here are a lot better versed in the
beliefs of various Protestant churches and the Catholic church than I am.

Protestants are, as usual, less systematic than Catholics.
For one thing, there are differences between liberal and conservative
(not unknown among Catholics and Orthodox, of course). Conservative
Protestants take a somewhat more literal view of the prohibition of
divorce.
There's also a different approach to making exceptions. Protestants
are more likely to say that in this situation divorce is the lesser of
evils. Catholics will avoid openly permitting divorce by looking for a
way they can say that the marriage never existed in the first place.
The Catholic approach looks like legalistic hair-splitting to
Protestants, while the Protestant approach looks to Catholics like
it's ignoring Christ's command.
The more liberal Protestant approach (remember, conservatives agree
that divorce is not allowed except for adultery, without the escape
hatch of annulment) is that Jesus didn't intend to create a law that
would be applied without judgement.
Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-9 give something of Jesus' reasoning. In
Mark (which I would say is the earlier), Jesus doesn't really prohibit
divorce. He says that it is a concession to sin, and not part of God's
real plan. Mark gives no specific exceptions. Matthew gives unchastity
as the only exception. I Cor 7:10-16 gives an additional exception for
someone married to an unbelieving spouse (thus casting doubt on a
literal reading of Matthew in which unchastity is the only exception).
Given Jesus' general negative view of legalism, and his emphasis on
right intent, I believe it's reasonable for churches to make
exceptions in situations where staying in marriage would be a real
problem.
As in many areas, there's no way to avoid requiring Christians to
exercize good judgement. An overly legalistic interpretation can put
people into impossible situations. An overly casual one devalues
marriage. It's the job of the Church, with the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, to avoid both dangers.

If we take Christ's words alone, then it appears divorce is almost
impossible except in cases of adultery.

But what was the context in which he said these words? He had of
course been challenged about divorce. He went on to point out that
Moses allowed relatively easy divorce due to their "hardness of
heart", somewhat similar to modern Moslem law about divorce.

In other words at the time a great many women were being disadvantaged
by divorce.

My parents were not very happily married, mainly due to my father's
drinking and consistent verbal abuse, criticism and the like. Few
women would have stuck around as long as my mother did, and frankly,
it would have been better if she'd left. In the end the damage done
to my sister and I would have been considerably less. But she stayed
there on account of the church teaching, even though she didn't go to
church.

I seemed to have a vision of her after she died where this issue came
up at her judgement, in which somebody seemed to be saying, with some
sympathy, "That's not what I meant!" To which she replied, with some
exasperation, "Well, what did you mean then??!"

I don't think Christ was making a blanket judgement on all divorces.
He was, I believe, taking issue with easy divorce, particularly when
it favoured the male. Was it Ezra who told the returning Israelites
to divorce their foreign wives? I think God tore strips off him for
that, when he died. There was no social security in those days, and
the odds are the women went into prostitution, and the children into
slavery.

As for remarrying divorcees committing adultery, there is such a thing
as forgiveness.

However the Catholic Church allows annulment of marriage. Exactly
under what circumstances I don't know - that's up to the decision
makers.

On the other hand modern society allows divorce far too easily. And
generally speaking, these days, when people want to get divorced, they
do so through the civil system.

For another thing, the only people who are going to take any notice of
Christ's comments on divorce are believing Christians. And I would
think the divorce rate in churches is lower than that of secular
society.

[Bishop Keith Williams]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by B.G. Kent
I think that if you can stay together...then that is great. I think that
if you are so sick of each other that no amount of councilling will
help..you best divorce.
I think most human beings are naturally serial monogamists and that
staying with one person your whole life is unnnatural...so no wonder we
have a tough time with it.

If you define "unnatural" as "not in accordance with our fallen nature",
I agree with you -- keeping faith with and loving one person all of our
lives is "unnatural" behavior for fallen humanity. If you define
"unnatural" as "not as God created us", then I don't agree with you --
God created us to love and to be faithful. The teaching in the New
Testament is that Christians have the Holy Spirit Himself, and the

WAIT...You left out the conversion. (1)To make someone a
Christian, get him JUSTIFIED: God does not want us to stay fallen,
as like in Luke 18:14; and God cleansed Cornelius' people (Acts 10:15).
Real Christians, as opposed to story-only Christians, get the touch from
God, even a personal experience of salvation. Say to the seeker, Call on
the name of Jesus, He will save you. Acts 2:21.
(2) Most Christians don't have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will abide
in you only AFTER you speak in a foreign language while the Holy Spirit
moves your mouth. I know the false scriptures don't say this, but this
works because this is true. Quit settling for book-only quasi-Christianity.
Go to a real Pentecost Christian Church, and you say you want to get
BOTH saved AND baptized with the Holy Spirit with the first evidence
of tongues. Please get it beloved; God affords you what you're missing.
Mtt 5:31-32 old covenant; 1Cor. chapter 7 new covnant.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by B.G. Kent
I think that if you can stay together...then that is great. I think that
if you are so sick of each other that no amount of councilling will
help..you best divorce.
I think most human beings are naturally serial monogamists and that
staying with one person your whole life is unnnatural...so no wonder we
have a tough time with it.

If you define "unnatural" as "not in accordance with our fallen nature",
I agree with you -- keeping faith with and loving one person all of our
lives is "unnatural" behavior for fallen humanity. If you define
"unnatural" as "not as God created us", then I don't agree with you --
God created us to love and to be faithful. The teaching in the New
Testament is that Christians have the Holy Spirit Himself, and the
Church, to provide them the assistance they need to live above their
fallen natures, and to fulfill what God intended for them in the first
place.

B - I don't see our nature as being "fallen". The thing you say about
God...well I do agree that God created us to love...but the rest? we all
have different opinions and the New Testament is just another.

Bren

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Catherine Jefferson

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson
To quote a Jewish friend, "From your mouth to God's ears." ;) At
least I'm feeling no need or interest yet....

Yep, that is a quite common quote in the Middle East. In Egypt our
variant is "From your mouth to heaven's door".

I like that one. :-) <making a note> By the way, I would like
translations of two things into Coptic, if you don't mind playing
translator -- that phrase, and (if it is traditional to say this on
Easter/Pascha in the Coptic church) the phrase "Christ is risen!" Can
you provide those two phrases for me in Coptic? (I daresay a few other
participants here would like to know them too.)

Unfortunately, for most practical purposes, Coptic has become an extinct
language. There are a few hundreds of families who still use Coptic as their
primary language, but for the vast majority of Egypt's 10 million Copts
(myself included), Coptic is used as a liturgical language only. There have
been some attempts to revive the use of Coptic as a everyday language, but
the situation in Egypt is not very conducive for such an attempt at present.
So I am not able to provide a translation for the secular phrase above.
However, it is traditional to say "Christ is risen! Indeed, he has risen!"
on Pascha. There are two dialects of Coptic in Egypt today; the Bohairic
(the official language of the Coptic Church liturgy ) and the Sahidic (the
dialect with the most amount of original literature available, and the
dialect used by most secular users of the Coptic language). Here is a
translation of "Christ is risen! Indeed, he has risen!" in these two
dialects

Coptic (Bohairic)
Christos anesti! Alithos anesti!

Coptic (Sahidic)
Pchristos aftooun. Alethos aftooun.

The Bohairic dialect is very close to Greek, and as a matter of fact the
alphabets used in these two languages have only minor differences.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
You're posting from a college/university address. Are you in the United
States to go to university/college, perhaps?

I am a PhD student in Virginia Tech. However, a member of my family recently
had a health problem and I left the US to be with my family. Fortunately,
Virginia Tech has an agreement with Egypt, the VT-MENA (Virginia Tech -
Middle East and North Africa) program, and I am still working towards my
degree.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
--
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Sherif Fadel
Unfortunately, for most practical purposes, Coptic has become an extinct
language. There are a few hundreds of families who still use Coptic as their
primary language, but for the vast majority of Egypt's 10 million Copts
(myself included), Coptic is used as a liturgical language only. There have
been some attempts to revive the use of Coptic as a everyday language, but
the situation in Egypt is not very conducive for such an attempt at present.
So I am not able to provide a translation for the secular phrase above.

Fair enough. It must be said in some language, then, when people say it
to each other -- I assume that language would be Arabic, Egyptian Arabic
to be precise? :-)

Post by Sherif Fadel
However, it is traditional to say "Christ is risen! Indeed, he has risen!"
on Pascha. There are two dialects of Coptic in Egypt today; the Bohairic
(the official language of the Coptic Church liturgy ) and the Sahidic (the
dialect with the most amount of original literature available, and the
dialect used by most secular users of the Coptic language). Here is a
translation of "Christ is risen! Indeed, he has risen!" in these two
dialects
Coptic (Bohairic)
Christos anesti! Alithos anesti!
The Bohairic dialect is very close to Greek, and as a matter of fact the
alphabets used in these two languages have only minor differences.

ROFL! The translation of "Christ is Risen!" that you provided above is
not "very close" to Greek -- it *IS* Greek. That is exactly, letter for
letter, how you would write the Greek for "Christ is Risen" in the Latin
alphabet. Bohairic probably is Greek under another name and in a
slightly different dialect than those used in the New Testament and the
various liturgical writings we use in the (Eastern/Chalcedonian)
Orthodox Church.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Coptic (Sahidic)
Pchristos aftooun. Alethos aftooun.

This doesn't look like anything I'm familiar with already. So perhaps
it is the original Coptic derived from ancient Egyptian, or as close to
it as is used in Egypt today? Interesting.... <Making a note.> Now,
I'll have to find out how to write it in its original alphabet. :-)

Thanks!

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson
You're posting from a college/university address. Are you in the United
States to go to university/college, perhaps?

I am a PhD student in Virginia Tech. However, a member of my family recently
had a health problem and I left the US to be with my family. Fortunately,
Virginia Tech has an agreement with Egypt, the VT-MENA (Virginia Tech -
Middle East and North Africa) program, and I am still working towards my
degree.

I'm sorry to hear about your family member's health problems. :( You
know, if you post their first/baptismal name and a prayer request here,
a few of us actually will take a break from arguing and pray. :) I'm
glad this didn't mean you have to interrupt your degree program, though.

[Sherif Fadel]

"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message news:M4bpi.2801$***@trnddc07...
...

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by h***@gmail.com
First of all I which to clarify that the Coptic Orthodox church is
not Chalcedonian as it didn't attend that council

What are you talking about? If it it the Fourth Council, Chalcedon, you
are
referring to, _of course_ the Coptic Church was there. You were
represented by
sixty bishops at that Council.

Post by h***@gmail.com
which caused some
separation in the easter churches however due to recent council it has
been overcome (Almost)

And you think Chalcedon caused more separation than the 'Council' at
Ephesus in
449? The Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus himself was there.
[snip]

I think Hany was referring to recent agreements between the Oriental
Orthodox Churches and other Churches that resovled the Christology issue
that resulted in the schism of the church in the
Council of Chalcedon. I do not think he was referring to the Council of
Ephesus. In a private conversation he provided me with this link
http://tinyurl.com/32l2xu where it seems that most of the issues have been
resolved. As I mentioned before, I am not an expert in these matters so
please let me know if the issue of Christology is yet to be resolved. My
understanding is that most of the theological issues between Apostolic
Churches have been resolved except for the issue of the supremacy of St.
Peter.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <xCypi.3840$***@trnddc01>, Sherif Fadel says...
[snip]

Post by Sherif Fadel
I think Hany was referring to recent agreements between the Oriental
Orthodox Churches and other Churches that resovled the Christology issue
that resulted in the schism of the church in the
Council of Chalcedon.

Who is 'Hany'? And on what grounds does he say that recent agreement resolved
the issue? After all, if it really was resolved, then your Pope Shenouda III
would not have reverted to preaching anti-dyophysite sermons. But he did, after
the agreement. That does not sound like 'resolution' to me.

[snip]

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Sherif Fadel
I think Hany was referring to recent agreements between the Oriental
Orthodox Churches and other Churches that resovled the Christology issue
that resulted in the schism of the church in the
Council of Chalcedon.

Who is 'Hany'? And on what grounds does he say that recent agreement
resolved
the issue? After all, if it really was resolved, then your Pope Shenouda
III
would not have reverted to preaching anti-dyophysite sermons. But he did,
after
the agreement. That does not sound like 'resolution' to me.

...

He is the person whose post you answered to. He bases his claim on the link
I provided in the post I answered your question with. Did you read it? Also,
could you provide references to the 'anti-dyophysite sermons' you are
referring to?

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Fair enough. It must be said in some language, then, when people say it
to each other -- I assume that language would be Arabic, Egyptian Arabic
to be precise? :-)

Yes, in Egyptian Arabic it goes like this

Min bo'ak leh bab el samaa'

Probably not very easy to pronounce for anyone who doesn't speak Arabic :)

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Bohairic probably is Greek under another name and in a
slightly different dialect than those used in the New Testament and the
various liturgical writings we use in the (Eastern/Chalcedonian)
Orthodox Church.

While that phrase may be exactly the same as Greek, in general, the Bohairic
dialect is not Greek. It is a highly Hellenized version of Coptic (I think
this was a conscious effort by the Church to integrate into the then
Hellenic culture of the eastern Mediterranean). The Bohairic dialect
contains many Greek words and the pronunciation of its words have been
Hellenized, but it is still closer to ancient Egyptian than Greek (at least
that is what they tell us in Church :) ). But it is nice to see that even
our liturgical languages do not differ much, if at all.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Thanks!

You are more than welcome!

Post by Catherine Jefferson
You
know, if you post their first/baptismal name and a prayer request here,
a few of us actually will take a break from arguing and pray. :)

Thanks. He is my father and his first name is Fadel. Any prayer would be
greatly appreciated.

Post by Catherine Jefferson
--
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Who is 'Hany'? And on what grounds does he say that recent agreement
resolved
the issue? After all, if it really was resolved, then your Pope Shenouda
III
would not have reverted to preaching anti-dyophysite sermons. But he did,
after
the agreement. That does not sound like 'resolution' to me.

He is the person whose post you answered to. I met him on a Coptic
discussion group in facebook and asked him to pitch into this discussion if
he had anything to add. He bases his claim on the link
I provided in the post I answered your question with (which he sent me in a
private email). Did you read it? From the link it seems that there has been
a formal agreement that the position of the two sides of the schism on
Christology were equivalent. Is there such an agreement? Your post seems to
suggest that such an agreement exists. Given that such a formal agreement
exists, I believe that the issues has been resolved. Your claim that our
Pope somehow violated the agreement is a serious one, please back it up with
evidence so that I can verify it myself. Could you provide references to the
so-called 'anti-dyophysite sermons' you are referring to? I am interested in
seeing them.

Post by Matthew Johnson
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson
Who is 'Hany'? And on what grounds does he say that recent agreement
resolved
the issue? After all, if it really was resolved, then your Pope Shenouda
III
would not have reverted to preaching anti-dyophysite sermons. But he did,
after
the agreement. That does not sound like 'resolution' to me.

He is the person whose post you answered to.

Then why does his name not show up when I click "Thread view" anywhere in this
thread? Only my name, your name and Catherine's show up.

Post by Sherif Fadel
I met him on a Coptic
discussion group in facebook and asked him to pitch into this discussion if
he had anything to add. He bases his claim on the link
I provided in the post I answered your question with (which he sent me in a
private email).

I saw no such link. Try giving the msg-id# of the post you say it was in. Then
perhaps we can make progress to resolving the mystery of why Hany's name didn't
show up either.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Did you read it?

No.

Post by Sherif Fadel
From the link it seems that there has been
a formal agreement that the position of the two sides of the schism on
Christology were equivalent.

Which is why some of us were so disappointed that certain Coptic bishops backed
out fo the agreement by, for example, preaching anty-dyophysite sermons.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Is there such an agreement? Your post seems to
suggest that such an agreement exists. Given that such a formal agreement
exists, I believe that the issues has been resolved.

And that is a mistake. Formal agreement existed at many other councils in the
Church's history, but they failed, too.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Your claim that our
Pope somehow violated the agreement is a serious one, please back it up with
evidence so that I can verify it myself.

I found this years ago on http://www.copticchurch.net. Now I cannot find _any_
sermons in text form, only videos and audio files.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Could you provide references to the
so-called 'anti-dyophysite sermons' you are referring to? I am interested in
seeing them.

Well, if they hadn't taken them off the web-site, and if the laptop I saved it
on hadn't been stolen, this would be easy to do. But as things are, I think in
addition to learning to use Google, you will have to learn to use the "Wayback
Machine" at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php, which _might_ go back far enough
to have this.

Or you could try listening to
http://tasbeha.org/mp3/Sermons/00.HH_Pope_Shenouda_III/Dogma_and_Rites.html
sermons titled "Theology of Jesus Christ", I think these are in Arabic, but the
markup is not so clear.

[Catherine Jefferson]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Fair enough. It must be said in some language, then, when people say it
to each other -- I assume that language would be Arabic, Egyptian Arabic
to be precise? :-)

Yes, in Egyptian Arabic it goes like this
Min bo'ak leh bab el samaa'
Probably not very easy to pronounce for anyone who doesn't speak Arabic :)

Not easy, but doable, although I'd end up sounding more Palestinian than
Egyptian, no doubt. I can speak a little Arabic. One of these days,
I'm going to get the Learning Tree or one of the other computer-based
language training packages and learn to speak it properly, and then get
books and learn to read it properly.

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Bohairic probably is Greek under another name and in a
slightly different dialect than those used in the New Testament and the
various liturgical writings we use in the (Eastern/Chalcedonian)
Orthodox Church.

While that phrase may be exactly the same as Greek, in general, the Bohairic
dialect is not Greek. It is a highly Hellenized version of Coptic (I think
this was a conscious effort by the Church to integrate into the then
Hellenic culture of the eastern Mediterranean). The Bohairic dialect
contains many Greek words and the pronunciation of its words have been
Hellenized, but it is still closer to ancient Egyptian than Greek (at least
that is what they tell us in Church :) ). But it is nice to see that even
our liturgical languages do not differ much, if at all.

That's what I had thought the church language of Coptic Egypt was, but
the "Christ is Risen!" had me rethinking. Glad to hear Greek didn't
take over entirely!

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Catherine Jefferson
You know, if you post their first/baptismal name and a prayer request here,
a few of us actually will take a break from arguing and pray. :)

Thanks. He is my father and his first name is Fadel. Any prayer would be
greatly appreciated.

Certainly. I'll pray, and I'll ask people at church to as well.

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Then why does his name not show up when I click "Thread view" anywhere in
this
thread? Only my name, your name and Catherine's show up.

I was going to post a polite reply to this, but after reading the rest of
your post where you tell me to "learn to use Google", I am going to reply in
kind and ask you to learn to use your Usenet software.You seem to have
trouble identifying which posts belong to which people. As a matter of fact,
you keep attributing my post to some person called "Bimms" in the thread on
homosexuality. The email Hany used to post is ***@gmail.com and he
started his post with the rather agrammatical "dears". Do you own homework
and learn to use your Usenet software.

Post by Matthew Johnson
I saw no such link. Try giving the msg-id# of the post you say it was in.
Then
perhaps we can make progress to resolving the mystery of why Hany's name
didn't
show up either.

Apparently you also need to learn to read (again, I am taking the tone of
this reply from the tone of your reply). What I said was that Hany, in his
post, stated that he thought that the issue was resolved. Then *I* posted a
link that he sent me in a *private communication* (
http://tinyurl.com/32l2xu ) to backup his claim. The "mystery" of Hany's
name not showing up will be resolved when *you* solve the mystery of using
your Usenet software properly (again, I take the tone of my reply from your
post).

<snip>

You provide a lot of information that I will look into for my own benefit.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, if they hadn't taken them off the web-site, and if the laptop I
saved it
on hadn't been stolen, this would be easy to do. But as things are, I
think in
addition to learning to use Google, you will have to learn to use the
"Wayback
Machine" at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php, which _might_ go back far
enough
to have this.

It is here that your arrogance and belligerent attitude set me off in
writing this reply (which I am sure I will have second thoughts about
sending if I re-read it, and so will send it as is). Let me inform you, my
dear sir, that I am working towards a PhD in distributed computing , and
your condescending claim that I need to learn to use Google, is not only
rude and arrogant but uncalled for. I asked you to provide links to backup
your claim and instead you reply by insulting my intelligence. If that is
the way you wish to continue this discussion, I wish to have of part of it.
If you continue in your unjustified insults, I will just ignore your
subsequent posts. It is saddening that someone who has your apparent
knowledge of theology and religion sees personal insults as a valid way of
discussing a topic.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Or you could try listening to
http://tasbeha.org/mp3/Sermons/00.HH_Pope_Shenouda_III/Dogma_and_Rites.html
sermons titled "Theology of Jesus Christ", I think these are in Arabic,
but the
markup is not so clear.

I will certainly check that link for my own edification.

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Catherine Jefferson
Certainly. I'll pray, and I'll ask people at church to as well.

Thank you very much. Prayer is about all we can depend on at this stage. So
once again, thanks for your effort.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson
Then why does his name not show up when I click "Thread view" anywhere in
this
thread? Only my name, your name and Catherine's show up.

I was going to post a polite reply to this, but after reading the rest of
your post where you tell me to "learn to use Google", I am going to reply in
kind and ask you to learn to use your Usenet software.

That is not "replying in kind". That you think it is is your own gross error.

You seem to have

Post by Sherif Fadel
trouble identifying which posts belong to which people.

I have no such trouble.

Post by Sherif Fadel
As a matter of fact,
you keep attributing my post to some person called "Bimms" in the thread on
homosexuality.

As a matter of fact, I have done no such thing. Both you and Bimms made similar
point. I follow the attributions that are in the posts themselves. If one of my
predecessors (in the thread) got the attribution wrong, then don't blame me.

Post by Sherif Fadel
started his post with the rather agrammatical "dears". Do you own homework
and learn to use your Usenet software.

If you knew how to use Usenet software yourself, you would know that you have
not established your point here. That email does not show up anywhere in
Newsguy's list of posts in this thread. Unfortunately, different NNTP clients
seem to use somewhat different definitions of 'thread'.

Get that basic fact straight before you charge off accusing others of
incompetence.

BTW: get the Netiquette straight: it is rude to ask questions that could be
easily answered in Google. But of course, the question of when Pope Shenouda
posted his anti-dyophysite sermon is not 'easily' answered. But then again, that
was only one of the questions you asked for which I said "learn to use Google".
The other really was easy enough.

[snip]

Post by Sherif Fadel
You provide a lot of information that I will look into for my own benefit.

All the more reason you should not have even tried to "reply in kind" -- which,
again, you failed to really do.

[snip]

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I will ask people who are more knowledgeable about
this than I am and get back to you.

I'll be waiting;)

I finally got a response from someone I asked about this concept, here is
his reply. I am quoting his message verbatim:-

"i think the term "economy" is found throughout our services...both in the
liturgy and in the psalmody. it refers to God's plan...so His economy is
perfect, in that His plan is perfect. not exactly sure what the plan is,
maybe the plan for salvation (i think). actually, if you look at the new
divine liturgy book put out by H.G. Bishop Serapion and H.G. Bishop Youssef,
you will see the following note on "Economy" on page iii: "One of the
definitions of this English word is the same as the Greek 'oikonomia,' which
is used by the apostles and Fathers to refer to God's plan, administration,
system, stewardship, or management regarding His governance of man and
history." hope that helps."

In another message, I told you that nobody had answered my query about the
concept, that was before I received the reply above from one of my friends.
However, it seems to have a different meaning from the one you mentioned in
your previous post.

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by Matthew Johnson
As a matter of fact, I have done no such thing. Both you and Bimms made
similar
point. I follow the attributions that are in the posts themselves. If one
of my
predecessors (in the thread) got the attribution wrong, then don't blame
me.

I advise you to re-read the thread and judge your own statement for
yourself.

Post by Matthew Johnson
If you knew how to use Usenet software yourself, you would know that you
have
not established your point here. That email does not show up anywhere in
Newsguy's list of posts in this thread. Unfortunately, different NNTP
clients
seem to use somewhat different definitions of 'thread'.
Get that basic fact straight before you charge off accusing others of
incompetence.

And how does that justify your extremely sarcastic reply about the
"mysterious" poster Hany where you seem to accuse me of making a poster up?
Perhaps you should have considered the point you raised above before making
that post with its accompanying implications. The very fact that you
actually replied to Hany's post (where he erroneously stated that the Coptic
church did not attend the council of Chalcedon) and then implied that I am
making up his identity is proof of one of two things. Either you could not
properly identify the correct identity of the poster to whose post you
replied (and I will leave you to judge how that reflects on your competence)
or that you purposely lied in your post (I will leave you to judge how that
reflects on your character). You cannot claim that you did not even see the
post since you actually replied to it.

Post by Matthew Johnson
BTW: get the Netiquette straight: it is rude to ask questions that could
be
easily answered in Google. But of course, the question of when Pope
Shenouda
posted his anti-dyophysite sermon is not 'easily' answered. But then
again, that
was only one of the questions you asked for which I said "learn to use
Google".
The other really was easy enough.
[snip]

Really? So when you asked me to tell you whether the non-chalcedonian church
had a concept of 'oeconomia' did I tell you to "learn how to use google" ?
No. I told you plainly that I was ignorant of that point and that I would
ask more knowledgeable people (BTW, nobody I asked seems to have heard of
that concept in the Coptic church, so it seems safe to say we do not have
that concept in our church). You could have at least politely told me that
you do not have the links that you mentioned (due to a stolen laptop etc)
and mentioned that I could find them on google. Instead, you rudely told me
to "learn to use google". The whole tone of your reply was condescending,
rude and arrogant. The fact that you still cannot see this has me baffled.
Maybe it is a cultural thing, but I certainly got a rude, condescending and
arrogant tone from your post.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson
As a matter of fact, I have done no such thing. Both you and Bimms
made similar point. I follow the attributions that are in the posts
themselves. If one of my predecessors (in the thread) got the
attribution wrong, then don't blame me.

I advise you to re-read the thread and judge your own statement for
yourself.

I did. My judgment is that you have lost all sense of proportion. And
that you have done so out of disproportionate rage over an _entirely_
imaginary slight.

Get real, Fadel. If you are going to get this upset over a tone you
claim to see based on ONE phrase "learn to use Google", then you are
far, far too thin-skinned for posting to most newsgroups -- especially
this one.

Also, "learn to use Google" can't possibly be as unfair as "re-read
the thread", when 'thread' must refer to the _entire_ thread.

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson
If you knew how to use Usenet software yourself, you would know
that you have not established your point here. That email does not
show up anywhere in Newsguy's list of posts in this
thread. Unfortunately, different NNTP clients seem to use somewhat
different definitions of 'thread'.
Get that basic fact straight before you charge off accusing others of
incompetence.

You still haven't got this fact straight.

Post by Sherif Fadel
And how does that justify your extremely sarcastic reply about the
"mysterious" poster Hany where you seem to accuse me of making a
poster up?

I made no such accusation. This is an excellent example of how you
have lost all sense of proportion -- and even more. Referring to Hany
as 'mysterious' is NOT "extremely sarcastic".

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson

Try giving the msg-id# of the post you say it was in. Then perhaps
we can make progress to resolving the mystery of why Hany's name
didn't show up either.

Nothing "extremely sarcastic" here. It really _was_ a mystery. Now I
know the answer: it is because he never even used his own name. I did
this without your help, since you _still_ do not provide message ids
for posts you claim to quote.

Stop making such wild and groundless accusations.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Perhaps you should have considered the point you raised above before
making that post with its accompanying implications. The very fact
that you actually replied to Hany's post (where he erroneously stated
that the Coptic church did not attend the council of Chalcedon) and
then implied that I am making up his identity is proof of one of two
things.

But I made no such implication. That is your own fertile imagination
that made that implication.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Either you could not properly identify the correct identity of the
poster to whose post you replied (and I will leave you to judge how
that reflects on your competence)

It reflects worse on yours and Hany's. What good does it do, Fadel, to
ask someone to _help out_ in a thread, when he does not even use his
own name in a post, leaving us to guess it from the email address, and
gets his facts wrong, claiming that the Coptic Church did not even
attend Chalcedon? He even refers to his own Church as an "easter
church".

You asked the wrong person for 'help'. Much of the mess in this thread
is a direct result of that. The rest of the mess is due to your own
over-sensitivity. But I suppose I should not be surprised that they
teach oversensitivity at Virginia Tech...

Post by Sherif Fadel
or that you purposely lied in your post (I will leave you to judge
how that reflects on your character). You cannot claim that you did
not even see the post since you actually replied to it.

Well, now you might have guessed that I have found it again. And no, I
did not lie. But since I was not making so many rash presumptions as
you are doing in this one post, I did not make _any_ presumptions
concerning who I was replying to. The name 'Hany' does _not_ occur in
that post.

By the way, Fadel: if I were like you, I would accuse _you_ of
"purposely lying" when you claimed that I referred to "the mysterious
Hany". But did I do this? No. Why? Because I know better than you.

BTW: this is proof that you really do need to learn to use Google. For
if you had Googled "mysterious Hany" using me as author, you would
have found that those two words never occur in any post by me. You
would have spared yourself from making yet another false
accusation. But you did not. So yes, you really do need to learn to
use Google.

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson
BTW: get the Netiquette straight: it is rude to ask questions that
could be easily answered in Google. But of course, the question of
when Pope Shenouda posted his anti-dyophysite sermon is not
'easily' answered. But then again, that was only one of the
questions you asked for which I said "learn to use Google". The
other really was easy enough.
[snip]

Really? So when you asked me to tell you whether the non-chalcedonian church
had a concept of 'oeconomia' did I tell you to "learn how to use google" ?

I am still waiting for an answer on that. And you miss the point. That
question is NOT one that is easily found via Google, which is why I
asked it.

Post by Sherif Fadel
No. I told you plainly that I was ignorant of that point and that I would
ask more knowledgeable people (BTW, nobody I asked seems to have heard of
that concept in the Coptic church, so it seems safe to say we do not have
that concept in our church).

Actually, no. You might have the concept under a different name. The
Roman Church, for example uses 'dispensatio' for _almost_ the same
concept. But I appreciate the effort.

Post by Sherif Fadel
You could have at least politely told me that you do not have the
links that you mentioned (due to a stolen laptop etc) and mentioned
that I could find them on google. Instead, you rudely told me to
"learn to use google". The whole tone of your reply was
condescending, rude and arrogant. The fact that you still cannot see
this has me baffled. Maybe it is a cultural thing, but I certainly
got a rude, condescending and arrogant tone from your post.

And the fact that you see "rude, condescending and arrogant tone"
where it is not, all because of ONE phrase "learn to use Google",
speaks volumes about you, not your culture. So does your continued
chain of false accusations.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Sherif Fadel
I will ask people who are more knowledgeable about
this than I am and get back to you.

I'll be waiting;)

I finally got a response from someone I asked about this concept, here is
his reply. I am quoting his message verbatim:-
"i think the term "economy" is found throughout our services...both in the
liturgy and in the psalmody. it refers to God's plan...so His economy is
perfect, in that His plan is perfect. not exactly sure what the plan is,
maybe the plan for salvation (i think). actually, if you look at the new
divine liturgy book put out by H.G. Bishop Serapion and H.G. Bishop Youssef,
you will see the following note on "Economy" on page iii: "One of the
definitions of this English word is the same as the Greek 'oikonomia,' which
is used by the apostles and Fathers to refer to God's plan, administration,
system, stewardship, or management regarding His governance of man and
history." hope that helps."
In another message, I told you that nobody had answered my query about the
concept, that was before I received the reply above from one of my friends.
However, it seems to have a different meaning from the one you mentioned in
your previous post.

Yes, that is a different meaning. It is the sense of the word which
St. Athanasius used so often. But it is related, as the OrthodoxWiki
stub points out (http://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Economia).

The link in that stub to
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/articles/vlarina.html
is also good for describing the sense of 'Oikonomia' that is relevant to this
thread.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Ethics necessarily find their root in the nature of God. In that God
is a Triunity, divorce would be counter to God's nature. From the out
set, scripture states that man and woman become one. Paul uses this
to illustrate the unity of the Church. One can argue for divorce on
sociological excuses, but when one takes seriously the basis for right
and wrong, God being who He is, a compound unity that never divorces
itself, it immediately is realized that it is only allowed, as Christ
Himself noted, because of the hardness of mens hearts.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ethics necessarily find their root in the nature of God. In that God
is a Triunity, divorce would be counter to God's nature. From the out
set, scripture states that man and woman become one.

No, it says they become one FLESH. Not quite the same thing. The difference is
important, but you overlook it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Paul uses this
to illustrate the unity of the Church.

Which unity you resist strenuously.

[snip]

[Elizabeth]

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches. I also believe that some
protestant churches allow divorce. In light of the verses in the gospels
bellow, could you tell me the theological justification for divorce? I am
really interested in the theology behind this, please do not take this as an
attack on a particular church (I believe all Christian churches are valid)

<snip>

Post by Sherif Fadel
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered
you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

There you go! Scriptural reason to permit divorce: mankind's hard-
heartedness.

As to your other question: The Catholic position is that marriage
within the church is a sacrament. Marriage outside the church is not.

A sacramental marriage produces an ontological change in the parties
(they go from two individuals to become one flesh), and therefore can
never be dissolved. A non-sacramental marriage is not recognized --
IOW it is of no interest to the church.

Divorce is not a sin. Divorced people are still welcomed in the
sacramental life of the church (i.e. they can take communion, etc.).
If they had no sacramental marriage in the first place (for example,
they had been married by a justice of the peace and had never had a
sacramental marriage rite in the RCC) they should go to confession for
living in sin all those years, but after confession they are free to
marry.

Civil divorce does nothing to dissolve a valid sacramental marriage.
Therefore, a valid sacramental marriage precludes the parties from
ever marrying again in the RCC, until one of them is dead. (note: it
is fine for them to be divorced, as long as they do not have sex with
another person)

However, some marriages which took place in the church and may appear
to be sacramental, are not really sacramentally valid -- IOW the
candidates did not possess the requisite capacity or intent to enter
into a sacramental marriage. These invalid marriages may be set aside
by the diocesan marriage tribunal, even if they lasted for many years
and produced a number of children. This is what we call "annulment".
After an RCC annulment, the parties are free to marry within the
church, since no valid sacramental marriage had ever taken place.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Elizabeth

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches. I also believe that some
protestant churches allow divorce. In light of the verses in the gospels
bellow, could you tell me the theological justification for divorce? I am
really interested in the theology behind this, please do not take this as an
attack on a particular church (I believe all Christian churches are valid)

<snip>

Post by Sherif Fadel
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered
you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

There you go! Scriptural reason to permit divorce: mankind's hard-
heartedness.

True. But the passage only says that divorce was permitted for this reason under
_Mosaic_ Law. It does not say whether or not we should still do this. Apparently
the Coptic Church decided we should not, while other Churches decided (with
reluctance) that we can.

I do not have high hopes for deciding who is right based solely on the Scripture
passages so far mentioned.

[snip]

Post by Elizabeth
However, some marriages which took place in the church and may appear
to be sacramental, are not really sacramentally valid -- IOW the
candidates did not possess the requisite capacity or intent to enter
into a sacramental marriage.

But this is the assertion that is so surprising to non-RCs. The reasons the RCC
gives for treating this one Sacrament like this (while not doing so with any of
the others) have always sounded like equivocations to the rest of us.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matthew Johnson
I do not have high hopes for deciding who is right based solely on the Scripture
passages so far mentioned.

Based upon the Tri-unity of God, it is antithetical to His being.
Added to
this, if one swore before God "I do," then he/she has made a vow and
scripture is clear reguarding failing to keep one's vows with God.

Do we live in a fallen world? Yes. Is there forgiveness.
Certainly. But
if one does divorce, the question remains, is one allowed to remarry
as
long as the ex spouse is still alive? Rom 7:2 I Cor 7

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Matthew Johnson
I do not have high hopes for deciding who is right based solely on
the Scripture passages so far mentioned.

Based upon the Tri-unity of God, it is antithetical to His being.

'Antithetical' is too strong a word here.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Added to this, if one swore before God "I do," then he/she has made a
vow and scripture is clear reguarding failing to keep one's vows with
God.

True. But this is probably why, in the _Orthodox_ rite, there is a
solemn promise, but not a vow. I know this will come as a shock to
many, but it is so.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Do we live in a fallen world? Yes. Is there forgiveness.
Certainly. But if one does divorce, the question remains, is one
allowed to remarry as long as the ex spouse is still alive? Rom 7:2
I Cor 7

Finally, someone mentions other relevant verses! But these do not
clinch it so easily either. After all, in 1 Cor 7:2, he says _each_
man. But that could be construed to include a divorced man. It would
be difficult to say that "let him have his own wife" refers to the one
who divorced him.

Besides: if we take all the verses quite literally as binding for all
time, then we would have to say that anyone who becomes a Christian
while still single must remain single forever. (1 Cor 7:17, 24). But
of course, we do not do this.

[Burkladies]

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian and my church does not allow divorce. I
believe that is also the stance of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox
church and the other Oriental Orthodox churches. I also believe that some
protestant churches allow divorce. In light of the verses in the gospels
bellow, could you tell me the theological justification for divorce? I am
really interested in the theology behind this, please do not take this as an
attack on a particular church (I believe all Christian churches are valid)

Divorce is usually nasty. However, I was content to divorce my ex-
hubby before I had kids with him. Best move I did. Funny thing was,
Christ, Holy Spirit reminded me during this time that he/she never
told me to marry my ex. People and religion told me to. Now I'm
doing what the Messiah wanted me to do in the first place!