What is the best scholarly book on EO theology and how it development?

Our Lord Himself refutes your claim.
Matthew 19:9
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.

Not part of this family planning mess. Just drawing attention to fact that there was another thread.

Yet Our Lord also says:
Luke 16:18
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Here we have no exceptions to the indissolubility of marriage. Your interpretation of Matt. 5:31-32 would mean that Our Lord contradicted Himself, which is of course not possible. The only interpretation of Matt. 5:31-32 which is in accordance with the rest of Scripture and Tradition is the Catholic interpretation: catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-jesus-say-adultery-is-grounds-for-divorce

I take Our Lord at His word, it's you who seek to omit what He says to fit your view.

Says the guy who believes that God made homosexuality and pedophilia

From the time it took you to answer I take that you didn't read the article. If you had, you'd know that Catholics are not trying to omit anything, but only trying to understand a seeming contradiction in Scripture (of course it proves to not actually be a contradiction).

Tell me, please, what you think the word "fornication", or in Greek, "porneia", in Matt. 5:31-32 means?

Yeah, doing this now, next church father on my list is Irenaeus. I'm an artistic completist and so I'm reading all the church fathers chronologically.

There was never a contradiction to begin with. Catholics took the view of indissolubility, Christ didn't since He clearly and plainly made an exemption.
Maybe you can explain it to me since I'm not learned in Greek.

From Catholic viewpoint, you won't find much rebuking of Eastern theology and spirituality, because the Catholic Church explicitly affirms it as valid, good, a heritage and treasure to be preserved, as much as the Latin theology and spirituality. Since only a minority of Easterners are Catholics, majority being Orthodox, most people think of it as an exclusively Orthodox thing that is opposed to "Catholic theology and spirituality", but it's really not - what is usually thought as "Catholic theology and spirituality" is better described as "Latin" exclusively, because there are other (although, due to historical reasons, far less common) ways of living and studying the faith in the Catholic Church too.

That said, if you want a different (but not opposed), Latin, look at theology, then you should first and foremost learn about Scholasticism, which completely pervades (modern and medieval - theological traditions aren't static museum exhibits, they are living and continuously develop throughout the centuries) Latin theology, especially the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. Note that most of the short descriptions of it, included in more general books on history of philosophy, are garbage - you need a book actually devoted to Scholasticism as its topic to learn anything useful. Note also that Scholastic jargon and terminology are notoriously misleading to a person that is not acquainted with them, so you shouldn't start with the primary sources like Summa Theologiae themselves, unless you want to go away having completely misunderstood the Scholastic arguments. Feser's books are the most common recommendation to beginners, and they are indeed very good for the purpose of explaining Aquinas's philosophy and theology, especially the common traps one might unwittingly fall into when trying to understand the Scholastics' arguments. His Aquinas (from the "Beginner's Guides" series) is especially recommendable.

Also:

You really shouldn't, and if you do, then with all probability you haven't studied the topic enough. There are serious arguments to be made for either side, and whichever position you in the end accept, you still must, if you study the matter enough, concede that even if it's wrong and even if its arguments can be ultimately refuted and better ones put out for your position (as I believe can be argued for the pro-Catholic position, which I hold), the alternative at least isn't laughable and a honest, rational person could still hold it even after a long study.

Attached: 04062015-IMGP9701.jpg (1280x848, 271.69K)

No, I'm asking you what the "fornication" in Matt 5:31-32 is referring to, and so what kind of "fornication" do you think is grounds for divorce?

Sex outside of marriage, cheating on your spouse.

I feel as though the papacy is a medieval innovation. Something that was in the making due to romes geographical position. But, if you wanna talk about it then we definitely can

The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way sound sufficient, OP.
But the Orthodox Church has rejected the apostolic doctrine of papal supremacy, among other things, so you should only look with curiosity.
Read Edward Siecienski's "The Papacy and the Orthodox" for proof of papal supremacy (ironically, the author is Orthodox).

So you think that, for example, if a man had sex with some other woman before getting married, his wife has the right to divorce him after they've been married?
The Greek word for adultery is "moicheia", which is even used in Matt 5:31 right after the word "fornication", or in Greek, "porneia". So clearly porneia does not mean adultery, don't you think?

Was gonna ignore you until you said that the author is orthodox. Gonna look into it I guess.

Depends on the circumstance. If he lied about his past to her it could be valid grounds imo.
It could mean Christ was not referring to adultery only, or specifically, but sexual immorality generally.

Well, that definitely explains much.

There are many more, clearer examples of the special authority of Rome from later times (but still before the schism), but on account of its antiquity I think it's good to start with the First Epistle to the Corinthians by "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome", one of the very earliest Christian documents outside the Bible - indeed, perhaps the earliest still surviving (although it's true that the maximum date given is 140 AD, this seems very improbable; a late 1st century date is more probable), a document written when the Apostles (or at least John) were still alive, which in the early Church had great authority and which was seriously considered to be possibly canonical before the Bible's canon was set.

(1/2)

Don't you think that this would pose a huge threat to marriage? Because who would have the authority to judge what exactly constitutes "sexual immorality"? Some people would probably say that something like holding hands would already constitute it, while others would not. It would be an extremely ambiguous teaching.

The best interpretation of the word "porneia" is the most prevalent Catholic interpretation of it: that it refers to incestuous union, which were thus not valid marriages to begin with. From the article I posted:

Don't you think that this interpretation makes the most sense?

The Church.
That porneia refers only to incest? No.

But the Orthodox Church doesn't teach that divorce is only allowed in cases of "sexual immorality".

And the Orthodox don't even have a clear doctrine of what constitutes sexual immorality.

Ok, glad we're talking about the patristics. Appealing to Clement is a weak one to me. There's nothing to indicate that he was even speaking as pope. I can even give you examples where the bishop in rome tried to intervene with another church and got silenced.

what I really don't interesting is Ignatius' epistles. while I was reading Ignatius I did notice the he put a use emphasis on church structure. He uses very strong language about how we are to treat the bishop and that is like Christ. Like we are supposed to follow him and be subservient to him the same way we are to Christ. He also talks about Presbyters and deacons and how they all fall under the structure and even Clement talks about how we are not to cause problems in the church. But although it is important to note what he does say I feel as though it is also important to note what he doesn't say. And that is about a infallible pope in Roman who is the vicar of Christ and has authority above all bishops. It seems as though, Ignatius, whith his use emphasis on church structure and how we are to follow our leaders and treat them highly. It would be expected that he would mention a pope. This isn't even a argument from silence since it is a main part of his letters to address a pope in rome.

It's not that simple:

orthodoxanswers.org/why-does-the-orthodox-church-allow-divorce-and-more-than-one-marriage-do-annulments-exist-in-orthodox-canon-law/

oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage

The 1st marriage can be "divorced" only on a civil/legal level; same as in Catholicism. The Second and Third marriages are rare exceptions that are repentant and reconciliatory in nature.

Similar in how though the Bible asks for a Bishop to be married, the Catholic church made a concession with this due to said church being possibly unable to financially support a bishop/priest's family in the event of his death (and why the Orthodox Church requires a married priest to have a job/financial support arrangements outside of the church's support.)

And the Catholic view on divorce doesn't seem that cut and dry either:

quora.com/Does-Catholic-Church-allow-divorce-on-case-of-adultery

Seems fairly clear and consistent to me:

orthodoxwiki.org/Sex

oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/sexuality-marriage-and-family/sexuality

oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/marriage

orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/10/05/why-is-sexual-immorality-bad/

Yes it is. The reasons to dissolve a marriage are not limited by the Orthodox to sexual immorality, but rather include things like
And many others: saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce

No, it's not the same as in Catholicism. Catholicism teaches that the sacrament of marriage only ends at death. The Orthodox teach that a sacramental marriage can be dissolved by an ecclesiastic court and when that happens you can get into another sacramental marriage while your "former" spouse is still living.

Are you not aware that the Orthodox Church also requires its bishops to be unmarried? Also, clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline, not a "concession".

The position of the Church is crystal clear.

Clearly it isn't, since for example in my post I provided a case that is not clearly defined as whether it is grounds for divorce or not.

It really boils down to this: You claim that Matt 5:31-32 means that divorce is allowed, but only in cases of sexual immorality. However, the Orthodox Church teaches that sexual immorality is not the only grounds for divorce. How do you reconcile these two views?

I never know what you Latins are on about when you bring this up. I have an uncle the Catholic church who got a divorce/annulment and later remarried within the church.

"6. DIVORCE

The problem of divorce is a very delicate question as it often touches on a painful human reality.

The tradition of the Church of the first centuries — which continues to have authority for the Orthodox Church — put the emphasis very strongly on two related points:

the “uniqueness” of the authentic Christian marriage,
the permanence of married conjugal life.

We may recall here the analogy that Paul makes between the unity of Christ and his Church and that of the bride and bridegroom. This analogy that is as it were at the root of the mystery assumes the real and continuing unity of the married couple, which therefore totally excludes a simultaneous polygamy and views one single marriage as the ideal.

Divorce does not heal the diseased marriage but kills it. It is not a positive action or intervention. It is about dissolving the “mini-Church” that has been formed through the marriage relationship.[18] The Holy Scripture attributes divorce to the callousness of man.[19] This is seen as a fall and sin. And yet the Orthodox Church can however permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says in Matt. 19:9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” According to Bishop Kallistos Ware divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.[20]

A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”.[21]

The violation of a marriage relationship is divided into two groups:

those resulting from adultery (unfaithfulness and immoral behaviour)
those proceeding from the absence of one of the partners (this absence must however have certain distinctives).

According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony.[22] The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.[23]

The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. The Holy John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.[24] Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin."

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm#22

Not quite:

christianforums.com/threads/divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-orthodox-church.2875541/

And yet there are other sources which corroborate with the Quora source that the Catholic church utilizes annulments and other exception workarounds for potentially questionable marriages:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox_teaching_remarriage.cfm

(cont'd)

And there's a specific reason for the Orthodox Church's approach:

>christianforums.com/threads/divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-orthodox-church.2875541/

It seems to me that the Orthodox way is more compassionate and allows sinners the oppurtunity to repent and be reconciled with the Church body.

>orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

Read the article further for an elaboration on the concept of economia, but it boils down to this:

The poster you mentioned obviously meant "sex outside of marriage within the confines of marriage." You're just playing semantic games here.

It really boils down to this: The sad truth is that both of our churches don't strictly abide by the "Marriage for life" doctrine and utilize different ways to concede and be merciful to human weakness. The Catholic Church via annulment, the Orthodox Church via economia.

(cont'd)

Also, here's possibly a better and more elaborate article on the subject of economia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(religion)

Funny, I asked this exact question on QTDDTOT, and got no useful answers.

Attached: puff_puff_5_2_1.webm (640x360, 394.73K)

He says fornication not adultery if they were married then it would be adultery but its fornication so it indicates a invalid marriage and is grounds for a annulment, this is how Luke and Mark's Gospel that doesn't give a exception for divorce is reconciled with Matthew's.

what I really find interesting* is Ignatius' epistles…

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine VOLS. 1-2 by Jaroslav Pelikan looks good. Author was Lutheran that converted to Orthodoxy I think he wrote it before he became Orthodox.

here is a catechism is pretty basic compared to the Catholic one: pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm
a alternative catechism: orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx
Here is a (concise) dogmatics book: intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM
and another (basic) one: oodegr.com/english/biblia/Alevizopoulos_Dogmatiki/perieh.htm

If you want to go more indepth you would probably want to pick up a fully fledged multi-volume dogmatics manual I think the ones by Dumitru Staniloae and Hilarion Alfeyev are popular

The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky is supposedly very good and more indepth than the Orthodox Way and probably give a good overview aside from catechisms and dogmatics manuals

Since you're here, I just wanted to ask, what;s with the emphasis on spirituality and mysticism in orthodoxy? I feel as though they don't spend enough time really being biblical and so, for a lack of a better word, don't truly preach the gospel. You might say that all things point to Christ, the word of God. But how come you don't read the word of God?

Im not orthodox but catholic I just know all these sources, nor do i pretend too be one (im not a ortholarper i swear!)

Oh, ok. Why are you catholic instead of orthodox then?

for the seeming emphasis on mysticism in orthodoxy, im not sure a orthodox will have to explain I think its mostly a meme.

orthodoxinfo.com/general/lossky_intro.aspx