What led you to Catholicism?

[Carleendiane]

Thanks Matto. With us it all began with the rosary, which led to a general confession. Hubby says by the time he finished the poor NO priest was crying.

[Gardener]

UH - to make a long story longer... here's a more comprehensive answer to your questions.

Looking back, I think my struggles with faith began in childhood. As a child I was both extremely naive and also extremely interested in things. But I wanted truth, not half-baked ideas or lies. I did not compartmentalize things like an adult might. Keep in mind, I was not raised Catholic but in the Protestant milieu. My mother was raised Methodist and my father Baptist, having also been a Baptist preacher for many years, so depending on things we were either in a "Methodist" phase or a "Baptist" phase.

Obviously, there was not much consistency between the two aside from the fact that there is a God, Jesus existed on earth, and there is this book called the Bible. But the foci of the two groups is certainly different in the execution. The Methodists are traditionally more ceremonial (vestments, acolytes, etc.). Whereas Baptists focused mainly on the Sermon. How that's changed, I don't know.

I recall one Easter, perhaps I was 6 or 7 (I don't recall), catching my mom hiding eggs. Which led to asking why she was hiding them and not the Easter Bunny. Which led to finding out the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, nor Santa or the Tooth Fairy, etc. This, to me, was a betrayal of the highest order -- my trust. And it is the first time I recall questioning either the existence of God or if what adults said about Him was true. I recall also, in the Methodists, being disposed to belief in the Real Presence. There's not much wiggle room in the declaration, "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood". But of course Methodists don't believe in that at any institutional level. My mom still insists she believes that "Jesus said it and so it's true", but raises her hackles when I say Methodists have croutons and grape juice. We did have a communion rail, though.

I also recall desiring sacramentals and historicity. We had this catalog for Sears, and I recall seeing a Star of David pendant and wishing I could have one because it supposedly had so much history behind it. I wasn't so much interested in a simple cross, though I did like the crucifixes.

So as a child I had: a desire for truth, tangibility of that truth, and historical basis for that truth. Basically, stability which does not depend on me.

Moving into adolescence, I gave myself over to physical passions upon their discovery, which darkened my mind. Went to a "revival" at a Baptist church and "got saved" at 13. The preacher was very charismatic (in a classical sense) in his delivery of a fire and brimstone sermon. Convinced of hell and my impending place in it, I went forward. Got debriefed afterwards and went on my way. It was, as poet Bradley Hathaway called in his poem "Samuel", a "religious experience."



But like the cactus in Arizona, it was devoid of life-giving water without the thorns being braved. Something was in there, but it was still nebulous and unable to be attained in context. It required ungiven tools and fortitude against the pain of works, which were unable to be had.

Side note: His line about how God's love is a "...really big something, and I want to eat it!" smacked me in the face when I heard it post-conversion. He was seeking after the one thing which is such a sticking point for Protestants: The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Side note video:



Entering my later teens, I was very much into punk rock (especially "Christian" punk). Despite perhaps singing/screaming about God in lyrics, the punk spirit is definitely not compatible with right reason and sound thinking. It is, at its heart, rebellion against tradition and authority. Despite having the road signs saying, "this way to heaven", it does not lead there. It has nothing to give, and we cannot give what we don't have nor receive from others that which they do not possess. In short, it encourages internalization and rebellion, not raising the mind and heart to God. It's ultimately about self because it can only give itself.

The theme so far has not dealt with true pain and questioning, but building a foundation of self-seeking behaviors and rebellion.

By the end of high school, I went to church still but the proscriptions of certain behaviors as found in Scripture took on the character of "suggestions" rather than "commandments". I was saved, after all! What did it matter?

Entered the Army after disgust with my first semester of college (I had no direction, the professors seemed no different than the teachers I had in middle and high school, I didn't see the point). 9/11 had happened. We were in a war. Was going to join the Marines, but I had a full sleeve of tattoos by the time I graduated high school and the Marines wouldn't accept me. So off I went: I was joining the Army!



Sundays in OSUT for Cavalry Scouts (One Station Unit Training -- combined basic training and AIT[job] training, for combat arms) are the only "free" day, for a few hours. Being a syncretic environment, we had the choice of "Protestant" service (which is hilarious since 2 Protestants will have 3 opinions on *basic* teachings -- having no authority to establish what the teaching is), Catholic Mass, Jewish service (sorry Jews, no Sabbath for you in Uncle Sam's glorious military). I went to the Protestant service once and only once in my entire time in OSUT. I only went once because instead of hearing about God, we got treated to an hour long sermon from the Chaplain (a Major) about how we're all a bunch of wusses and he isn't gonna help us get out of the Army so don't even ask. Well, I had just been screamed at for 16 hours a day for almost a week, about how myself and everyone else there were idiots (the breaking down phase), so I wasn't about to put up with it from some asshat officer/chaplain.

That left the choice of Catholic Mass or Jewish service. I wasn't about to go to Mass. Everyone knows they're not Christians. It's a bunch of idolatry and hocus pocus. No way, no how. Not catching me in Mass! They don't even read the Bible!

One of the guys in my platoon was a conservative Jew, and I asked him what the Jewish service was like. "The Rabbi comes and we all read from Torah and he gives a talk on what we read and then we have soda and chips." Soda and chips you say? "Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha`olam..."! Sign. Me. Up.

So that's what I did for 4 months: went to Sunday "Sabbath" services.

I was still seeking after the Jesus who conformed to me, though. Not me to Him.

Once I got out of OSUT, and assigned to Fort Stewart, I no longer had any structure outside of work hours. I was like a kid in a candy store. It's hard to go to church with a hangover. Hard to face conviction when you want to keep committing your moral crimes.



Combat deployment:

Within the first few weeks, PFC Brangman was killed by a mortar round. He was not in my platoon, but when he first got to our unit he stayed in a barracks room with me for a few weeks. He was a good guy. Instantly blown into pieces. Now I wasn't just forgetful of God, I was angry and confused. Why Brangman? He was his mother's only child. He was all she had of anyone as far as I knew.

We started getting into pretty heavy altercations at times. This was the Sunni Triangle in 2005, after all. It was a rough area and time. One incident made international news. Nothing quite prepares a person to have someone attempt to kill them when innocent civilians are around. Want to try killing me? Fine. But please let the 5 year old girl move away before blowing up a bomb next to me. Any liberal who wants to say that Islam isn't utterly demonic has never seen them in action. To be exposed to such evil was... angering, confusing, and combined with a self-seeking heart, threw me into full on Agnosticism and indifference towards God. The only time I turned to him was to accuse and blaspheme. Losing 4 guys from my platoon in August 2005 broke me. I went from caring to just being numb.

I turned to poetry, literature, music, and history for truth and comfort. Particularly of the melancholic variety.





So now I was self-seeking and angry. Anger is a toxic catalyst to seeking self, and hardens a heart like no other.

We got back from the deployment and I found out I was on orders for recruiting duty. I'd screwed up by never screwing up. I met the bullet points for a "model Soldier", and the one sliver of stability I had, my brothers in arms, was now severed by the Army. Off to Southern California I went, via a quick stop at Fort Jackson, SC for Recruiter School. Recruiting duty was the absolutely worst thing I went through on a daily basis in the Army. I had 1 worse *moment*, but as far as day in and out, recruiting was awful. I went from a Soldier seeking to do well in the Army to not giving a crap at all. It got to the point I would "go out" to "look for candidates", and instead just went to my apartment and would drink. I simply did not care.

Started contemplating suicide on an almost daily basis. I needed help in a bad way. The things we saw, experienced, did, and didn't do on my first deployment ate at me like a cancer. I was going through hardcore PTSD symptoms. The only way to sleep was to get hammered. Disassociative episodes. Paranoia. Unable to not just randomly break down in tears. The area I was assigned to was near the hometown of one of the guys we lost in August. He had gone to the community college where we would go to recruit. I'd go there, not to recruit, but to hope I'd see him. Maybe it was all a bad dream, some government trick, and he'd be there going to a class.

It also didn't help that I was assigned to the so-called Inland Empire in SoCal. Geographically, when away from the city, it was a dead ringer for the area I had been in, in Iraq. I'd be driving along in the desert of SoCal and I wasn't in the desert of SoCal. I was in Iraq. Until I wasn't. And I'd have to pull over and I'd just utterly lose it. To not know where one is in reality, because you are two places at once, is awful.

I still wasn't thinking of God but to curse, blaspheme, accuse, and question.

I was so worn out from the emotional, mental, and spiritual toll of not only my experiences in combat, but also recruiting duty. Selling the Army experience in SoCal during a war is not easy. It's Marine Corps territory for one. Two, the crime and drugs makes finding qualified candidates a pain. Three, I had no business being around civilians because I needed to be around the guys who knew what we'd experienced together.

This cycle continued through getting off recruiting duty, coming to Colorado where I was assigned to Fort Carson, my 2nd deployment. During the 2nd deployment, I had an experience that put death, my own possible one, before my eyes in a way which snapped me out of the haze for a few moments. It was there that I made my deal with God: get me out of this alive and 'I'll do whatever you tell me."

The healing process began by recognition of a true problem, but it took years. It's not over.

Once I got out of the Army, I was able to really start healing. No longer was the threat of more combat a reality. It took several years. I continued seeking self, but slowly, over time, I focused once again on God. But I was back to square one as in my youth. Where to go? I wanted truth, tangibility, and historicity. The conference center "Church" experience wasn't it. I grew up playing in bands, and did not like the sappy soft rock crap. I knew that much. If you give me a welcome package of a coffee mug and candy when I walk in, screw you. I didn't want self-help guru crap. I wanted JESUS. I wanted the Church. I still would not consider Catholicism. It's a bunch of BS made up by Constantine, don'tcha know?

I was searching though. Went from being hammered every night and waking up after noon to getting up at 6AM and reading the Bible. Was researching Scripture and found out the NIV I had was the fabrication of some committee. Called my dad and asked him to send me a King James version. I was devouring it. Was praying a lot for God to show me His Church. The one I was reading about in the New Testament. The typological markers in the Old Testament. I was like a child who could not find the words, but I knew I would know it when I saw it. I knew they wouldn't offer me a welcome package when I walked in the door. No gimmicks, just truth. Authority to proclaim it. History to validate it. Matthias was replacing Judas...



I saw the infamous video by Ann Barnhardt where she burned the koran, as it was going around the shooting/conservative forums. Thought, "Wow, this woman has some guts and she's so right about so much. Too bad she's a Catholic and gonna burn in hell though!"

But, I did start reading her blog. I'd go for the politics and skip over the hocus pocus.

Then one day I was reading it and she had a post on marriage. What the Church teaches about it. Now I'd been reading and studying marriage in Scripture. But I knew that Jesus plainly taught NO DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE. It's right there in Matthew 19. Plain, King James English, just like Jesus spoke ( ). But every church I knew of allowed divorce and remarriage. Remember, I was anti-Catholic.

So I'm reading this blog post by her and find that I'm reading the exact teaching of Scripture, with explanation which lined up with that teaching, and it was the position of the Catholic Church. Pardon my language, but I literally said out loud, "Oh, shit."

So I started reading what the Church said on Baptism, as I'd read that in Scripture and couldn't find a Church which made sense of it in line with Scripture. The Catholic Church was teaching what I'd read in the Bible. Son of a...

OK, well, what about the hierarchical roles I saw permeating the OT and NT, typologically in the OT and perfected in the NT? The Catholic Church and Orthodox were really the only ones I could find, but the Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage. That... um... I think that means the Catholic Church is the only one who doesn't contradict itself between two Sacraments. Oh dear...

On and on it went until one day, I could no longer deny that out of all options, the Catholic Church is the only one which makes total sense. I came to the conclusion that either Christianity is utterly false, or it is found in its entirety in the Catholic Church. "I will do whatever you tell me."

Not that I had a mystical experience per se, but in the moment I realized it, the dialogue of prayer went something like this:

"This is it, isn't it God?"
"Yes"
"I have to become a Catholic, don't I?"
"Yes"
"I've trusted you to lead me to your Church. I will do whatever you tell me."


And so I did.

And it was within the bosom of the Church that I was able to come to a place of forgiveness: of myself, of the people I'd been hurt by, of the jihadists we fought. That doesn't mean pain isn't there -- this world is a valley of tears, after all. That doesn't mean that higher theological truths don't cause consternation at times. That doesn't mean that all is happy, clappy, and sappy -- that's for the vaselined smiles of folks like Joel Osteen, a snake oil salesman if there ever was one.

It was in the Church I was able to make sense of things, questions, and pains which had plagued me since childhood.

"I will do whatever you tell me."

[Carleendiane]

Gardener, your story is very, very close to my husbands, though he joined the Marines and is Vietnam Veteran. My husband is 11 years older than me. It took years for me to truly understand his ordeal and his PTSD. His world and mine were so wildly different. The 60's vs. 70's. But, in time, by God's grace, I understood. As well as I am able. Thank you.

I apologize if this seems as diminishing your poignant testimony. Not at all. It's just so familiar to me. Each man's experience of war is NOT like anothers, but some elements are consistant. Trauma, betrayals, loss, anger, confusion, fear, paranoia, all have a place in the veteran's memory, creating a type of post war personality, if you will. Maybe I've said this all wrong, so forgive me. I have the greatest respect for the veterans of combat.

[Ultimate Hypocrite]

I was raised in the Novus Ordo but I never learned much about the Faith in my childhood. When I became an adult I stopped going to Church and led a life of sin. During this time I was not an atheist but I was agnostic. Then when I was in my late twenties I became a traditional Catholic and I have been since. Things that led me to traditional Catholicism. I tried to learn Latin and in doing so I was introduced to Catholic writings and prayers in Latin. I read some Chesterton. I was a conservative libertarian and there are a number of libertarians who are traditional Catholics and I was influenced by some of their writings about the Faith. I remember reading an article that expressed happiness over "Summorum Pontificum" and that introduced me to the Latin Mass. And I also found some traditional Catholic websites on the internet and read them and in reading them I thought that traditional Catholicism was true. Then I started praying the Rosary and soon after I felt a great remorse for my sins and wanted to go to Church and go to confession. So I found the local Latin Masses and went to the SSPX chapel. Those were some of the things that led me to Catholicism.

If I may ask, during the times when you were an agnostic, what was troubling you the most about Catholicism? And did you ever attempt to view other faiths or religious traditions?

[Ultimate Hypocrite]

Thanks Matto. With us it all began with the rosary, which led to a general confession. Hubby says by the time he finished the poor NO priest was crying.

To be honest, even though I'm not Catholic, (still considering) I have actually prayed the rosary a couple of times. It really has been one of the only prayers where I have actually sensed something more "deep". If that makes any sense. Not saying its something supernatural, but definitely something special about it. I don't pray it often, but most of the time I've had good experiences with it and have felt that if there is a God, then he might just be reacting to my prayers in some way.

[Ultimate Hypocrite]

I stopped going to Mass after confirmation, because I just wasn't convicted about The Faith.  I only got confirmed, because Mom wanted me to.  Then, I walked the path to hell for the next 4-5 years.  I hit rock bottom, met my now husband, who pretty much pulled me out of the gutter.  I literally shudder to think where I would be if he had not come into my life, and invited me back to church.  I don't allow myself to think about it too much, because it's really depressing.  I remeber, clear as a bell, that first confession after finding my conviction in The Faith again.  It was during Advent.  I was engaged to my husband, and determined to be better.  It was the most emotional confession I've had so far.  I could barely get through it.  My penance was to simply kneel at the foot of the cross, gaze upon Christ, and thank Him for all He has done for me.  It was both merciful and incredibly humbling, all at the same time.  It felt wonderful.  I will forever remember the compassion that priest showed me that day.  I don't even know his name.  I hope God gives Him special graces for it.  Anyways, it's been a long, slow journey since.  I definitely didn't have a St. Paul conversion, and I still keep falling over and over.  But, I refuse to never get back up.  There were so many times, looking back now, that I easily could've died and landed in eternal punishment.  A couple moments, in particular, I am positive that my Guardian Angel saved me by the skin of his teeth.  He has fought so hard for my soul.  I am really giving him a run for his money.   If angels could be exhausted, mine would've been there long ago.  I'm also quite sure St. Anthony had a lot to do with my conversion, as well.  I don't know why....I just have this feeling.  He is a very special friend of mine.

Thank you for sharing. The lives of the saints can be pretty touching.

[Ultimate Hypocrite]

Gardener,

     Thank you for sharing that amazing story. I had a few touching moments reading it. Especially repeating over in my head "I'll do whatever you tell me". That for some reason stuck out to me and does some what make me want to surrender it all to God. To follow his lead and be guided by his loving hands. Sorry to make you type so much by the way. I don't have much to offer for a response but REALLY do appreciate you taking lots of time from your day to get back to me. Pray for me, if you can.

[Ultimate Hypocrite]

By the way, I do agree with a lot of the teachings of the Catholic Church (Although admittingly, I don't always practice what I preach). Such as no contraception, no sex before marriage, no same-sex marriage, etc. Especially being someone who has struggled with homosexuality most of my life. Over the time though, I feel like I have been less and less attracted to those of the same sex. I use to watch a lot of pornography and think that may have intensified the attraction in some way. Very perverted and sickening now that I look back at it. But it seems weird because now I get this very strong feeling towards women and use to think that would never be possible a couple of years back.

[Matto]

If I may ask, during the times when you were an agnostic, what was troubling you the most about Catholicism? And did you ever attempt to view other faiths or religious traditions?

The reasons I left when I was agnostic were because I was never really taught the religion and because I thought the modern Mass was ugly and boring and a waste of time. I didn't even know what we were supposed to believe or what the point of being a Catholic was. The names of saints were just places where I played CYO basketball games and nothing more to me. I read some books by people of other religions and I read the Koran, but I never converted to any of those religions or went to a non-Catholic religious service (except for one time I went to the Jewish wedding of a friend's sister). I remember when I thought about life and death and the afterlife I had ever-changing new age ideas that were just guesses and not beliefs. I liked listening to Coast to Coast radio.

[ialsop]

I was born into the Church as a baby. I rejected it later due to all the tragedy and hypocrisy within my Catholic bubble, and started reading LaVey, Nietzsche, Rand, Darwin, and Hitler. I always shifted between agnosticism and deism, though mostly towards deism. Yet, I questioned God's goodness, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, justice, one-ness, personhood, and more. I explored every pagan or occultic idea, and every philosophical butchery of God out there. My friend who also left the faith with me would sit with me, and we would come up with wacky theories to explain who the Designer was. And, at times, question if there even was one.

I came back to the Faith by picking up Aristotle, and then accidentally encountering Aquinas online. This lead to proofs about all the qualities of the Christian God which I had questioned. I am a strong Theist once again, and an Aristotilean Thomist. Now I am in the process of examining the evidence of revelation, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and all that. But I know enough about that already to be willing to put faith in it now...

Sorry, I wrote a more detailed account that was much longer, and my computer deleted it all before I could post it. Feel free to ask questions or PM me, I would love to talk more about these things!!! I'm just to exhausted to re-write out everything I had just written again.
-Isaac

[Serviam]

Weeping in the night, in silence, pondering if all the while I was a staunch atheist a loving God was waiting for me with outstretched arms, waiting for me to make a step towards Him.

Very much so were my first steps towards embracing Catholicism, tears in the night.

[Sophia3]

Here's a speech I gave to a college public speaking class. It has some references to the speech series we did, so certain things may not make sense as they reference others' speech topics, previous speeches I did, etc.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMW5phYUWUE[/yt]

!!! Wow, that was so good! I only wish I could speak like that! And the things you mentioned! You did a great job of going right to the edge without going too far. I wish more people had the guts/passion to do this. Very impressed

[Livenotonevil]

OK, well, what about the hierarchical roles I saw permeating the OT and NT, typologically in the OT and perfected in the NT? The Catholic Church and Orthodox were really the only ones I could find, but the Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage. That... um... I think that means the Catholic Church is the only one who doesn't contradict itself between two Sacraments. Oh dear...

Synod of Laodicea, Canon 1 (4th Century):
"It is right, according to the ecclesiastical Canon, that the Communion should by indulgence be given to those who have freely and lawfully joined in second marriages, not having previously made a secret marriage; after a short space, which is to be spent by them in prayer and fasting."

Also,
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

I would point out that the Orthodox Church only allows divorce up to three times IF AND ONLY IF there is a morally legitimate reason to do so, while the Roman Catholic Church allows divorce - excuse me, annulments - up to infinite times, and let me tell you something - almost every single annulment is granted.

More sin is done by the Roman Catholic Church, especially post-Vatican II, when it comes to granting divorce.

http://saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce

I think it's flawed to anticipate your own conclusion via Sola Scriptura, which is what the Protestants do (although even then I think you are wrong - because Christ never permitted divorce EXCEPT FOR ADULTERY - so He did permit divorce under these circumstances, which is what the Church - pre-schism and post-schism - did).

Let me give you an example (although I personally think that this is legitimate):
"I can without a doubt prove that the Council of Trent is wrong about the necessity of only receiving one form of the Eucharist - one must receive both forms.
Why do you think Christ ONLY about the BLOOD said "Drink of this, ALL OF YOU," and He didn't say this about the Body - because Christ knew that in 1000 years time some disobedient Latin priests would come around and forbid the laypeople from receiving the Blood."

Other than that, pretty interesting story.

(P.S.; I'm glad that Saint Isaac the Syrian's prayer of Salve Regina has gotten so much love in the Roman Catholic Church 
It's a pretty rendition).

[Livenotonevil]

If I may ask, during the times when you were an agnostic, what was troubling you the most about Catholicism? And did you ever attempt to view other faiths or religious traditions?

The reasons I left when I was agnostic were because I was never really taught the religion and because I thought the modern Mass was ugly and boring and a waste of time. I didn't even know what we were supposed to believe or what the point of being a Catholic was. The names of saints were just places where I played CYO basketball games and nothing more to me. I read some books by people of other religions and I read the Koran, but I never converted to any of those religions or went to a non-Catholic religious service (except for one time I went to the Jewish wedding of a friend's sister). I remember when I thought about life and death and the afterlife I had ever-changing new age ideas that were just guesses and not beliefs. I liked listening to Coast to Coast radio.

This sounds rather familiar to me. In fact, the banal liturgy and watered-down catechesis turned me into a relativistic deist for a while, until I went to the Orthodox Church - and then I went through a phase of Traditional Catholicism, and now I'm back to Orthodoxy. I had 12 years of Roman Catholic education and it wasn't until I was a freshman in high-school that I learned that Catholics have some belief in the real-presence of the Eucharist - and I didn't learn about this in Roman Catholic education, I learned about this by learning about LCMS Lutheranism. And I believed in heterodox theology regarding such a belief (believing that it was only "spiritually" "Christ's flesh", and not at all literal) up until a few years ago, where I learned it more clearly on my own. I was usually just committing sacrilege on a Mass-to-Mass basis by communing in a state of "Mortal Sin."

Aside from Saint Patrick (whom I learned about via an Irish history class, in terms of his actual life and not just his legends), Thomas More (from the same Irish history class), and some of the Apostles and the Virgin Mary, and Saint Lawrence (whom I knew about because my theology teacher jokingly said he's the patron Saint of barbecues - which, although offensive, I think that Saint Lawrence would like such a joke), I didn't know ANY saints or their lives / what they did. It wouldn't be until I started comparing Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism where I really would learn about the lives of the Roman saints.

Speaking of Coast to Coast, I warn all of you that I think Malachi Martin can be a guide at points in terms of leading you down an infinite black tube of spiritual darkness (the never-ending search for answers that you will never find about some prophecy or other).

[Gardener]

In order:

In order to understand the Laodicean proclamation, once needs to read it specifically as it states itself. It's not talking of bigamists (i.e., those with a spouse still alive), but about digamists (those who have freely and lawfully married a 2nd time, such as in the case of a widow(er)). We know this because of the 8th Canon of the Council of Nicea (325), where it was addressing Cathari (who were not the Cathars of the 11/12th centuries), and who are written about by St. John of Damascus. They did not admit the ability to be married any more than 1 time in one's life, amongst other things.

Canon 8

Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

One should also look at Canons 3 and 7 of Neo Caesarea, which makes clear that while 2nd marriages are permitted (read: true marriages), they are to be frowned upon, as this goes back to St. Paul's writings.

Canon 3

Concerning those who fall into many marriages, the appointed time of penance is well known; but their manner of living and faith shortens the time.
...

Canon 7

A presbyter shall not be a guest at the nuptials of persons contracting a second marriage; for, since the digamist is worthy of penance, what kind of a presbyter shall he be, who, by being present at the feast, sanctioned the marriage?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3803.htm

And at the Council of Ancyra, Canon 19:

Canon 19

If any persons who profess virginity shall disregard their profession, let them fulfil the term of digamists. And, moreover, we prohibit women who are virgins from living with men as sisters.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3802.htm



You can read about it more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Catholic_Church#Remarriage_of_widows_and_widowers

Tertullian is quoted at length.



Laodicea is not simply addressing 2nd or 3rd marriages in the sense of a phenomenological sense (appearance), but ontological (being). 
----
re: multiple marriages when the other spouse is alive

Translation:

"The Orthodox are better because we engage in approving the violation of the 6th commandment openly, though only up to 3 times."

Snort. "Well, golly Gunny, sign me up!" - Gomer Pyle

St. Thomas covers this stupidity by quoting Augustine:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5062.htm#article5

Also, Divorce as expressed is not a complete separation as if the two parties are not married, but rather a separation of body (cutting off from the marital act) and support. Christ never authorizes Divorce and Remarriage as understood by the Orthodox, Protestants, and Modern Society. He expressly forbids it.

Ver. 32. Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matthew xix. 9. (Witham) --- The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. (St. Augustine, de bon. conjug. chap. vii.) (Bristow)

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id19.html

Ver. 9. And I say to you. It is worthy of remark, that in the parallel texts, St. Mark x. 2. and St. Luke xvi. 18. and St. Paul to Corinthians vii. 10. omit the exception of fornication; and also that St. Matthew himself omits it in the second part of the verse; and says absolutely, that he who shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. It perhaps crept in here from chap. v. 32, where it is found in a phrase very similar to this, but which expresses a case widely different. Divorce is in no case admitted but in that of adultery. This is what Christ teaches in chap. v. 32, and to this the exception is referred, marked in the two texts. But in this very case the separated parties cannot contract a second marriage without again committing adultery, as we must infer, from a comparison of this text with the parallel texts of St. Mark and St. Luke. (Bible de Vence) --- If we did not understand it in this manner, the case of the adulteress would be preferable to the case of her who should be put away without any crime of her own; as in this supposition, the former would be allowed to marry again, which the latter would not be allowed. (Tirinus) --- St. Augustine is very explicit on this subject. See lib. 11. de adult conjug. chap. xxi. xxii. xxiv. --- St. Jerome, in his high commendation of the noble matron, Fabiola, says of her: "that though she was the innocent party, for the unlawful act of marrying again, she did public penance." (In Epitaph. Fabiolæ.) --- This universally received doctrine of the Catholic Church was confirmed in the general council of Trent. (Session xxiv. canon 6.)

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id37.html

The Greek word porneia (unlawful sexual intercourse) is not the same as
the word for adultery (moicheia), so while one may understand this in a liberal sense of fornication, etc., allowing divorce (but not remarriage), it is also understandable in a highly strict sense of divorce (phenomenological) in the case of having never been married in the first place due to something like concubinage. Adultery, moicheia, is simply not used in the passage.

Further, you make argument against the understanding of marriage in the sense of validity/invalidity as a means to allow two people who appear to be married to separate on the grounds of never having been married and thus attempt marriage in the future. You contend this can go on ad infinitum, which is a reductio ad absurdum. However, you admit the principle of marriage or non-marriage, which is more in line w/ Scripture and Tradition, and contend to come to blows with the argument by admitting that which is against Scripture and Tradition -- namely, the Orthodox position on Divorce and Remarriage.

You provide a source which is patently absurd and flies in the face of the words of Christ.

Is prison for more than 7 years fornication?
Is addiction fornication?
Is murderous conspiracy fornication?
etc.

And even in the case of adultery, which is not fornication. Is Adultery Fornication? The answer to all those is a resounding no.

Further, your source allows an understanding of validity/invalidity on the basis of force/blackmail (a kind of force), and false reasons (touches on intent). Those are also found as valid reasons to show a person was never actually married (ontological) despite appearing as such (phenomenological).

Here's another source:
http://stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/divorce/divorce-in-the-orthodox-church

It essentially states that actual adultery is permitted as it holds the indissolubility of marriage, yet allows remarriage. Absurd.

And why 3 marriages?(https://oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage1) Why not 2? Why not 16? Who draws the line and why? 3rd time's a charm? The first they were married in the eyes of the Father, 2nd in the eyes of the Son, and 3rd in the eyes of the Holy Ghost? I'm genuinely curious as to what Trinity-related heresy might be available to the divorcee to play the mommy/daddy game with that which is indissoluble in the eyes of God, dilacerating that bond of mystery between the Persons of God and the Essence of God.