Engaging with the Eastern Orthodox liturgy

[LausTibiChriste]

<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons?

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed. Abusit non tollit usum.

As I've previously posted, your posts appear to me to be looking for a justification to become Orthodox. As I previously mentioned, be a catechumen for a year and see if that gets you anywhere.

They do not officially legitimize divorce. It is tolerated in some circumstances (VERY rare), by SOME jurisdictions, as a last resort. You have to jump through more hoops to get divorced than to get annulled in the Catholic Church. I would happily bet $20 that at an institutional level the Catholic Church ends more marriages than the Orthodox do percentage wise.

You have to keep in mind, right or wrong, that it comes down to their sacramental theology too. Generally, in Eastern theology, the Church marries the couple, so the Church, in their eyes, has the authority to undo what it has done up, as it were.

I'm not saying it's right.

Which brings me to my next point which I have constantly said

There is no nuance or true introspection/humility, whatever you want to call it when we deal with each other (Catholics & Orthodox)

Catholics: They allow divorce
Orthodox: They allow gay marriage

And on and on it goes. A millennium of antagonistic tropes that, at this point, can only be overcome by God's intervention.

[LausTibiChriste]

L.T.B.
If a person dances around the edge of a cliff long enough, they will eventually fall off.
Advice from a friend.

What's your point?

[EastWest7]

<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons?

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed. Abusit non tollit usum.

As I've previously posted, your posts appear to me to be looking for a justification to become Orthodox. As I previously mentioned, be a catechumen for a year and see if that gets you anywhere.

They do not officially legitimize divorce. It is tolerated by some under circumstances, by SOME jurisdictions, as a last resort. You have to jump through more hoops to get divorced than to get married. I would happily bet $20 that at an institutional level the Catholic Church ends more marriages than the Orthodox do percentage wise.

You have to keep in mind, right or wrong, that it comes down to their sacramental theology too. Generally, in Eastern theology, the Church marries the couple, so the Church, in their eyes, has the authority to undo what it has done up, as it were.

I'm not saying it's right.

Which brings me to my next point which I have constantly said (though not on this forum):

There is no nuance or true introspection/humility, whatever you want to call it when we deal with each other (Catholics & Orthodox)

Catholics: They allow divorce
Orthodox: They allow gay marriage

And on and on it goes. A millennium of antagonistic tropes that, at this point, can only be overcome by God's intervention.

Yes, in the Orthodox marriage, the couple do not marry each other, the Church marries them. My wife and I were married in the Orthodox Church (I did not want to excommunicate myself from it at the time). A priest from her (novus ordo) RC parish gave us his blessing, as per local diocesan protocol.   

Not that I spent much time on it, but I can clearly remember at seminary, whenever the subject came up, professors indicated that the services for both second and third marriages are of a definite "penitential nature." And there was no joy expressed about it. Not considered a good thing. The attitude apparently was that it was the Orthodox Church's attempt to provide mercy for fallen human nature.

I also don't support it.   

[Bonaventure]

L.T.B.
If a person dances around the edge of a cliff long enough, they will eventually fall off.
Advice from a friend.

What's your point?

I would say he was noticing Kasper-like ecumenism in the thread.

[Michael Wilson]

True Charity is to speak the truth, especially the truth that God has revealed; He revealed that marriages are indisoluble; but the Orthodox's erroneous position on sacramental theology, allows them to grant divorce at least three times. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Marriage

Divorce

Orthodoxy regards the marriage bond as indissoluble, and it condemns the breakdown of marriage as a sin and an evil. The Orthodox Church does permit remarriage after divorce in some cases, as an exception, a necessary concession to human sin. While condemning sin, the Church desires to help the sinners and to allow them another chance, with an act of economy. When a marriage has ceased to be a reality, the Orthodox Church faces the reality with philanthropia (loving kindness).
Second and third marriage

The Orthodox Church teaches that a second union "is tolerated only by condescension to human weakness (1 Corinthians 7:9). It may also be recognized as a second chance, given to a man or a woman, to enter into a real marriage in Christ when a first union was a mistake (for even Church blessing cannot always magically repair a human mistake!)."[3] In the service for a second marriage, some of the joyful ceremonies are omitted and replaced by penitential prayers, although the penitential prayers might be omitted if it is a first marriage for one of the spouses.[4]

The Church can also "allow a third marriage, but formally forbids a fourth."[5]

Valid marriages do not "cease to be a reality"; as Our Lord and St. Paul teach explicitly.
Next from the website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada we read the following statement on the purpose of Holy Matrimony:https://www.uocc.ca/articles/an-orthodox-christian-perspective-on-the-mystery-of-marriage/

Purposes of Christian Marriage

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to attain holiness. Ultimately, the spouses grow together in Christ, to realize their God-likeness [cf., Gen 1:27] and to actualize their salvation. The couple is called to continuously create and recreate a communion of mutual love, trust, personal fulfilment, and self-sacrifice. This is achieved by the couple inviting the active presence of God into their relationship. The Holy Spirit of God leads husband and wife to sanctification and glorification of God through, and with, their relationship.

Also, in the service of matrimony, one can identify numerous other secondary purposes for marriage: mutual assistance, interpersonal faithfulness, procreation and nurturing children, the realization of each spouse's sexuality, etc. In short, the purpose of marriage includes the entirety of human existence and experience. All that each spouse is, and experiences individually and together, may be lifted up to God and may become a means of realizing salvation.

The primary purpose of Holy Matrimony is the procreation and education of the children; the secondary purposes are subject to the primary. The above definition is why a valid marriage can be annulled in Orthodoxy and in the N.O.M. Because once there is no longer this "community of love and sanctification" then the primary (Orthodox) purpose of matrimony has ceased and the marriage can be dissolved.

Divorce

According to Orthodox teaching a marriage can be dissolved only through the "death" of one of the spouses. This death is understood either as physical death or the moral/religious death involved in denying the spiritual significance or moral foundation of the marital communion (e.g., adultery, chronic abuse, apostasy).

While marriage is to be used to realize heaven on earth, the Church understands that it also might be corrupted into an instrument of exploitation, oppression, destruction, even death. Thus, the harsh and disruptive nature of sin reaches even into this most hallowed of human relationships. In this case, when the relationship is not germane to the personal spiritual, emotional, or physical well-being of the spouses, the Church will recognize the civil divorce of the couple.

Always, though, divorce is viewed as "radical surgery" — an invasive and disruptive force, which contradicts the mystical: character of the marital union. For this reason, after a divorce the Church encourages a time of emotional and spiritual therapy: counsel and repentance, which allows a person to work through the grief of a lost relationship.

The main purpose of divorce is to overcome all that which is destructive in the relationship and to allow each spouse to travel the path of sanctification. Remarriage, as mentioned above, is not generally counselled. However, remarriage is allowed as a means of overcoming loneliness, alienation, abandonment, and difficulty in maintaining celibacy. Thus, the Church shows Her deep concern for the person, giving him/her another opportunity to enter into the mystery of love, holiness, and personhood in marital communion.

For the sake of order and internal integrity, though, the Church allows only two subsequent remarriages should a first (and possibly a second) marriage end. Moreover, the second and third marriage service takes on a more penitential character.

[LausTibiChriste]

L.T.B.
If a person dances around the edge of a cliff long enough, they will eventually fall off.
Advice from a friend.

What's your point?

I would say he was noticing Kasper-like ecumenism in the thread.

There is no Kasper like anything in here, and throwing around insults like that only serves to prove the point of some

[Bonaventure]

<<... ways to resist and neutralize the capacity of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate to... theologically legitimize criminal behavior. ...>>
Considering that the Primus Inter Pares called the Moscow patriarchate a "pseudo-religion legitimizing criminal behavior," I decided against getting involved in that Church.

Are you OK with getting involved in a Church which  currently legitimizes divorce and remarriage by a policy of easily granting  marriage annulments for flimsy reasons?

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed. Abusit non tollit usum.

As I've previously posted, your posts appear to me to be looking for a justification to become Orthodox. As I previously mentioned, be a catechumen for a year and see if that gets you anywhere.

They do not officially legitimize divorce. It is tolerated in some circumstances (VERY rare), by SOME jurisdictions, as a last resort. You have to jump through more hoops to get divorced than to get annulled in the Catholic Church. I would happily bet $20 that at an institutional level the Catholic Church ends more marriages than the Orthodox do percentage wise.

You have to keep in mind, right or wrong, that it comes down to their sacramental theology too. Generally, in Eastern theology, the Church marries the couple, so the Church, in their eyes, has the authority to undo what it has done up, as it were.

I'm not saying it's right.

Which brings me to my next point which I have constantly said

There is no nuance or true introspection/humility, whatever you want to call it when we deal with each other (Catholics & Orthodox)

Catholics: They allow divorce
Orthodox: They allow gay marriage

And on and on it goes. A millennium of antagonistic tropes that, at this point, can only be overcome by God's intervention.

Toleration as a last resort is different from something being forbidden.

I won't deny that the Conciliar Church has made a complete mockery of marriage with how they hand out annulments like Tootsie Rolls at planet fitness.

The entire conciliar church, especially under Bergoglio, is a huge fuckin joke.

What I am opposed to is what seems to be a creeping indifferentism. There are good hearted, sincere Novus Ordites, Trads Protestants, Orthos, etc. who likely pray and fast more than any of us here

However, knowing what the true Church and the true Faith is matters. Either the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the role of the papacy is true, or it is not.

If it is true, then some form of traditionalism must be true, because Novus Ordo-ism isn't.

Either:

1. The Bishop Schneider/FSSP/diocesan V2 in light of tradition camp is right.
2. R&R
3. SV

One of those have to be right, for Catholicism to be true. 

If Catholicism is not true, then I have a motivation to find what the true Faith and the true Church is. I've opined that the "branch theorists," which are most EOs, serious High Church Anglicans, and Old Catholics hold.

5 minutes away from my house, a Ukrainian Rite former Abbot of an Eastern Monastery says a Divine Liturgy. Even sedes would accept him as valid as he was ordained in the Eastern Rite. This man has served as a confessor and director for me recently. My cousin and best man at my wedding, when I chose him to be my best man, was ROCOR. He has since become a trad Catholic. So trust me, I love and respect the East, especially Russian flavor of it. I've been to Russia. I actually had the privilege to sing a Divine Liturgy and it was a beautiful experience. Gospodiy Pomiluj. Tye bye, Gospodi. Etc.

So I have a tremendous amount of Respect for the East, and those easterners not formally members of the Catholic Church. That is why I posted that earlier video of Coulombe, as I think it presents an interesting thesis.

There is an absolutely beautiful ROCOR cathedral 20 minutes away from me. Being ROCOR would make it easier for my family and I, in a sense. I wouldn't need to have to tell my son that Bergoglio and his predecessors since 1958 have all either been antipope usurpers or heretics somehow possessing the See, and that 99.9999 of the bullshit we see in "Catholic churches" worldwide are confused people who aren't really Catholic. See:

https://www.sfsobor.com/

If Catholicism is false and Orthodoxy is true, I should get my ass down there asap, and become a catechumen. I would be obliged before almighty God to actually do so.

That's why I don't buy into the "charity," dialogue, etc.

Hope that explains my take.

[LausTibiChriste]

Toleration as a last resort is different from something being forbidden.

And I'm not disagreeing with you on that point at all. Just pointing out the nuance.

I do not think Orthodoxy is the true path - it possibly couldn't be as small individual sects who hate each other... to say nothing of all the other issues.

Rome or death. (Though these days as we know, what it means to say "Rome" is not even certain).

But in the same vein, Latins, in particular Trads, have a very biased, often incorrect, understanding of EOs. Getting passed that and understanding what they actually think/teach is the first step in getting them to see the truth of Catholicism. That's my whole point.


At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that Novus Ordoism, in any form, is bullshit.

[Bonaventure]

But in the same vein, Latins, in particular Trads, have a very biased, often incorrect, understanding of EOs. Getting passed that and understanding what they actually think/teach is the first step in getting them to see the truth of Catholicism. That's my whole point.

It's the same, I'd say, that "full communion" types have of SSPXers, and non sedes have of most sedes.

It is part of a coping mechanism to create a boogeyman. Instead of focusing on what makes Catholicism true, it is easier (especially since 1958) to say "this is what makes X false."

The real boogeyman is Bergoglio and the Conciliar Authorities. Promoting their Bastard Faith, bastard rites, faggotry, etc.

[AlNg]

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed.

There is a difference. In one Church, divorce is a sin. In another Church getting an easy annulment for flimsy reasons is not a sin AFAIK. And in order to get your annulment, you have to get a civil divorce first. And AFAIK even the SSPX will not disturb couples who are remarried after receiving an annulment in the conciliar Church (unless they ask for a review of their situation). So if that is so, then in SSPX you can receive Holy Communion in that situation (provided you do not ask SSPX for an inquiry of sorts). 
What if one Church has valid Sacraments but the validity of the Sacraments of the other Church have been called into question and are considered dubious by some Sedevacantists?
Where does one go to find the indefectible one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which has the mark of unity and oneness of belief?

[Bonaventure]

No more than I am with a church that officially legitimizes divorce. No annulment needed.

There is a difference. In one Church, divorce is a sin. In another Church getting an easy annulment for flimsy reasons is not a sin AFAIK. And in order to get your annulment, you have to get a civil divorce first. And AFAIK even the SSPX will not disturb couples who are remarried after receiving an annulment in the conciliar Church (unless they ask for a review of their situation). So if that is so, then in SSPX you can receive Holy Communion in that situation (provided you do not ask SSPX for an inquiry of sorts). 
What if one Church has valid Sacraments but the validity of the Sacraments of the other Church have been called into question and are considered dubious by some Sedevacantists?
Where does one go to find the indefectible one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which has the mark of unity and oneness of belief?

Are you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

Or are you asking to "gotcha" folks and to show that EO is correct and not (traditional) Catholicism?

If the former I think at this point, prayer and talking to a priest would serve you better.

If the latter, that's risking a ban. 

[AlNg]

Are you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

How else does one come to a decision with reference to the true Church except to reflect on answers given to one's questions? The sudden and catastrophic non-stop decline of the Roman Catholic Church coupled with the available statistics showing that an increasing number of Catholics reject the traditional teaching about divorce, contraception, same sex marriage, blessings of SS couples, serves to prompt asking questions.

[AlNg]

Are you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

...
... I think at this point, prayer and talking to a priest would serve you better.

 

At Berkeley CA, there is a Jesuit School of theology. When I was there, from time to time a priest from the Jesuit community would come by to the UC Newman Center and present talks there. They were give and take talks where we could ask questions and give comments on issues relevant to his talk. Father said that he thought that it was conceivable that the Church had been wrong on many of these issues. I then asked the question as to how the Holy Spirit could be guiding the Church if the Church had be so wrong on so many of these issues. His answer was that the Church is composed of men who are doing the best they can, but being human,  men can make mistakes.

[Bonaventure]

Are you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

...
... I think at this point, prayer and talking to a priest would serve you better.

 

At Berkeley CA, there is a Jesuit School of theology. When I was there, from time to time a priest from the Jesuit community would come by to the UC Newman Center and present talks there. They were give and take talks where we could ask questions and give comments on issues relevant to his talk. Father said that he thought that it was conceivable that the Church had been wrong on many of these issues. I then asked the question as to how the Holy Spirit could be guiding the Church if the Church had be so wrong on so many of these issues. His answer was that the Church is composed of men who are doing the best they can, but being human,  men can make mistakes.

Anyone who believes that has no faith.

[Bonaventure]

Are you asking these questions because you are looking for the opinions of anonymous laymen?

How else does one come to a decision with reference to the true Church except to reflect on answers given to one's questions? The sudden and catastrophic non-stop decline of the Roman Catholic Church coupled with the available statistics showing that an increasing number of Catholics reject the traditional teaching about divorce, contraception, same sex marriage, blessings of SS couples, serves to prompt asking questions.

It depends if the questions are seeking an answer and are asked in good faith.