one MEEN Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Look if marriage is a contract, you and your spouse are the collateral underwriting it. All collateral is some amount of damaged goods. Contracts get signed anyways. Post facto inspection revealing that the collateral is in worse shape than presented, or deteriorated faster than anticipated does not mean there was no contract.

---

But marriage isn't a contract. It is a covenant with contractual elements. The "marriage contract" is a part of entering into that covenant, and contracts can be found to be void after the fact all the time. A voided contract here means that you never actually entered into the sacramental covenant, which is what marriage is.

As I showed earlier in this thread, we can liken this to baptism. If a mormon converts to you church, he or she will need to be rebaptized. This would also be needed for a Christian who thought they were baptized, but the trinitarian formula wasn't used. These people may have lived their entire lives believing they were a baptized Christian, but your church is here to examine that after the fact and say they were not truly baptized. Why? How would you explain this to a convert?

---

Dude I'm just going to refer back to Zobel here and the line of argument they brings up. The Catholics own canon lawyers and canon digression say it's a contract. Welcome to dissecting the frog, it kills it. Who am I to argue with it. Again, how can a priest not perform a sacrament when performing a sacrament.

---

Why do you choose to go with a random, (as of yet) unnamed canon lawyer versus a document published by the most authoritative body capable of publishing such a document?

As to how a priest can a "priest not perform a sacrament when performing a sacrament", I'd refer you yet again to the questions I am asking you that you aren't answering. It is established that the eastern church has recognized situations in what appeared to be a valid marriage was not in fact valid. Presumably the priest thought he was performing a sacramental marriage. Otherwise why do it at all? But some period of time after the ceremony, it was revealed one of the parties was currently married to another, forced the other spouse into the marriage, was too closely related, etc. That's when it would be realized that a marriage never actually happened. "Null marriage" is a part of your church's history. If you are a part of the church with constancy, I'm not sure how you can object to this.

What we are dealing with is a difference of degree, not kind.

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/understanding-annulments/

it was linked earlier
John T. Catoir, J.C.D

Quote:

---

I received my doctorate in canon law in 1964 and have worked for the marriage tribunal of the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey, for many years. I was in charge of it for nearly 10 years and now serve part-time as a presiding judge on the court of second instance (roughly similar to a civil court of appeals).

Over the years I have been asked hundreds of questions concerning annulments in the Catholic Church, but here I will answer those most frequently asked.

---

Didn't have time to proofread, so I apologize for poor grammar:

I'm fully aware that there is no desire to change the liturgy in EO, and please don't think I'm trying to debate you on that topic. I grant you that. What I am asking is: does the power to change it still exist with your apostolic successors today?

Since I wasn't getting an answer, I did some digging in to Western Rite Orthodoxy (for short). Within the past 150 years, a new rite was formed in Orthodoxy. Changes were made to the Tridentine Latin Mass, which were changes from the Liturgy of St Gregory the Great, which were changes from the liturgy of St Peter. So yes, liturgical changes are still accepted in the Orthodox church in as much as there has been no unanimous objection to this action.

I also found where the Russian orthodox church changed its liturgical rites, anathematized those that rejected the changes, and proceed to persecute them, only to admit their error in 1971. So their liturgical rite is 400-ish years old.

So back to my question to led to the above in the first place: If the liturgy can be changed in modern times and still be accepted into orthodoxy, what is it, in particular, about the novus ordo that can not be accepted? This question has been asked many times and I'd really like an answer, a link to an explanation by someone who has looked into it, or really anything outside of aesthetic reasons. If aesthetics is the reason, I'm fine with that explanation. Right now I don't have an explanation.

If you want to say that the Pope only allowed eastern rites in order to increase his influence, the inverse is that western rites are now admitted into orthodoxy to undermine his influence. I find this to be a judgement of internal disposition against other Christians (bishops, no less), and should be avoided.

The RC most core by-law is that the Pope is able to change things however they want

Do you really believe this?

I'll re-ask this: How can a bishop counsel a couple that is actively engaging in what our Lord defines as adultery and tell them they can continue? Does his power of binding and losing come with a charism that lets him overrule Jesus?

The pope, as liberal as he is, has stated plainly to the German bishops that they are threatening schism, meaning excommunication. I would say that's a pretty heavy threat, wouldn't you? Or is he supposed to excommunicate them for their conjecture and postulating prior to them actually formally endorsing heresy? He's telling them what they are attempting to do will create the unravelling. Any excommunication at this point just speeds up the result of their actions, which is the chaos you are predicting. But it needs to be said that they are splitting from the fold, not being sent away from the fold.

And this type of argumentation undermines the fact that roughly half of EO churches don't currently commune with the other half. Y'all have had a number of schisms throughout the years. This is why I'd like to point at what I, any many other Catholics, see as the heart of Protestantism: no one can tell me what to do. I can get the answers myself. I act as my own pope.

I asked for what you believe the term "theological beliefs" encompasses, and this answer didn't help at all. So I'll ask it this way:
- Depending on which EO church I convert to, I may be asked to be rebaptized or not. This is baptism, through which effects we are saved, and there is difference in opinion on whether or not I need a new one.
- Depending on which EO church I convert to, I will either be granted the use of artificial contraceptives, or I will be told I am committing a grave evil.
- Depending on which EO church I convert to, I will either be told IVF is a grave evil, or licit if no embryos are destroyed.
- Depending which EO church I convert to, I will either be told the new calendar is a heretical innovation or that old calendarists are the schismatics.

I'm not trying to speak for you. Can you please help me see how these do not go against the idea of united theology?

What you did offer was women priests. Our Church, and yes, even pope francis, has definitively said this is an impossibility. The good news here is that we have a definitive marker by which we can determine if the church is untrue. Bad news here is that those liberals at the synod on synodality have no hope at all of achieving this goal

We also say a woman cannot be ordained a deacon. This is an interesting debate amongst EO because some say deaconesses can be ordained, while others will say it was an un-ordained role, but all agreed they did not hold a role in the liturgy. But now we see women holding liturgical roles while wearing male vestments in the Orthodox church. I don't see any way for the EO churches to determine the validity of this movement except take a "wait and see" approach on what gets accepted and what doesn't. In the interim, there will be differing theological opinions, which would cut against the idea of "united in theology".
It is also pointed out that the role of deaconess had died out, and now it is being revived. I personally don't see this as constancy, but I'm not EO. Would you mind offering me your opinion on how the church has been consistent in it's stance on deaconesses?
When you reference the immaculate conception, a number of your eastern saints held to the view. Yes, the pope, with the overwhelming consent of his brother bishops, dogmatized this teaching. Are you able to point me to an authoritative teaching that says I would not be allowed to hold this view if I were to convert to EO?

The position of the catholic church is that we are brothers divided and that reunion is the desire of Jesus Himself. Can you point me to official eastern teaching that says we should stop trying to discuss reunification?

Zobel said:

---

want to add one other thing

Quote:

---

- You have repeatedly said we view marriage as a legal contract despite this not being our teaching, as I have stated

---

So, some funny things is that in this thread, there is a quote from a Pope who uses the term "the matrimonial contract" and "contracted marriage" and "the marriage contract"

And the whole discussion was not about marriage in the abstract, but specifically about annulment. The problem is you seem to be creating a dichotomy between a legal contract and a sacrament. I don't think this is tenable within your own tradition.

This person - canon law doctorate, who was in charge of an RCC marriage tribunal and is still a presiding judge - describes an annulment as this:

Quote:

---

An ecclesiastic annulment is a declaration by the Church that a marriage which was thought to be valid was not legally binding. This might be because of some defect in the consent given on the day of the wedding, or possibly a defect in the psychological capacity of one of the parties.

When an annulment is granted, the Church is not saying that there never was a marriage. The union certainly was a sociological fact, and the memory of it may even be cherished, but the legal contract on which it was based turned out to be invalid.

---

And describes "defective consent" as

Quote:

---

If, on the day of the wedding, one of the parties lies about an essential property of the marriage, it amounts to fraud going to the heart of the contract.

---

So - again - not sure why the ire. Or maybe it should be directed elsewhere.

---

If you posted a link to this lawyer prior, I apologize for not finding it in my search. This post didn't have it. I must have reviewed your other posts too quickly

The Banned said:

---

Didn't have time to proofread, so I apologize for poor grammar:

I'm fully aware that there is no desire to change the liturgy in EO, and please don't think I'm trying to debate you on that topic. I grant you that. What I am asking is: does the power to change it still exist with your apostolic successors today?

Since I wasn't getting an answer, I did some digging in to Western Rite Orthodoxy (for short). Within the past 150 years, a new rite was formed in Orthodoxy. Changes were made to the Tridentine Latin Mass, which were changes from the Liturgy of St Gregory the Great, which were changes from the liturgy of St Peter. So yes, liturgical changes are still accepted in the Orthodox church in as much as there has been no unanimous objection to this action.

I also found where the Russian orthodox church changed its liturgical rites, anathematized those that rejected the changes, and proceed to persecute them, only to admit their error in 1971. So their liturgical rite is 400-ish years old.

There's a reason Western Rite churches are struggling to stay open and Byzantian Rite is bursting at the seems. I have no reason to be drawn to the Western Rite (Which is what the British Isles and surrounding areas turned into over time and isolation). Same with Old Rite. Russia got a bit too high on its own supply with a couple hundred years of isolation. They currently sorting it out church by church with acceptance back into ROCOR. Thats a ROCOR/OCA/Old Rite independent church problem.

So back to my question to led to the above in the first place: If the liturgy can be changed in modern times and still be accepted into orthodoxy, what is it, in particular, about the novus ordo that can not be accepted? This question has been asked many times and I'd really like an answer, a link to an explanation by someone who has looked into it, or really anything outside of aesthetic reasons. If aesthetics is the reason, I'm fine with that explanation. Right now I don't have an explanation.

So you partially answered your own question here. Historical drift is okay, these rites have been vetted and blessed. With some chagrin in some cases. But they are the product of drift, time, and isolation. They are the exception, not the norm. Nobody is dreaming up a new Rite in today's age.

If you want to say that the Pope only allowed eastern rites in order to increase his influence, the inverse is that western rites are now admitted into orthodoxy to undermine his influence. I find this to be a judgement of internal disposition against other Christians (bishops, no less), and should be avoided.

Hey, you're not going to find much disagreement here. Western Rite wasn't dreamed up just a 100 years ago. It goes back way further. But if a local population want to keep their heritage, who am I to say they can't keep it if the content is in line with Orthodoxy. But I don't support those churches going out and making missions of their small Rite way away from their homelands. I'm in Texas. I, and everyone else at our church, are looking for the closest preservation of the early churches practices. Don't care about what happened on the British isles in the 1000s-1500s and how it flows into Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.

The RC most core by-law is that the Pope is able to change things however they want

Do you really believe this?

Yes. It is the most foundational belief of Catholicism post schism. There is nothing that doesn't happen or change without the Pope. Any belief you espouse, even the most basic, is filtered and approved through this office.

I'll re-ask this: How can a bishop counsel a couple that is actively engaging in what our Lord defines as adultery and tell them they can continue? Does his power of binding and losing come with a charism that lets him overrule Jesus?

I don't understand your fanaticism on marriage. You've spent pages discussing what ifs about marriage, even ones that have probably happened. And then want to dissect the sacrament like its a frog. Much like the frog, this kills the sacrament. Whatever specific examples you have of an orthodox priest allowing some marriage shenanigans that is on the priest in front of his own turn at judgement. Priests know that full well. Lord have mercy on all involved.

The pope, as liberal as he is, has stated plainly to the German bishops that they are threatening schism, meaning excommunication. I would say that's a pretty heavy threat, wouldn't you? Or is he supposed to excommunicate them for their conjecture and postulating prior to them actually formally endorsing heresy? He's telling them what they are attempting to do will create the unravelling. Any excommunication at this point just speeds up the result of their actions, which is the chaos you are predicting. But it needs to be said that they are splitting from the fold, not being sent away from the fold.

If the pope tries to bring the germans and the rest of the gay clergy to heel, thats great. If they resist or schism thats on those clergy. You can't have this wishy washiness where both sides are just hoping the other side will stop talking about it.

And this type of argumentation undermines the fact that roughly half of EO churches don't currently commune with the other half. Y'all have had a number of schisms throughout the years. This is why I'd like to point at what I, any many other Catholics, see as the heart of Protestantism: no one can tell me what to do. I can get the answers myself. I act as my own pope.

The 'number of schisms' you bring up are the same ecumenical counsels from the first 1000 years that you have. The orthodox have not seen an ecumenical counsel or another large theological schism in a thousand years. Now, the vying for power among churches and the politics around it, the whole of orthodoxy for the first 1000 years had maybe 100 non continuous years where everyone was willing to serve communion with everyone. This did not kill the church as you can see. The modern issues with Russia being upset over losing Ukraine, and (also the US) are just the same political fights all throughout time we all have to overcome.

I asked for what you believe the term "theological beliefs" encompasses, and this answer didn't help at all. So I'll ask it this way:
- Depending on which EO church I convert to, I may be asked to be rebaptized or not. This is baptism, through which effects we are saved, and there is difference in opinion on whether or not I need a new one.
It would vary priest by priest and parish by parish. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, if you showed the priest that you were a devout catholic your whole life they'd probably say you could not have to get rebaptised. But again, why would you not? Coming into the orthodox church is accepting that it is one true church. The preservation of the faith passed down from the early church, in accordance with the church fathers, and as unchanged as possible. We can't know whats valid outside of the church, just whats valid inside. So get rebaptized and rejoice. During an orthodox baptism, you get exorcised. Would you forgo that as well?
- Depending on which EO church I convert to, I will either be granted the use of artificial contraceptives, or I will be told I am committing a grave evil.
Little bit hyperbolic. Are you using abortions as a method of contraceptives? Then yeah thats a great evil. The orthodox view is that we are to be fruitful and multiply. The rest will come up between you and your priest.
- Depending on which EO church I convert to, I will either be told IVF is a grave evil, or licit if no embryos are destroyed.
Same as above. These are not theology questions by the way. They are questions of modern application, but that is different.
- Depending which EO church I convert to, I will either be told the new calendar is a heretical innovation or that old calendarists are the schismatics.
Dude, calendar fights go back to basically the arrival of man. The Qumran community of Essenes thought the Pharisees were liberals for not adopting the Enochic calendar. Does it really matter about two weeks slide or not? Russians hate the new calendar because of the US state department interventions.

It seems you have a bit of issue with the Russians in all of these questions. The Russian way or the highway is not a new thing and has been a thorn on lower order issues not long after the Greeks taught the Russians about Orthodoxy.

Again, the orthodox church allows for the church to groan and stretch on these things. Its a federation of churches, and none of your theological questions are actually theological nor rise to the level of church acceptance or dismissal. Were's your question on accepting the Nicene-Constantinople creed. Rejecting counsel heresies. Believing the Theotokos is full of grace, lived a sinless life BUT was not without original sin. And that she died. Keeping the church fathers works and teaching them. Those are theological questions.

Cutting, exact answers on condoms, IVF, or calendars is small potatoes. Thats your objection? Cuz the orthodox look at Catholicism and have issues on:

-The very nature of how the Holy Spirit processes from the father AND son.
-The pope being the one man head of the church, going against all counsels
-Reception into the catholic church being a two step act where you go through confirmation at the age of reason.
-The catholic churches love for plato, philosophy and trying to hammer christianity into a platonic world view.
-Administering communion without mixing the body and blood of Christ
-Stigmata or even being/serving in the church while bleeding. (Christ is a bloodless sacrifice).
-Purgatory, indulgences, and a physical treasury of merit for atonement.

I'm not trying to speak for you. Can you please help me see how these do not go against the idea of united theology? Having a canon that describes every minutae but is updated every 30 years is not united theology.

What you did offer was women priests. Our Church, and yes, even pope francis, has definitively said this is an impossibility. The good news here is that we have a definitive marker by which we can determine if the church is untrue. Bad news here is that those liberals at the synod on synodality have no hope at all of achieving this goal

We also say a woman cannot be ordained a deacon. This is an interesting debate amongst EO because some say deaconesses can be ordained, while others will say it was an un-ordained role, but all agreed they did not hold a role in the liturgy. But now we see women holding liturgical roles while wearing male vestments in the Orthodox church. I don't see any way for the EO churches to determine the validity of this movement except take a "wait and see" approach on what gets accepted and what doesn't. In the interim, there will be differing theological opinions, which would cut against the idea of "united in theology".
It is also pointed out that the role of deaconess had died out, and now it is being revived. I personally don't see this as constancy, but I'm not EO. Would you mind offering me your opinion on how the church has been consistent in it's stance on deaconesses?

The deaconesses of St. Phoebe have died out. It was a role built out of necessity for the time they existed. The deacon role is a helper role. They are not performing the sacraments. Becoming a deacon is usually meant exclusively as a stepping stone for becoming a priest. So historically it has always been male because that has been the role of men to do these jobs within the church. Personally, not a fan of it being revived. I've seen these well meaning wedges start innocent enough and then it turns into calls for women to do X,Y,Z new roles. They didn't ask me though but my sentiment isn't a lone one.

When you reference the immaculate conception, a number of your eastern saints held to the view. Yes, the pope, with the overwhelming consent of his brother bishops, dogmatized this teaching. Are you able to point me to an authoritative teaching that says I would not be allowed to hold this view if I were to convert to EO?

Immaculate conception is not the same as being full of grace. Immaculate conception is a logical prerequisite so that Jesus when he was born via Mary was not subject to original sin because he is fully man as well as fully God. The orthodox believe that the penalty you pay for original sin is death, not damnation. It is your own sins in this life that damn you. It is not an issue for Jesus to be in a humans womb, and inherit flesh. He suffered death like all mankind does, he did not suffer damnation because he was sinless. Mary was full of grace. Her womb was as sinless as the holiest of holies. God could dwell there.

Adopting an orthodox view on original sin and the immaculate conception would be a prerequisite to becoming orthodox. But like our priest told me on day one when I was jumping in too quick - 'the church will always be here, take your time learning about the church, come talk to me if you've got questions.'

The position of the catholic church is that we are brothers divided and that reunion is the desire of Jesus Himself. Can you point me to official eastern teaching that says we should stop trying to discuss reunification?

This pursuit is called ecumenism. Its a big deal. The pope and EP have adopted friendly dispositions towards one another for cooperation as brothers, but its DOA for merging churches. Look at everything I've discussed above. I'll ask around for some history on it. Kind of came to a big halt during the fourth crusade. There are some orthodox martyrs that were tortured by Jesuits in California during the missionary days. We can forgive one another for terrible crimes committed against each other's denomination, but its not something we can fix because we didn't break it.

Orthodoxy doesn't look down on you trying out a few different orthodox churches during your pursuit. Some will be bigger or smaller, more ethnic or not, more welcoming or not, or services in English or not. We live in a time where we have these types of choices. Its okay to examine them.

---

"It would vary priest by priest and parish by parish. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, if you showed the priest that you were a devout catholic your whole life they'd probably say you could not have to get rebaptised. But again, why would you not? Coming into the orthodox church is accepting that it is one true church. The preservation of the faith passed down from the early church, in accordance with the church fathers, and as unchanged as possible. We can't know whats valid outside of the church, just whats valid inside. So get rebaptized and rejoice. During an orthodox baptism, you get exorcised. Would you forgo that as well?"


I think any Catholic here that has been posting in this thread should take the above statement as a very solid opportunity to leave the thread and understand there is minimal ground on this particular forum to produce even the slightest of charitable
Interaction.

I've had to resist responding on more than one occasion. I say let them speak. It's unfortunate the level of proselytizing going on.

light_bulb said:

---

"It would vary priest by priest and parish by parish. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, if you showed the priest that you were a devout catholic your whole life they'd probably say you could not have to get rebaptised. But again, why would you not? Coming into the orthodox church is accepting that it is one true church. The preservation of the faith passed down from the early church, in accordance with the church fathers, and as unchanged as possible. We can't know whats valid outside of the church, just whats valid inside. So get rebaptized and rejoice. During an orthodox baptism, you get exorcised. Would you forgo that as well?"


I think any Catholic here that has been posting in this thread should take the above statement as a very solid opportunity to leave the thread and understand there is minimal ground on this particular forum to produce even the slightest of charitable
Interaction.

---

It's not that uncharitable, or really different from what the Roman church claims (being the ark). I've been told the same thing by many a roman catholic that considers themselves my friend. If you've ever joked about 'coming back to the mother ship' or laughed when Matt fradd or others said it, it's the same level of gentle condescension.

Let me start by saying I didn't receive your posts as uncharitable. I am asking you pointed questions about your faith, so you answering honestly is only giving me what I asked for. And you've done it in a gentlemanly manner, which I appreciate. If you were being an ass, that would be one thing, but in my estimation, you are just giving me your honest take.

I also do not see our conversation as proselytizing from my perspective. I am asking you questions. You are answering. I'm sure both of us would love if the other took their side, but I don't view this as an intentional conversion attempt.

If you feel differently about either of those points, I'd love to read your feedback. To your post:

Would you say you are "anti-western" to a large degree at this point? The EO (to whatever degree) has created the WO, but you seem to have significant distaste for it. Maybe I am reading you wrong.

I would also ask again (as I'm sure you are tired of me doing): do you believe the authority to change the liturgy still exists in your church(es) today?

You say what happened on the British isles…. Pope Pius V was from Italy. St Gregory the Great was from Rome. Peter was an Israelite. There is a western rite in WO that is a direct descendant of this. Do you view it with the same disdain as the rite created to allow Anglicans in?

I am not trying to show a fanaticism about marriage (although I admit I am a big defender of the sacrament). My question is very specific, and it focused on blessing sin, not being a marriage fanboy: How can a bishop counsel a couple that is actively engaging in what our Lord defines as adultery and tell them they can continue?

If it was a particular priest or bishop, I'd drop the line of questioning. But it's an accepted practice that pops up at exactly the time Eastern Roman Empire demands it. To me nothing can be more worrisome than the official practice of the church to permit adultery with the bishop's go ahead.

I will agree that I wish the pope was more heavy handed with those German bishops, but let me ask you this: if he were to come down with all the force in his arsenal because they hosted a synod to "ask questions" (despite us all knowing they have an agenda) would this not be viewed as evidence of Roman tyranny by EO purists that believe in jurisdictional purism?

The vast majority of church fathers say re-baptism should be avoided, but most importantly, the 2nd and 6th ecumenical councils forbid it. A grand total of zero ecumenical councils advise it. The EO is currently divided on this issue. Why? In your opinion, is the authority of the ecumenical councils not the tradition you are holding fast to?

The statement on contraceptives is not hyperbolic. Quite literally the entire body of church fathers speaking on the subject says that preventing a child as the natural end of the conjugal act is evil. When modern EO priests are saying it's up to the couple, what historical grounds are they using?

You said that these are not theology questions. I'm happy to grant you this if you can tell me what you believe "theological beliefs" encompasses. What qualifies as a theological belief and what doesn't in you view? I would think calling a grave sin a grave sin would fall directly into the category of "theological belief"

To answer your questions of me:

-The very nature of how the Holy Spirit processes from the father AND son
From my research, there are understanding of the filioque, going back to maximus the confessor, that would qualify as orthodox. It comes down to a matter of "If the Son shares all things with the Father except for being the Father, what does that mean?" Historical eastern saints, as well as modern theologians see potential for resolve here, so I'll let them have at it. As far as adding it to the creed, Catholicism has shown it's willingness to resolve the issue by letting Eastern Rite Catholic parishes refrain from saying it. This goes back at least as far as the Council of Florence where a canon was published, but there was no force applied to make the Eastern bishops recite the creed in a way that was foreign to them.

The pope being the one man head of the church, going against all counsels
Papal delegations being refused is the primary characteristic of a robber council. Thankfully the primary council that did this was overturned. But the important point to is that the "one man head of the church" is playing a defensive role, not offensive. When you said,

Quote:

---

The RC most core by-law is that the Pope is able to change things however they want

Do you really believe this?

Yes. It is the most foundational belief of Catholicism post schism. There is nothing that doesn't happen or change without the Pope. Any belief you espouse, even the most basic, is filtered and approved through this office.

---

You showed partial understanding. The pope doesn't "change" anything on his own. But any "change" must be filtered through his office so that nothing by his brother bishops is without papal protection. If you care to see what I mean, I'm happy to expound upon that. But this is a far cry from "pope is able to change things however they want"

-Reception into the catholic church being a two step act where you go through confirmation at the age of reason.

This bishops in the west retained confirmation to themselves, and did not dispense it to their priests as was done in the east. This was estimated to have happened between 5th and 9th centuries, so well before the split. It's not meant to be "two steps", but to maintain the role of the bishop dealing with vast territory. The catholic church still practices this today. No bishop, no confirmation. That is unless the bishop grants authority to the local priest out of necessity. The goal is not to split the sacraments, but give the bishop the opportunity to perform it. Can you explain to me your concern with this process?

The catholic churches love for plato, philosophy and trying to hammer christianity into a platonic world view.


This is a major mischaracterization. I can write pages on this, so I'll save you the time unless you truly want to discuss why I believe you have completely misrepresented the catholic faith here.

-Administering communion without mixing the body and blood of Christ

Before offering an opinion, can you describe what you mean by this? In my opinion we are doing this, but need more details

-Stigmata or even being/serving in the church while bleeding. (Christ is a bloodless sacrifice).

I assume this is in reference to Padre Pio? Or are there other examples I need to look into?

-Purgatory, indulgences, and a physical treasury of merit for atonement.

This requires many more questions, so I won't approach it right now. Suffice it to say a "physical" treasury of merit makes absolutely no sense, so I would need a lot of context from you on your issue is with all 3.

Deaconesses: Do you agree that deaconesses, historically, have never had a liturgical role? Do you agree that the most recent deaconess is serving a liturgical role equal to that of a deacon? If so, is there a process that the other churches use to determine the validity of the deaconess's liturgical role? If a church is doing something incredibly novel, why is there not more outcry? There are schisms of territirial disputes but not something as essential as the liturgical role of women being changed?

You also mention that these turn into calls for women to do XYZ roles. If a patriarch officially signs off on a woman becoming a priestess, how do you think it will be handled?

Quote:

---

Immaculate conception is not the same as being full of grace. Immaculate conception is a logical prerequisite so that Jesus when he was born via Mary was not subject to original sin because he is fully man as well as fully God. The orthodox believe that the penalty you pay for original sin is death, not damnation. It is your own sins in this life that damn you. It is not an issue for Jesus to be in a humans womb, and inherit flesh. He suffered death like all mankind does, he did not suffer damnation because he was sinless. Mary was full of grace. Her womb was as sinless as the holiest of holies. God could dwell there.

---

I have searched all over and i see no definitive statement that says a truly orthodox person cannot hold to the immaculate conception. In fact, a number of eastern saints endorse this view. I'm farily certain that the mechanism to deny this as heresy doesn't even exist in the modern EO.

That said, the bolded is false. If you'd like the actual catholic view on this, i'll be happy to give it to you.

And I'm familir with EO churches calling this approach to union as ecumenism. I'm just wondering if you can point me to an official teaching that says this approach cannot be held by an eastern church

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

Immaculate conception is not the same as being full of grace. Immaculate conception is a logical prerequisite so that Jesus when he was born via Mary was not subject to original sin because he is fully man as well as fully God. The orthodox believe that the penalty you pay for original sin is death, not damnation. It is your own sins in this life that damn you. It is not an issue for Jesus to be in a humans womb, and inherit flesh. He suffered death like all mankind does, he did not suffer damnation because he was sinless. Mary was full of grace. Her womb was as sinless as the holiest of holies. God could dwell there.

---

I have searched all over and i see no definitive statement that says a truly orthodox person cannot hold to the immaculate conception. In fact, a number of eastern saints endorse this view. I'm farily certain that the mechanism to deny this as heresy doesn't even exist in the modern EO.

That said, the bolded is false. If you'd like the actual catholic view on this, i'll be happy to give it to you.

And I'm familir with EO churches calling this approach to union as ecumenism. I'm just wondering if you can point me to an official teaching that says this approach cannot be held by an eastern church

---

You've got a huge amount of deeper questions up top that I don't have the time right now to answer but can answer later this evening. But this one is easier to respond to.

Couple of points of order here. A lot of your responses include, 'I see no definitive statement on X online' and 'This church father said X and is counter to what your saying'. Neither of these are the eastern approaches. There is not a huge ream of canon law within Orthodoxy online so specifics hunting can be nebulous. Not saying that applies here to this exact discussion, but in general. Also, we don't usually single out church fathers to bolster dissenting opinions. No church father was right about everything. The collective across time is what we inherit. So finding A Church Father (TM) saying some opinion that is counter to what the EO believes is not really an indictment here.

Again, you have to remove your priors. I am asserting to you that the immaculate conception as a means to circumvent original sin being inherited by Jesus is a current teaching of the Catholic church. It arose after the schism. Finding a church father saying 'immaculate' or sinless and tying it directly to immaculate conception is a retconning. We both think that Mary basically did not sin in this world. She was incredibly pious. So this discussion ties back to original sin, and its not even about Mary per se.

The Orthodox believe:
A) The punishment for Adam and Eve's sin is the introduction of death into this world. Death as a grace so humanity does not become trapped in their sin. If Adam and Eve were to have eaten of the Tree of Life in the garden after eating from the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would have been trapped in immortality while also defying God. God provides this grace to us because if he didn't, the demons would have won as humanity would be like them. We don't even call eating the fruit a sin per se, but a transgression.
B) Cain is the original introducer of damnation into this world. Through his rejection of God and the direct, knowing rebellion against God's will.
C) Your own sins are the only thing that damn you on the day of judgement. The list of sins I am guilty of does not start with Adam, but with me when I was of age to know right and wrong and chose to act wrongly. And the list is plenty long enough to be separated from God.
D) Jesus's death on the cross was not penal substitution but Jesus receiving the full experience of man so that he can redeem the full depths of mankind. And that Jesus can go to Sheol, preach his message there, and clear out Sheol of the righteous dead. (Its not just that, you could write whole books about what exactly Jesus's death accomplished why and how, but thats the top level points).

This view of original sin and lack of penal substitution means that:
E) Mary does not need to have miraculously been born without original sin. Her own piety through her love of God and participation in Godly things in the temple is what makes her a Saint of Saints. By her own free will she loved God. Not a supernatural, outside of time, forknowing removal of her free will through removing original sin from her only.
F) Mary not even committing venial sins in this world is a shared teaching. She was sinless on earth. This is her being full of grace. If you remove original sin, she is now fully perfect, and does not inherit death. This is not a teaching of the EO that any human was fully perfect before Jesus nor that humanity can escape their fleshly death. (This is why catholics and EO argue over whether Mary went straight to heaven or died as part of the teaching of the Dormition of the Theotokos. The EO teaches that she died and that Jesus Himself escorted her past the demons of the air when taking her soul up to heaven. Also that the her reward for her sinless life is her current position in heaven as higher than the angels and receiving her resurrected body immediately in heaven - before the day of Judgement.
F) Infants and small children that are going to (Lord have mercy) die an early death do not need an emergency baptism to password ritualize them into heaven. You hear stories of catholic parents taking their newborn that is on deaths doorstep and perform an emergency baptism. This is not an orthodox thing because of the presuppositions about original sin differ. God is not angry at that newborn, nor is He going to extract a full measure of judgement and separation from them because of their original sin.

Now please share how my understanding of this for catholicism is wrong. Be careful though, I can lookup these things in detail online about the official Catholic churches stance on this. And there are a lot of catholics who have different views than the official stances of the Catholic church.

Can someone be "full of grace" that has been born with original sin per your teachings?

PabloSerna said:

---

Can someone be "full of grace" that has been born with original sin per your teachings?

---

Yes. Like above, Mary, was full of grace. She had original sin. She inherited death like every other human because of original sin is the gift of death to humanity. She was dedicated to the temple at 3 years old, was taught and fed by angels in the holiest of holies. She dedicated her early life to being obedient to God in all things and was blessed by God as being the Theotokos for it. Notwithstanding becoming the Theotokos, this is the whole plan of Theosis here. Mary's nature is becoming one with Gods. She is allowed to draw closer to God. Her nature becomes even more one with God. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum and that is Theosis. Mary is the prototype of Sainthood for us.

We have saints on this earth who get glimpses of heaven or heavenly gifts as they work on their Theosis.

So being full of grace is being very far along in Theosis. Mary was farther along than any other human. You and I are to work on our Theosis. But Mary is the Saint of Saints. She is a triumph of sainthood and was worthy to be the new Eve and carry the Lord. You and I can and are to work on our Theosis, and God willing we become living saints. But you and I are not going to be exactly like Mary because you and I have already sinned, nor are we going to receive a blessing of being the New Ark because of our faithfulness in Theosis.

Does that make sense?

I get that you don't make definitive statements that way, as I've stated multiple times. But because you don't, you cannot say an orthodox person in good standing can't hold to the immaculate conception. It's never been anathematized. You have several theologians who hold it as a possible theologoumenon. The theory itself isn't anything that should give you heartburn.

Now you can say it shouldn't have been dogmatically defined. Fine. How do we determine what can be dogmatically declared? By consensus of the bishops worldwide. What did Pope Pius IX do before issuing the papal decree? He invited all bishops from all over the world to give their input. 90% gave their consent. The other 10% were a mix of doubt and abstains, but no outright rejections. None of them denounced the encyclical when it was given. Consensus of bishops, right?

Quote:

---

The Orthodox believe:
A) The punishment for Adam and Eve's sin is the introduction of death into this world. Death as a grace so humanity does not become trapped in their sin. If Adam and Eve were to have eaten of the Tree of Life in the garden after eating from the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would have been trapped in immortality while also defying God. God provides this grace to us because if he didn't, the demons would have won as humanity would be like them. We don't even call eating the fruit a sin per se, but a transgression.

B) Cain is the original introducer of damnation into this world. Through his rejection of God and the direct, knowing rebellion against God's will.

---

Do y'all really believe this? This is a document propagated by the council of Jassy, and signed on by all major sees: https://maksimologija.org/mogila-orthodox-confession/ and states, "Wherefore by one Adam sin hath passed into us all". A quick review of as many EO parish sites in English that I can find say Adam and Eve sinned first. Maybe you can introduce me to something that helps me see how Cain introduced damnation. The only thing I could find online cited Josephus the Jewish historian as the first promulgator of the theory.

Quote:

---

C) Your own sins are the only thing that damn you on the day of judgement. The list of sins I am guilty of does not start with Adam, but with me when I was of age to know right and wrong and chose to act wrongly. And the list is plenty long enough to be separated from God.

---

This is in line with Catholic teaching. Peruse the catechism points 385-421. The word guilt is not associated with Adam's sin. Particularly paragraph 405 where is says: original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

We would agree with the council of Jassy agreed with in the above document, when it says: and Adam becoming guilty, we all likewise, who descend from him, become also guilty. Secondly, this is called original sin, because no mortal is conceived without this depravity of nature.

"guilt" as promulgated by all of the patriarches approval is referring to our sinful inclinations that we all inherit. Not that you were born having personally committed a sin. We would agree.

Quote:

---

D) Jesus's death on the cross was not penal substitution but Jesus receiving the full experience of man so that he can redeem the full depths of mankind. And that Jesus can go to Sheol, preach his message there, and clear out Sheol of the righteous dead. (Its not just that, you could write whole books about what exactly Jesus's death accomplished why and how, but thats the top level points).

---

Also catholic teaching. Jesus offered Himself for us. You will not find Catholics teaching this, and you can tell because protestants influenced by Calvin get very upset with Catholics for not teaching it. Not sure why you think we teach that. It seems like the only group that accuses us of teaching penal substitution or original guilt is the EO while the protestant groups accuse of doing the opposite. We are agreeing with you on these two things but still accused of the opposite online.

Quote:

---

This view of original sin and lack of penal substitution means that:

E) Mary does not need to have miraculously been born without original sin.

---

We agree. God doesn't need anything from her or us. We teach that it was fitting that she was a holy and pure Ark for Jesus to reside in. He could have chosen a sinful woman. He just didn't.

Quote:

---

Her own piety through her love of God and participation in Godly things in the temple is what makes her a Saint of Saints.

---

Without the Immaculate conception, I would say this borders on Pelagianism, if it doesn't outright agree with it. In this framework, Mary, on her own accord, was able to avoid all sin. Had she stayed in this state perpetually without being chosen to be the theotokos, she would have truly lived a sinless life and merited Heaven without the intervening salvific grace of God. This is funny, because it's exactly what protestant accuse us of doing lol. Now we're agreeing with them and they still accuse us of the opposite. Fun times.

Quote:

---

By her own free will she loved God. Not a supernatural, outside of time, forknowing removal of her free will through removing original sin from her only.

---

This isn't how lacking original sin works. Adam and Eve did not have original sin. They still had free will, yes? Mary being free from original sin is fitting in that she is the New Eve. She is now "woman". And unlike Eve, she chose not to reject this gift from God through her own free will. However, she did not do this on her own accord but by having sanctifying grace given to her prior to Jesus' death and resurrection as only Adam and Eve had before. She just did a better job of staying in union with God.

Quote:

---

F) Mary not even committing venial sins in this world is a shared teaching. She was sinless on earth. This is her being full of grace. If you remove original sin, she is now fully perfect, and does not inherit death.

---

Again, no original sin does not mean "perfect" and incapable of sinning unless Adam and Eve were also "perfect" and incapable of sinning.

Also, I have seen this idea pop up that original sin necessitates death, which has all kinds of holes in it. Jesus died without original sin. "yes, but He willingly sacrificed Himself, so that's different". Fine. Enoch and Elijah didn't experience death and they did have original sin. "oh but that's different because they may be the prophets that return and they'll die then". Huge stretch that cannot be proven until end times come, but fine. They're still going to be murdered as Jesus was, and only after already being in Heaven. Not exactly a natural human death. In fact, a man (or men) sent from Heaven in order to be killed is already labeled as different in this view. You have to create all sorts of exceptions and none of them are consistent. Again, God is God and is well capable of omitting death from those who have original sin, and allowing death to those that did not have it, as Jesus shows.

Quote:

---

This is not a teaching of the EO that any human was fully perfect before Jesus nor that humanity can escape their fleshly death.

---

Again, we don't teach this either. It's actually nonsensical to try and teach it because Adam and Eve prove the opposite from the beginning.

Quote:

---

(This is why catholics and EO argue over whether Mary went straight to heaven or died as part of the teaching of the Dormition of the Theotokos.

---

The Catholic church doesn't have a dogmatic teaching on this issue. Traditional catholic thought leans towards death. We simply aren't bound to believe it. Maybe one day we will.

Quote:

---

The EO teaches that she died and that Jesus Himself escorted her past the demons of the air when taking her soul up to heaven. Also that the her reward for her sinless life is her current position in heaven as higher than the angels and receiving her resurrected body immediately in heaven - before the day of Judgement.

F) Infants and small children that are going to (Lord have mercy) die an early death do not need an emergency baptism to password ritualize them into heaven.

---

The Catholic Church does not have an official teaching on unbaptized babies. We teach that the only way that we know of to get to heaven is through baptism. Therefore, baptize your babies. Pray to God for His divine mercy on all, baptized or not. As y'all would say, God is not bound by the sacraments. He will do as He wishes with those souls, and as Catholics, we are allowed to hold our personal views on this, but the best route to take is "we don't know". Point to Augustine all you want, but even he stopped short of fully endorsing limbo and he admits that he struggled with it.

Quote:

---

You hear stories of catholic parents taking their newborn that is on deaths doorstep and perform an emergency baptism. This is not an orthodox thing because of the presuppositions about original sin differ. God is not angry at that newborn is going to extract a full measure of judgement and separation from them.

---

No disagreement with this. ETA: I don't think it is right to disparage parents from doing what they believe is right in such a horrific situation. The official teaching is baptism saves. when all else is outside of your control, who is to blame parents to seek some form of comfort in that moment by doing the one thing we know does save?

In summation, sinless Mary doctrine got pressed hard in the west by the protestant reformation. We did not come to dogmatize this idea (which was definitely present in the East, including formal feast days as far back as 7th century) because it was a "logical necessity". Through the pressure of separatists from the one church, we had great need to look into the doctrine further. The Holy Mother was being slandered and besmirched by protestants. And precisely because we are bound to reject Pelagianism, we know that Mary would need God's divine grace in order to remain sinless. One option was at the assumption, but that has it's own issues. So Mary could have died the day before the assumption and merited Heaven on her own accord? Pelagianism. If God was the source of her rejecting sin prior to the assumption, when did that happen?

You can call it a "logical necessity" if you want, but my perspective is that the truth of the church was challenged and the Holy Spirit led the prayerful members of the bishopric to fully embrace the truth.