> St. Athanasius Against Heresies Discourse 1 Chapter 3
Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after Christ, Marcion broached a heresy a long time since and was cast out; and those who continued with him who ejected him remained Christians; but those who followed Marcion were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichæus, and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and some are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and other, Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected by Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his party no longer Christians, but Meletians , and so in consequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast out Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained Christians; but those who went out with Arius, left the Saviour's Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to them they were hence-forward denominated Arians. Behold then, after Alexander's death too, those who communicate with his successor Athanasius, and those with whom the said Athanasius communicates, are instances of the same rule; none of them bear his name, nor is he named from them, but all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. For though we have a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same. But those who follow the heretics, though they have innumerable successors in their heresy, yet anyhow bear the name of him who devised it.
/xpi/ Apostolic Christianity Neo Arianisim
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
>cont
Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of his party have succeeded him, yet those who think with him, as being known from Arius, are called Arians. And, what is a remarkable evidence of this, those of the Greeks who even at this time come into the Church, on giving up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of their catechists, but of the Saviour, and begin to be called Christians instead of Greeks: while those of them who go off to the heretics, and again all who from the Church change to this heresy, abandon Christ's name, and henceforth are called Arians, as no longer holding Christ's faith, but having inherited Arius's madness.
I hate to tripfag but the thread keeps getting nuked before I can argue about this.
I asked why the orthodox church allows divorce and remarriage in direct violation of Luke and Mark, and I asked for an explanation that doesn't invoke oikonomia.
Somebody said twice now that they do it by performing the betrothal but not the crowning. As a lapsing catholic I don't understand this, and it would be great if someone could elaborate on what that means.
It would be like going to confession and not receiving absolution
But what's the point of that? The entire point of confession is absolution, is it not? Of course, I understand the orthodox have a different view of confession ("Christ is the Physician" writings of Chrysostom) but...what, is the idea that you confess your adultery and just really hope you make it to heaven?
It’s soft excommunication, you can’t take communion until you’re fully prepared which includes confession.
Let me get this straight then. You marry a different woman, which still constitutes adultery cf. the gospels. Your sin is recognized and you are excommunicated until you confess it. But you get to keep the woman? It seems like you're confessing the sin without any intention of resolving it, which as I understand voids the confession.
it allows divorce because love can't be forced upon.
man and woman unite so they can share love and fight for theosis together with the help of holly spirit.
with no love, there's no holly spirit mariage makes no sense.
orthodox church does not take divorce lightly, it's a sin. grave.
however church serves to heal, not to point fingers so it will allow 1 remarriage, even 2 in some cases. it's bending the rules to try the help faithfull in his/her struggle, but anything after the first marriage is not joyful and is generally frowned upon.
>you're confessing the sin without any intention of resolving it
Yup. It's like saying: "God I'm terribly sorry for a sin I committed, now cya, I'm off to sin some more."
Most people remarry outside of the church anyways which is another issue within the church. I know there’s a lot of council with a priest. A ROCOR parish would take more issue with all the things above while an OCA parish tend to have more lax applications of these things.
>with no love, there's no holly spirit mariage makes no sense
The way I'm reading this is that the first marriage is implicitly annulled, not divorced per se. Is that correct?
>implying this isn't how 90%+ of catholics see confession
>Most people remarry outside of the church anyways
It seems to me like in the US though that would just be because of the lack of orthodox population?
If there's no love in marriage, it makes no sense. If she wants to leave her husband, because of that, I think she's justified in doing so.
She shouldn't be permitted to remarry and commit permanent adultery, however, as taught in 1 Corinthians 7,10-11.
>ITT: Reactionary idiots who became "Christian" just for the sake of being reactionary.
Guilt, and desire to not commit sin again is required for confession to be valid. If they are not there, confession is worthless.
>90%+ of catholics see confession this way
Then, 90% of Catholics go to Hell. Sad, but true.
I don’t think that’s the case, salvation is a journey. It’s possible for any of us to stumble and fall on the path we take at any time. What’s the resolution for grave sins like adultery? Suppose a couple re marry outside of the church? What’s the resolution in that? Does the church demand a divorce for what the church already sees as a secular union?
Agnostic here but Arianism makes way more sense than Chalcedonian Christianity.
So become a mormon or something.
The thing I don't get about Christianity is that Jesus dies for everyone's sins. Therefore, we all go to heaven.
>The way I'm reading this is that the first marriage is implicitly annulled, not divorced per se. Is that correct?
not sure on distinction, but yeah, church admits that there was no grace of god in that marriage.
Don’t shit yourself to death user.
well if that's so in catholic church, than i hope you're not a woman in a bad marriage.
The closest thing I could become at the moment is a Deist. All this stuff is pretty retarded to me as we'll never know for sure.
>not sure on distinction
Divorce ends the marriage but recognizes that it happened. Annulment declares it null and void, that it never happened in the first place. The latin church has an absolute ban on the first situation but hands out annulments like candy.
>salvation is a journey
>It’s possible for any of us to stumble and fall on the path we take at any time
Indeed it is.
But, when we have no desire to get up, our journey ends prematurely.
>Suppose a couple re marry outside of the church?
>Does the church demand a divorce for what the church already sees as a secular union?
People living in such a union should not engage in sexuality. They may live together, but every time they engage sexually they commit adultery, as long as the spouse from the valid ecclesiastical marriage lives.
And if they confess adultery, without desire to cease, such confession is worthless.
yeah no annulment i think it goes something like this
1st marriage we're all joyfull
2nd marriage we'll do it (for most cases)
3rd marriage church MIGHT tolerate it (in extremes)
4th no
i might be misquoting
I get that that's how it works, but I don't see how it's valid. If there's just implicit annulment involved that would make sense to me, but if there's no annulment and a marriage is straight up ended and recognized as such by the church I want a really good explanation and sources as to why that's okay.
You're wrong. He died for sins of everyone, yes.
But only in the sacrament of baptism the fruit of this sacrifice is granted to us, that is renewal of our soul.
In that time our soul is sanctified, without any sin. By sinning again this sanctification is lost, but not forever. It is lost until, out of guilt, we confess it and resolve to not commit the sin again. Then, fruits of the perfect sacrifice on the cross are granted to us again, our soul renewed and sanctified yet again.
As It is a journey, a path on which we will undoubtedly fall at least once. But if we manage to get up, our falling will be forgotten.
I'm not a woman, nor in marriage, so I'm safe.
And as I said, perfectly justified to leave husband if he treats you poorly. But that doesn't justify one to commit sin.
One could be baptised just before they die. It is still pretty silly. We do need morality but we must remember that it is relative and changes with time.
orthodox church calls it bending the rules.
you'll notice orthodox doesn't have a strict vatican type of dogma that you need some sort of mental gymnastics to go around (like using annulments)
we focus on purpose - loving and worshiping the god, if priest decides that bending a remarriage rule can help young man/woman recieve the grace of god, we'll do it. in this case.
>And as I said, perfectly justified to leave husband if he treats you poorly. But that doesn't justify one to commit sin.
but you say she can't ever remarry in church even if she finds true love after being abused. so she can never get a marriage with a grace of god?
The Orthodox church sounds pretty nice. It is a shame that there aren't any in my area and that I am not willing to be bluepilled by a new overlord.
>Arianisism
Thats heretical
It's not mental gymnastics. You are just sayin that because youre an edgey faggot from reddit that wants to join the lolbertarian church of "now officially not protestant" you have no respect for rules or those who make them like the Pope. An annulment is when there is no consent between the parties involved in a marriage, no consent then no marriage. This is also why marriages between Catholics and heathens were not recognized because an Atheist would not consent to God sanctifying and officiating the marriage, this is why abused men or women do not usually have a real marriage because the abuser is usually an edgelord that does not consent to Gods involvement in his and his wife's life, hence a broken "marriage". Obviously if someone is forced into a marriage, it's also annuled
>An annulment is when there is no consent between the parties involved in a marriage, no consent then no marriage.
how do you even marry someone without consent in the first place?
Ever heard of a Shotgun marriage?. When a young man joins with a young woman, both not married, and the lady becomes pregnant, and the father of the lady forces the young man to marry her. Also there are examples that in the middle ages sometimes the young men or women of a noble family are pressured into a marriage with someone they don't want to be with, maybe someone who's too old for them. The young man or woman does not consent but their father makes the marriage happen civicly speaking.
For a marraige to happen
1. Consent of woman
2. Consent of man
3. Consent of woman for God to officiate marriage
4. Consent of man for God to officiate marriage
This is why a marriage between a mudslime or pagan or atheist and a Catholic is not a real one and for thousands of years the CHurch has held to that
so in catholic church the way to divorce infinite times is to say you were forced into marriage?
makes sense, put up some rigid rule and push people to brake it by lying. the essence of what i hate about catholicism.
These are questions with very obvious answers. Let's put it this way. You area young white man of noble lineage from some part of the 2nd Riech Medieval Germany. Your dad forces you to marry an old roastie so he can get some sweet shekel deal out of it. You don't have a say so, the priest for whatever reason performs the wedding, maybe he doesn't know maybe he does unfortunately. Years later you ask for an annulment showing letters from your marriage and friends who are wittnesses to you saying in the years past that you forced to marry this old roastie when in fact it was not really your choice. The case is settled and the marriage is annuled since you did't agree to it anyways. You settle down for the rest of your days managing your serfs free from some old hag
It's not a divorce. A marraige is not a real marriage between an Orthodox and a heretic or pagan on the same grounds. if you don't like these reasons, then you are disagreeing with the Orthodox too
orthodox church does not marry orthodox to non-orthodox
EXACTLY
Know a priest that excommunicated his son for this reason.