Quote from: Cantarella

The OCA is the Novus Ordo of the Orthodox,  by the way.

The ROCOR is the most traditional of all jurisdictions.

Well, besides the Old Calendarists and Old Believers, both of whom have "anathematized" both ROCOR (which has now been re-united to the Moscow Patriarchate) and OCA.  The former is rejected by the Old Calendarists because it is staffed by KGB agents; therefore, on account of openly being Donatists, the Old Calendarists reject all of their sacraments, including baptism, as invalid.  On top of this, everybody else adopted the Gregorian Calendar and therefore are rejected by the Old Calendarists as heretics, once again with entirely invalid sacraments -- no priests, no baptism, nothing.

Old Believers of course hold to the same Donatist error, but they are even more extreme, their schism (within a schism) going back to the XVIIth century reform of the Russian liturgy to unify it with Greek praxis, from which it had at some point diverged.  This introduces the problem, too, of whose practice was more ancient.  Was the true practice of crossing oneself lost ?  Were the true prayers lost ?  There is no way to affirm the matter one way or another without an appeal to scholarship or to an a priori declaration of victory for one side or another.  Ultimately, the Faith is not based on any consistent and coherent ancient tradition rooted in the Apostles, then; one's proximate rule of faith is in a mass of probabilities, the sympathy to which is often determined by ethnic affiliation.  As such, some Old Believers believe there are no priests left on the earth.  Like the Old Calendarists, they have anthematized both ROCOR, OCA, and all the rest; but they have also anathematized the Old Calendarists, as well as other Old Believers.  And vice versa !

There is nobody within the falsely so-called "Orthodox" churches that could possibly gainsay these anathemae, since amongst their factions there is no unique arbiter and judge of matters of Faith endowed with divine authority over the various different bodies who can pass a final decision on these matters.  The only thing that the New Calendar Greeks or others who have strayed from the ancient liturgical praxis of either the Russian or Greek liturgies could possibly do is anathematize them back.  But who is right ?  One would necessarily be at an impasse to find an Apostolic foundation for any legal mechanism that would be supplied to the faithful as a recourse for this disunity of faith, governance, and liturgy.  The only recourse, then, is energetic repetition of one's position and the threat of violence.  Usually, if a union is forged by a large number of the Orthodox, it is reliant on political pressure and careerist compromise to push it through.  One's confidence in one's faith is therefore unsustainable within the Eastern sects, since it is demonstrably compromised by intrigue and ex post facto appeals to consensus and institutional inertia.  Perhaps that is why wars against perceived foreign enemies and ethnic chauvinism have become such vital elements wherever there are proud "Orthodox" to insist on their membership in the True Church.  That is one of the truest ways to ensure enthusiastic membership -- to root it not in the pure doctrines that have been preserved from the fathers but rather to moor it in ethnic pride, carnal concerns, and blatant fideism.

This absurd state of affairs, of course, is belied by the existence of a Church that has a systematic theology and legal tradition taught and preserved by a unique head whose office therefore assures unity of Faith, of governance, and of sacraments -- and this office is backed up by the revelations within the Holy Scriptures and by immemorial Tradition dating to the earliest times and then shining forth in the writings and confessions of the Church Fathers.  In the fact of this, the Orthodox have no systematic theological system or ecclesial authority to give weight to their appeal.  They only have their insistence on being right, a position backed up by nothing but their own word.  The Orthodox are similar to the fideistic Protestant fundamentalists in that way, then.  Perhaps that is why they appeal so often to liturgical spirituality in the face of metaphysical arguments.  Ultimately, when the original schism is more about being Greek or Egyptian or Russian -- rather than being under one of those Latin scoundrels (condemned as such a priori, but such is the way of things) -- than about the Faith, that is all one has : Vague appeals to mystery, belief in the novelties of divine energies, uncreated light, hesychasm, rejection of Purgatory/Tollhouses, rejection of the Immaculate Conception (All-Holiness of Mary), rejection of the Assumption, etc.  When one's faith is ultimately rooted in not being subject to the Petrine See of Rome, soon one's Faith morphs into a giant reaction to and rejection of whatever the Latins do.  And now the Greeks reject teachings held by the unanimous moral consensus of the Fathers.  But don't worry, at least they aren't subject to the "tyranny" of "Roman legalism" which is untrustworthy -- never mind the explicit promise of Christ that the Holy Ghost would always preserve the Faith of St Peter.

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Then we agree on everything! :)

Obviously that is not the case.

Quote

With the Mormons, they teach in a way not in accordance with the Faith passed on through time from the Apostles. They are heretics... it's that simple.

The problem is in who gets to determine the content of the Faith.  If there is no single head who can pass final judgments on disputed points of Faith, i.e., if there is no universal teacher who has universal jurisdiction over the Church, then a single Faith that is continuous through time cannot be assured with moral confidence.  There must be an institutional unity for there to be a confessional unity.  The Orthodox have no mechanism for determining the content of the Faith except an appeal to Tradition, but when they disagree amongst themselves there is no recourse for them.  They thus are derailed into a faith that is re-interpreted by them in novel ways as new difficulties arise.  Who amongst them could make any final decision and so unite them ?  Each bishop is at an impasse.

As such, the Orthodox are uniquely subject to fideism and cultural inertia, since they cannot appeal to any systematic and universal rule of Faith.  They cannot develop solutions to explain the metaphysical ramifications of this or that doctrine, such as the Church Fathers under the guidance of the Roman See did.  As such, the Orthodox faith is irrational, since it is not ultimately something that can be examined and explained by reason guided by and grounded in Revelation.  On the contrary, it becomes not a reasonable but merely a ceremonial religion that justifies itself (in a circular manner) but cannot be justified to others by appealing to reason.  One instead becomes part of some Orthodox camp, rather than a universal Church.  It follows, then, that Eastern schismatic churches would invent such novel absurdities as allowing divorce and artificial birth control in order to better follow "the heart."  No authority amongst them or rational discourse could gain say the appeal of so-and-so's heart.  Here is an argument based purely on an aestheticised spirituality and nothing else; Faith, then, becomes the opponent of reason in the Orthodox... "system." There is no connection to the Faith and practice of the Apostles there.

Quote

We're not talking about a private experience of Faith.

Not as private as the Mormons, but private nonetheless, since ultimately the numerous Orthodox confessions are not based on a Faith assured by the universal Church.  They are based on something beyond the grasp of public teaching and reason and that cannot be explained in its origin or its dynamics.  It is located somehow in the liturgy, which is explained by the bishops, who are beholden to the liturgy, but none of whom can make their doctrinal judgments to be obeyed.  In the Orthodox scheme, a truly catholic Church is impossible.  There is no question of inherent credibility, one just take's another's word for it, full stop.  Where the authority behind his word originates is anybody's guess.

Quote

It's one that's lived and experienced in the context of living Sacred Tradition extending right back to the Apostles, in a community of believers.

Says who ?  The point of divergence is that you seem to be advancing a type of fideism that rejects metaphysical arguments, systematic theology, and a comprehensive legal corpus.  There is none amongst your schismatic sect that can demonstrate a clear connection to the Apostles in Faith.  The marks of the Church are absent from your groups.  These things can only be found in the Catholic Church founded on St Peter.

Orthodoxy is also now experiencing a division between traditionalists and modernists, just like Catholicism.

From what I understand the ROCOR ( Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) is the most traditional jurisdiction in that they are keeping the Old Calendar (as opposed as the Gregorian calendar - this is important, since the Orthodox bases much of his life in the Calendar of the Church, mainly for feasting). If you attend the ROCOR liturgy, you will find no pews, no organs or other instruments, the clergy will have long hair and beard. The Liturgy will be in Old Slavonic, not English.

When you go to a liturgy in the more liberalized, modernists jurisdictions such as Antiochian, Greek, OCA, the experience is entirely different. Liturgy is held in English and you will find pews to seat, organs, clergy with short hair, no beard, etc, etc. It does resemble the Novus Ordo masses.

Another MAJOR difference between the traditional Orthodox and the modernist, is that to the traditional Orthodox ecuмenism is an outright heresy, condemned by innumerable Councils who clearly forbid praying with heretics, whereas the modernist Orthodox (Antiochian, Greek, and OCA jurisdictions) are very fond of the ecuмenical movement.

I am not sure if OCA (Orthodox Church in America) now has a Canonical status within Orthodoxy because before it did not even have it.

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Well, I guess the question at hand is whether the Papacy was instituted by God via Divine Revelation, or whether it's an innovation. To say the Pope is an absolute supreme authority puts him mighty close to God for our comfort.

No, I'm interested in learning and trying to figure out if I'm missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing it. The legal and metaphysical frameworks and means of dealing with Faith just weren't around pre-Schism. Neither was the Supreme, Universal, Infallible jurisdiction of the Papacy. It's not out of rebellion that it's disliked by the Orthodox, but because it breaks down the conciliar tradition of solving problems of Faith.

I'd like to talk with someone who understands the Orthodox mindset, but who could illuminate how and why Roman Catholicism is just so much clearer and more consistent. Tradition-wise, you guys are about the only ones who have an almost-Orthodox appreciation for the connection between Tradition and Faith.

I'd almost like to believe in Sede-Vacantism, except it seems sectarian or schismatic. Either you're in communion with Rome now, or not. And that doesn't settle the "visible Church" issue... Sede-Vacantists seem pretty hidden and fanatical.

My apologies if that rubs a bunch of people the wrong way... it's good to get stuff out there in the open for discussion IMHO.

I'm not sure what you are looking to accomplish here on CathInfo, Nick.  You aren't going to find converts to Eastern Orthodoxy if that's what you're looking for.  Perhaps Catholic Answers would be a more profitable fishing ground.  Most folks here don't have an Eastern "Orthodox" view point or way of thinking.  CathInfo is a hardcore ROMAN CATHOLIC site.  We are Western Roman Catholic to the core. Your posts seem very proselytizing towards traditional Roman Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox religion.  I'm definitely not sure if that'll fly here either.  Not many (if any) even go to an Eastern Catholic parish (what you may call "Uniate). Please listen to Bishop Sanborn's sermon which I posted earlier on another thread in "Crisis in the Church".