Divorce and the Greek-Orthodox

[josie_L]

What supposed restrictions are Catholics facing in Russia? I have Protestant friends there are worshipping freely.

Please refer to post #199. God bless!

 

[Irishgal49]

3-marriages? Why not 4 or 5. (depending on the circumstance’s) Is that an infallible number 3? Three for the Trinity? How did you arrive at 3? Why isn’t 4-or 5 keeping in mind with the salvation of the people?

“While the Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.”

Keeping in mind the “salvation of the people”.

“Doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage is based on its holiness. The holiness and indissolubility of marriage exalt monogamy. References are often made to the Old Testament in this regard (Mal. 2, 14).”

Third time is a charm?

Wow I could still get married one more time. Before I hear an explosion, my first is deceased, the 2nd was annulled but hey, looking for the next ex (just kidding)

 

[josie_L]

I quoted from a Wikipedia article (which was footnoted so easily verifiable), however, that doesn’t mean I haven’t been reading other articles:

economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21571111-new-look-religion-post-1991-russia-question-faith

themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russias-failure-to-protect-freedom-of-religion/462957.html

berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/religious-freedom-in-russia

state.gov/documents/organization/171717.pdf

 

[Cavaradossi]

The book The American Mission and the ‘Evil Empire’: The Crusade for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881 goes into this in great detail. There has been a tendency since Czarist times to portray Russia as a heartless autocracy (to make America look completely virtuous by contrast), just on the verge of a social transformation which could turn it into a second little America, a type of propaganda which unfortunately seems to have caught on in the West.

 

[dvdjs]

It is nice that two people were actually willing to voice opposition to religious discrimination - even if one could not resit the “but”.

There are all sorts of levels of interference in freedom of religion. The fact that you were able to go to a Latin church represents real progress from the totalitarian and some of the authoritarian days of the past - even as they also had historical context. However, there is considerable documentation (Stetson Inst, State Dept, etc.) of discrimination against non-Orthodox Christians in Russia - beginning with the Constitutional privilege for certain religions (which should, by the language of the law include the Catholic church, but strangely doesn’t), filtering down to how this is played out in games with visas, and permits for construction, and even permits to assemble. Some localities are better than others (GCCs in Siberia for example, but not in Petersburg or Moscow).

The bottom line is that this is reprehensible and inexcusable - however easy it is for some to haul out all sorts of excuses. It was just as easy for some like the ROC to do that even in the Soviet days. It all gives a sense of foreboding about human rights in Russia both to some who live there and other who watch.

 

[dvdjs]

The book The American Mission and the ‘Evil Empire’: The Crusade for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881 goes into this in great detail. There has been a tendency since Czarist times to portray Russia as a heartless autocracy just on the verge of a social transformation which could turn it into a second little America, a type of propaganda which unfortunately seems to have caught on in the West.

On the verge of turning into a second “little” America? Haven’t heard that one.

 

[josie_L]

I have never lived in Northern Ireland either, or North Korea or China or Cuba or . . etc., you get the picture.

 

[dvdjs]

As troubling as this discrimination is for those on the receiving end, it is actually bad for the ROC as well. From Atheism and Orthodoxy in Modern Russia, by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev:

… To speak of a religious revival in contemporary Russia has become a commonplace. But people vary in their understanding of what this revival entails. Certainly there is an external revival: many churches, monasteries and theological schools are being reopened, the buildings are being restored. But it is too early to speak of the restoration of the Russian soul. There is no improvement in morality in contemporary Russia. On the contrary, one must admit that moral standards have become much lower than they used to be under the Soviets. Is this not an indication that there is no inward revival of Christian life, that people do not assume Christianity as a norm of living? Is it not striking evidence of the fact that the long-waited repentance, metanoia, as a change in mentality for the better, has not yet taken place in Russia?

Some ascribe this sudden, lowering of moral standards to Western influence: it is from the degenerate West that pornography, prostitution and all sorts of immorality come. This is our way out: to blame everybody except ourselves. But the reality is that, as Berdyaev put it in 1918, ‘however bitter it is… the Russian people is now less religious than many peoples of the West… the religious culture of the soul in it is weaker.’ This is true if religious culture is understood not as membership in some right-wing Orthodox organisation, but as first of all living according to the norms of Christian morality.

When ‘perestroika’ started, the Church was challenged by the very high expectations on the part of the society. Many believed the Church would be able to assume the leading role in the spiritual revival of the nation. One has to admit that this did not happen. The Church started to revive itself by rebuilding monastery walls (which is indeed an important and difficult task) but it did not respond adequately to the need for religious and moral enlightenment of the people. The Church’s leaders gained access to the civil authorities, but thus far they have been unable (with some exceptions) to gain direct access to ordinary people, especially to those outside the Church. The Orthodox Church is still closed in upon itself; it is still more occupied with its own internal problems than with spiritual demands of modern society. It turned out that the Western Protestant sects took up the initiative of enlightenment of former atheists, and it is not surprising that, with their direct and somewhat insistent behavior, they are gaining the sympathy of more and more ordinary people.

Russian atheism may well one day die, but this will happen when the country has not only been baptized, but has been enlightened and born again.

The Orthodox Church should play a key role in this spiritual rebirth. But this can happen only after it has become a truly national Church: not the Church of the State (whatever the State is), but the Church, of the nation, of the people. To become such, the Church must come out of its shell, must learn to speak the language that the people speak, must face the demands of society and answer them adequately.

At the present time our Church is struggling to find its new identity in post-Communist and post-atheist Russia. There are, it seems to me, two main dangers. The first is that of a return to the pre-revolutionary situation, when there was a State Church which became less and less the Church of the nation. If, at some stage in the development of society, such a role would be offered to the Church by the State, it would be a huge mistake to accept it. In this case the Church will be again rejected by the majority of the nation, as it was rejected in 1917. The seventy years of Soviet persecution were an experience of fiery purgatory for the Russian Church, from which it should have come out entirely renewed. The most dangerous error would be not to learn from what happened and to return to the pre-revolutionary situation, as some members of the clergy wish to do nowadays.

The second danger is that of militant Orthodoxy, which would be a post-atheist counterpart of militant atheism. I mean an Orthodoxy that fights against Jews, against masons, against democracy, against Western culture, against enlightenment. This type of Orthodoxy is being preached even by some key members of the hierarchy, and it has many supporters within the Church. This kind of Orthodoxy, especially if it gains the support of the State, may force Russian atheism to withdraw temporarily to the catacombs. But Russian atheism, will not be vanquished until the transfiguration of the soul and the need to live according to the Gospel have become the
only message of the Russian Orthodox Church…

 

[josie_L]

The book The American Mission and the ‘Evil Empire’: The Crusade for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881 goes into this in great detail. There has been a tendency since Czarist times to portray Russia as a heartless autocracy (to make America look completely virtuous by contrast), just on the verge of a social transformation which could turn it into a second little America, a type of propaganda which unfortunately seems to have caught on in the West.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. :hypno:

 

[josie_L]

As troubling as this discrimination is for those on the receiving end, it is actually bad for the ROC as well. From Atheism and Orthodoxy in Modern Russia, by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev:

I’ve read this article it’s very good, thank you for posting it. By the way, I think you will like this article I found on the Eastern Catholic forums posted by DCointin:

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/comment-page-1/

 

[josie_L]

They were not simplistic analyses, i.e., I never claimed once in my posts that Russia was autocratic, point finale, as they say in French, I said that it is autocratic to a degree, and that there are issues of discrimination vis a vis freedom of Religion. It is your understanding that is simplistic, i.e., there is no discrimination because I didn’t experience anything of the sort while I was there. Honestly!

 

[josie_L]

So am I to understand that my “western” mind is too full of western propaganda to fully understand the situation in Russia? Because my catholic mind tells me that if Russia is going to claim equality for all religions in its constitution, then it should do so.

 

[josie_L]

I added many more sources, in fact, when I posted that article from Wikipedia I had already read enough to be convinced that Wikipedia was not posting anything “grossly” simplistic", i.e., did you read the other sources which I posted? Moreover, that “grossly simplistic” article on Wikipedia does I believe mention that relations between Rome and Russia has improved since Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI was appointed bishop of Rome. Also, I wasn’t attempting to build any strawmans during our conversation, however, from my perspective it seemed you were acting like some sort of apologist for the Russians:

I don’t view Russia as by any means a totalitarian state. Discrimination is wrong but it is based in a particular history which puts it into context. If anyone wants to continue these topics on a new thread I think we should open a new one as we are wandering way off topic now.

I have lived in Russia and used a latin rite parish there for Mass, no-one cared less about me going or coming from it. You are buying into propagandist versions of Russia.

I’ve lived in Russia Josie, you have not, I am married to a Russian and interect with Russians regularly and what you are presenting is a view rooted in US popular media regarding Russia which is often rather lacking in nuances.

Discrimination is discrimination, i.e., don’t contextualize it to the point that you miss the forest for the trees, i.e., I think it’s understandable that Russia wants to protect Orthodoxy but it should do so in a manner that doesn’t infringe on other peoples’ faiths.

We have made some small headway in gaining trust because of our standing side by side with the Orthodox on certain issues but to expect Pope John Paul II to make an apology to one Patriach and for that to cure all is not realistic. Also, complaining that Catholicism is not seen as a traditional religion in Russia is odd, it is NOT a traditional religion in Russia, that simply is a fact.

Now, who’s building the strawman, Pope John Paul II apologized for the misdeeds of Catholics in the past not as some sort of panacea but as a means to breech the rift between our two communions so we can begin healing (because that is the purpose of forgiveness). Moreover, there was no, I repeat, no, attempts on the part of the Eastern Patriarch to apologize for the misdeeds of Orthodox (are we going to believe that they have nothing to ask forgiveness for).

p.s. What I find odd about Russia’s “traditional” religions is that Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism are included in that subset.

 

[josie_L]

What about Judaism?

 

[josie_L]

I’m trying to understand how long it would take before Catholicism is recognized as a traditional religion, i.e., being that Russia was once part of the Catholic Church that was undivided?

 

[Nine_Two]

It is noteworthy that the folk-story telling of the Russian adoption of Christianity presents Roman Catholicism as something already distinct from Orthodoxy. No doubt the tale itself is apocryphal and came about after the schism, but it illustrates the Russian perception nicely.

 

[dvdjs]

One can make up all sorts of historical tales but the reality is Catholics have been present on Russian lands as long as there has been something that, with centuries of retrospection, would be called Russia. The Catholic people living there were as “Russian” as the Jews, and were probably always just as welcome. The current law discriminating against the Catholic church and dismissing its historical presence in those lands is disgraceful and absurd, however much it makes sense within the context of some Russian “history”.

 

[PRmerger]

Now imagine being raised Catholic and reverting. To understand and have the spiritual conviction of what the Eucharist is. And no matter how many times you do Reconciliation, you will not be able to partake because your present marriage is considered to put you in a state of mortal sin… That the body and blood of Christ is there at the Mass and that no matter your suffering,** you can’t receive it**.

Jose, I want to tell you, “Oh, but you can.”

However, I want to gently tell you: you have chosen something else over receiving Him.

If you rectify this, and receive absolution, and do not commit mortal sin, of course you can receive Him.

 

[Nine_Two]

One can make up all sorts of historical tales but the reality is Catholics have been present on Russian lands as long as there has been something that, with centuries of retrospection, would be called Russia. The Catholic people living there were as “Russian” as the Jews, and were probably always just as welcome. The current law discriminating against the Catholic church and dismissing its historical presence in those lands is disgraceful and absurd, however much it makes sense within the context of some Russian “history”.

The purpose of the tale was to illustrate the Russian perception, nothing more.

You are correct that there have been Catholics there almost as long as there has been a “Russia”, however even that is not all that long, relatively speaking. Orthodox, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews all predate the existence of Russia.

Beyond that, one thing they all have in common is that they have all had their own communities in Russia. Catholics have never, as far as I’ve ever been aware, created their own settlements. On this score even Protestants have a better claim to being a “traditional religion”.

If you want to argue freedom of religion, and the idea that having specific constitutionally protected religions isn’t right, I’m with you. But to argue that Catholicism should get those “traditional religion” protections while other religions which are just as prominent (such as Hinduism) shouldn’t is just plain wrong.

 

[dvdjs]

You are correct that there have been Catholics there almost as long as there has been a “Russia”, however even that is not all that long, relatively speaking. Orthodox, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews all predate the existence of Russia.

The point of the quotes around Russia is that reach back as you are doing with others, into Rus’. Catholics have the same antiquity as others.

Beyond that, one thing they all have in common is that they have all had their own communities in Russia. Catholics have never, as far as I’ve ever been aware, created their own settlements. On this score even Protestants have a better claim to being a “traditional religion”.

I think that there have been and still are some Polish and German catholic communities, not to mention Lithuanian and Ukrainian (GC) communities of Rus’.

If you want to argue freedom of religion, and the idea that having specific constitutionally protected religions isn’t right, I’m with you. But to argue that Catholicism should get those “traditional religion” protections while other religions which are just as prominent (such as Hinduism) shouldn’t is just plain wrong.

Thanks for taking a stand against religious discrimination in Russia. I agree that it is sufficient to leave the matter there.

As to “traditional” - this are no simple objective criteria behind this. I think that Catholics are out simply because they have been seen over their centuries there as foreign and as an enemy. I suppose that it is great social progress that Jews have emerged from this category and apparently are now considered Russian.