Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Woman at Well (Divorce)

[spauline]

What begins spiritually is eventually manifested in the flesh.

Therefore, is it not predetermined that in any history God would create, eventually the schismatics and heretics shall embrace both divorce and contraception, simply because that is their SPIRITUAL condition?

the schismatics are contracepting SPIRITUALLY against Peter and part of the mystery of the Trinity. They are separated from the Body of Christ, having divorced themselves from His Covenant. Is it any wonder that the Orthodox tend to approve of up to four or five divorces, and that there five apostolic sees, and their four Sees are divorced from Peter? Why also did the Christ tell the woman at the well, that she has had five husbands, and that the current man she is with is not her husband? And were not the Samaritans derived from the OT Kingdom that was in schism (the North)? So then even details in the Gospels that seem nonimportant may in fact reflect spiritual things that shall come to pass in the age of Christ’s Church!

for initially, the Gentiles, prior to the Great Schism, had one husband, Christ, whose unity is symbolized in Peter, the sign of unity.

After the Schism, the Gentiles had four husbands, the four men who divorced themselves from the Church. But they were legitimate spouses, for they retained Apostolic succession.

And in Protestantism, the Gentiles no longer had an Apostolic husband, for they cast aside the whole of the Apostle’s successors. Hence, the final seeds of division in the Old Kingdom shew forth in the New.

 

[spauline]

let us move on in the analogy. Marriage in the context of the woman at the well can be seen in terms of the Sacramental life. Remember, there is no wedding feast (Eucharist), where there are not Churches, and there are no Churches where there are no priests, and there are no priests where there are no bishops. The Apostolic Sees are the supreme bishops. And there are five of them, as the five husbands.

Heretics all but deny the Sacramental economy. Luther even called marriage a civil union only, and not a sacrament. Hence, heretics themselves in general consider themselves not to have sacramental marriage. Hence, they prefigure the woman who WAS married (five husbands) but who now is with a man who is NOT her husband.

Heretics lack the Eucharistic feast, because they do not have priests, or bishops, who are the image of the spousal Christ, who stand in the person of Christ, offering the sacrifice of the wedding feast of the Lamb. They have no union with ANY Apostolic See or successor, hence, hence, they have “no husband”.

For so it was that the first form of rift in the Old Covenant was a Schism, in which the North broke away and took most of the 12 tribes. But the true kingship remained with the remnant.

Later, the North was swept away by Assyria, and never recovered. The Samaritan, then, is a later development, a mixture of pagan peoples and the schismatic North.

But the North was a true kingdom until they were carried away, afterwards, they were not.

Similarly, the Eastern Schismatics truly have kingdoms, for they have apostolic succession, they have the fullness of Sacramental life, they HAVE Churches.

But the heretics do not have Churches, they are NOT kingdoms, they are ecclesial communities. They have not the spousal relationship of priests, and so they have no husband, in so far as the Samaritans were no longer Jews.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

let us move on in the analogy. Marriage in the context of the woman at the well can be seen in terms of the Sacramental life. Remember, there is no wedding feast (Eucharist), where there are not Churches, and there are no Churches where there are no priests, and there are no priests where there are no bishops. The Apostolic Sees are the supreme bishops. And there are five of them, as the five husbands.

Heretics all but deny the Sacramental economy. Luther even called marriage a civil union only, and not a sacrament. Hence, heretics themselves in general consider themselves not to have sacramental marriage. Hence, they prefigure the woman who WAS married (five husbands) but who now is with a man who is NOT her husband.

Heretics lack the Eucharistic feast, because they do not have priests, or bishops, who are the image of the spousal Christ, who stand in the person of Christ, offering the sacrifice of the wedding feast of the Lamb. They have no union with ANY Apostolic See or successor, hence, hence, they have “no husband”.

For so it was that the first form of rift in the Old Covenant was a Schism, in which the North broke away and took most of the 12 tribes. But the true kingship remained with the remnant.

Later, the North was swept away by Assyria, and never recovered. The Samaritan, then, is a later development, a mixture of pagan peoples and the schismatic North.

But the North was a true kingdom until they were carried away, afterwards, they were not.

Similarly, the Eastern Schismatics truly have kingdoms, for they have apostolic succession, they have the fullness of Sacramental life, they HAVE Churches.

But the heretics do not have Churches, they are NOT kingdoms, they are ecclesial communities. They have not the spousal relationship of priests, and so they have no husband, in so far as the Samaritans were no longer Jews.

Oh, please. Orthodox “tend to approve of up to four to five divorces?” Where do you make this up? Here in the land of divorce, the studies have found the Orthodox with the lowest rate of faith communities.

As for remarriage, that’s only allowed up to twice, and that includes widowhood, etc. So tend, no. According to canon, that’s an impossibility.

Now with that Corban known as an annullment, one can go through as many of those as allowed. No limit.

Your analogy runs afoul of your church btw, which teaches that the couple marry themselves, rather than the Orthodox Catholic view that the priest, or rather Christ by the hand of the priest, marries them.

Btw, that remnant is with patriarch of Jerusalem, who sits on the throne of James the Brother of God, whom St. Clement tells us St. Peter yielded the See as he dare not, as James was so appointed by Christ, and St. Epiphanius tells us that the patriarchs throne is the earthly fulfillment of the promise to David of his seed being on his throne, as Christ fulfilled the promise in Heaven.

As for the Holy Trinity, Adam was neither begotten nor proceeded, Eve proceeded from his side but was not begotten (Spirit is feminine in Hebrew, btw), Seth, whom the Bible says was in the image and likeness of his father, who was in the image and likeness of God, Seth was begotten but did not proceed. No filioque there.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi spauline. So … are you really trying to understand how Catholics view other Christians, or are you in fact just making fun of us? I’m sure a lot of us Catholics – as well as a lot of Protestants and Orthodox – are wondering that.