And yet, in spite of many challanges, the Orthodox are comparatively free of the liturgical and doctrinal chaos you and many others cite as a running rampant in the Latin Rite. Does nobody in the west consider that it might be the highly centralized modern Papacy, dogmatized in Pastor Aeternus, that is the very reason for all that you decry? For that is the big difderentiator between east and west. No connection or correlation, possibly?
And yet, the crisis in the west continues - have you a solution?
Certainly, everything in the liturgical life of the Church is true. Ours at least, that is very much what Orthodox believe. Is all that is true to be found in the liturgical life of the Church? Said another way, what outside of that which is prayed by all is required for salvation, to be in communion with Christ and His Church? The rule of prayer drives the rule of faith, does it not? Conversely, if something is not prayed, is it be believed?
For Orthodox, the liturgical life of the Church is quite resilient to caprice and innovation, and part of why when we talk of the "sensus fidelium", we speak of the laity as having co-ownership to guard the deposit of faith in concert with our bishops and clergy. Can Roman Catholics say the same on these fronts? Evidence these past 60 years would suggest no, and this is due in no small measure to the clericalism so rampant in the West up to and including the time of the Second Vatican Council, and distillation of that ownership into the highly centralized Papacy that developed apart from the East, culminating in Pastor Aeternus. Hence, when the progressives got ahold of the Papal machine, 99% of the hierarchy just rolled over and obeyed the Pope, and the laity too had no ownership muscle left, reduced as they were to "pay,pray and obey" to resist the innovations. Which haven't ended, based on your reports and other trads and sedes. And probably never will, so long as you cling to Pastor Aeternus. What's the saying about fruits and trees?
"Everything inside this book is true" is not convertible to "Everything true is inside this book", and the same applies to the liturgy. It's a really weird idea, parallel to Sola Scriptura. We're not interested in it. The fact that you can't see that, or don't care, is very strange.
"For Orthodox" – a sentence that begins with this is of little interest. We are not interested in what schismatics do.
I really don't get why you keep commenting here, because it's been said over and over again, "We don't believe these men to have been legitimate", and your questions don't seem to take account of that.
Your adjudication of their not being legitimate means What and to Whom, in terms of the crisis being solved? That you'll just have to wait it out? By what means would whatever you think needs to happen, happen? And by whom, and in what timeline?
And yet, in spite of many challanges, the Orthodox are comparatively free of the liturgical and doctrinal chaos you and many others cite as a running rampant in the Latin Rite. Does nobody in the west consider that it might be the highly centralized modern Papacy, dogmatized in Pastor Aeternus, that is the very reason for all that you decry? For that is the big difderentiator between east and west. No connection or correlation, possibly?
Of course we have considered it. And we have decided that it is not the case.
Have you considered that your novel theology of "everything we believe must be found in the liturgy" is made up junk?
And yet, the crisis in the west continues - have you a solution?
Certainly, everything in the liturgical life of the Church is true. Ours at least, that is very much what Orthodox believe. Is all that is true to be found in the liturgical life of the Church? Said another way, what outside of that which is prayed by all is required for salvation, to be in communion with Christ and His Church? The rule of prayer drives the rule of faith, does it not? Conversely, if something is not prayed, is it be believed?
For Orthodox, the liturgical life of the Church is quite resilient to caprice and innovation, and part of why when we talk of the "sensus fidelium", we speak of the laity as having co-ownership to guard the deposit of faith in concert with our bishops and clergy. Can Roman Catholics say the same on these fronts? Evidence these past 60 years would suggest no, and this is due in no small measure to the clericalism so rampant in the West up to and including the time of the Second Vatican Council, and distillation of that ownership into the highly centralized Papacy that developed apart from the East, culminating in Pastor Aeternus. Hence, when the progressives got ahold of the Papal machine, 99% of the hierarchy just rolled over and obeyed the Pope, and the laity too had no ownership muscle left, reduced as they were to "pay,pray and obey" to resist the innovations. Which haven't ended, based on your reports and other trads and sedes. And probably never will, so long as you cling to Pastor Aeternus. What's the saying about fruits and trees?
"Everything inside this book is true" is not convertible to "Everything true is inside this book", and the same applies to the liturgy. It's a really weird idea, parallel to Sola Scriptura. We're not interested in it. The fact that you can't see that, or don't care, is very strange.
"For Orthodox" – a sentence that begins with this is of little interest. We are not interested in what schismatics do.
I really don't get why you keep commenting here, because it's been said over and over again, "We don't believe these men to have been legitimate", and your questions don't seem to take account of that.
Your adjudication of their not being legitimate means What and to Whom, in terms of the crisis being solved? That you'll just have to wait it out? By what means would whatever you think needs to happen, happen? And by whom, and in what timeline?
I really think these are the least problematic parts of it all