Economia?

[jimmy]

Hi mardukm,

This is all very interesting.
In another thread about someone remarried becoming Orthodox:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=252435

A poster named Jimmy stated that this is also covered under economy as well. I know that a point of contention between Eastern Orthodox and Catholics has always been about divorce and remarriage and decree of nullity and “church divorce”.

I agree, that I am confused by the Eastern Orthodox as well. I don’t see how they reconcile something through economy that seems based on divine law.

I think they would say that God understands a man’s position in life and has mercy. He loves us as we are so He calls us. And through steps of virtue He leads us to perfection. The EO might allow divorce/remarriage as an act of mercy considering the persons position in life. Rather than turn a man away from the Church or condemn him to a life that he is currently unable to live they will allow it.

May I ask where you obtained your definition of oikonomia? It does not seem to fit the definitions of the early Fathers of the Church. A sin is a sin is a sin. When divine law says “this is a sin,” that cannot be changed. It is not as if a sin is only a sin for certain people under certain conditions. THAT is not what oikonomia is about.

I was just reading Severus of Antioch last night and in a letter to Caesaria he gives an example which sounds a lot like oikonomia. The letter is about worshiping with heretics. Severus says basically that worshiping with the heretics is blasphemous and is not allowed. But he goes on to speak of certain people who are in positions where they have to follow around those who are in power. What he says is that they have a dispensation to do so. He goes on to refer to 4Kings5 where Namaan is healed by Elisha and he tells Elisha that he will continue to go into the pagan temples out of necessity because his master goes in. But when his master bows down to the pagan gods he will bow down to the LORD. Elisha allows it.

Oikonomia is a less strict application of the laws. As bpbasilphx said, it isn’t about saying that it is not a sin but that the punishment might not apply.

 

[mardukm]

Hi mardukm,

This is all very interesting.
In another thread about someone remarried becoming Orthodox:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=252435

A poster named Jimmy stated that this is also covered under economy as well. I know that a point of contention between Eastern Orthodox and Catholics has always been about divorce and remarriage and decree of nullity and “church divorce”.

I agree, that I am confused by the Eastern Orthodox as well. I don’t see how they reconcile something through economy that seems based on divine law.

Brother Jimmy is correct in this case. The Eastern Orthodox, though they permit remarriage DO NOT consider the second marriage as ideal (and in fact have a different ceremony for it). It is still in keeping with the principle of oikonomia because there is no actual denial of the special character of the first marriage.

What I don’t like about the Eastern Orthodox practice/belief is the proliferation of reasons they have for permitting divorce and remarriage. The Oriental Orthodox are so much more strict, dogmatically believing, as the Catholic Churches do, that marriage is an INDISSOLUBLE BOND. The Coptic Orthodox, for one, permit divorce.remarriage ONLY under the circumstances of heresy or adultery (which is also considered a heresy in OO circles). The Oriental Orthodox also recognize the principle and practice of annulments.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Brother Jimmy is correct in this case. The Eastern Orthodox, though they permit remarriage DO NOT consider the second marriage as ideal (and in fact have a different ceremony for it). It is still in keeping with the principle of oikonomia because there is no actual denial of the special character of the first marriage.

What I don’t like about the Eastern Orthodox practice/belief is the proliferation of reasons they have for permitting divorce and remarriage. The Oriental Orthodox are so much more strict, dogmatically believing, as the Catholic Churches do, that marriage is an INDISSOLUBLE BOND. The Coptic Orthodox, for one, permit divorce.remarriage ONLY under the circumstances of heresy or adultery (which is also considered a heresy in OO circles). The Oriental Orthodox also recognize the principle and practice of annulments.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think in order to understand it you have to recognize that the EO see sin differently than Catholics do.

What you are proposing is NOT the Eastern teaching of oikonomia, but the Latin and Alexandrian teaching on invincible ignorance - which indeed states that for people under certain circumstances. a sin can no longer be regarded as sinful.

I think you misunderstood the poster. He clearly says that the sin is still considered sin but it may in a sense be overlooked out of mercy.

I know there are some things within Eastern Orthodoxy that used to be regarded as sinful, but are no longer regarded as such. But this does not seem to justify changing the definition of oikonomia as understood by the Fathers.

Are you refering to contraception? If that is the case then just to make it clear, they do still consider it to be sinfull or missing the mark. But they will allow it in certain instances out of mercy. As with divorce it is an application of oikonomia.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I think in order to understand it you have to recognize that the EO see sin differently than Catholics do.

Can you please explain how this relates to the post to which you responded?

I think you misunderstood the poster. He clearly says that the sin is still considered sin but it may in a sense be overlooked out of mercy.

Actually, he said no such thing. YOU did in the new thread regarding divorce. But I’m willing to assume that I may have misunderstood him. I mean, when he said “the law does not apply,” did he mean the law itself (which is universal and always applies) or did he mean the punishment (which is often regarded as part of the law itself)?

Are you refering to contraception? If that is the case then just to make it clear, they do still consider it to be sinfull or missing the mark. But they will allow it in certain instances out of mercy. As with divorce it is an application of oikonomia.

Brother, I would sincerely believe you if I had not been personally involved in or seen so many discussions where EO polemicsts and apologists here back in the day (when it was still called the Eastern CHRISTIANITY Forum) would insist that contraception is NOT a sin. But as you make this claim, and I trust your integrity, I am willing to assume that perhaps these EO were not representing the OFFICIAL teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, and may have simply been swept up in the fervor of the debate. Can you offer any links or proof to validate your statement?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Actually, he said no such thing. YOU did in the new thread regarding divorce. But I’m willing to assume that I may have misunderstood him. I mean, when he said “the law does not apply,” did he mean the law itself (which is universal and always applies) or did he mean the punishment (which is often regarded as part of the law itself)?

I just realized that you quoted yourself in the above post.

Well, regarding divorce or contraception they would say that it is still sinful but they will allow it as an act of mercy for the sake of their salvation.

Brother, I would sincerely believe you if I had not been personally involved in or seen so many discussions where EO polemicsts and apologists here back in the day (when it was still called the Eastern CHRISTIANITY Forum) would insist that contraception is NOT a sin. But as you make this claim, and I trust your integrity, I am willing to assume that perhaps these EO were not representing the OFFICIAL teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, and may have simply been swept up in the fervor of the debate. Can you offer any links or proof to validate your statement?

Blessings,
Marduk

One example is a discussion I had on this exact same topic on an Orthodox forum. The posters themselves mention the evilness of contraception.

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16777.msg241759/topicseen.html#msg241759

I do recall several Orthodox on these forums when it was the Eastern Christianity forum saying that contraception was not simply an acceptable thing but that the couple should speak with their spiritual father about the matter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I was just reading Severus of Antioch last night and in a letter to Caesaria he gives an example which sounds a lot like oikonomia. The letter is about worshiping with heretics. Severus says basically that worshiping with the heretics is blasphemous and is not allowed. But he goes on to speak of certain people who are in positions where they have to follow around those who are in power. What he says is that they have a dispensation to do so. He goes on to refer to 4Kings5 where Namaan is healed by Elisha and he tells Elisha that he will continue to go into the pagan temples out of necessity because his master goes in. But when his master bows down to the pagan gods he will bow down to the LORD. Elisha allows it.

These are not examples of oikonomia, but rather of the mitigations of invincible ignorance which states that one cannot be held fully culpable or culpable at all for something that one does not do out of full volition and knowledge. If one is constrained to do something such as in both of the cases you mentioned, there was no full volition in the matter. Therefore, the people were not sinning.

Oikonomia is a less strict application of the laws. As bpbasilphx said, it isn’t about saying that it is not a sin but that the punishment might not apply.

Brother bpbasilphx said the first statement. I’ll take credit for the second statement, which is not identical to the first statement, unless one defines “law” as BOTH the principle behind the law AND the punishment.for its transgression.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

These are not examples of oikonomia, but rather of the mitigations of invincible ignorance which states that one cannot be held fully culpable or culpable at all for something that one does not do out of full volition and knowledge. If one is constrained to do something such as in both of the cases you mentioned, there was no full volition in the matter. Therefore, the people were not sinning.

It is not invincible ignorance because the man knows perfectly that he is not to do what he is doing. But it is allowed by Severus(and Elisha in his example) as a dispensation(the translation I have actually uses the word ‘dispensation’). You are inserting a western concept of sin into Severus. THe three requirements for sin are a development of Aquinas. Severus speaks of martyrs who submitted to the persecutors for the sake of comfort. He condemns them for their abandonment of the faith.

Severus in this case is speaking of it as if it is something that is wrong but he allows it out of necessity, not because it ceases to be a sin.

Brother bpbasilphx said the first statement. I’ll take credit for the second statement, which is not identical to the first statement, unless one defines “law” as BOTH the principle behind the law AND the punishment.for its transgression.

I realized after the fact that you were quoting yourself.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

IWell, regarding divorce or contraception they would say that it is still sinful but they will allow it as an act of mercy for the sake of their salvation.

Orthodox apologists need to be careful when they say this. I personally understand the patristic basis for it. “For the sake of their salvation” simply refers to the fact that otherwise they might fall away from the Church and deprive themselves of the medicine of immortality. But taken on its face, without the proper patristic knowledge, it could easily be misinterpreted to mean that the permission to divorce and contraception ITSELF is a means of salvation - which leads to the perception that divorce and contraception are no longer regarded as sin.

One example is a discussion I had on this exact same topic on an Orthodox forum. The posters themselves mention the evilness of contraception.

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16777.msg241759/topicseen.html#msg241759

I do recall several Orthodox on these forums when it was the Eastern Christianity forum saying that contraception was not simply an acceptable thing but that the couple should speak with their spiritual father about the matter.

This is good to hear/read. But I know you know that a normal non-Catholic polemic in this matter is that the Catholic Church tries to entrap people in their guilt by calling contraception a sin. If it is true that EO believe that contraception is still a sin, you would not hear this argument from them. But they do use it, which is very telling.

I must admit this is one of those instances where it is good that there is a central authority for the matter. One simply cannot have one group of people going around saying “it is not a sin” and another group saying :“it is a sin.” The EO authorites need to put their foot down, but the EO ecclesiology does not seem to allow for that, as the will/beliefs of the people are greatly regarded as determinitive for morals and doctrine. This is something the EO have to change before reunion can occur, IMHO. Or perhaps they already have the mechanism for it, but simply don’t use it. I hope such matters will become evident in future reunion talks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is not invincible ignorance because the man knows perfectly that he is not to do what he is doing. But it is allowed by Severus(and Elisha in his example) as a dispensation(the translation I have actually uses the word ‘dispensation’). You are inserting a western concept of sin into Severus. THe three requirements for sin are a development of Aquinas.

Well, I must respectfully disagree on two points. First, the principle of invincible ignorance involves not only the idea that full knowledge is lacking, but also full volition, which is the circumstance you have presented. Elisha was COMPELLED, and the decision was not entirely free. Thus, he was dispensed.

Second, the three requirements for sin are not a development that began with Aquinas. Rather, it was a restatement of ancient GREEK philiosophical principles which pervaded the thought of the early Fathers, especially the Alexandrians and Cappadocians. There is nothing peculiarly “Western” about the idea of invincible ignorance. It is orthodox Catholic through and through. The modern EOC deny the principle of invincible ignorance, but the early Fathers did not. If you want to start a new thread, I will give you examples from early Eastern Fathers who believe as the Catholic Church does today regarding the principle of invincible ignorance. As far as the Orientals go, I also know that the Coptic Orthodox Church accepts the principle of invincible ignorance.

Severus in this case is speaking of it as if it is something that is wrong but he allows it out of necessity, not because it ceases to be a sin.

There is a difference between “it is a sin, but you are not culpable for the sin in your particular circumstance” and “it is a sin, and you are culpable, but the punishment will be removed or lessened.” The first one is invincible ignorance. The second one is oikonimia. It seems to me the Severus was applying the first one. Can you give a link to the text? I need to read it more before forming a final opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

This thread seems to be a classic example of the difficulties I had in accepting “economy” when I was first learning about the various Eastern traditions.

I was quite familiar with “dispensation”, which in the Latin tradition means the Pastoral right to “dispense with the legal canons” when doing so is spiritual beneficial, and when it doesn’t contradict absolute moral law. An example of “dispensation” would be saying that a sick person doesn’t have to fast during Lent; the canons say they should, but it would be unhealthy and against the Spirit to force them to, so the canons are dispensed with in that case.

“Economy”, at least in the Byzantine sense, can step beyond the definition of “dispensation”, in that it can apply to situations in which a person is definitely sinning, but coming down hard on them would only lead them away from eventual repentance, rather than towards it. A hypothetical example might be if the Church Canons said that masturbation was worthy of excommunication; masturbation is certainly a sin, but to simply excommunicate anyone who did it would just mean that most people would leave the Faith entirely when they became teenagers, and likely never look back.

A real life example might be that, in the case of a married couple who has been practicing contraception, it would lead them away from the Faith to simply say during Confession “if you don’t stop, you’re damning yourself and your spouse, and you’re not welcome at the Sacraments until you resolve to quit using contraception”. Instead, a Confessor might say that the couple must be working towards abandoning the sinful behavior, but that the Church understands it’s a struggle and not something completed over-night. They are free to Confess, including their use of contraception, but they aren’t dropped immediately from the Sacraments just because it’s known that they aren’t going to reform this minute. They are being led away from sin by their Confessor, not towards it either by harshness or leniency.

Now, in practice, I’ve seen this approach towards “economy” used in both the East and the West. The only difference is that the East, or at least the Byzantine tradition, has a word and “theory” for it, while the Latin tradition doesn’t. I’ve never heard from a Latin priest “if you don’t stop that right now, you’re damned”, but I have heard “here’s something you can do to strengthen yourself for the struggle in the future, but when you fail keep returning to Confession, and start again to be like Christ”, with the complete understanding that I’m likely to be back in a week to Confess the very same sins. In contrast (and comparison), in the Melkite Church I’ve usually heard something like “we humans struggle with such things, but don’t be consumed with your evil actions; push towards a union with Christ, pray and keep moving towards God”.

In both cases my struggle is understood, and I’m not being “cut off” or judged. In both cases my well-being and striving towards God is taken into consideration, and there is understanding as well as forgiveness.

There is certainly no “difference in the concept of sin”, and there is barely even a difference in approach. If anything I’d say that the difference is more of a cultural nuance.

The problem is that when Latins hear such things like “there is a difference in the concept of sin”, and “a sin can be overlooked in the interest of mercy”, it comes across as meaning that sin is relative, or not “really” against God. Sin is an absolute, not a relative thing (though individual occaisions can certainly be relative, which I think is Marduk’s point, and is entirely Patristic and even Scriptural). Sin is also ALWAYS evil, never a good, never even “allowable”. It’s understandable, on a human level, but never on a Divine level, and it always means a severing between God and man.

The real truth is that sometimes sin isn’t allowed, but it IS understood, and that understanding can be used to lead people away from the sin. Yes, you struggle and can’t find the good answer to this temptation; keep struggling, and find the good. That doesn’t mean that the evil choice becomes “right” because a Confessor understands, it means that an evil choice is still a very strong temptation, and needs delicate handling for the person to overcome it.

If a Confessor, or any Catholic, ever says that an evil is “acceptable” out of mercy, they’d do well to read Ezekiel 3:

17] "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me.
18] If I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.
19] But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.

There is no mercy in overlooking sin, or allowing it. There is only double-condemnation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Ghosty, I don’t think anyone is saying that sin is acceptable. Everyone says that sin is always wrong and falling short. But the question is whether certain individuals can be permitted to continue doing certain things that might be sinful like contraception with the permission of their spiritual father. Rather than cause them to fall can there be mercy? I tend to agree with the Byzantine approach on this.

I certainly do think there is a different approach or understanding of the sin in the east and the concept of oikonomia is a sign of that. This doesn’t mean that morality is relative or that a sin ever ceases to be sin. The Byzantines tend to say that we are living in sin. So there might be mercy regarding certain things under certain circumstances for the purpose of leading certain individuals to repentance and out of the desert that we are in.

mardukm, I will try to type in the relevant text later today. I don’t have my books on hand right now.

 

[bpbasilphx]

May I ask where you obtained your definition of oikonomia? It does not seem to fit the definitions of the early Fathers of the Church. A sin is a sin is a sin. When divine law says “this is a sin,” that cannot be changed. It is not as if a sin is only a sin for certain people under certain conditions. THAT is not what oikonomia is about.

**From 30 + years of being Orthodoxy.

“Oikonomia” refers to canonical practice, not allowing sin.**

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, I don’t think anyone is saying that sin is acceptable. Everyone says that sin is always wrong and falling short. But the question is whether certain individuals can be permitted to continue doing certain things that might be sinful like contraception with the permission of their spiritual father. Rather than cause them to fall can there be mercy? I tend to agree with the Byzantine approach on this.

The first part of your paragraph contradicts the second. If sin is always wrong and falling short, then there is no “mercy” in the world that can make it NOT be wrong and falling short.

When you say “rather than cause them to fall, can there be mercy” you are stating, whether you realize it or not, that the spiritual father can turn their fall (their sin) into a non-fall, which is simply not true and is not at all the Byzantine practice. If that were the case then it would be just as easy for a spiritual father to say that an angry husband can murder his wife out of “economy”, if he just can’t get over his anger any other way. After all, once his evil action is committed, he will be over the anger that has been leading him to sin. Isn’t that merciful?

I certainly do think there is a different approach or understanding of the sin in the east and the concept of oikonomia is a sign of that.

Properly used and applied, oikonomia is almost exactly the same as dispensation, which is an ancient tradition in the Latin Church. What you’re describing as the use of oikonomia is something I’ve never seen practiced in any Byzantine tradition, though I’m certain some unscrupulous people have doneso.

A sin is a sin, but the canonical approach to it can be modified on a pastoral basis in certain circumstances. In the case of the contracepting couple, they would STILL have to Confess their sin of contraception every single time they were going to receive the Eucharist; it is no mercy at all to say they can continue their sinful activity and still receive the Eucharist, as that’s basically giving them a spiritual death sentence per Scripture. It would be within the Confessor to say “until you’ve resolved to stop this sin, don’t even come to me to Confess because you’re abusing the Sacrament”, and in some circumstances (hypothetically speaking) people can even be excommunicated for a time for certain sins even if they DO Confess, at least in the Byzantine tradition. The penalty/penance for a certain sin might be not being allowed to receive the Eucharist for weeks or months. In those cases, oikonomia could be applied if the Confessor saw it was the proper pastoral response to their individual problem, and they would be allowed to continue Confessing and receiving Communion rather than being excommunicated and barred from the Sacrament as penance. This way the couple remains under the spiritual care and direction of their pastor, and they can work towards moving past their sins, rather that getting the Sacramental “cold shoulder” which could theoretically be applied to them until they shape up.

Again, there is no basis in Byzantine tradition for simply hand-waiving sins away and allowing them to continue “out of mercy”. Such an action isn’t merciful, but very cruel. It’s not the priest who determines that a moral law is a sin or not, but the very Word of God written on the hearts of all humanity; the most the priest can do is “bind and loose” the worldly penalties associated with such actions, and absolve the repentant even when they’re still truly struggling. To say they can just continue in their sins, however, is basically tying a leash around their necks and handing them over to Satan with your blessing.

More realistic applications of oikonomia are things like allowing marriage to a non-Catholic/Orthodox, holding Liturgies on aliturgical days, dispensing with canonical fasts, ect. I’d guess that 95% of all applications of oikonomia are about such “technicalities”. It rarely ever applies to sins (and when it is it’s not about making the sin acceptable and allowable, but in guiding the person away from the sin), and I think it’s telling about our modern culture that we expect oikonomia to apply to the very moral law written on our very nature by God.

As a side note, I shudder to think of my own priest’s response if I requested such oikonomia being applied to my continued sinful actions. He’s not a harsh man by any stretch, but he takes the Sacraments very seriously.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

The first part of your paragraph contradicts the second. If sin is always wrong and falling short, then there is no “mercy” in the world that can make it NOT be wrong and falling short.

And this is why I think that the EO have a different understanding or approach to sin. The west makes the distinction between mortal and venial and says, ‘if you commit this sin you are going to hell, if you don’t then you are saved.’ The east recognizes that salvation is a process. They don’t necessarily say you are condemned through this one sin. Again, no one is saying they make it not wrong. What they do is to work with the people from where they are rather than to turn them away from the Church. Apostacy is far worse of a sin than contraception could ever be.

When you say “rather than cause them to fall, can there be mercy” you are stating, whether you realize it or not, that the spiritual father can turn their fall (their sin) into a non-fall, which is simply not true and is not at all the Byzantine practice. If that were the case then it would be just as easy for a spiritual father to say that an angry husband can murder his wife out of “economy”, if he just can’t get over his anger any other way. After all, once his evil action is committed, he will be over the anger that has been leading him to sin. Isn’t that merciful?

“is not at all the byzantine practice.” The Orthodox apply oikonomia to contraception. If by Byzantine you mean only the Byzantine Catholics I can see what you are saying. But the Orthodox apply the concept to contraception, second marriages and maybe a few other instances. They don’t apply them to any sin we wish to apply it to. There are specific issues which it is applied to. And there are many Byzantine Catholics who follow the Orthodox in pretty much all things. Hence the title, Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Properly used and applied, oikonomia is almost exactly the same as dispensation, which is an ancient tradition in the Latin Church. What you’re describing as the use of oikonomia is something I’ve never seen practiced in any Byzantine tradition, though I’m certain some unscrupulous people have doneso.

I have seen people on this forum argue against the Orthodox acceptance of contraception but the fact is that they do not accept it. In specific cases they apply the concept of oikonomia.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I believe both you and brother Ghosty are saying the same thing. Brother Ghosty is simply explaining, in addition, the inherent DANGERS in the LANGUAGE the Orthodox use to defend its practice (which I have expressed as well). But I do disagree with some of the statements you have made.

And this is why I think that the EO have a different understanding or approach to sin. The west makes the distinction between mortal and venial and says, ‘if you commit this sin you are going to hell, if you don’t then you are saved.’ The east recognizes that salvation is a process. They don’t necessarily say you are condemned through this one sin. Again, no one is saying they make it not wrong. What they do is to work with the people from where they are rather than to turn them away from the Church. Apostacy is far worse of a sin than contraception could ever be.

Let’s turn this around. We both agree that the Latin Church distinguishes between mortal and venial sin, and let’s assume that (for the sake of argument, not that I believe it) that the idea of “mortal sin” means, as you stated (and this is where I disagree with you), that “if you commit this sin you are going to hell, if you don’t you are saved.” Well, why can not a Latin just as easily say, “Well, at least we limit the sins that can send you to hell. You guys don’t distinguish at all, and say ALL sins can send you to hell.” Do you think that would be fair? Of course not.

The fact of the matter is, the Latin Church teaches NOT that the sin will send you to hell PERIOD, but that “MORTAL SIN SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE CHURCH OFFERS THE MEDICINE OF CONFESSION WHEN YOU DO FALL INTO SUCH SIN.” Why do you stop at the “sending to hell” description? Why do you purposely fail to leave out the fact that the Latin Church offers the Sacrament of confession for such sins? Are you saying that the Orthodox teach that that you don’t need to go to confession for the sins that are not distinguished between mortal and venial? Are you saying that the Latin Church teaches that there can be no forgiveness for mortal sin? Don’t you know that the Latin hierarchy EXPLICITLY offers the Sacrament of confession AT ANY TIME, and not just in the formal setting of the Sacrament (which is more than what the Orthodox do)? Are you saying the Latins teach that there is no hope for people in mortal sin? And before you appeal to the Eastern/Oriental belief that even evil men in Hades after death have a possibility of going to heaven, permit me to point out that the prayers of the Latin Church for the dead include ALL the dead, and does not distinguish between evil men and good men (for she has no power to make that distinction).

In the end, there is no warrant to paint the Latin understanding in such pejorative fashion as to leave out all hope for salvation. I hope you can at some point offer our readers a correction of your statement.

I have seen people on this forum argue against the Orthodox acceptance of contraception but the fact is that they do not accept it. In specific cases they apply the concept of oikonomia.

The people on this forum have argued 1) against a misconception that ALL Orthodox think contraception/divorce is NOT a sin; 2) against those particular Orthodox who HAVE expressed the opinion that contraception/divorce is NOT a sin. Such people on this forum should be given the proper knowledge to correct #1, but should be given hearty commendations for #2.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

The Orthodox apply oikonomia to contraception.

Actually I don’t think they apply oikonomia to contraception at all. Rather I believe it’s been progressively regarded as “not a sin”, contrary to traditional belief. This is not universal within Eastern Orthodoxy, as there are still many who view it as a sin. In those cases where contraception is allowed, however, it is not out of oikonomia, but out of a change in the view of the act itself.

Again, oikonomia refers to canonical issues, not to judgements on whether or not something is sinful, or whether a sinful action is allowed to continue. Oikonomia would be allowing a Catholic to receive Sacraments in an Orthodox Church, NOT allowing an Orthodox to commit a sin out of “mercy”. The only “mercy” in oikonomia would be in not bringing the full canonical penalty (e.g. excommunication) against someone who did commit such a sin. If a pastor allows some of his flock to practice contraception, it can’t be out of oikonomia by definition, but because he doesn’t view it as intrinsically sinful.

The fact that contraception is allowed by some Eastern Orthodox today indicates a fundamental change in perspective on the activity, not a broadening of oikonomia. This change is very, very recent, and very unfortunate IMO, but whatever it is it’s not a case of oikonomia.

Mardukm addressed your reference to “mortal versus venial” sin well enough that I don’t feel it warrants any (name removed by moderator)ut by me. I’ll just say that I’m not making any such distinctions, and I don’t see how they apply in this case at all. Additionally, the Latin tradition views salvation as a process as well, as Mardukm points out, and it is an artificial division to speak in such a way about the Byzantine and Latin traditions. If the Latin tradition has put more emphasis on sins causing damnation (and I’m not sure it really has), it’s merely a matter of emphasis, not a difference in how Salvation is viewed as a process.

Read any of the Latin Doctors and catechisms and you’ll see that Salvation is a process, and that sins don’t “automatically damn”, but rather “final impenitence” (refusal to repent and turn towards the Grace of the Holy Spirit) damns.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I believe both you and brother Ghosty are saying the same thing. Brother Ghosty is simply explaining, in addition, the inherent DANGERS in the LANGUAGE the Orthodox use to defend its practice (which I have expressed as well). But I do disagree with some of the statements you have made.

Let’s turn this around. We both agree that the Latin Church distinguishes between mortal and venial sin, and let’s assume that (for the sake of argument, not that I believe it) that the idea of “mortal sin” means, as you stated (and this is where I disagree with you), that “if you commit this sin you are going to hell, if you don’t you are saved.” Well, why can not a Latin just as easily say, “Well, at least we limit the sins that can send you to hell. You guys don’t distinguish at all, and say ALL sins can send you to hell.” Do you think that would be fair? Of course not.

The fact of the matter is, the Latin Church teaches NOT that the sin will send you to hell PERIOD, but that "MORTAL SIN SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LOVE OF GOD

Hi Marduk,

I’d like to suggest a slight adjustment to your response. Mortal sin seperates us from God that’s true, just not the love of God.

That’s all. Carry on

Blessings :bowdown2:

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I believe both you and brother Ghosty are saying the same thing. Brother Ghosty is simply explaining, in addition, the inherent DANGERS in the LANGUAGE the Orthodox use to defend its practice (which I have expressed as well). But I do disagree with some of the statements you have made.

Let’s turn this around. We both agree that the Latin Church distinguishes between mortal and venial sin, and let’s assume that (for the sake of argument, not that I believe it) that the idea of “mortal sin” means, as you stated (and this is where I disagree with you), that “if you commit this sin you are going to hell, if you don’t you are saved.” Well, why can not a Latin just as easily say, “Well, at least we limit the sins that can send you to hell. You guys don’t distinguish at all, and say ALL sins can send you to hell.” Do you think that would be fair? Of course not.

The fact of the matter is, the Latin Church teaches NOT that the sin will send you to hell PERIOD, but that “MORTAL SIN SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE CHURCH OFFERS THE MEDICINE OF CONFESSION WHEN YOU DO FALL INTO SUCH SIN.” Why do you stop at the “sending to hell” description? Why do you purposely fail to leave out the fact that the Latin Church offers the Sacrament of confession for such sins? Are you saying that the Orthodox teach that that you don’t need to go to confession for the sins that are not distinguished between mortal and venial? Are you saying that the Latin Church teaches that there can be no forgiveness for mortal sin? Don’t you know that the Latin hierarchy EXPLICITLY offers the Sacrament of confession AT ANY TIME, and not just in the formal setting of the Sacrament (which is more than what the Orthodox do)? Are you saying the Latins teach that there is no hope for people in mortal sin? And before you appeal to the Eastern/Oriental belief that even evil men in Hades after death have a possibility of going to heaven, permit me to point out that the prayers of the Latin Church for the dead include ALL the dead, and does not distinguish between evil men and good men (for she has no power to make that distinction).

In the end, there is no warrant to paint the Latin understanding in such pejorative fashion as to leave out all hope for salvation. I hope you can at some point offer our readers a correction of your statement.

I have two things to clarify. First, the first line of my post which you quoted above.

And this is why I think that the EO have a different understanding or approach to sin.

With this I was refering to what Ghosty said. It wasn’t really connected with the rest of the paragraph. I think that the Byzantines view sin differently because of how Ghosty responded.

Regarding your reference to the Sacrament of Confession, I don’t think it is really relevant. I was refering to the absolute distinction between what is mortal and what is venial. The fact that the west makes this absolute distinction is a sign that there is a different understanding of sin. That was my point. And I also think the concept of oikonomia as applied to contraception or second marriages is a sign of a difference. I think the concept of ‘the fools for Christ’ is a sign of a different understanding. Was it St. Sophronius who supposedly paraded through town naked so that people would think he was a drunk? I bring these up because Ghosty said he didn’t think there was a difference between how the Latins view sin and how the Byzantines view it. It is not to condemn the Latins.

 

[jimmy]

Actually I don’t think they apply oikonomia to contraception at all. Rather I believe it’s been progressively regarded as “not a sin”, contrary to traditional belief. This is not universal within Eastern Orthodoxy, as there are still many who view it as a sin. In those cases where contraception is allowed, however, it is not out of oikonomia, but out of a change in the view of the act itself.

Again, oikonomia refers to canonical issues, not to judgements on whether or not something is sinful, or whether a sinful action is allowed to continue. Oikonomia would be allowing a Catholic to receive Sacraments in an Orthodox Church, NOT allowing an Orthodox to commit a sin out of “mercy”. The only “mercy” in oikonomia would be in not bringing the full canonical penalty (e.g. excommunication) against someone who did commit such a sin. If a pastor allows some of his flock to practice contraception, it can’t be out of oikonomia by definition, but because he doesn’t view it as intrinsically sinful.

The fact that contraception is allowed by some Eastern Orthodox today indicates a fundamental change in perspective on the activity, not a broadening of oikonomia. This change is very, very recent, and very unfortunate IMO, but whatever it is it’s not a case of oikonomia.

Mardukm addressed your reference to “mortal versus venial” sin well enough that I don’t feel it warrants any (name removed by moderator)ut by me. I’ll just say that I’m not making any such distinctions, and I don’t see how they apply in this case at all. Additionally, the Latin tradition views salvation as a process as well, as Mardukm points out, and it is an artificial division to speak in such a way about the Byzantine and Latin traditions. If the Latin tradition has put more emphasis on sins causing damnation (and I’m not sure it really has), it’s merely a matter of emphasis, not a difference in how Salvation is viewed as a process.

Read any of the Latin Doctors and catechisms and you’ll see that Salvation is a process, and that sins don’t “automatically damn”, but rather “final impenitence” (refusal to repent and turn towards the Grace of the Holy Spirit) damns.

Peace and God bless!

Maybe you are right regarding the Orthodox and contraception. But I can only speak through my experience. From my experience it seems that the Orthodox generally do not think contraception is acceptable. Maybe this is just those I have come in contact with.

Regarding the Latin distinction of Mortal vs. Venial. I only brought it up as a sign that there is a difference between the Latin and Byzantine approach to sin. I purposely use the word sign because I can’t define the difference but I see that there is a difference.

Florence clearly states that those who die in mortal sin, or original sin only, descend immediately to hell to suffer punishments according to their sins. Maybe this is not a dogmatic statement; I have heard it said that only the canons are infallible. This seems to contradict the concept of a process.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Thank you for your clarification. It has helped allevaite part of my concerns.

Having said that, I would like to point out that the specific text with which I had a problem was this:

The east recognizes that salvation is a process. They don’t necessarily say you are condemned through this one sin

Sorry I wasn’t more specific earlier. I can see with your current clarification that your intention was really only to point out that there is a difference in the understanding of sin itself. But I think the statement above went beyond that, because you started to talk about condemnation and salvation.

As brother Ghosty explained, according to Latin teaching, it is not mortal sin itself which leads to condemnation - for as I had pointed out, the Latin Church offers the Sacrament of confession quite munificently as the healing balm. Rather, it is “final impenitence.” I think at best all we can say is that there is a difference in the CATEGORIZATIONS of sin. But if one defines the whole concept of sin which would include its relation to salvation, then the divide is not great at all (i.e., the idea of a process, of progressively increasing in holiness towards the goal of reacquiring the divine image, etc.).

Once again, thank you for your resopnse.

Blessings,
Marduk