I am considering the Orthodox Church

[jam070406]

Great. A non-answer.

You have been pointing a finger for a very long time. When you point a finger–three more are pointing back at yourself. We are talking about both Churches here.

We have given you an answer: Sometimes (condom use) it is allowable for extra-ordinary circumstances as per a spiritual father.

And now Rome is considering the same thing.

So yours allows it and ours does not. Ok, we’ve established that.

And Rome “considering” it, is nothing but speculation. And considering Pope Benedict got pounded on by the media and world for saying condoms are not the answer against AIDS in Africa I doubt that’ll fly.

 

[Mickey]

And Rome “considering” it, is nothing but speculation. And considering Pope Benedict got pounded on by the media and world for saying condoms are not the answer against AIDS in Africa I doubt that’ll fly.

The Pope commissioned the study.

Some [Catholic] bishops and cardinals have argued, for example, that a married couple in which one spouse has AIDS may reasonably be expected to use condoms to prevent transmission of the deadly disease.

Another source said that after looking more closely at the question, the church experts decided it was premature for the Vatican to make a comprehensive statement on the theological and pastoral aspects of condom use, in part because there was not unanimity of opinion, and in part because many believed that discussion of the theological nuances would only invite confusion in the media and among Catholics.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901232.htm

“The question of whether condom use in some circumstances may be morally acceptable is a separate and more difficult question”.
Franciscan Father Maurizio Faggioni (adviser to the Vatican on sexual morality issues)

 

[jam070406]

The Pope commissioned the study.

Some [Catholic] bishops and cardinals have argued, for example, that a married couple in which one spouse has AIDS may reasonably be expected to use condoms to prevent transmission of the deadly disease.

Another source said that after looking more closely at the question, the church experts decided it was premature for the Vatican to make a comprehensive statement on the theological and pastoral aspects of condom use, in part because there was not unanimity of opinion, and in part because many believed that discussion of the theological nuances would only invite confusion in the media and among Catholics.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901232.htm

“The question of whether condom use in some circumstances may be morally acceptable is a separate and more difficult question”.
Franciscan Father Maurizio Faggioni (adviser to the Vatican on sexual morality issues)

Uuuuh sounds more like he was questioned on it and stated,

"One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.

Nice try though.

 

[Mickey]

Uuuuh sounds more like he was questioned on it and stated,

"One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.

That was in reference to the Africa problem.

Now read it again in reference to the married couple with AIDS. Looks like they are still considering it.

I will be anxious to see when they come to a final decision.

 

[SSTeacher]

How dare you remind the armchair apologist of the liturgical devastation of the last 40 years! (Now we return to the regularly scheduled discussion of filioque and papal supremacy… )

Indeed. I don’t quite know what came over me. :bounce:

On a more serious note, thank you for your anecdote about Michael Davies and your insight into the traditionalist movement.

Michael Davies – what can I say? In his writing, he was master of the understatement. And in person, he was a man’s man – but he was always self–effacing and humble and constantly looking for an excuse to joke. He was a natural teacher, light–hearted yet determined, who possessed a kind and gentle disposition. He clearly loved his Catholic faith and sought constantly to defend it and he was undoubtedly a great inspiration and an encouragement to those around him. Looking back, I probably never met a finer man in my whole life. I’m very glad that he was once my friend.

In Christ,
Mick

 

[Mickey]

How dare you remind the armchair apologist of the liturgical devastation of the last 40 years!

Lex orandi, lex credendi!

 

[John_Larocque]

The SSPX people don’t complain much about the Holy Week reforms of 1955, but I was reading on Rorate-caeli that one of the things that got lost in the shuffle was the taking down of the corpus on Friday, and there’s this lovely remark in the comment section along the lines of, “Well, they still do that in the Greek and Antiochian and Melkite Catholic churches…” Looking at the Wikipedia entry of other Pius XII reforms, I see that it was here that under his pontificate they first started seriously reducing Eucharistic fast requirements, plus the introduction of Saturday Vespers Masses.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-reform-of-holy-week-under-pope-pius.html

 

[Lapell]

Nobody is saying it’s acceptable. It’s just that the Orthodox don’t go around proclaiming Church teachings every other day. We like to reuse the ones put out by the church fathers and not waste time in controversy opening up old wounds. If someone really wants to go on contraceptives, they’ll do it regardless what their church says. I know plenty of Catholics that do it, obviously a universal decree wasn’t as effective as you would like it to seem.

It’s one thing to state the truth, and it’s another thing to make the people accept it.The Church is supposed to state the Truth, and the people are supposed to be free to follow her teaching or not.
Bernadette Soubirous, when accused of making people believe things, answered: “I haven’t received the mission to make you believe it, but to say it to you.” Which was the same as for Mary Magdalene. She told the Apostles about Jesus’ Resurrection, but they didn’t believe her.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It was and is the common discipline of the church to break communion with those who teach error or flagrantly violate the ancient canons of the church.

That is a false statement; The early Church excommunicated and refused communion to heretics and false teachers, by the Pope and the successors of the apostles. What you have here is a non Orthodox invention to council and decide for the Catholic Church without the Pope and all those in communion with Peter, Isolating your communion from the Apostolic Catholic faith. By what infallible authority does your community have to refuse communion to Peter and the apostolic successors? Your Orthodoxy made brought this decision upon men, not God, because you have no infallible authority to rule over the Whole Church without Peter and whole of the Apostolic successors, because we have Eastern Orthodox communities who remain in communion with Peter’s Chair.

What man refuses to man comes from man, show me by what infallible authority that your Orthodoxy has to decide an Issue for the Whole Catholic church? Your rejection of communion with the Pope, only comes from your community not the whole of Christendom.

Protestants are not welcome to commune in Holy Orthodoxy, because they do not agree with the teachings of the holy church.

I agree this is sad when one makes a clarion call to division and insist on remaining seperated from the brethren of the college of Bishops in communion with the Pope. The divide because wider when language is used to remain with your status quo. Our Pope and the college of Bishops have not given up on you, the Pope remains steadfast in bringing his brethren back to the fold who have lost the faith, just as Jesus commanded him to do.

Peace be with you

 

[Lapell]

Of course no one can be pure without God’s help and mercy, and grace too I guess. My point is, the immaculate conception wasn’t necessary because the problem isn’t one of inherited sin, one can be freed from the original sin by rejecting the passions. Plus, even immaculate conception doesn’t guarantee 100% purity, she still had to work to stay on the right path during her life, it’s not like she was free from all temptation and had no freedom of choice.

Please don’t, I need to sleep tonight If we start debating apostolic succession…yawn

Hum… allow me to disagree! Have you not read that Jesus said that new wine calls for new wineskins (“des outres neuves” in French). Ot helped me accept that the Virgin Mary HAD to be perfectly pure to bear no less than God the Son Himself, for how could a sinner give birth to someone without sin? Other women gave birth to prophets, but only the Virgin Mary gave birth to God made man. She was saved by a special grace from God before her birth… Yes, it’s unusual, but after all, God became a man only once!!!

 

[Lapell]

The Orthodox didn’t reject communion with the Pope, they were expelled from it, and that happened in 1054 (so much for “new”). And you identification of the apostles with the Catholic Bishops flies in the face of Rome’s admission that the Orthodox bishops are true successors of the apostles. Congrats. you are more Roman than the Pope.

Why then do you say that the Orthodox were “expelled” from the communion with the Pope?

 

[Lapell]

It was and is the common discipline of the church to break communion with those who teach error or flagrantly violate the ancient canons of the church.

Restoration of communion is possible after the corrections are made.

Protestants are not welcome to commune in Holy Orthodoxy, because they do not agree with the teachings of the holy church.

This is also why the Pope (as nice as he happens to really be ) is not welcome to commune in an Orthodox church. His beliefs and teachings are not in agreement.

This is also why you are not welcome to commune in an Orthodox church, you must be in agreement, which can be determined if you make a profession of faith and renounce any errors you are asked to renounce. This is the ancient discipline of the church.

In this all are equally regarded. Pope Benedict, Archbishop Rowan and Joel Osteen would all be expected to formally renounce errors before being received at the table.

Sadly, the differences between our churches have only grown over time, not lessened. So today we may be able to be more civil toward one another but the theological hurdles are just that much more profound.

I still don’t see what you see exactly as errors in Church teachings. You seem to have more of a problem with the heresy of believing that we can reach Heaven without God’s help being called Pelagianism than to recognize that the thing that came to be called Pelagianism is indeed a heresy, don’t you?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would say perhaps he feels that way because the pope’s legates dropped letters of excommunication to the bishop of Constantinople at Haggia Sophia if I’m not mistaken. Wouldn’t that be an expulsion of the East?

Why then do you say that the Orthodox were “expelled” from the communion with the Pope?

 

[Lapell]

Great. A non-answer.

You have been pointing a finger for a very long time. When you point a finger–three more are pointing back at yourself. We are talking about both Churches here.

We have given you an answer: Sometimes (condom use) it is allowable for extra-ordinary circumstances as per a spiritual father.

And now Rome is considering the same thing.

This sounds more like a matter of circumstancial circumstances in a case of a sin

 

[Mickey]

This sounds more like a matter of circumstancial circumstances in a case of a sin

Uh…er…huh?

 

[PeaceSerenity]

Hum… allow me to disagree! Have you not read that Jesus said that new wine calls for new wineskins (“des outres neuves” in French). Ot helped me accept that the Virgin Mary HAD to be perfectly pure to bear no less than God the Son Himself, for how could a sinner give birth to someone without sin? Other women gave birth to prophets, but only the Virgin Mary gave birth to God made man. She was saved by a special grace from God before her birth… Yes, it’s unusual, but after all, God became a man only once!!!

What you are describing only requires her to be sinless, not immaculately conceived. If the sin of Adam isn’t something “genetically” transmitted, from father to child, but rather mortality, then a person has the choice whether or not to sin. The Virgin Mary could be, then, sinless without being Immaculately Conceived. Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Early Fathers. Mary was the daughter of Joachim and Ana, like it said in the Bible. If Joachim had not been her father, then he would not be called that in the Bible (just as Joseph was not called Jesus’ father). The only miracle was that the Ana, an old woman, was able to conceive. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God, of course, but not through conception. God respects man’s free will. If the Virgin would not have the possibility to sin, because she was so conceived, then she wouldn’t be able to say not to God when he asked her to bear Christ, and God would not encroach in that way on our free will.

 

[jam070406]

What you are describing only requires her to be sinless, not immaculately conceived. If the sin of Adam isn’t something “genetically” transmitted, from father to child, but rather mortality, then a person has the choice whether or not to sin. The Virgin Mary could be, then, sinless without being Immaculately Conceived. Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Early Fathers. Mary was the daughter of Joachim and Ana, like it said in the Bible. If Joachim had not been her father, then he would not be called that in the Bible (just as Joseph was not called Jesus’ father). The only miracle was that the Ana, an old woman, was able to conceive. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God, of course, but not through conception. God respects man’s free will. If the Virgin would not have the possibility to sin, because she was so conceived, then she wouldn’t be able to say not to God when he asked her to bear Christ, and God would not encroach in that way on our free will.

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[PeaceSerenity]

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

So then what it comes down to is whether or not the original sin transmits mortality or if it transmits actual sin to future generations. We had this conversation a few pages back. In the original Greek text it says that only mortality was transmitted because of Adam’s fall, not a sinful nature. If people do not inherit the actual sin of Adam, then there is no need for immaculate conception. This was the doctrine of the church until the year 400, I’m not sure how St. Augustine even came up with the idea of Immaculate Conception, but it is not scriptural, nor is it supported by the earlier church fathers.

 

[jam070406]

So then what it comes down to is whether or not the original sin transmits mortality or if it transmits actual sin to future generations. We had this conversation a few pages back. In the original Greek text it says that only mortality was transmitted because of Adam’s fall, not a sinful nature. If people do not inherit the actual sin of Adam, then there is no need for immaculate conception. This was the doctrine of the church until the year 400, I’m not sure how St. Augustine even came up with the idea of Immaculate Conception, but it is not scriptural, nor is it supported by the earlier church fathers.

Why baptise? And why was there an urgency in the early Church to baptise infants as soon as possible? Why would this death exclude the death of the soul? And why did Jesus say one must be born again of water and Spirit?

 

[PeaceSerenity]

Baptism is a voluntary act of submission to God, a consent to live in relationship with God within the covenant He has established through His Son with a larger body of baptized believers. While Baptism does forgive our sins, it is more like a dedication of ourselves to God, a becoming a child of God.