Could you elaborate on that? In particular in relation to the LCMS’s “renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description”? (I realize that the three standard examples that follow that quote don’t contradict what you said, but it still seems like further explanation is in order.)
Lutherans reject Denominationalism - and we are to keep “doctrine free from falsification” and are to rebuke the errors of our Christian friends. However - the Catholic and Orthodox church are filled with true visible Christian believers, that we would have to acknowledge the saving grace given in both Word and Sacrament.
Yes - I would say yes in both thought and deed: The sponsors (Godparents) of my third child are Catholic. Both families had to jump through hoops to do so and it’s been a blessing.
I agree that in the West we have diminished some of the ancient forms of ascetic devotions, and that we should re-introduce them as private form of devotion.
Cav-
I don’t know, when did the Catholic Church decide it was okay for its priests to have normal sexual relations with their wives?
Beats me. That’s why I asked. Cav usually knows these things.
I believe this is still the ideal in Orthodoxy, though I could be wrong.
There are rules about abstaining before celebrating the DL, I believe, but my question is two-fold:
The question to Cavaradossi was well placed, since he claimed that one couldn’t contradict prior canons.
Well, he qualifies his own arguments noting that: Caution, of course, has to be exercised in not reading into these texts more than they contain, and one has to recognize that local practices do not necessarily imply a general rule. Furthermore, other tests need to be considered, such as Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III, 12; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 12, 25; Athanasius, Letter to Dracontius which do not obviously suggest the possibility of a general rule. Indeed, since the end of the nineteentuh century such texts have been used to demonstrate the existence of an early general law of continence in the East. Polemical or confessional interests aside, it can be said that modern tools of scholarship, not available in the past, have allowed doubt to be cast on the certainty of these conclusions too.
It would have been well placed, had you any evidence that we allow our presbyters to live with subindoctrinae. Also, my own brief musings on the subject were far more nuanced than your strawman argument admits.
Well, if you had actually bothered to pay attention, and read the post to which I was replying, you would know that this was NOT in reference to the 3rd canon of Nicea. I was referring to the questions by Randy Carson, who shows that there were canons (church laws) in existence that prohibited a priest from having intercourse with his wife (in both East and West). These canons have now been contradicted by the fact that a married priest (Eastern or Western) DO have the permission to have intercourse with his wife. If this is so, how do you explain (away) the fact that a change occurred in the canons pertaining to that case, when you claim that canons cannot be contradicted? Are you perhaps making the case that logical self-contradictions are OK?
Fr. Cholij remarks that showing it was a general rule is difficult. His citation of Justinian, for example, seems not to imply that continence was a general rule in the East as he alleges it does.
Perhaps I should clarify. What I initially wrote to Randy was that I feel, on account of the intertwined relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxis, that there is danger in arbitrarily modifying orthopraxis. On account of this, I do not feel that the church has absolute authority to modify canons, as when one arbitrarily changes orthopraxis, one might accidentally change orthodoxy in the process. That does not rule out changing the application of canons (oikonomia) or even composing new canons which modify old canons (the penitential canons of St. John the Faster, for example, modify the penitential canons of St. Basil), but the spirit of the canons must always remain intact.
That’s funny, because my experience has been the exact opposite. I was in the Catholic trenches for years but I finally had to go into Orthodox to get any sense of community, a support system, and a worship experience that I understood (admittedly, both were in English so that wasn’t a factor). There was a moat of ethnocentrism in my neck of the woods in Catholicism, too.
Abstaining from meat every Friday remains the norm under the universal canons of the Latin Church - but alas the bishops in most countries have dispensed this requirement. That being said, many individual Catholics still elect to follow this practice (as well as on Wednesdays during Ember periods - the practice of universal Wednesday fasting disappeared in the West a very long time ago). In addition, in those countries where Friday abstinence has been relaxed, another form of penance is expected…whether it be sacrificing something else or performing works of charity or doing additional prayers. You cannot be a perfectly good Catholic without doing regular penance.
There are no good guys or bad guys. Everyone needs to be where they feel integrated. The Orthodox and Catholics both have very few evangelical impulses. I was asked innumerable times by my coreligionists why, if I’m not Greek, would I be going to a Greek Orthodox Church. I have never once been asked any question about my pedigree in Catholicism. Ethnicity is certainly more of an issue in Orthodoxy. I had no right to expect my Orthodox Church to change anything. I’m not the center of the universe. I had to take it or leave it. This was reasonable. I chose to leave it. I’m glad you are where you feel you should be as well. Looks like we’re both winners.
But that is just begging the question. Who here has said that arbitrary change is good? We need to distinguish between types of change. You need to stop begging the question. I do not think that the change in fasting rules were arbitrary at all. The Roman Catholic Church is world wide. In many of these places, meat is rarely eaten, if at all. What ‘loss’ is it for these not to eat meat? And what about modern society? Is eating too much food the only thing one might fast from?
But then we must ask the question: What is the ‘spirit’ behind a particular canon? When, for instance, the 7th canon of Nicea states that “custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia * should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.” I’m guessing this is next to the bishop of Rome. What ‘spirit’ did the Orthodox then ‘not’ contradict when they, because of direct pressure from the Emperor, elevated Constantinople above not only Jerusalem, but also Antioch and Alexandria, both of which were founded by an Apostle (St. Peter and St. Mark, respectively).
First, that may be all true, but that doesn’t mean that change is bad, in and of itself.
I don’t entirely disagree with your sentiment. But again, if I were Orthodox to begin with, then I would stay Orthodox … but as it is, I don’t have any plans to leave the Roman Communion. (It is more difficult to say what I would do if I had grown up non-Christian. Possibly I would join Orthodoxy, or possibly the PNCC.)
That is a strange false dilemma. Fasting should always be accompanied by other deeds of asceticism. But those other deeds defy the creation of a general rule because they are related to one’s personal habits. Those matters are better left to the realm of oikonomia (another dimension of the power to bind and loose). To make physical ascesis interchangeable with more intellectual kinds of asceticism loses sight of the fact that one must discipline both the body and the intellect with ascesis. It is important to abstain occasionally from meat, fish, dairy, oil, and wine, because those foods are usually considered most pleasurable to eat and also contribute to an excessive vigor of body which is not good for those who aim to lead ascetic lives.
But then we must ask the question: What is the ‘spirit’ behind a particular canon? When, for instance, the 7th canon of Nicea states that “custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia * should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.” I’m guessing this is next to the bishop of Rome.*
Your guess would be a bit off, considering that the bishop of Jerusalem was placed by Chalcedon and by the aforementioned canon after Antioch.
KjetilK;12632846:
Surely you simply mean not to exclude the West from that statement, considering that the West accepted the position of Constantinople as second and Jerusalem as fifth at least since 869.
That would be what is referred to as the principle of accommodation whereby the structuring of the Church in some geographical area can be arranged after the civil structure of that geographical area. It is the same principle which was followed when Milan became the primatial see in Northern Italy after the civil diocese of Italy was split into Italia Annonaria and Italia Suburbicaria, and the same principle found in canon 17 of Chalcedon.
You keep repeating that as if I am arguing that point. Situations may change, and that is why the canons may be modified. But the spirit of the laws of the past must always be preserved.
Friday should not only be a day of abstinence, but also a day of fasting, as should Wednesday.
eat no meat, meat products, backboned fish, eggs, dairy, wine or oil during Lent and on Wednesdays and Fridays during the normal year?
You left out fasting until the ninth hour, eating only one meal, the Apostle’s Fast, the Dormition Fast, and the Nativity Fast.
You would be surprised, however, by the number of people who are able to abide by such a severe rule of life. There are, of course, many who are not yet spiritually healthy enough to endure the fast, but that is a matter which should be left to pastoral accommodation by oikonomia. We shouldn’t abrogate these norms on account of the widespread spiritual sickness of our age, but rather we should seek even harder to uphold them as the standards to which all should strive to achieve. It is much like benchmarks of physical health. Just because America is becoming an increasingly unhealthy society (the rest of the developed world isn’t so far behind unfortunately), we should not therefore modify our benchmarks of physical health so as to indicate that being insulin resistant with a body fat percentage of about 30% is the new standard of health. Obviously with somebody who has a 35% body fat percentage and is nearly diabetic, the former would be a good goal, but that shouldn’t become the new standard of health, no matter how many people are in that position.
Shellfish were not considered by the fathers to be so conducive to the inflaming of the passions. There is, after all, a reason why everybody associates lobster with butter sauce (because it can be terribly bland otherwise). But from an economic perspective, yes, it would better if Christians in this society should abstain from such expensive foodstuffs while fasting in order to have alms to give to the poor.
