No poultry, just fruits vegetables, fish, and grains. Some fast don’t even allow fish.
- Status
G
grandfather
Guest
None of the Orthodox posters have answered or explained how their Church could teach that an act is morally wrong and then later say the opposite. The discussion on fasting is interesting, but that has to do with how faith is practiced. Whether there is abuse of annulments or not is not germaine. Whether the majority of Catholics follow the teaching of their Church is irrelevant.
Did the Orthodox bishops just get it wrong on contraception and then realize their mistake and adopt the Protestant teaching?
There may be a similar stress in the Catholic world. Recent popes have strongly discouraged the civil state from applying the death penalty for serious crimes. The state has been executing criminals throughout the centuries. If the Church were to say suddenly that this is forbidden, because it is objectively immoral then the Church failed to condemn and has condoned something that is immoral for centuries. Something right can not be suddenly discovered to be wrong, evil.
It is the opposite with contraception, divorce and remarriage, adultery, murder or any moral teaching. Something that was called evil can not suddenly be called good. If that happens the moral authority, the claim to be empowered by God, to be appointed by God to teach faith and morals is forfeited.
God has not changed the moral law. Those authorized to speak for Him can’t change the moral law or their position, or they do not speak for Him.
Forget the Orthodox vs Catholic debate. In another context we see that the Church of England is going through internal contortions on other questions of sexual morality. Many Anglicans now claim homosexual behavior is normal and good, men can marry men.
The absurdity of this aside, the question arises about how something condemned as evil can now be good, acceptable, blessed by their church. Many of their members do not agree and will leave to become Catholic, Orthodox, or go into Anglican schism. Those that choose schism will say their church does not accept this evil. Some Anglican bishops say X and others say Y. We even see the conservative ones claiming they have the orthodox position.
Similarly we see the Coptic Orthodox poster say his bishop does not agree with others on the issue of contraception. He has kept the traditional faith. Then what is the Orthodox position? Who can tell it or know it if there is not one voice? Is it sinful for Copts and not for Russians? We have a which bishop is right and which is wrong problem. What is true is that if contraception, adultery, stealing are sinful, the moral law applies to everyone no matter what they believe about it or their religion teaches.
I need to know, every individual needs to know what the moral law is. On my own I can not figure all of the questions and answers about all facets of the moral life. If we could we do not need the Church to teach us.
If the Church teaches X is immoral and reverses the teaching it is implicit in doing so that the former teaching of the Church was wrong. The Church was wrong. If the Church could be wrong about X, how do we know the teaching on Y or Z is right?
If I was wrong yesterday I can be wrong tomorrow and realizing it change my position. I am wrong all the time, but if I claim to speak for God, be appointed by Him to teach His people and He guarantees my teaching, admitting I am wrong forfeits the claim.
Finally this leads back to the Catholic Orthodox divide and the importance of unity.
There can not be ten churches, or two. There is one. The business of the Church is souls, bringing salvation to souls, bringing the message of the Gospel to souls, leading or directing them to heaven in the service of God.
Whichever is right, Orthodox or Catholics, what should be the attitude of the group in the right toward the group in the wrong? Should we bicker? Should we despise one another? Should the Orthodox hate the pope, or Catholics hate the heads of the Russian or Greek Churches?
Is it right to have acrimony in the heart towards the other? Does that please God or His Holy Mother? Is it acceptable to us or God that we not desire reunification and continue this evil schism?
The question to Catholics and Orthodox, laymen and hierarchy alike is this. What do you desire for the souls from whom you are separated?
I am Catholic. I desire beatitude for all Orthodox, none excluded. I believe that unless Catholics and Orthodox make peace, their common enemy who divides them will be empowered to prey on souls and the mission of the Church will be greatly hindered. This schism is evil and those who obstinately continue it are complicit, aide and abet evil. Unity is commanded of us by Christ. Schism is disobeying the one we call Lord and claim to follow. Disobedience is dishonor to the one we claim to honor in all of our Masses and Divine Liturgies. It says that our mouths speak one thing, but our hearts are far from Him. He who hates his brother can not claim to love God.
Did the Orthodox bishops just get it wrong on contraception and then realize their mistake and adopt the Protestant teaching?
There may be a similar stress in the Catholic world. Recent popes have strongly discouraged the civil state from applying the death penalty for serious crimes. The state has been executing criminals throughout the centuries. If the Church were to say suddenly that this is forbidden, because it is objectively immoral then the Church failed to condemn and has condoned something that is immoral for centuries. Something right can not be suddenly discovered to be wrong, evil.
It is the opposite with contraception, divorce and remarriage, adultery, murder or any moral teaching. Something that was called evil can not suddenly be called good. If that happens the moral authority, the claim to be empowered by God, to be appointed by God to teach faith and morals is forfeited.
God has not changed the moral law. Those authorized to speak for Him can’t change the moral law or their position, or they do not speak for Him.
Forget the Orthodox vs Catholic debate. In another context we see that the Church of England is going through internal contortions on other questions of sexual morality. Many Anglicans now claim homosexual behavior is normal and good, men can marry men.
The absurdity of this aside, the question arises about how something condemned as evil can now be good, acceptable, blessed by their church. Many of their members do not agree and will leave to become Catholic, Orthodox, or go into Anglican schism. Those that choose schism will say their church does not accept this evil. Some Anglican bishops say X and others say Y. We even see the conservative ones claiming they have the orthodox position.
Similarly we see the Coptic Orthodox poster say his bishop does not agree with others on the issue of contraception. He has kept the traditional faith. Then what is the Orthodox position? Who can tell it or know it if there is not one voice? Is it sinful for Copts and not for Russians? We have a which bishop is right and which is wrong problem. What is true is that if contraception, adultery, stealing are sinful, the moral law applies to everyone no matter what they believe about it or their religion teaches.
I need to know, every individual needs to know what the moral law is. On my own I can not figure all of the questions and answers about all facets of the moral life. If we could we do not need the Church to teach us.
If the Church teaches X is immoral and reverses the teaching it is implicit in doing so that the former teaching of the Church was wrong. The Church was wrong. If the Church could be wrong about X, how do we know the teaching on Y or Z is right?
If I was wrong yesterday I can be wrong tomorrow and realizing it change my position. I am wrong all the time, but if I claim to speak for God, be appointed by Him to teach His people and He guarantees my teaching, admitting I am wrong forfeits the claim.
Finally this leads back to the Catholic Orthodox divide and the importance of unity.
There can not be ten churches, or two. There is one. The business of the Church is souls, bringing salvation to souls, bringing the message of the Gospel to souls, leading or directing them to heaven in the service of God.
Whichever is right, Orthodox or Catholics, what should be the attitude of the group in the right toward the group in the wrong? Should we bicker? Should we despise one another? Should the Orthodox hate the pope, or Catholics hate the heads of the Russian or Greek Churches?
Is it right to have acrimony in the heart towards the other? Does that please God or His Holy Mother? Is it acceptable to us or God that we not desire reunification and continue this evil schism?
The question to Catholics and Orthodox, laymen and hierarchy alike is this. What do you desire for the souls from whom you are separated?
I am Catholic. I desire beatitude for all Orthodox, none excluded. I believe that unless Catholics and Orthodox make peace, their common enemy who divides them will be empowered to prey on souls and the mission of the Church will be greatly hindered. This schism is evil and those who obstinately continue it are complicit, aide and abet evil. Unity is commanded of us by Christ. Schism is disobeying the one we call Lord and claim to follow. Disobedience is dishonor to the one we claim to honor in all of our Masses and Divine Liturgies. It says that our mouths speak one thing, but our hearts are far from Him. He who hates his brother can not claim to love God.
B
Brywan
Guest
Sorry, but you are going to have to defend this statement with specifics.
R
Rence
Guest
I am not Orthodox, and I don’t know where they are right now (maybe Christmas shopping
) but it was explained to me by many of them that they are not just merely allowed to use artificial birth control, because they’re not. They’re not changing from ‘could teach that an act is morally wrong and later say the opposite’. It’s still wrong to use birth control but they are allowed to use birth control with the careful and close counsel of their spiritual advisor at all times of its usage. That’s not the same as saying it’s okay to use birth control. Real life is not black and white legalistic rules only under all circumstances end of story. Sometimes life presents challenges that are not always answered with a script. Life doesn’t come with a script or a rule book. They believe it’s better for the salvation of a couple’s souls if they are spiritually guided through these times, rather than just given a set of rules and told, " you can’t be Orthodox if you do/don’t do ‘this’" at probably one of the worst times in a person’s life.Frankly, look to the Latin Rite and what strict legalism and reguritation of rules has done to the usage rates of ABCs. What have the rules and laws done for them? They just do what they want, when they want, and without any spiritual direction because the rules rules and more rules just frustrate and anger them and drive a wedge between them and the Church.
N
Newsy
Guest
There is a large number of us that use NFP. Just because some defy the Church’s Teaching, doesn’t mean the teaching is wrong. I personally cannot see how using ABC’s under supervision makes it any more morally acceptable. NFP has proven itself to be reliable, the draw back for most is their lack of self control when it comes to abstinence. This comes from the “I want it all on my terms” attitude that society forces on us.I am not Orthodox, and I don’t know where they are right now (maybe Christmas shopping
Frankly, look to the Latin Rite and what strict legalism and reguritation of rules has done to the usage rates of ABCs. What have the rules and laws done for them? They just do what they want, when they want, and without any spiritual direction because the rules rules and more rules just frustrate and anger them and drive a wedge between them and the Church.
Spacing of children is a very weak argument considering there is an approved method.
R
Rence
Guest
Of course not. It is what it is: it’s Church teaching.
That’s because you don’t find it acceptable at all, which I understand. But we’re not talking about people who think it’s unacceptable all the time. We’re talking about people who believe ABCs may be called for under certain circumstances and under close and careful spiritual direction. You don’t see a difference, which I understand, but others do.
Well, the truth of the matter is sex = potential pregnancy. IMOHO, if one is using NFP (or ABCs), they’re taking a risk, and therefore it’s an acceptable risk. In a real true medical situation in which the woman’s life would be in peril if she were to become pregnant, I’m afraid nothing but complete abstinence would work. But that’s for each individual to disecern on their own. I can say that if my life were in that grave of danger, I wouldn’t be doing NFP or ABCs. They both fail because there is no Life Rule Book. ABCs and NFP show equally high percentage rates ‘when used correctly’, but they both fail at times.
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
I think this article might be of interest in this thread:
orthodoxytoday.org/view/jensen-barbarians-among-us
orthodoxytoday.org/view/jensen-barbarians-among-us
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That pretty much explains the difference. Personally speaking, there have been plenty of threads here on CAF where somebody ‘asks’ a question about the Orthodox and birth control, then turns around to use it as a polemical attack on Orthodoxy. Since the Orthodox posters here are not stupid, most avoid these threads like the plague because they tend to get nasty quickly. I really have little desire to participate in this discussion, and honestly only did so primarily out of annoyance.I am not Orthodox, and I don’t know where they are right now (maybe Christmas shopping
Frankly, look to the Latin Rite and what strict legalism and reguritation of rules has done to the usage rates of ABCs. What have the rules and laws done for them? They just do what they want, when they want, and without any spiritual direction because the rules rules and more rules just frustrate and anger them and drive a wedge between them and the Church.
Now if anybody actually wants to discuss the difference in perspective which leads too this difference between the Orthodox and Latins, that might be more interesting and fruitful, but this talk of ‘Catholicism must be true because we preserve the right teaching on birth control, and Orthodoxy is therefore false’ has got to stop first.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
It was the practice of the state during that time, a practice that the Church did not object to.
That the Church cooperated with this secular practice is as much a scandal as later popes’ turning a blind eye to the enslavement of unbaptized natives (they always condemned the enslavement of Christians).
There’s nothing convenient about it for those whom the Church refuses an annulment. That is a real possibility; this is not a wink-wink, nudge-nudge game/loophole to exploit. If the conditions for a valid Sacrament were met at the time, no annulment will be granted.
We have every reason to believe that no possibility of invalidity exists if the couple perseveres, and no reason whatsoever to doubt it. The grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and its efficacy, is very real.
Hesychios, I love the outstanding capacity for nuance and mystery that your church possesses, and which the Latin Church even today could use a good healthy dose of.
I just wish you guys brought that capacity to these discussions with Latin Catholics instead of abandoning it at the door.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The thing is that the Orthodox allowance for remarriage comes exactly from that capacity for mystery and nuance, as opposed to the rigid legalism displayed by the Catholic Church on this issue. Instead of looking at this from a perspective where the world is black and white, perhaps we would be better off considering individual cases rather than abstractions.
Let us consider a man who wishes to leave his wife, simply because they do not get along well. Does such a reason warrant a divorce? Should he be allowed to remarry in the Church, or should his civil divorce not be recognized by the Church? Which here is the greater evil, that he be granted a divorce and remarriage, or that he should be forced to reconcile with his wife? Some wouldn’t even consider the last one to be ‘evil’ by any means (I certainly wouldn’t). It is therefore rather clear in this situation what the right thing to do is.
Let us consider now, however, a woman whose husband has attempted to kill her, and has been imprisoned for his crime. Should she be given the same treatment as the man in the scenario above and be forced to endanger her life in order to reconcile with her husband after he has been released from prison? Surely not! She cannot be expected to live with him after he has attempted to take her life. That then only leaves us with two options: she can either remain celibate or the church might grant her a remarriage. Let us say that through his interactions with her, the priest determines that because of her spiritual weakness, the celibate life would likely cause her great spiritual harm (as any monastic will attest, not all are called to celibacy). Which is the least evil then, that she be allowed to remarry or that she be forced into a life of celibacy for which she is not suited? If a life of celibacy would lead her into even greater sin than remarriage, would it not be better simply to allow her to remarry?
Is there no room for the use of discretion in the Latin view of things?
G
grandfather
Guest
I see. Do the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox who are not in communion differ on other moral issues, or is it only contraceptioon?The Copts are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, etc.). We are in communion with the Oriental Orthodox.
G
grandfather
Guest
What moral teaching does is let people know right from wrong. It is up to them what they do with it. Jesus said you are either for me or against me. This is pretty black and white.I am not Orthodox, and I don’t know where they are right now (maybe Christmas shopping
Frankly, look to the Latin Rite and what strict legalism and reguritation of rules has done to the usage rates of ABCs. What have the rules and laws done for them? They just do what they want, when they want, and without any spiritual direction because the rules rules and more rules just frustrate and anger them and drive a wedge between them and the Church.
G
grandfather
Guest
M
Marybeloved
Guest
So on this reasoning, should the churches also permit pre-marital sex? After all, the “strict legalism and regurgitation of rules” has done (it seems) absolutely nothing for them, eh?
Look, call it legalism if you want, but it’s Christ’s legalism.Truly, truly I say to you…whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.
Should the CC then follow practical common sense and tell the Lord to sit this one out?Like I said, I can’t speak much for the Eastern Orthodox. In truth when it comes to these two issues, I only know what appears from debates in internet forums, so we could all be arguing against phantoms, really. I’ve read denouncement of these things from some Orthodox, so I prefer to think of it as a current debate going on in Eastern Orthodoxy rather than a settled teaching. Like I said before, my hope is that the final resolution comes to the side of the Historical (unanimous) Christian teaching.
But for us Catholics, I can say (though not with authority) that the Bishops’ power of binding and losing does not involve losing anyone from Divine Law- Just like they have no power to permit you illicit sex because practicing chastity may be difficult, they have no power to allow Christians to positively engage in sin against the universal law of God (And these particular ones can certainly be avoided, even if with difficulty). But these things are always very complicated, obviously, much more than they come out in discussion forums.
@Grandfather
You appear to mix up certain groups. I was guilty of this myself until fairly recently. There are groups that use the term Orthodox to describe themselves that have nothing (in terms of communion) to do with each other. Apostolic churches (that have apostolic succession from the Apostles)_ are not just two groups. The group we commonly know as Orthodox are best specified as Eastern Orthodox in discussions, whose split from us dates (depending on who you ask) from between 1054 and the Council of Florence in the 1400s. There are Oriental Orthodox whose split dates much earlier from when the Eastern and Latin church was still undivided- 500 years earlier. There are even others I’ve recently discovered who are not eastern Orthodox or Oriental orthodox, but are Apostolic- like the Assyrian Church of the East (or something like that). So the communion of Orthodox that is connected with former Byzantium is very much a separate church from the orientals and these other Apostolic churches, just like they are with us. Therefore differences in teachings between Coptics (orientals, though they are not the only ones) and Eastern Orthodoxy should not be referred to as “differences within Orthodoxy” as that can be confusing.
Peace.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Let me clarify: I don’t disagree with you on this.
My instinct is that Catholics are not doing justice to the Orthodox traditions when we say things like, “You guys allow people to remarry twice!” That sounds very much to me like the kind of simplistic distortions that sometimes get thrown at the Catholic Church on various issues.
So I didn’t mean to zero in on you guys specifically; I think the criticism I raised applies to many Catholics in this thread, too. I myself am not educated enough on this matter to responsibly hold and defend a position that is critical of your church.
It is a hard teaching.
On one level, though, there is certainly room for discretion, in that the Catholic Church certainly does not object to spouses’ separating and obtaining a civil divorce for just cause.
But the issue of whether the woman in your second example is called to celibacy is where it does get difficult if the diocesan marriage tribunal determines that the marriage was valid. In that case, hopefully much pastoral support will be available for such a person. The Catholic Church truly, honestly believes, however, that we do not have the right, the authority, to dissolve the first marriage and give approval to remarriage. One thing the modern world is definitely wrong about is that without an active sexual life, one cannot be happy. Our Lord teaches us that with God, all things are possible - and if Saint Peter, even while weak in faith, could walk on water as long as he kept his focus on Christ, then I think the Catholic Church would say that with the proper pastoral support (which the Church is duty-bound to provide) and with much prayer and the Sacraments, no earthly burden will be too great.
In any case, Cavaradossi, there are people who - we both agree - end up in a position where they are morally obliged to live celibately whether they choose it or not: those with predominant same-sex attraction. The Catholic Church asks no more from divorced Catholics than she - and the Orthodox Church - do of gay people. Neither chose to shoulder the burden that they discover is theirs.
But I definitely agree with you that some of my fellow Catholics on this forum are very insensitive and smug about this. That certainly should not be the Catholic way.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,
Hesychios:
Blessings,
Marduk
You missed the whole point of brother FoneBone’s statement about the Orthodox not having the capacity for mystery and nuance when it comes to discussions with Catholics. He was responding specifically to brother Michael’s statement:
Who are these millions of Catholics? Doesn’t he know that the Catholic Church regards all marriages as valid until proven otherwise? So why should any Catholic be concerned? Your comment, "perhaps we would be better off considering individual cases rather than abstractions’ should be directed at Hesychios for that ridiculous generalization.
I imagine and trust there is. And do you seriously suppose that there do not exist instances, perhaps very many, when Orthodox, especially Easterns (given their greater canonical license for permitting divorce and remarriage), do not abuse the canonical norms? Discretion cuts both ways - there may not be enough of it to allow mercy where it should be given, OR there may not be enough of it to prevent overly permissive license against the norms.
Blessings,
Marduk
G
grandfather
Guest
Thank you. I knew the Oriental Orthodox and Eatern Orthodox were different, but no what the difference was. They both use the name orthodox, or claim it as theirs, so there is confusion. It is like the name catholic. The Anglicans claim to be Catholic, Anglo-Catohlics, and the Orthodox claim the name as well. This does confuse things.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
I don’t know if Cavaradossi meant remarriage alone by what he termed “discretion” in his post. If so, I have to disagree with you here.
If the marriage is valid, it’s valid. No one can separate what God has put together, not even the Church- so this kind of “discretion” meaning the church sanctioning a life of grave sin (adultery) because the alternative life of chastity is a struggle for the person simply cannot happen. :shrug:The thing is, no matter how much we sympathize, a second “marriage” while a former valid marriage subsists (no death) is no marriage at all, whatever twists or impossible calculations we may employ to make it so. Its just what the Lord called it and no less- adultery. I don’t see how the church can permit adultery, sanction it, for whatever reason. It’s positive sin (sin by commission rather than omission)- and very grave sin at that. What about the single Catholics who never find partners? Gay people? No one ever died from lack of sex, nor is it an obstacle to happiness.
I think this is just a symptom of the upside-down value system of the present age that has put sex on the same scale as oxygen, food and water. It has infected the churches everywhere, but I think its wrong now as it was 2,000 or 1800 years ago when the church (and the Lord) said so. I cant imagine a situation where a spiritual father concludes that a person is incapable of celibacy unless that person is a seriously disturbed individual with a sex addiction and in need of some serious psychiatric help. Even then, the solution would not be to sanction an illicit sexual relationship, any more than sanctioning drug use would be a solution for a drug addict. For normal persons, I imagine rather that celibacy (when imposed by circumstances rather than chosen) would represent a cross- very hard to live and a true struggle; but of course, very much doable and indeed a true path to holiness, just as with gay or unmarried Christians.
Like I said earlier, I’m hoping that this is just a long debate that will be resolved definitively at some point to re-affirm without wavering the teaching of Our Lord and the Early Church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The mystery comes back to understanding Love from Gods message which is Jesus and His Apostles. God/Love/Sacrament of Marriage. Love is not an effect of headwork, not a pushing forward of will to give to it greater force. It is the result of accepting generously all sacrifices, in accepting with a loving heart all trials. Thus to obstain instead of seeking pleasure for pleasures sake.
Peace
- Status