What does Eastern Orthodoxy offer that Eastern Catholicism doesn't?

[neokarny]

I do not understand why you think natural family planning is minor compared to homosexuality since they appear to be fundamentally identical as a subversion of normal human procreation.

Fixed that for you.

How Catholics can oppose any form of softening on artificial contraception while pushing “natural family planning” as somehow not a subversion of procreation is beyond me.

 

[MichaelinMD]

Fixed that for you.

How Catholics can oppose any form of softening on artificial contraception while pushing “natural family planning” as somehow not a subversion of procreation is beyond me.

Oh boy…

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Fixed that for you.

How Catholics can oppose any form of softening on artificial contraception while pushing “natural family planning” as somehow not a subversion of procreation is beyond me.

Do you believe that married couples should only “come together” when the wife is fertile? Do you think it is obligatory to abstain during infertile periods?

 

[neokarny]

Do you believe that married couples should only “come together” when the wife is fertile? Do you think it is obligatory to abstain during infertile periods?

No, but to intentionally abstain during fertile periods in order to exploit and manipulate the natural cycle, as a contraceptive, is “subverting procreation.” I see no qualitative difference apart from calling one “natural” and the other “artificial,” while they both allow for intimate relations while intentionally avoiding procreation through circumventing the natural process in some way (i.e. either through timing/bodily process manipulation or through physical/chemical means).

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Oh boy…

This thread has turned in an interesting direction.

um, Birth Control?

Orthodox view: Non-Abortive Methods of Birth Control such as Barrier Methods & NFP Methods are seen as equal to each other. Non-Abortive Methods could be used within a marriage for reasons the couple deem necessary for a time with their spiritual father’s blessing (which he may or may not give). It’s the Abortive Methods of Birth Control such as IUD, Hormone-based Methods & Abortion which are clearly & continuously forbidden. There is not a ton of talk about it.

Catholic view: All Birth Control Methods, both Abortive & Non-Abortive Methods, are considered equal with one exception, NPF Methods are considered on a different and acceptable level. NFP Methods are okay to for married couples practice at any time for any reason without guidance of a spiritual father. There is a tremendous amount of talk about this.

What about Cremation:

Orthodox view: Absolutely NOT. It’s a deliberate desecration & destruction of a temple of God.

Catholic view: Used to be Absolutely NOT, but cremation is now an acceptable practice for Catholics as long as the ashes are buried.

 

[Nine_Two]

I have no idea. It wouldn’t surprise me if Rome didn’t, but that’s not really the point.

It has been a curiosity of mine for a time. I thought you might know something.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

This thread has turned in an interesting direction.

um, Birth Control?

Orthodox view: Non-Abortive Methods of Birth Control such as Barrier Methods & NFP Methods are seen as equal to each other. Non-Abortive Methods could be used within a marriage for reasons the couple deem necessary for a time with their spiritual father’s blessing (which he may or may not give). It’s the Abortive Methods of Birth Control such as IUD, Hormone-based Methods & Abortion which are clearly & continuously forbidden. There is not a ton of talk about it.

Catholic view: All Birth Control Methods, both Abortive & Non-Abortive Methods, are considered equal with one exception, NPF Methods are considered on a different and acceptable level. NFP Methods are okay to for married couples practice at any time for any reason without guidance of a spiritual father. There is a tremendous amount of talk about this.

What about Cremation:

Orthodox view: Absolutely NOT. It’s a deliberate desecration & destruction of a temple of God.

Catholic view: Used to be Absolutely NOT, but cremation is now an acceptable practice for Catholics as long as the ashes are buried.

The Fathers declared unanimously that contraception was evil, including Chrysostom and Augustine:

catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

The Orthodox claim such a unity and unwavering faithfulness to the fathers, that this proves Catholics with development of doctrine wrong. So how is this departure from something seen as intrinsically evil in the early church warranted? The Catholic Church claims to have a living magisterium able to formulate doctrine (unbaptized infants going to hell would be one example of a widely held belief found to be just that: a belief. Similar to cremation). Orthodox claim unwavering adherence to fathers. But seems as though you do exactly what we do. Which is it?

Side note: cremation doesn’t nullify the resurrection. Otherwise martyrs that were burned wouldn’t be able to rise, and decomposed bodies that turned ‘to dust’ wouldn’t be able to participate. This is another example of a discipline. Not the same as something condemned as inherently evil, as with contraception and the fathers.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Yawn. When will some RCs learn that bishops who have left the faith (as the EO would say that the Roman Pope has) do not retain authority to declare anything one way or another? This is also why the EO do not have “episcopi vagantes” as the RC does, because the priesthood is not a thing possessed of the man such that it can exist outside of communion with the Church.

If your Bishop is not part of their communion, why do they need him for anything? You likewise do not need any other bishop from outside of your communion to make things “official”, right? It’s not like they do not have an at least equally legitimate successor to St. Peter (again, according to them, not you) in Patriarch John X (Yazigi), so what exactly is so necessary about the Roman Pope in particular? That he is in Rome? Sure, Rome was afforded great respect as the imperial city, but obviously not so much so that this forever remained the case no matter what its bishop believed or taught, and that’s really no different than Rome’s recognition or lack thereof of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and for much the same reason – i.e., how many centuries has it been since the Ecumenical Patriarch’s name was recited in the diptych of the Roman Church? Many, many centuries, and you likewise naturally see nothing wrong with that.Is it right to say that you persist in this state out of “freedom from church-wide dogma”, or is your point that the entirety of the Church subsists in Rome herself? (That point I’d almost agree with, actually, but not in the way that RCs might conceive of it, depending.)

There’s at least some union to the Church that the orthodox claim Catholics have. Don’t believe me? See the controversy on rebaptism. Even the fathers came to the conclusion that baptism by heretics, if in the proper formula, was valid. So if Catholics are completely cut off because they are in schism with the eastern bishops, how are they even able to baptize in the proper form? There has to be some validity to at least one of our sacraments. Why not the others?

And how does one patriarch lose his apostolate if he is in schism? Does the office depend on the man? Or does the man depend on the office? Catholics believe the office holds. So the bishops in schism retain their apostolate, and thus the priests under that bishop retain their share in the priesthood. Why is this invalid?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The Fathers declared unanimously that contraception was evil, including Chrysostom and Augustine.

Side note: cremation doesn’t nullify the resurrection. Otherwise martyrs that were burned wouldn’t be able to rise, and decomposed bodies that turned ‘to dust’ wouldn’t be able to participate. This is another example of a discipline. Not the same as something condemned as inherently evil, as with contraception and the fathers.

On you’re primary note, yes that is true that the Fathers were against all forms of contraception and that’s because in those days all forms of contraception were Abortive. In the days of the early Fathers, for example, the women had access to Potions (perhaps similar to the modern-day abortion pills) the women would drink to expel an embryo or fetus. Back then, the women didn’t have access to Non-Abortive forms of Birth Control like condoms or sponges nor did they have the scientific knowlege of a woman’s fertility needed to use NFP type Methods.

On your side note: The Martyrs that were burned were burned by anti-Christians, not by fellow Christians. The idea against cremation isn’t the idea the cremation makes the resurrection impossible for nothing is impossible for God, but rather the actual destruction of the body, a temple of God, which must always be respected & honored, not purposefully destroyed. To us, Orthodox, it is always inherently evil to purposefully destroy the body.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

On you’re primary note, yes that is true that the Fathers were against all forms of contraception and that’s because in those days all forms of contraception were Abortive.

Not so. There were oral contraceptives that dulled fertility. There was also coitus interruptus, as seen in the Old Testament with Onan. This was forbidden by the Fathers. Read the link I posted. They were against the wasting of the seed, not only the abortion of the child.

Additionally, things like pessaries were used to block sperm from fertilizing the egg.

rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/04/29/from-crocodile-dung-nuvaring-birth-control-is-nothing-new/

In the days of the early Fathers, for example, the women had access to Potions (perhaps similar to the modern-day abortion pills) the women would drink to expel an embryo or fetus. Back then, the women didn’t have access to Non-Abortive forms of Birth Control like condoms or sponges nor did they have the scientific knowlege of a woman’s fertility needed to use NFP type Methods.

Addressed above.

On your side note: The Martyrs that were burned were burned by anti-Christians, not by fellow Christians. The idea against cremation isn’t the idea the cremation makes the resurrection impossible for nothing is impossible for God, but rather the actual destruction of the body, a temple of God, which must always be respected & honored, not purposefully destroyed. To us, Orthodox, it is always inherently evil to purposefully destroy the body.

And again, death and decay will do the same to the body. The Church allows for cremation, but not for the scattering of ashes. So the dust of the person will remain in the same location, just as when they are buried. It was also used to prevent disease in cases of mass death. Therefore, NOT intrinsically evil. Contraception, however, was under no circumstances condoned.

Please read the link. Even the wasting of the seed was condemned.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Yes, but more importantly, the Orthodox themselves do not recognize that Melkite claim. Such one-sided declarations actually hurt relations between Orthodox and Catholics, as they essentially claim that it is possible to continue to be Orthodox after having left communion with the actual Orthodox Church, and hence do a great deal of violence to Orthodox ecclesiology, while simultaneously insulting the people they claim to be so close to by reducing the Orthodox faith to a set of presuppositions, stances, or approaches that can somehow be lived out in deliberate isolation/severance from actual Orthodox life, which can only be sustained by continual communion in and with the Orthodox Church.

So I’m glad to hear you consider yourself Catholic instead.

I disagree with what you said somewhat…but OK.

 

[joe371]

Adherence to the original Christian ecclesiology.

Communion with others who share the same doctrines, and not with those who preach heterodoxy and innovation.

Do you really need more than that? Orthodoxy offers the complete and unadulterated Truth.

To whom are you referring when you say: “…preach heterodoxy and innovation.”

Does the present-day Eastern Orthodox Church agree with what the following Eastern Orthodox saints had to say about the Petrine office? Just curious:

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. A.D. 638)

“Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church.” – Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (d. 826)
Writing to Pope Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649)
Writing to Pope Theodore:

O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

And again, death and decay will do the same to the body. The Church allows for cremation, but not for the scattering of ashes. So the dust of the person will remain in the same location, just as when they are buried. It was also used to prevent disease in cases of mass death. Therefore, NOT intrinsically evil. Contraception, however, was under no circumstances condoned.

Please read the link. Even the wasting of the seed was condemned.

Decay happens by nature, which is fine. What is Not fine is purposely destroying (or even just maiming) the body under any circumstance. Both are strongly condemned by the Orthodox now & in the beginning of the Church.

Yes, I know “wasting of the seed” aka masturbation was firmly condemned by the Fathers (& still is) with temporary excommunication.

I will read your link.

 

[Rawb]

To whom are you referring when you say: “…preach heterodoxy and innovation.”

To the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sorry, but was my post really that confusing?

I will not engage in the Roman Catholic version of the Protestant “verse-cherry-picking” that is “Look! I can quote a saint!”

I believe, having been a member of the Roman Communion and fully knowing their teachings and their objections to The Orthodox Church, that the Holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church without reservation or addition. That her saints are the holy ones of God and their words and beliefs are to be followed as advice to holiness, and only in accordance with the Holy Traditions. That no saint or man is infallible, as The Church teaches, and all are subject to The Faith.

If you have questions about what The Orthodox Church teaches, you can look it up easily on Google, at oca.net, or on The Ancient Way Forum. We’d love to have you. On the other hand if, as I suspect, you know perfectly well what The Church teaches and have ulterior motives in your questions, then find someone else to play with.

 

[joe371]

Rawb;11820793]To the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sorry, but was my post really that confusing?

No. LOL… Hope I did not offend…Not my intention…I love the Eastern Orthodox churches…

I will not engage in the Roman Catholic version of the Protestant “verse-cherry-picking” that is “Look! I can quote a saint!”

OK. Well, do at least believe, for example, that St. Sophronius said the following?

“Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church.” – Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461

I believe, having been a member of the Roman Communion and fully knowing their teachings and their objections to The Orthodox Church, that the Holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church without reservation or addition. That her saints are the holy ones of God and their words and beliefs are to be followed as advice to holiness, and only in accordance with the Holy Traditions. That no saint or man is infallible, as The Church teaches, and all are subject to The Faith.

The Catholic Church agrees with you: no man is infallible; the pope is not infallible; none of therm were…

If you have questions about what The Orthodox Church teaches, you can look it up easily on Google, at oca.net, or on The Ancient Way Forum. We’d love to have you. On the other hand if, as I suspect, you know perfectly well what The Church teaches and have ulterior motives in your questions, then find someone else to play with.

I have done a lot of research; as a former protestant, I seriously considered the EOC. Mathew 16 and the early church fathers were just way too compelling…

 

[sharpag]

The Fathers declared unanimously that contraception was evil, including Chrysostom and Augustine:

Considering that we know that contraception is not (or need not be) abortion, the differentiation between the two can be in line with Patristic thought for the Fathers whose primary concern was the destruction of life. If the Fathers spoke out against contraception because they viewed it as abortion, then were it not abortion their argument would not apply. However, if they spoke out against contraception because non-procreative sexual acts (or acts not open to procreation) are inherently sinful, then their argument still applies but would seem to include NFP as well. Because that’s the point of NFP, right? To space out children which virtually guarantees you will have less of them.

It just seems a bit odd for a rather legalistic argument to pull back at the last second and claim, “NFP is an acceptable form of contraception (or whatever one wishes to call it) because it emphasizes the unitive act of the couple.” But if the unity of the couple as opposed to procreation is the main point… I hope you can see were this is going. I don’t mean to seem rude, but I find the argument to hold little water (just I am sure many will say the same thing of my argument).

I have done a lot of research; as a former protestant, I seriously considered the EOC. Mathew 16 and the early church fathers were just way too compelling…

Do you mean with regard to primacy, universal jurisdiction, infallibility, and/or something else. I think most people would agree with some conception of primus inter pares, but I’ve always thought the way Leo’s Tome was handled at Chalcedon and Ephesus II (the Robber Council) really demolished any strong sense of papal superiority with respect to doctrine.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Decay happens by nature, which is fine. What is Not fine is purposely destroying (or even just maiming) the body under any circumstance. Both are strongly condemned by the Orthodox now & in the beginning of the Church.

Yes, I know “wasting of the seed” aka masturbation was firmly condemned by the Fathers (& still is) with temporary excommunication.

I will read your link.

No, wasting the seed in actual sex was, and is, condemned. See Onan in scripture. The Fathers clearly condemned both not having children because of selfish desire, and sex without the possibility of children.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Considering that we know that contraception is not (or need not be) abortion, the differentiation between the two can be in line with Patristic thought for the Fathers whose primary concern was the destruction of life. If the Fathers spoke out against contraception because they viewed it as abortion, then were it not abortion their argument would not apply. However, if they spoke out against contraception because non-procreative sexual acts (or acts not open to procreation) are inherently sinful, then their argument still applies but would seem to include NFP as well. Because that’s the point of NFP, right? To space out children which virtually guarantees you will have less of them.

It just seems a bit odd for a rather legalistic argument to pull back at the last second and claim, “NFP is an acceptable form of contraception (or whatever one wishes to call it) because it emphasizes the unitive act of the couple.” But if the unity of the couple as opposed to procreation is the main point… I hope you can see were this is going. I don’t mean to seem rude, but I find the argument to hold little water (just I am sure many will say the same thing of my argument).

Do you mean with regard to primacy, universal jurisdiction, infallibility, and/or something else. I think most people would agree with some conception of primus inter pares, but I’ve always thought the way Leo’s Tome was handled at Chalcedon and Ephesus II (the Robber Council) really demolished any strong sense of papal superiority with respect to doctrine.

Leo’s tome was read and hailed as truth at Chalcedon. It was the Robber Council that attempted to reject what was taught. Additionally, the bishops declared with one voice that Peter spoke through Leo at Chalcedon. I know they argued with the Roman delegates about not letting the Alexandrian Patriarch sit, but they eventually acquiesced. Chalcedon actually convinced me more of primacy.

The Robber Council treated the Papal legates poorly, but in the end it was nullified and Leo’s Tome was acclaimed at Chalcedon.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Leo’s tome was read and hailed as truth at Chalcedon. It was the Robber Council that attempted to reject what was taught. Additionally, the bishops declared with one voice that Peter spoke through Leo at Chalcedon. I know they argued with the Roman delegates about not letting the Alexandrian Patriarch sit, but they eventually acquiesced. Chalcedon actually convinced me more of primacy.

Actually, no, they did not acquiesce. The Senate refused to exclude Dioscoros from being seated until specific charges were brought against him, meaning that Poe Leo simply saying that Dioscoros should not be seated among the council did not itself warrant excluding him.

The Robber Council treated the Papal legates poorly, but in the end it was nullified and Leo’s Tome was acclaimed at Chalcedon.

This approaches the matter of a first millennium council from the anachronistic lense of a late second millennium ecclesiology. The legates and the pope were not understood as having the authority to nullify what was considered valid, which is why the council for two years was official religious policy in the Eastern half of the Empire. Rather, they only had the ability to object that what was regarded as valid by some was in fact not valid. It was, therefore, not by the Pope’s authority that the Second Council of Ephesus was found to be null by the Council of Chalcedon, but it was by the fact that the Second Council of Ephesus was conducted improperly under Patriarch Dioscoros’ Presidency.

 

[Taurks]

If we’re going to cherry-pick Saints’ writings, a huge number of early Saints also said that eating more food than is required by the body is also sinful. If we’re saying contraception is sinful because the Fathers said so, why are we not also discussing people who indulge more dessert than they should?

I am just saying that I believe a double-standard exists. It seems we are selectively saying “Look! This thing is sinful or good because the Fathers said so” on only a choice number of topics - particularly, the big ones which divide our faiths.