Hi all. I just became Catholic this year from Protestantism. During RCIA, there were a few things that I was a little lury of concerning the RCC (Papal Infallability, Papal jurisdiction, etc.) However, I've heard *by rumor) that the EO Church has some issues as well - not being able to come to a consensus on Contracpetion, gay marriage, etc. I'm not sure how much of what I've heard is true or myth.

Is there anyone who'd be willing to have a conversation with me over the phone concerning Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm NOT looking for a debate. I just want someone to clearly define for me some things.

My email is keithg29@yahoo.com is anyone is interested.

Keith
Colorado

Keith,

I would be happy to discuss these issues with you. I will send you my email in PM.

Joe

A former protestant here that might just have some insight.
You can pv me! Its okay I dont bite, well mostly never.
Stephanos I

I was born Rc, became a member TEC for 5 years, and have been a member of the EOC in all three major branches here in the USA for the last 25 years. Feel free to send me note and perhaps we can talk. As far as your comment, " However, I've heard *by rumor) that the EO Church has some issues as well - not being able to come to a consensus on Contracpetion, gay marriage, etc. I'm not sure how much of what I've heard is true or myth." On major issues such as abortion and certain other hot botton social issues, the EOC is consistent. There is jurisdictional variation in other issues. You will find, in general, that the RCC operates in lock step on most issues, whereas the EOC may seem disorganized to some, the way ancient Christianity was. You pays your money and makes your choice [grammar intended].

Keith I would call your local Eastern Orthodox priest and ask him your questions.

Keith,

The issues you put forth are ones that people have discussed before. However, nonexperts (including myself and many parish priests) on both sides often accidentally misconstrue the other side's positions and also often are unable to appreciate the position opposite them. I am not an expert on many of these issues, so my input may be worth little. However, I would be more than happy to discuss them, and their ramifications with you. I was Protestant, then Orthodox, and I am currently Byzantine Catholic.

As someone who has himself considered many of these issues, I would recommend that you carefully ask youself a few questions:

1. Do these issues really matter in a way that requires me to change my faith again?
2. Have I truly opened myself to the idea that I may not be able to understand some things, despite the fact that these things may be true?
3. Do I trust that the church I am a member of is guarded by the Holy Spirit, and, as such, will not deviate so far from truth that my spiritual growth is in danger?
4. Have I found knowledgeable persons (on both sides of these issues) who can assist me in my consideration?
5. Why am I a member of my church?

Felix

PS - I am in no way implying that we do not have knowledgeable people on this forum.

John I think you are a little confused, that was not my comment at all.
Stephanos I

Fr Stephanos

Johnzonaras was responding using the Quick Reply box underneath the last post - which happened to be yours - therefore it linked to it.

I have never heard of any 'valid' Orthodox Jurisdiction who allows for gay marriage or gay union. That was also never allowed in the early Church.

There are a few groups who claim to be orthodox but who never were really part of us. Some of these cults claim to have apostolic succession through a renegade bishop, but their ordination of women, and other weird practices show that they are not practicing the Ancient Faith. They use the name Orthodox, but if you look at their websites, they are not in communion with us. These are the guys who have more clergy than laity and allow for gay unions, etc. Watch out for them.

I agree re same-sex issues. However, the fact that some people have told Keith this shows that at least some people are under that impression. One more reason to carefully evaluate the advice of anyone speaking about the differences in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. There are a lot of people out there with misinformation regarding one or both churches.

I am also a former protestant, now an Orthodox priest.

I am a former fallen away Latin Catholic, turned Protestant, returned Latin Catholic and now very grateful Eastern Catholic.

And I'm a Roman Catholic, who once flirted with Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism, returned Roman Catholic and now waiting to make a move to the East. It stops there for me. Really.

John this is not always true. I have an Orthodox catechism right here on my book shelf and it advocates abortion and artificial birth control (some of which are abortificiants) in certain cases.
I would say it isnt always consistent.
Stephanos I
PS This is not meant in a provocative spirit but just to point to a fact.

as one who is quite familiar with Evangelicalism, methinks you are prolife. if so, EC churches are in concert with the Holy See as far as prolife issues are concerned. that is not to say that Orthodox people (or churches) are not prolife, (I know better), but if you want to be certain on this important issue, give us a look.
Much Love,
Jonn

I've been on the same journey. This was my first Pascha in the Orthodox fold, and it was the best! Many blessings, and good luck! Feel free to write back if you want to compare notes.

What kind of Protestant? Were you a Protestant priest?

It ADVOCATES them? As in encouraging, recommending, extolling, etc.? I am more than just surprised, because most of the members of my parish are among the most ardent opponents of choice I have ever known. Compared to them, Pope Benedict looks wishy-washy on the subject.

Father Stephanos,

Can you provide the title of this Orthodox Catechism? I would be curious who published such a thing...

God bless,

Gordo

I hope I don't get my head bitten off here but the OCA, GOA and AOC all allow invitro. They require all embyros to be implanted but they do allow it. You can find this on the websites.

I'm not sure that there is consensus among the Orthodox regarding in vitro so this would not surprise me.

Joe

Hmmm...more women get invitro today than ever. What a shame..our culture (sexuality, careers, late marriage) has made it difficult for married women to conceive...

One of the top obstetricians and leaders of in vitro fertilization in the 1980's where I live (he delivered one of my children) was a devout, fatherly, compassionate and good Roman Catholic man with a very large family. He would not perform abortions, but must have thought that he was doing something good with in-vitro fertilization...

In today's strange scientific new world, the boundaries of ethical and non-ethical are very, very blurry. I am sure that, rather than see a woman mourn her infertility and inability to have a child, that the compassionate thing, for many clerics, doctors, and theologians, Orthodox and/or Roman Catholic, is to allow for in vitro fertilization...

Would anyone here be able to prohibit their daughters from having this procedure, if she and her husband were desperately trying to have a child of their own for years, with all the requisite tears and prayers that go with that desperation???

I pray that none of us will ever face that scenario, but statistics tell us that we may... so, if we are truly honest with ourselves, I think that we know in our hearts what the answer to that might be.

May the Lord have mercy on us all...because our modern day freedoms, our liberal thoughts and lifestyles, our cultures, and our scientific knowledge have not helped us, but rather, they have destroyed us.

Alice

Alice,

I agree with all that you have said. It is a complicated issue and I think that this is precisely why we have no defined doctrine in the same sense that the Vatican has its teaching on this issue set in stone.

If someone wants a strict, and defined, teaching on in vitro and contraception, then they might do better to look into the Catholic Church with its more developed teaching on natural law. On the other hand, Orthodoxy might be preferable for one who favors a more flexible approach on these issues.

For myself, I am not convinced that the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on these issues is entirely correct, so I am satisfied with the more ambiguous and ambivalent state of things in Orthodoxy. One thing is clear though. The Orthodox Church opposes any method of conception that necessitates the destruction of embryos. So, even if in vitro is permissible, it is only permissible provided that it does not result in the destruction of any embryos.

Joe

Nor is it actually the practice as I've seen it. Of two couples I know from AOC parishes they both were given the go from their priest without the "all must be used requirement"... well let me be specific: one couple was told that they could do it as long as they made sure the unused portion was given to people who couldn't conceive. I'm more of the opinion that that is more Franken-science than the more common total use requirement.
This of course goes into the official jurisdictional decree versus what one or two priests decide to do category, but I thought it worthy of note.

Poppycock!!! That is a scandalous thing to say!!! Who has taken responsibility for such a "catechism"?

It is NOT a fact!!!

Back in the early 2000´s, Bishop Joseph had a special retreat for his priests on ethical issues and modern technology.

Our Orthodox Priest returned from that retreat and said that abortion is murder and that infertility methods employing invitro fertilization are unethical. In addition to the unnatural environment, he said that studies have shown that children born using invitro fertilization have more health complications than those conceived naturally, especially those who were frozen and held in storage. The technology is still too new. It was also mentioned that there seems to be an increased cancer risk in those children due to all the drugs administered.

What really bothered the priest was the fact that many unborn children who are held in storage pending implantation are systematically destroyed (murdered) with some parents not even being given an option.

Surrogate parenthood is not ethical either. Allowing it raises issues about convenience and selfishness among women who are healthy and fertile. It is simply not natural. Young unmarried women should not be used as wombs for rent.

We may be swaying too far into the realm of seeking a church that conforms to our own pre-conceived opinions. While we may disagree on which of various entities consitute(s) the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I'm not sure that the simple fact that one of those entities more closely conforms to one's own pre-conceived opinions means much. It would seem that we should seek out the teachings of the Church - not seek out a church that mirrors our own opinions.

Just my thoughts.

Felix

Keithg29,

Just so you know, Orthodox Catechisms, no matter what is contained therein, do not contain the same weight as a document such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Many of them exist and many have been approved by one or more bishops. That being said, they are more like commentaries on the Catechism of the Catholic Church than they are its equivalent in authority.
I was not sure if you were aware of that.

Felix

Maybe we could ask Father for a citation rather than assert that what he says is false?

I will agree with 'A Simple Sinner' that Father 'Stephanos I' needs to provide the reference (including the title, date of publication and approving bishop) and a lengthy quote so the Forum community can better understand.

I will disagree with 'A Simple Sinner' that one need wait until Father 'Stephanos I' provides such a quote before labeling it false. Orthodoxy is very Pro-Life and is uniform in condemning abortion as a moral evil. Someone making such a provocative statement needs to provide the support when they make the statement.

I only asserted that claiming what Father Stephanos said was false - from the standpoint that it either objectively is, or is not something in a book he has - is problematic. Before we go making it sound like Father is a liar, we should have the courtesy to ask this priest if he would do us the good favor of citing the source of his contention.

The way the objection was phrased, it made it sound like Father Stephanos was being accused of making something up. I do agree it would be wise from the get go when making such an assertion to immediately offer references.

That being said, there are some Orthodox writers and organizations that have been dissatisfied with some of the statements made in the past two decades by churches and hierarchs. Folks invovled with the Stephanos Project (an Orthodox lay initiative) have themselves expressed some concern over the appearance of ambiguity in some statements made, and a recent article by Owen the Ochclophobist sites an article from an Orthodox pro-life newsletter of a decade ago taking to task some statements they themselves found problematic.

All that being said, a Catholic friend of mine is always amazed at the Orthodox presence at Pro-life rallies in Washington, D.C. that he attends. I wouldn't point to any of these problematic writings (some of which I readily concede exist) to demonstrate anything more than the personal speculations of their authors. They clearly don't represent the ideals of the ancient Church which Orthodoxy prides itself on making every effort to uphold.

Joe how would you get around having charges of relativism or consumerism being leveled at you for such a statement? Trying to better understand your thoughts on this, but it seems that you are offering a sort of metaphyscial shopper's guide to finding the right church for "your active lifestyle". On the face of it, it almost sounds like a real estate agent advising a midwesterner to weight the merits of East-coast living v. West-Coast living based on the merits of wether they are more of a "Manhattan man" or a "SoCal Living sort of guy". If this is the case, one I suppose could expect a population shift between these two communions based on personality types... "You guys that like to have everything spelled out and defined, go Roman! - You folks that prefer more fluid, less hard-n-fast definitions and more room for speculation, go Orthodox!" Certainly this would be a minority position...



A qualification a lot of people privately make in their explanation. With all due respect, we should all be afforded the time and education to wade through some of these weighty matters well above the pay-grade and scholarly capacity of 90%+ of the world... (I went to college, but ask me the difference between RNA & DNA - something I must have known to pass tests at one point - and you will be met with a blank stare.) I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable for some of us in turn to ask (especially after hearing your qualifications) why these important matters aren't more clearly annunciated officially. More bluntly, in the OCA's website, the matter of contraception being allowable is addressed. On hear you and many others qualify it with an insistence that "well of course abortifacients are not allowed, we all know that!" Some of us are wondering why some materials and literature like the OCA website doesn't so very simply and quickly make this clarification as well. Given how "The Pill" is the single most popular approach to contraception among married people in the culture that the OCA's membership and wider "seeker audience" is coming from, doesn't it seem incumbant to point out that inasmuch as it is often abortifacient, "The Pill" would be off-limits?


Apropos invitro, I will simply say this is a matter where - to take this stand you assert - there essentially is a need for faith and science to be co-workers in the service of truth. To make an informed decision about IVF, one really has to have a grasp of the science behind it... When one becomes aware of the probability that process will demand multiple tries using multiple embryos, most of which will not be expected to implant and live (some of which will be stored for a later date or destroyed if implantation works)... Well in defense of Rome, I see some of the high-level scholarship as largely being in the service of the Christian faithful to help them make informed decisions.

A few months ago while folding my laundry I caught the last 45 min of a lecture on EWTN on stem cell research given by a priest with advanced degrees in ethics and biology. He was eloquent and able to communicate at a non-grad student level, and the arguments he made were cohesive and cogent. While some would decry this as another example of the Catholic Church being too "sciencey" and "legalistic" I viewed it as the sort of precision that I would reason we can hope for from a living breathing Church established by Christ to guide the faithful through the pitfalls and perils of a modern, ever more complicated world.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not mean for it to "sound like Father is a liar". My apologies if it was interpreted as such. The falsehood is contained in this "Orthodox catechism" which apparently condones abortion.

I am waiting for a reference.

Your points are well taken. I am not saying, by the way, that Rome's teaching on this issue is wrong. I was merely saying that I'm not convinced that it is proven to be correct. I will say that I do, in fact, find IVF problematic for a number of reasons. I just don't deem myself competent to say unequivocally that every instance of IVF is sinful.

Joe

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23777134-2,00.html

We can agree that this certainly would be (I hope). And this is where I think we've opened Pandora's Box. We have lacked a sufficient ethical construct to answer what is demonstrably acceptable and what is not acceptable. Many people have painted the whole thing gray and hope that in the fulness of time our betters will separate the white from the black. I much prefer a 'look before you leap' mentality especially where human lives are concerned.

Let us agree on what respects His will and then see what science can do and not the other way around. Our science is leaping past our "popular" morality and I fear the consequences.

Hello Keith!

I too live in Colorado. There are a few bogus groups here in this state that call themselves "Orthodox" that are NOT Orthodox. If they give you an address of where their church is and you try to look it up you will find that they even lie about their church building as they have none. I do not understand the motivation of these people but I assure you that they are NOT Orthodox.

In Christ,
-Adrian

This is the one thing that concerns me about being a slavic Orthodox Christian in the United States. You have to be on guard if the random parish you may find while traveling is a canonical Orthodox church.

If I'm in Winnemucca Nevada and see what looks like a Ukrainian
Orthodox church, I can bet it probably isn't. After all, it's not in Pennsylvania.

Here in Southern California we have sedevacantist "Catholic" Churches claiming lineage from Brazil. One in particular is run by a Bishop Sebastian who has been busy handing out excommunications to those who defect from his parishes.

To make matters worse, I recently discovered another schismatic "Catholic-Orthodox" group found worldwide that claims to be Catholic and Orthodox with bishops who claim apostolic succession from that same line in Brazil and from Orthodox Bishops.

Then of course, there is Bishop "Curtain Rod."

Singing ... to the tune of "Where have all the flowers gone"

When will this madness end

When will it ever end.


One can never be too careful because not every church that claims to be Eastern Orthodox is indeed Eastern Orthodox.

In the Western Industrialized world, such as the USA, people are confused about the social role of a person. The role of a father, a mother, a circus clown, a priest, a farmer, homosexual, heterosexual, life, death. They do not know where one begins and one ends. They think that technology and enlightened philosophy can bring utopia on earth.

No Orthodox Church will ever accept contraception or in vitro fertilization as good holy practices. There are no canons that accept them in history of the world, nor will there ever be. Individual clergy's opinions to the contrary show themselves as heresies.

You noted,"No Orthodox Church will ever accept contraception or in vitro fertilization as good holy practices. There are no canons that accept them in history of the world,..." You are correct that there are no canons on the issue. My comments here are directed only toward contraception and withhold judgment on the issue of in vitro fertilization. If there are no canons in place on the issue, then birth control is not forbidden by the EOC. In fact, most Greek Orthodox clergy I know have no problem with family planning. I am sure there are some at the other end of the spectrum also. The issue is left in the hands of the family. The differences on the issue between the two churches' position on the issue is due to variances in interpretation of those passages in the Bible which are used to justify the two positions.