Me too.


And a praiseworthy goal it is. And yet, with the jurisdictional mess that is Orthodoxy, how will that work out? How will the Ukrainian Catholics come to Moscow when better than half of Ukrainian Orthodox won't? Or better still, will they come to Constantinople while the Macdeonian Orthodox won't? Will the American Ruthenians merge with the OCA or ACROD? I'm sure there's a really important difference between these two that calls for division, but I sure can't see it.

I'm not even sure I have my examples right; I don't follow it that closely, but the point stands.

And what of the Eastern Catholic Churches that have developed for a very long time independent of Orthodoxy and in different directions. I understand the efforts underway to "purify" the tradition, but this is a huge task and difficult for the people to accept.



I really don't want to get going round and round on contraception again, but here you have an example of Rome's position that willful contraception intrinsically evil and about as excusable as willful murder while the Eastern position entertains a more forgiving approach.

This is not a matter of mere perspective. There is no oeconomia for willful murder. Either Rome is exaggerating the gravity of contraception or the Orthodox are excusing the inexcusable. (Please note here that I am speaking of pure contraception and not of abortive methods).

Anyway I wish someone would suggest a more convenient example than contraception. I don't want to get into the same conversation all over again. Maybe divorce. I'm not sure inasmuch as I am a little unfamiliar with the orthodox practice in this regard.

No one said it will be easy.



Neither do I. East and West have different views on the topic and this will require, IMHO, a Council to Work this out- perhaps the same Unity Council that will reunite the Churches.



Complete agreement from me.

Any topic comes down to the original question that CDL posed, which is how to determine what to accept from the Pope.

Contraception is actually a good topic to use, because the Pope drew a very distinct line on it. It didn't come from the bishops, clergy, laity, etc. (most of which disagreed with him).

Although the Immaculate Conception is another example that works for this purpose. The East can and easily does treat it (which has even higher stakes than contraception as the Pope deems this teaching *infallible*) in the same manner that Nelson and I propose to understand contraception. The Immaculate Conception is not *wrong*, but the East understands it differently (and some Eastern theologians even allow for the idea that Mary did have sin). This is due to a different understanding of the nature of sin (which also partly explains the difference in each church's views on sex).

It's not wrong to frame it the way the RCC does, it's just not the only way to frame it. It's difficult for the Romans (and like-minded Eastern Catholic brothers) to believe that way the Pope explains things is the *only* way. As respect for the Pope must develop in Orthodoxy, so must this notion develop in Catholicism.

Because in the end, these are not Christological matters or subjects upon which salvation hinges, and it is silly to divide the Church over them, if not sinful.

There then you have your answer. If substantial differences exist between East and West it certainly serves no one to ignore them. It strikes me furthermore as a little odd and scrambled for Eastern Catholics to adopt by default the Orthodox position on substantial questions, in opposition to Catholicism (where such differences exist) since it seems to call into question the purpose and existence of Eastern Catholicism as anything more than some exercise in unity at the expense of truth. That is, if the Romans always have it wrong and the Orthodox always have it right, what is it that you're doing?

Why-oh-why?? Can we please not run through this AGAIN, or if we must, can you at least stop making it into something it isn't? This thing about contraception is old, not new. As Stuart, the resident historian, put it on another thread, the Faith of the Fathers did not permit it at all.

You responded to the first 1/4 of my post as if the rest wasn't there.

However, I don't believe that's what Stuart said but I'll leave it to him to reply if he wishes.

No one is saying ignore them. I would argue that the two views ultimately speak the same Truth but in a different theological way, one from the Greek East and the other the Latin West. One is not better nor is one lesser. That is why I will never say that the Roman Church is wrong but that she expresses certain positions that are currently worded from a purely Latin Theological view of the Apostolic faith- I for one am not a Latin Catholic and understand that same Truth from the Byzantine Theological view.




Lets face reality most of what divides us is the Latin insistence that Roman position on things = the Truth and the Orthodox insistence that Orthodox positions = the Truth. This black and white mentality will never achieve unity.

When we come to realize that both expressions of Christianity- Orthodox and Roman Catholic- express the SAME Truth but from a different theological approach that compliment each other then unity can be achieved.

What this will mean is the sacrifice of the "I am right, you are wrong” mentality. It will also mean that people come out of their comfort zones.

In my opinion Eastern Catholics have a unique theological role. Our being in Communion with Rome should be to show the Orthodox that one can hold the Orthodox faith in its entirety and be in communion with Rome. This doesn't sacrifice the Truth of the Apostolic Faith in Christ, IMHO. Now will all Greek Catholics agree with me? No. Will all Roman Catholics agree with me? Will all Orthodox Christians agree with me? Certainly not, but as Bishop John of Canton said at the recent Orientale Lumen Conference, (and I am paraphrasing) Eastern Catholics are called to be "the voice of Orthodoxy within Catholicism." I for one agree.

We are foolish to think that differences like this have only been around since the Great Schism- from the very start the same Orthodox/Catholic faith has been expressed theologically different between East & West.

This is why a unity Council that will affirm that the Orthodox/Catholic faith has always been preserved and taught by both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is how unity will be achieved- as both together are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ.

Also Patriarch Gregory of Antioch said this in his paper-Ecclesiology and Ecumenism at the recent Middle East Synod in Rome:



So, even in the Catholic Communion there is need for continual dialogue between the Western and Eastern Churches

Patriarch Gregory then said this a little later



Further His Beatitude said:



I for one fully agree with Patriarch Gregory. I suggest reading this whole presentation of the Melkite Patriarch. Ecclesiology and Ecumenism

If you don't want to rehash this subject, the PLEASE stop misinforming people. AC IS NOT "INTRINSICALLY EVIL," you are the only person making that claim. There is a major difference between disobedience of Catholic teaching by artificially delaying a family and aborting a conceived child --- WHICH IS WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH calls and INTRINSIC EVIL. That is, unless a couple is intentionally and knowingly counting on the abortificant in the AC chemical drug which they use. In that case an abortion is an abortion is an abortion with full intent and knowledge.

And yes, I AM SHOUTING, because you didn't hear me the first time and continue to misinform.

So move onto the subject at hand without distortions, please.
Sorry if you think I'm rude, but enough is enough.

I detest trading proof texts. I assume in a discussion that both parties are interested and honest enough to determine what the other position really is, in order to discuss merits and ideas rather than this kind of juvenile squabbling.

Silly me.

This kind of thing is idiotic. It's doubly shameful on your part, Father Deacon, that you are presenting this from your position of authority.

Google "Catechism of the Catholic church" and find paragraph 2370.

Better still, in my charity, here you go:

"Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

Dear brother in Christ,

With charity and respect but with deep concern, I must inform you that you are mistaken. The Catholic Church does indeed teach that using artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. As the previous post cited from the CCC, here is also the citation from Humane Vitae:



My professors in moral theology also taught that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, not just abortion.

And while I'm doing your research, here a tasty tidbit from Pius "Tell Us What You Really Think" XI:

"Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

"55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

"56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."



Get all that?

Foul stain
Wicked
shameful and intrinsically vicious
Horrible crime

But yeah, let's now attempt with a straight face and rational mind to argue that this is just a little difference of "perspective", East to West.

It looks pretty clear to me. It was pretty clear for the rest of Christianity until the Episcopalians took many in the Church down a Primrose Lane. I'm glad I'm Eastern and Catholic.

Leon Podles, in his book "The Church Impotent" wrote that in the 19th century, Latin bishops petitioned the Holy See to have the burden of sin for coitus interruptus (the most common form of birth control practiced back then) fall entirely on the man, on the grounds that the women of the Church, overburdened by children as they were, would not stand for it otherwise. And even then, the Latin Church was keenly aware that it was already being feminized.

Glory to Jesus Christ,
Please accept my sincere apology, and I thank my brothers for correcting me. Though I try my best to protect my credibility, I have fallen at times. Again, a very sincere thank you for providing objective correction. I have read Humanae Vitae several times, but have not done a thorough study; I am surprised that AC is put in the same "intrinsic evil" category as abortion.

With regard to this detail, I will agree with you that there is indeed a difference between Eastern and Western thought. Aside from the "intrinsic evil" quote, I personally believe the gulf between East and West on the subject of artificial contraception is not reconcilable.

I must go on to say that the Church does indeed accept natural "contraception," that is a valid method of mutually limiting family size within reasonable limits. That is NFP (Natural Family Planning) and its practice is accepted by the Catholic Church as acknowledge by Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Exhortation FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, The Role of Christian Family in the Modern World:

In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never "used" as an "object" that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God's creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.

For us Eastern Catholic families who abide by universal Papal documents there is a practical alternative to artificial birth control drugs, with inherent physical and moral hazards, which the Church has lovingly cautioned us about.

Humbly,
Fr Deacon Paul