If the pope delivers a papal letter encouraging or condemning a certain belief or practice to what extent are Eastern Catholics obliged to teach and practice in harmony with him? I realize we have a different patrimony and spiritual traditions. E.g., we do not use the "Filioque" in the Creed. We don't use the word "purgatory" but do pray for the dead. We don't usually speak of the Assumption of Mary but of her Dormition. But these are at least variations on a theme.

A recent discussion has arisen that makes me wonder if we are also free to reject papal decrees like Humanae Vita particularly as it applies to Artificial Birth Control. Since the Pope is our highest Patriarch I wonder if that is really licet. If it is why are we in union with the Pope?

We also have different Theological outlooks that are foriegn to Latin Christianity.



Interesting question. One thing to look at is the Orthodox teaching on birth control and the Eastern practice of Economia. The ideal is of course to never use birth control but in man's weakness it is allowed, with the blessing of a priest, under the Churche's Economia with the idea to strive for the ideal.



Is Humanae Vita an infalliable teaching or is it mearly a pastoral letter? This is important to consider. I am looking forward to what others have to say.




We are not in union with the Pope but rather in Communion with the Pope. This idea needs to be considered. Does being in Communion with the Church of Rome mean everything that comes from Rome has to be applied to the Churches in Communion with her? Do we think that the Orthodox teaching on divorce and birth control are going to go away once communion is restored or is it possible to have two different approaches to these subjects? Are the Orthodox who use birth control, with their spiritual fathers blessing, all in sin because they use it?

In conscience I couldn't accept HV even if it was demanded of me, it's theology is just too misguided, and in the end is more about the authority of the Church than anything having to do with sex or procreation (see the article I linked to in the other thread for more on that).

The Melkites provide excellent examples in this regard, however, and I do not worry about having to warp my theology to try to fit HV. I quoted in the other thread the passage from Archbishop Joseph (Raya) of blessed memory's book which is often used in pre-marriage formation classes that essentially gives respect to HV but demurs from stamping it as a required teaching, instead leaving the ultimate decision to the husband and wife.

Bishop John (Elya), however, has been quoted as fully endorsing HV as the teaching of the church.

Both of these views exist within the church, and I encourage you to look at how this has played out. If Archbishop Raya was really teaching heresy, wouldn't you think something might have been done about it?

It's hard to imagine that the "conscience" is the supreme arbiter. Nevertheless, I do thank you for clarifying your position. I've sent a note to my priest. I'll follow his recommendation.

Enlightened conscience, informed by objectivity, IS the supreme arbiter!

It's hardly my original idea.

But you should read Ot'ets Nastorati's corrective.

Would not be better to discern what to accept from the priest you are seeking counsel?

By the way,



Bishops and priests here in Brazil teach very bad heresies and nothing is done about it.

***

If you do not mind, the correct name of the Encyclical is "Humanae Vitae" ("ae" is pronounced like the "e" of the word "French"). In that case, in the Latin Language, the declination "ae" points to a genitive ("the transmission OF human life..."). In the word "curriculum vitae" we see the same (it means "the course OF life").

That sounds pretty interesting. Like what?

You are of course correct. Just to reiterate, I'm a convert to the Eastern Catholic Church because I wish to be Eastern and Catholic. I'm not interested in setting my own conscience above that of the Church. If I wished to do that I would go back to being a Protestant.

I think what others are saying is that the Eastern Churches have a different theological understanding of the Universal faith than Rome. Humanae Vitae is a very Roman document, which makes since since it was written by the Pope of Rome and even then it didn't have the full support of the theologians that the then Pope consulted.

What I think is happening is that you have stumbled upon a topic that is hard for East and West to agree on. Is one right and one wrong? No, I don't think so. Is one more rigid? Yes. (my Ruthenian priest admits that the Orthodox teaching is much more pastoral) There is a tension between East and West and good one at that.

We Eastern Catholics are called to be Orthodox in faith and in communion with Rome. So naturally if we are going to be faithful to that vision then we are not going to be in complete agreement with the Latin Church. The Melkite Church is a wonderful example of this. I personally agree with Archbishop Raya.

Now not all Eastern Catholics will agree with that. I suspect your parish priest, whose podcasts I enjoy, will be more agreeing with Humanae Vitae. Which is fine with me. I say that because of his being a teacher of JPII's Theology of the Body.

Ultimately you have to follow your conscience in all matters of the faith and that doesn't make you protestant it makes you Catholic/Orthodox.

One thing to consider - the Orthodox are not united on this.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

http://suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1128&catid=567

http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/whatisnfp.pdf

Interesting that, although the link is broken, one of the discussion group references cited at the bottom of the OrthodoxWiki page is to an thread on this forum, from many years ago judging by the thread number.

Nelson,

Since no one can actually say what the "Eastern" Church believes on this topic and cannot define what the difference in theological perspective might be on this topic except to say "follow your conscience" I suspect that the position opposing Humanae Vitae on the question of artificial birth control has very little to do with Eastern Christianity and a great deal to do with feelings and American view of the world. "Let ones conscience be ones guide" is not a Christian position.

I'll stick with Eastern Catholicism.

CDL

I very much fear that your understanding of (the primacy of the) conscience is neither Eastern nor Catholic!

For me it does have everything to do with Eastern Christianity and nothing to do with my emotional feelings. My world view is not American but Byzantine Christian and I try my best to view the world through that vain.



Which is not in agreement with Humahnae Vitae. Also, you mischaracterize the importance of the conscience in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy. From Archbishop Raya book Crowning: The Christian Marriage:



Archbishop Raya, of Blessed Memory, is an authority on Eastern Catholicism perhaps it would be wise to listen to him?

Also, I am currently readings The Sacrament of Loveby Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimos, which is recommended by Metropolitian Kallistos (Ware). If you want the Eastern perspective on marriage and crowning I would suggest that book. It has depend my love for my wife and helped me see the truly awesome vocation we have as a married couple. And he is quoted by the thrice blessed Archbishop Raya in his work on marriage.



To finish with a quote from Archbishop Raya in which he sums up the Byzantine Churches position,

[quote]The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives."[/quote]

Sounds like following your conscience to me, which again is part of the Catholic/Orthodox theological outlook. One becomes a Catholic or Orthodox Christian not to be a slave but to be free in Christ.

Why the quotes?

It believes different things on the topic, depending on whom you ask. The two most common beliefs in Eastern Catholocism and Orthodoxy are either 1) aligned with HV, or 2) provided that the methods are not abortifacient (something each church condemns equally vigorously), it is a matter that is left to the couple, crowned in marriage, and their priest / spiritual father. You may find some variations on those two points, but they largely sum it up.

Usually, objections to HV are that the theology espoused in it is exclusively Western and Augustinian in mode and expression, and that the actual theology that it spells out is based not on Scripture or Tradition, but in secular philosophy and ultimately unconvincing, and based less on the morality of sexuality and more on the authority of the church in maintaining positions that it is loath to relent on, since it would be "letting the Protestants win". That the East has never taken such a stand that it would need to undo is not part of the usual conversation.



I didn't see that anywhere here.



I think you misunderstand the topic greatly. You began this topic by asking how Eastern Catholics should discern what to accept from the Pope, but I think you have already made that decision. It might not fall in line with how other Eastern Catholics, archbishops and great holy men and women among them, view the matter. You may take up his encyclicals with all the fervor of a devout Roman and nobody will begrudge you for it, but to say that we must as well is a different matter.



I think you are confusing "conscience" with "desires".



Me too!

Is this a reply to Nelson or JJP or who?

Unless I misunderstand Nelson, jjp, and one other poster if Eastern Catholicism were as you say neither I nor my priest nor my bishop would have anything to do with it.

I can only conclude that you do misunderstand, I don't see how you arrived to that from my post.

Ot'ets Nastoiatel's comments are addressed to you in the subject field above his posts.

Here is what His Grace John Elya, bishop emeritus of the Eparchy of Newton had to say:

Thank you griego. This is my understanding as well. Truth is truth. I'm tired of playing the relativist game. I've come home and I'm not leaving.

Problem is, Bishop John's position is not that of the rest of the Melkite Synod, including both our Patriarch Gregorios and our new Bishop Nicholas. As to what Bishop Joseph Tawil, or Patriarch Maximos V might have said. . . well, the fact is, our job is to be the voice of the absent brother (that would be the Orthodox), as well as the "Loyal Opposition". As Father Lawrence Cross wrote, in Eastern Christianity: The Orthodox Tradition (p.121):



There is a certain mindset that seeks certitude above all things. But Christianity does not offer us certitude, it offers us hope. The issues that divide the Catholic and Orthodox communions are by definition unsettled. The ambivalent position occupied by Eastern Catholics puts us in a unique--albeit uncomfortable--position of being in both camps at once, and as such, we should not be interested in certitude, but in truth, wherever it should lie.

Rather vague, Stuart. Not very satisfying. Too easy to slip into indifferentism.

I'm pretty indifferent to the higher management. It is the Tradition that matters.

I suppose that explains something.

The "higher management" has a pronounced proclivity to tell you what the meaning of the Tradition is and how it is to be lived out in the here and now.

One word for this tendency is "magisterium."

That's true. We aren't Protestants or anabaptists.

OK: so we have a magisterium. It's allegedly there to serve us.

Problem is, what it has to say ain't always perceived as plausible or convincing. Especially when some of its oracles have destroyed or at least maimed their credibility by, say, enabling crazy priests to molest children and then protecting and even promoting such priests.

The magisterium is often (not always) regarded as mighty intrusive and therefore a big fat pain in the toe.

Sometimes it's not easy to distinguish between authentic magisterial pronouncements and the personal, hidden agendas of it's spokesmen.

My approach is to be mighty cautious when dealing with the "God-speakers" and exercise healthy scepticism in regard to them.

What do you do when the "magisterium" (which is a function, not an office, and most certainly not a person) belongs exclusively to one Church, and insists that its theology, spirituality and doctrinal expression is binding upon all other Churches, including those just as venerable, if not moreso, than itself? What does one do when this "magisterium", instead of preserving the Tradition intact, has unilaterally altered or made additions to that Tradition, without reference to any other Church, including those whose Tradition is as old-or older--than its own?

This is the fundamental problem: despite Vatican II, the Latin Church still thinks it is the Catholic Church, and that its doctrines, its usage, its perspectives, are normative for all.

The attitude, by the way, exists up and down the Latin Church. I don't know how many times I've had to roll my eyes, for instance, on 1 November, when some Latin priest or bishop begins an op ed or blog column with "Today, all Catholics are celebrating the Feast of All Saints", or on Ash Wednesday, when the begin their spiels with "Today, all Catholics mark the beginning of Lent". The imputation is obvious: either we aren't Catholic, or we don't even appear on their radar scopes. Either way, our Tradition gets short shrift from them.

Stuart, a lot of very good people believe sometimes common sense trumps what the magisterium has to say.

Withholding assent to everything it's spokesmen utter is always an option, and sometimes the only one which coincides with mental health.

Mental health might be better demonstrated by just paying less attention. One terrible effect of modern communications technology is that people use it. If you dedicated yourself to reading everything written by, say, Pope John Paul II (of happy memory), you would be dead before you finished, quite possibly of boredom.

I remember when Mel Gibson's movie "the Passion of the Christ" was released. The Vatican published that the Holy Father had watched it but had no comment, not so much as "the popcorn coulda used more butter". Not because he actually had no comment, but because a lot of people would have interpreted it to be an infallible movie review.

We are not Mormons and we don't need to know how the prophet likes his eggs.

I'm too old for this discussion.

Then why do you constantly interject, Carson? I mean, if you want to be an old-fashioned uniate, that fine with me. Just don't try and drag the rest of us along with you, or pretend that what goes on in one insignificant diocese of one relatively small Eastern Catholic Church in any way represents the voice of Eastern Catholicism universally.

StuartK,

To be fair, couldn't it also be said that you are dragging us down by your own "constant interjecting" that we are to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome"? Do you see yourself as representing the voice of Eastern Catholicism? Aren't you yourself pretending the opinion of one particular Eastern Catholic Church represents all of Eastern Catholicism?

It was recently suggested to our pastor that he put this declaration on our parish website's opening page in LARGE, noticeable letters

"Pope Benedict XVI is in communion with our parish."

He hasn't done it - yet.

Yeah, but I don't complain that I'm too old for the debate. And also, I'm correct, and you're not. That makes a big difference.



Pretty much, yes. In half a century, we'll know for sure.

Encyclicals have to be evaluated to determine their doctrinal force. Some are ex cathedra and some aren't. Humana vitae wasn't a new teaching, so talking about whether or not to reject it doesn't matter, you also have to discuss whether to reject the teachings on the matter from prior popes as well.

I asked our priest if we accepted Humanae Vitae? He said, "of course". I asked an Orthodox friend of mine if his Church accepted any form of artificial contraception? He said, "Of course not." So, for those who reject Humanae Vitae and accept artificial birth control you are left with only one serious option. Almost all the Protestant groups have accepted artificial birth control. It seems odd that some claiming to be Eastern Catholics accept ABC and reject Humanae vitae when there is another option. This objection somehow gives them the "freedom of conscience" to practice ABC. They claim that the wording is too legalistic and not pastoral enough and so they will practice ABC. Then become protestant.

This whole conversation shouts loudly of the brokenness and fracture of the Eastern Church(es.) I say this, not in critcism, but in sadness.

If the Eastern Church were not so politicized and divided there would be an Ecumenical Council (together with the Roman Church) to discuss this issue and offer it's direction to its sheep.

Sad, indeed. Lord have mercy on us sinners.

I agree with you, Paul. There's way too much harping on non essential and much too little effort to be one Church in Christ.

It would appear that Carson simply did not understand the nuanced, non-legalistic approach demanded by Eastern Christian pastoral theology.

What, realistically, would a reunited church really look like? What do you expect (please, let's try to live in reality)? This line of discussion would be a small microcosm of it. In my opinion its been a good discussion that illuminates that such a reunited church will feature a range of opinion and not a monolith. No, not always comfortable, but if we can't live with that then there is no hope for Christian unity on this side of the eschaton.

The reunited Church will consist of a number of patriarchal Churches established on a geographical basis. Each Patriarch will be equal in grace and dignity to the others, but the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West (whether he wants the title or not), would have primacy, not in a juridical sense, but in the form of the kind of moral authority that derives from being head of the Church of Rome, "which presides in love". He will not be infallible, he will not have universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction, but he will concern himself exclusively with issues that affect unity, strengthening the brethren in their faith, and serving as court of final ecclesiastical appeal. Ninety nine percent of his time and attention will be given over to the concerns of his own Metropolitan province and his patriarchal duties. The establishment of separate and distinct chanceries (as, ironically, required under the CCEO) for his diocesan, patriarchal and pontifical roles would ensure that idle hands in the Curia could not gradually insinuate the papacy into the internal affairs of other Churches.

Of the other patriarchates, each will be responsible for the welfare of all the faithful within their territories (which will have to be redrawn), while at the same time giving deference to the patriarchs of other communities within those territories (this was, in fact, normal in the first millennium) on matters pertaining to their faithful.

It would be expected that, in light of the ease of modern transportation and communications, the patriarchs would meet on a fairly regular basis (if not annually) to discuss matters of concern to all. And, in the event that controversies arise that threaten the faith and/or the unity of the Church, that the Bishop of Rome would be authorized to call a council of all the bishops in the world to discuss and resolve the issue. And, having arrived at a decision, the Bishop of Rome, speaking on behalf of all, would announce that decision to the world, after the manner of James the Brother of the Lord speaking at the Council of Jerusalem, in AD 50.

Are you a former protestant? You seem to frame everything in comparison to the protestant churches.

You asked your priest the wrong question, unfortunately. We have stated over and over that the East, to your apparent confusion, is not dogmatic about this point. What that means, as I said, is that there are indeed some Eastern Catholics and Orthodox who "accept" HV. This is not news to anybody. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople welcomed HV as good.

What the East has not done, Catholic or Orthodox, however, is make this teaching mandatory with the understanding that one goes to hell if one practices "artificial" birth control, as does the Roman Catholic Church. It is fine if one chooses to believe that, but it is not mandatory in our Church. There are countless quotes of esteemed and honorable Easten Catholic voices that have been quoted here attesting to this, we didn't make it up.

It has nothing to do with protestantism, despite how much it seems to for you.

While we do not demand that you live outside the specific teachings of the Roman Catholic Church if you insist to practice your faith within it, we will not accept demands that we leave the Church if we do not do the same.

Especially when much of the Roman Catholic Church happens to agree with us on this point.

Douglas MacArthur, when asked to impose an anti-fraternization order for the U.S. occupation forces in Japan, steadfastly refused to do so. When asked why, he replied, "I would never give an order I could not enforce".

HV was not declared infallible to my knowledge, it isn't dogma, so it can't really effect a person's salvation if one accepts or rejects it..can it?

This gets tiresome.

Humanae Vitae simply restated what had been taught previously, lots of times, by lots of bishops, over centuries. Instead of looking for loopholes, why not aspire to holiness?

In aspiring to holiness, one should not resort to mindless legalism.

Certainly not. And yet what is all this endless looking for loopholes? As you said earlier on, I think, this thread, the faith of the Fathers did not permit for any action undertaken to prevent the natural course of marital life. It's a bit of ironic legalism that allows an Eastern Catholic today to pretend otherwise on the basis of the fact that a legalistic and dogmatic Roman Pope recently restated what always was so.

Anyway I wish you'd answered my earlier query on the matter of low Western bars and high Eastern ideals, and the way the pastoral Eastern approach on the matter of birth control serves mainly to pervert this dynamic.

I agree. In fact I wish that my fellow Eastern Catholics would quit claiming that Eastern Catholicism sets a higher bar than the RCs when they so easily dismiss the call to holiness in their sexual lives.

I agree, just don't know what you mean re the hypocrisy of their sexual lives. Me, I sure wish some of my fellow ER Catholics would stop with the holier than thou boorishness and stop wagging their self perceived superior Catholic fingers at all things Western. To ER is Humanae Vitae, too. Ouch.

Considering that studies show Roman Catholics committing the mortal sin of contraception at the same rate as the general population, perhaps the ire should not be so accutely directed at the Catholics here with a patrimonial history of tolerating it to begin with.

Friend, speaking as a nut-job traditionalist ossified Roman kook fully lacking in both historical perspective and Christian charity, I want to assure you that we hate those guys way, way more. I can't speak for my Eastern brothers.

jjp, Although I ignore most of your posts I would ask that you prove your assertion that Eastern Catholics have a patrimonial history of tolerating Artificial Birth Control.

I think JPP and Stuartk have already outlined the Traditional view of the Eastern Church on this issue in this thread. Also the Thrice Blessed Bishop Raya quote sums up the issue very nicely.

I think that part of the problem is the lack of understanding of the Eastern concept of oikonomia by the West. This idea is not something know in the Latin Tradition, as far as I know.

My question is this,

In an eventual reunion of the Churches will the Eastern Orthodox Churches be forced to stop the practice of oikonomia in regards to certain types of artificial birth Control and also divorce and remarriage?

If the answer is no, then why is it wrong that some Eastern Catholics choose to practice or agree with the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox whom share the SAME patrimony as we do?

My understanding as an Eastern Rite Catholic is that I am supposed to be orthodox (like Orthodox) as much as possible.

That we must live as Eastern Orthodox AND be in union with the Pope to show that it can be done in harmony= (as an example to the Eastern Orthodox)

Therefore I am trying as hard as I can to praotice the Eastern Traditions as much as is possible (in by broken, sinful state)

The Union of the churches sadly probably won't be in my lifetime - and I can see why - neither side can relate to each other (or seem not to)

I never practiced birth control with my wife - unfortunately she was unable to concieve before a mandatory hysterectomy.

I was flippant about birth control or pre martial sex - in my youth -- a position I regret

it is as if the pressure on women to have abotions is exponentially increased with premarital sex and birth control
(birth control can and does fail)

in my old age it seems like there may be more harmony if both marriage partners are virgins and do HV

It is as if premarital sex and the culture we live that promotes it) - degrades the culture and the marital bonds that exists (look at the divorce rate)

Our abortion culture is also increased as the use of birth contol ( abortifactants - are in pill form too) ramps up.

I actually just finished reading Fr. John Meyendorff of blessed memory's book Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective a while ago and he notes that the Augustinian teaching of the sinfulness of sex did not take hold in the East to nearly the degree that it did in the West, and that this understanding of sex and sin, while massively influential in the West (Roman Catholic and Protestant) did not influence the theology of the East to anywhere near the same degree.

That is but one small example, and there are many here who can provide an exhaustive bibliography on the matter if the spirit moves them to.

The true answer to your question is that the proof is in the pudding: the Eastern Churches do not have and never have had a universally dogmatic stance on the issue. Unless you can articulate how Eastern Christianity has betrayed its own patrimony in this regard, there is nothing that need be demonstrated.

The original question posed in this thread is how to discern what to accept from the Pope. If you now want to assert that what the Pope says about birth control is entirely consistent with the ancient history of Eastern Christian understanding on the matter, that is a claim you are free to make, but let's not confuse the two.

In doing so, remember to account for the influence that Augustine had in the formation of Western thought and his lack of traction on the matter in the East.

What we all must remember is that Romans are free to view marriage as they will, and if the East has developed a different understanding of the matter, they are free to see it that way as well. Nobody is arguing that you are wrong in your belief, only that we reject the assertion that we are wrong in ours.

Let's also not turn this discussion into a flogging of the straw man of abortion. We are speaking strictly of non-abortifacient contraception, and are all united in condemning the sin of abortion.

oikononmia is a big part of who we are and how we understand ecclesiology and the role of the Bishop, I don't see us being willing to change that for any reason. Some things we would be willing to change (and probably should!) but something like that is a big part of what we believe.

Since when are we to hate anyone, or is this just a traditionalist thing?

It was a joke. Sorry.

No problem.

I am really happy to see we all agree on the abortifactant issue

Sorry if I strayed from the topic ... i am pro life to the core

We can safely cut the question there, and answer, "no."

There won't be a reunion if either party is forced to adopt the other's practices in place of it's own.

I agree.

So, then my question is this. Eastern Catholic Churches will reunite and be under our Mother Orthodox Churches after reunion. (except for the few who don't have an Orthodox counterpart) Is it wrong then for Eastern Catholics now to fully follow the faith of the Orthodox Church, If that faith and practice is not going to change on that blessed day of reunion? why or why not?

Your question seems based on some assumptions which are by no means certain.

I think that's what other people call "faith".

.

Like?

Like that there will be reunion, that at such a time, the Eastern Catholic Churches will settle in with their Mother Churches, that the apparently necessary council in such an event wouldn't reconcile differences, and that none of the differences, however substantial, represent errors in need of correction.

It sounds like you are saying that just because such an outcome is not a guarantee, we do not therefore have the charge to act as if it will happen.

Is that what you are saying?

I pray that I am alive for the blessed day!



This is the goal of Eastern Catholic Churches- to disappear. We are only temporary until reunion (fully) between East and West. This is not just my opinion but of many Eastern Catholics including Bishops.



Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have much more in common that people seem to think. Of course the major difference is the nature of the Pope's Primacy. Even this is not settled within the Catholic Communion. This will need to be worked on together but other than that why would East and West have to change anything about their beliefs or praxis?



I don't think the Orthodox are in error nor do I think Rome is in error. They express the same Apostolic faith- one from a Latin view point and the other from the Byzantine/Greek/Slavic view point. We lived together for over a thousand years- with differences, why can't we hope for it again?

Maybe once we get past the "I am right, you are wrong" mentality then we can have full communion.

Me? No, that's not what I am saying. Rather, the matter of having or not having a charge would seem somewhat beside the point that enough people acting as if a thing has or certainly will happen has proven an effective way to bring about that change.

But the question was about the advisablility of Eastern Catholics acting today as if these things had been accomplished. I suppose to the extent that you view all these potential developments as desirable, you will want to act them out. I question the assertion, if made, that the interested parties do, in the majority, view these things as desirable.

I certainly do not consider the use of Artificial Contraception as a desirable thing at all. I thank God every day for Pope Paul VI courage in writing what he did.

Oh, Carson...same old tired jab at others opinions. Even though everyone has tried explaining the Eastern concept of Economía your argument is the same- that everything that the Pope says is right and all the other Patriarchs, Bishops, theologians are wrong, and he is our Patriarch, so the practice of the Christian East should just conform to the Latin West.

You are entitled to your opinion and other Eastern Catholics are entitled to theirs.

No one has ever said that A.C is a good thing but the practice of how the Apostolic Churches deal with the subject are vastly different- even within Orthodoxy as some have pointed out. One approach is very rigid and the other approach takes a more pastoral approach. Both ways have the same ultimate goal-the salvation of the souls of the couple.

In a reunion of the Churches the Orthodox practice should not change and neither should the Roman Catholic for their respective Churches- what individual members of those Apostolic Churches choose to follow- the Latin or the Eastern- is up to the couple, their conscience, and their spiritual father.

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

"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


This would make Natural Family Planning intrinsically evil would it not?

I support the NFP alternative but wonder about the same thing.

I suppose the argument would be that you are being procreative with your wife . procreating the relationship -

We need to start a different thread about sex

No.

"Natural family planning" is a bit of a misleading phrase for these purposes. NFP consists mainly in not, ahem, engaging maritally on this or that occasion. There are, of course, myriad reasons why a Christian couple might at any moment be doing something other than exercising their marital rights. Sleeping, for instance.

So while intent does enter into the morality of taking most decisions, it cannot change the intrinsic morality or immorality of an action. At any rate you will immediately see the difficulty and practical impossibility of declaring evil the mere fact of not doing it at any given moment, for even the most upstanding Christian gentleman must take a breather every now and then.

Yes, it would, if one accepts the fundamental premise that any attempt to regulate reproduction is a perversion of the purpose of sex--moreso in classic Western theology, which holds that all sex is inherently sinful, but that conjugal relations within marriage are redeemed by the need for procreation. Hence, any attempt to circumvent procreation is by definition sinful. That's the consensus of the Latin Church from Tertullian through Augustine to Aquinas and down to Pius XI.

Of course, if one does not hold that sex is inherently sinful and only redeemed through procreation, we can toss out this line of reasoning. But if we do, let's not pretend that the attitudes of the Latin Church have not evolved (that is to say, "changed") on this subject.

Stuart, you and I have disagreed on this subject before but you bring something new to this discussion for me. I had heard that Augustine taught that sex was inherently sinful, but not that anyone else really taught that. Could you help me out here and provide me with some easily attained references of Aquinas and especially the relatively more recent ones like Pius XI? I would really appreciate the most recent reference on this position as the official understanding of the Roman Catholic Church on sex, that is that it is intrinsically sinful and only redemable via procreation. Are there any good books that go over the change in attitude from Rome on this subject? Also, how would you descrbe Rome's current understanding since you did just say that it has evolved (that is to say "changed").

I do hope you give this curious young brother some references as I have seen you tell others to basically just take your word. I am definitely a get as close to the original source as possible kind of guy.

Thank you in advance,

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

And very recently, at that.

I've never been able to understand how the "unitive" aspect of sex that is referenced throughout HV came about in recent Roman theology and philosophy, as you note that the Roman church has a long history of denying it.

I'm not saying it's an arbitrary evolution, but that's how it seems. As far as I have been able to understand, that evolution has not been explained.

That this view of sex (owing much to Aquinas) never developed in the East means that the very terms of the discussion are uniquely Roman.

So we come full circle to the topic of the thread - "how to discern what to accept from the Pope?" (As this teaching is uniquely Papal, the majority of the Roman church having been against it). I'd add to the question, "...especially when the very frame of reference in question is uniquely Roman?"

As I see it, you can either go the "uniate" route and plop Roman dogma on top of Byzantine ritual and reflexively revert to the Roman teaching despite any contradiction that may arise, or you can maintain an Eastern theology and patrimony in communion with the Pope, acknowledging his special role and primacy - with an eye towards how that was developed in the first century, when these two Churches indeed did develop differences in their understandings of issues such as this and nevertheless maintained communion.

Just like many Eastern Catholics would tell you that they understand the Theotokos' relationship with sin much differently than it is defined "infallibly" by the Roman Church, and still maintain communion with the Pope in so doing.

What's the difference?

This is an excessively narrow view, nearly to the point of a distortion. Augustine and Aquinas both discuss goods of marriage other than procreation. Both also discuss the enjoyment of pleasure as faultless, etc. If you had written that conjugal relations are redeemed by "marriage", and not only by "procreation", you would be accurately representing their positions.


This is why a different example would better serve the wider discussion. On this, participants seem keen to set up a straw-man version of the Latin position, the better to knock him down, or demonstrate substantial flaws in understanding. Either way, we seem more to be engaged in engaged more in mass self-justification than discussing the subject of the thread.

Um, no. It's just an open-eyed historical assessment that reflects what the Western Church believed and taught right down to the 20th century--at which point, it changed its mind a bit. You are quite wrong in saying that sex was redeemed by marriage; the West did not believe that--it believed that sex was redeemed by procreation IN marriage. Every sex act outside of marriage is sinful; every sex act within marriage not intended for procreation was considered equally sinful.

Next you'll be telling me the Western Church never taught that the stain of original sin was passed on through sexual reproduction.

You're entitled to your opinion on that, but you aren't entitled to rewrite history because it is apologetically convenient to do so.

Here we go again.

Aquinas enumerates three goods of marriage (which I believe he took directly from Augustine).

Two of these, even taken individually, he says "excuses" the evil of the marriage act.

Procreation is one of them. Why are you ignoring the other? Is it because it doesn't fit with your tidy argument?

Then we have Augustine:

"For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault: but adultery or fornication has deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting. But because that Continence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but to commit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished; charity of the married ought to beware, lest while it seek for itself occasion of larger honor, it do that for its partner which cause condemnation."

De Bono Coniuagli

Augustine was pretty influential in the West.

Does coming into communion with the Pope mean that we must adopt this type of view on sex and marriage, which never took root in the East?

Perhaps a study of concupiscence might be in order. This as opposed to conjugal love.

Here it is necessary to know how the ancients (and their medieval counterparts) understood the mechanics of human conception. Women, like men, were believed to emit a kind of seminal fluid, and the combination of the male and female fluid in the womb was what resulted in pregnancy. Women, as well as men, had to achieve orgasm in order to conceive. This was probably a pleasant side effect for women, although it caused problems for them in cases of rape: if the woman conceived after being raped, it was assumed that she enjoyed it, therefore was at least passively consensual in the act.

Beyond that, given this understanding of human reproduction, all human sexual activity involved the sin of lust, only partially mitigated by the duty of procreation. This is the "shut your eyes and think of England" defense. Of course, it's all poppycock--was then, is now.

One reason the Latin Church changed its understanding of sex in marriage was the impossibility of sustaining an obsolete theory of human reproduction in the face of accurate biological science.

And those who wonder whether we as Eastern Catholics need to accept the long discredited doctrine of a fourth century African bishop should ask first whether anybody in the Latin Church--other than a few mindless reactionaries--accepts it, either. There is no need to be more Catholic than the Pope.

Finally, one needs to recognize that different attitudes towards sex existed between the Eastern and Western Churches throughout the entire first millennium. The East always had a more optimistic view of human nature than the West, including a more optimistic view of human sexuality. It wasn't a problem in the first millennium, so why should we make it a problem today?

There is no evil in the marriage act, according to St. John Chrysostom: "The nuptial chamber can be as holy as the monk's cell" (Homily on Ephesians).

I'm not disagreeing. It's beside the point.

The premise of the position that you invoked is hardly beside the point.

"Marriage is honorable, and the marriage bed undefiled.
For on both Christ bestowed his blessing,
Present incarnate and eating at the wedding in Cana".

--St. Andrew of Crete, The Great Canon

This is why I hoped to avoid contraception as an example. As I said earlier, participants are engaged in creating a fake version of the Roman position in order to make it easy to knock down. This is not any apparent search for truth as much as a search for self-justification. It's a pity.

If we're making up a fake version of the Latin position, it was a fake position used by no less that Archbishop Josef Raya, who wrote on contraception in his book, Crowning, the Christian Marriage:

Either I am communicating horribly, or you are reading carelessly. I'm sure I'm not saying anything beyond your capacity to grasp. I'm not sure I could.

When did I dispute the history or the current state of rebellion against this teaching?

I have only complained against obvious distortions of the Catholic position, and obvious distortions of the origin of the Catholic position.

To you, I attribute the latter. It seems that your position is that the prohibition of contraception arises from "the long discredited doctrine of a fourth century African bishop", as if this prohibition had no place for centuries in Eastern Christianity or in, for instance, Judaism.

I'll grant you that the East and Judaism have loosened their practical prohibitions into practical permission of late, along with the protestants and others.

I will say that this is proof that the Catholic Church is protected from error. You will say it is proof that the rest have moved beyond silly primitive ideas. Or you will say, "but there never was a prohibition in the East". Of course in a tradition which avoids prohibitions generally, this is evidence of nothing.

The point will stand that despite the complaints of a few modern Roman Catholics and practically everyone else living today and very recently, the very great majority of Christians have known that contraception is perverse. If we are taking polls, you lose.

The only way you win such a poll is to discount, as you have, the opinions of the past. This, of course, resembles the discussion on the capital punishment thread, where people are arguing that these crazy old ideas needed modern thought to set them straight.

So much for Christianity at all.

Anyway, in the end, it hasn't much to do with the point I was trying to make before sparking this: that there are differences between the East and West which are not mere differences of perspective. To ignore this is irrational, and if instead one will go in every case to the position that Rome is wrong and Orthodoxy is right, it seems very strange indeed that anyone would cling to this odd idea of communion with the heterodox over the orthodox. It's all a little self-defeating.

It's evidence that Eastern Catholics have a different tradition on this and many other topics than their Roman brothers and sisters, which I believe is what we are saying. That tradition does not evaporate when we enter into communion with each other.



A poll of the current Roman Catholic laity says the opposite of what you assert. There is a large disconnect within the West, to say nothing of the East.



If there are any instances of Orthodox (Catholic or otherwise) telling the Roman Church that it must permit contraception, I'm yet to see it (that comes from within). This thread is about Eastern Christians being told they are wrong by Rome.

I'm okay with the differences in doctrine between our churches. Are you?

You mean the "Latin Catholic" position, based on Latin Catholic assumptions about human sexuality and original sin.



For most of human history, contraception was either (a) abortifactant; or (b) closely associated with magic and sorcery. Given those parameters, a universal loathing of the practice was and remains understandable; the Orthodox Church, for instance, still prohibits methods of contraception that induce abortion.

A more fundamental issue, which you have failed to address, is the original stratum of the Christian tradition regarding sex, which said that any attempt to regulate either the number or timing of children within marriage is wrong. It did not matter whether the methods used were "natural" or "artificial" (itself an artificial distinction); husband and wife should do nothing deliberate to avoid having children (and doing nothing, when it involves monitoring of ovulation, is actually doing something).

The rationale of the Eastern and Western Churches differed as to why this is the case. In the West, all sex was seen as inherently sinful; only procreation within marriage "excused" sex, so any attempt to avoid procreation was sinful. The East, in contrast, did not view sex within marriage as sinful (see citations from both Chrysostom and Andrew of Crete), and did not see procreation either as the purpose of marriage or as an excuse for sex within marriage; it did see the begetting of children as a blessing and as the seal of the Mystery of Marriage, in which husband and wife assume their roles as co-creators with God.

Just as the rationales varied, so, too, did the approaches. Humanae vitae takes a rather legalistic view of the matter, and lays down rigid guidelines. It does not really have any pastoral component at all.

Now, an authentic, Eastern Christian approach would, as a matter of principle, uphold the fullness of the Tradition: i.e., any attempt to regulate the number of children or the spacing of children, is falling short of God's intention. It does not matter whether you use a condom or abstain from sex while the wife is ovulating, both fall short of the mark.

Recognizing that not all persons are at the same point of spiritual development, the Eastern Christian approach would, while upholding the ideal, also take into account human weakness. For those who feel, after prayerful discernment, that they need to regulate the number or the spacing of their children, the Church would encourage the use of so-called natural methods (recognizing that this in itself falls short of perfection). And for those for whom, because of physical or spiritual factors, such methods are either impractical or inappropriate, the Church would also allow the use of non-abortifactant "artificial" means.

An Eastern Christian approach would pay more attention to intentions rather than methods. It would condemn any couple who chose not to have any children within marriage, or who limited the number of children not because of legitimate concerns regarding the ability to provide for them, but merely to enjoy an unfettered and materially affluent lifestyle.

And it would, at all times, encourage and promote spiritual growth, as it does in all aspects of human existence. We are all ascending the ladder, and those on the lower rungs need to be helped upward. Those who are using artificial methods can and should be helped to transition to natural methods; those using natural methods should be encouraged simply to be open to conception at all times, so as to truly live in accordance with the ideal.

But, as Sayedna Joseph wrote, the Church cannot compel, and it cannot infringe upon the freedom of the husband and wife whom the Church itself has given crowns of kingship, priesthood and martyrdom through the mystery of marriage. The legalistic view of the Latin Church simply says, "These methods are sinful, and those methods are not", and offers no real pastoral approach that addresses the real concerns and problems of the real men and women who have to face their consequences.

Under such conditions, no wonder the teaching of the Latin Church is largely ignored within its own ranks (and has been, since long before the pill; if you don't believe this, I can provide you with data both on fertility rates and common practices from the Middle Ages down through the 19th century). And, as always, promulgating a rule that cannot be enforced, and which people widely ignore, merely undermines the authority and integrity of any institution, whether temporal or spiritual.

It is not so much that the Eastern and Western Churches have different positions on contraception, as it is that they have different views and approaches to marriage, sex, sin, and the pastoral care of the faithful. The oikonomia of the East provides the degree of flexibility lacking in the West to loosen or even waive the rule, when its strict enforcement would do more spiritual harm than good.

The Latin Church talks about the necessity of viewing the individual as a person, rather than as an object; but its tendency to fall back on legalism has just the opposite effect--the Latin Church does not see the individual sinner as a person with specific spiritual needs, but as an abstraction. It will absolve him of his sin, but it won't help him address the problem that causes the sin.

I still love our one and only Patriarch. When Eastern Catholicism as we know it ceases to exist as we know it we will still be Orthodox in Communion with Rome and Eastern Catholics. The bishop of Rome will still be our highest Patriarch and I will still honor him. The rest are minor details not worth the fight.

Sorry, but that interjection is just weird. I know that the original topic had to do with what one should/can accept from the Pope, but it has taken a natural turn into the realm of a.b.c., and I for one am interested in the debate.

CDL, in addition to the complex senselessness of what you are saying, it reads as defensive and somewhat childish.

So, basically, you're a true Papist: the Church is the Papacy and the Papacy is the Church, and nothing else matters much.

Until we decide to break communion I am.

To bad the Pope disagrees with your true Papist view. The Church is not the Papacy, and the Papacy is not the Church.

Carson (if I may): that is just bizarre. I have read in other posts that you are an Eastern and not a Roman Catholic. How does 'being in communion' come to mean the wholesale acceptance of Roman thought?

If we consider the churches of the first eight centuries and the different perspectives on the person and work of Christ that they brought with them to the councils from 431 on, there would have been no Chalcedonian synthesis or any other subsequent orthodox definition had they simply capitulated to the Roman tradition.

Indeed, though arguable, it might even be said that had communion meant capitulation, the Christ we worship today might have been misrepresented as having only one will.

I find your ecclesiology simply incomprehensible.

I have noticed that a lot of ex-Protestants find the notion of one man calling all the shots comforting. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Or, to quote Patriarch Maximos V (in a very different context): "They go from one extreme to the other".

Fellas,

I look at this discussion as it has developed and I see a Freshman bull session. Make of my comments what you wish. As long as you consider your rules to be no rules at all and one can make them up as one goes along I'm really not interested in your ecclesiastical observations. Nor am I interested in your remarks about whether or not my ex Protestantism means what you think it means.

I've learned what I wanted to learn about the posters on this subject so I leave it to you.

CDL

I did, Carson. That's why I treated you as I would a frat boy barging into a dorm room bull session having imbibed a bit too much Blatz.



And we're not really interested in yours, but the difference is, we're not imposing ours on you.



You should never have mentioned it then, or prefaced some of your arguments with "I heard a lot of this talk when I was a Protestant". As my kids like to say when a guy passes us at 90 mph in his Mercedes, "He's compensating for his shortcomings".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Keep it up!

This thread seems to be going south!

Agreed.

I very much appreciate your last post before the kids started squabbling, Stuart. It adds quite a lot to the conversation.

I hoped to clarify a few points.



And yet the name "onanism" which we all agreed referred to contraception (if among other things) denotes a method not nearly so impressive as abortion or magic. Of the popular modern methods, onanism most resembles the use of a condom, if not quite precisely in the order of operations.

It's interesting that things have strayed so far from the consensus that "God slew Onan for Onanism".

The bulk of the debate seems to ignore or forget that:



I am getting used to a bit of anti-Roman bias in your perspective. I suppose it's understandable. I expect mine is pro.

You seem to take issue with the Latin use of "natural" and "artificial" as terms for methods, as here:



And yet, when you discuss the Eastern perspective, you find the Eastern Church arriving at the same distinctions:



At least you've put it in scare quotes for the East as well. Still, I think you've muddled up the thinking on it, and I invite you to consider the possibility that if both East and West agree on something, you ought to give it another look.

Artificial means draw their efficacy by physically or chemically blocking the ordinary function of the body. Natural means, so-called, draw their efficacy from the absence of the act. It is the difference between gastric bypass and skipping lunch. There is a material difference.

As for the rest (Rome is too legalistic, and Western Europeans are uptight and afraid of sex) okay, and water is wet. Still and all, frankly I find it faithless when some doctrine is dismissed or attacked on the basis of claiming some historical bias on the part of the Church. These are the arguments constantly used for Priestesses, abortion, fornication, divorce, etc. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I don't see any use in a Church so mired in historical baggage that it's completely missed the mark and wildly misled people. Certainly such a thing can't be of God.


Aside, you may not have been paying much attention to the admittedly tiny portion of the debate, but as the modern Latin Church has found enthusiasm for NFP, and pushes it as a newfound virtue, there is a minority who hold that the new current is too permissive, that NFP is not a free pass to avoiding children, that intention must be considered, and that NFP undertaken without grave cause (while not comparable with artificial means) is not blameless, as HV would seem to agree. Mostly this perspective is handled by the Angry Traditionalist Latin Massers, but nobody pays any attention to us.

If you are looking to find what is good, holy, and true, a poll of the current Roman Catholic laity will be about as useful as a map drawn by a blind agoraphobic cartographer.

In reading the posts of the last couple of days to this thread, I discern that there exists an inability on the part of some members to understand that messages warning of the necessity for civility in discussion and debate have universality of application - that such do not apply solely to the thread in which they are posted.

The discussion here on the part of those same posters has passed well beyond the bounds of what passes for civil intercourse in polite society. In fact, the quality of contributions and argumentation is beginning to resemble that of adolescents in their most unattractive moments.

Thanks to those who have contributed meaningfully to this thread. The thread is closed.