www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why I feel inferior to Greek Orthodox

I should add that in addition to finding the teaching intellectually compelling, I find contraceptive sex aesthetically revolting; all those drugs and plugs cutting one off from dancing at the very wellspring of new life.
-Daniel, whose beautiful bride is expecting her fifth baby any day now

I agree that such a thing has always existed -- and my intent is not to be hard on those groups, just to use an example of cultures where today in particular we can find striking examples of what I am speaking of.

As for "pure faith" we should all be striving to bring ourselves in conformity with Christ and His Church, and not with the seeming wisdom of the world. I don't think it is too harsh, for example, to say that adopting/mixing new age practices, or ignoring this or that dogma or moral teaching is something that is not to be criticized. When we are talking about capital-T tradition, or the Deposit of the Faith (as opposed to small-t traditions which are not universal) we can't merely say that this is merely an idealism, but not necessarily the practiced reality. We must strive to make it so in prayer and charity.

It's true. These are magnificent treasures. The Roman rite does have much to likewise treasure and be proud of. Gregorian chant is particularly a great treasure.

Moreover, its variety of monastic orders and charisms is another great treasure of the Latin west. It's condensed breviary and the beauty of its own traditional liturgical rites and customs.

Shawn,
you're absolutely right.
I love everything about the Latin Rite, Gregorian Chant et all, but I just don't get to experience any of it in my parish.
There are 3 Sunday Masses (9:00,10:30,12:15)
The choir is equipped with an organist and a few guitars. The hymns that are sung are borderline "protestant". And could be classified as Christian rock.
I hardly see any reverance when the Priest elevates the Body and Blood of Christ.
Holding hands and hands out during the Pater Noster, and sometimes the Communion Rite looks more like a line up at a soup kitchen.

Brad

Brad,

Come on admit it...the REAL reason that you feel inferior to the Greek Orthodox is because of our Greek Church festivals! :p LOL!

Alice, wanting to inject just a little bit of humor

Okay Alice,
You got me.
The local Greek Orthodox Church has incredible festivals that go into the wee hours of the morning, despite the neighbourhood complaints of noise.
The last one I attended I must have eaten 25 dolmadakia before I stopped counting.

IMHO, no one in the Apostolic Churches should feel inferior to another in another of the Churches.

Each Church and each member within each of the Churches has been gifted by the Holy Spirit with gifts and talents and spiritual treasures. And gifts are meant to be shared. While these gifts have been developed and enriched by the lived experience of each of the Churches in isolation over the centuries, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit is leading each of us now to share what we have, to appreciate what our brethren separated from us have, and to be in awe of the fact that no one apart has all that the Spirit has lavished on those who are called by Baptism.

I am in awe of the rich treasury that each one here has brought, whether in prayer or in advice or in spiritual reference or in experience to this forum alone.

For example, when I compare the prayers offered for Communion preparation in each of the Churches, it is easy to find the same Divine Breath--Holy Spirit--breathing through the text.

It seems to me that if one has any reason to feel inferior it ought to be because none of us has made the fullest use of the gifts that the Holy Spirit has put at our disposal for our own use and for the building up of our brethren. For that failing, on my own part, I DO feel inferior.

In Christ,

BOB

Amen.

Dear Friends,

There are liberal Orthodox as there are liberal Catholics.

The liberal Catholics I know feel greatly superior to those who are "limited" by their adherence to traditional Church teachings.

Recently, one of my religion students told me that a Catholic teacher told him that many miracles of Jesus could have been "natural events" such as the raising of the dead boy - who only appeared to have been dead . . .

I told him that teacher was unworthy to teach religion in a Catholic school.

His mother, grandparents, neighbours and an assortment of extended family members agreed!

Alex

Dear Pseudo-Athanasius,

First, I must vigorously disagree that artificial birth control is analogous to bulimia.

In bulimia, people eat and then make themselves vomit or cause themselves to suffer diarrhea. The only purpose is to lose weight.

With artificial birth control, people use an artificial means to prevent conception of a new human being. The purposes can be the mere selfish enjoyment of sex; OR the purposes can be very moral and loving: the inability to afford another child, the inability to otherwise care for a child, the prevention of birth defects, etc. Hence, the analogy to bulimia is, to put it mildly, inaccurate. Married people who practice birth control often love each other very, very much; and they give entirely of themselves; but they do not want another child.


Next, there are three real issues in this debate. (1) Can married couples regulate the births of their children? (2) Must every sexual act be open to procreation of new human life? (3) Can the hierarchy change its teachings on faith and morals?


Issue 1: Can married couples regulate their procreation? According to official Catholic teaching, the answer is yes. Couples can regulate the number and timing of births of children, for various good and responsible reasons. Catholic Catechism sections 2368, 2370; Humanae Vitae sections 10, 16


Issue 2: Must every sexual act be open to procreation of new human life? According to official Catholic teaching, the answer is yes.

According to official Catholic teaching, the purpose of marriage is to generate selfless love through the sharing and begetting of human life. Referring to marriage: "By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communion of their beings in view of mutual perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives." Humanae Vitae, section 8

Hence, according to official Catholic teaching, sexual intercourse has two purposes: the unity of the spouses and procreation of children. Humanae Vitae, section 9

Hence also, according to official Catholic teaching, these two purposes of sexual intercourse are morally inseparable. "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood." Humanae Vitae, section 12."

Thus, according to official Catholic teaching, "each and every marriage act must be open to the transmission of life." Humanae Vitae, section 11

Moreover, according to official Catholic teaching, married couples *can* regulate the number and timing of births. However, they can do so *only* by refraining from sexual intercourse or by timing sexual intercourse along natural rhythms of fertility and infertility (i.e., Natural Family Planning). Humanae Vitae, sections 10 and 16, and Catholic Catechism section 2368

Nevertheless, because the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual intercourse cannot be morally separated, artificial birth control is �inherently evil.� Catholic Catechism section 2370, citing Humanae Vitae section 14

Now, that is clear. I do not agree with it, but it is clear. And, it is in keeping with the teaching on birth control by the early Church fathers (at least, to the extent that I know). Hence, the third issue:


Issue 3: Can the hierarchy change its teachings on faith and morals?

In theory, the answer is no.

In practice, the answer is yes.

The Catholic Church has developed its understanding of faith and morals throughout the centuries. The various councils and sages throughout the centuries show this. So do not a few mistakes: the Inquisition comes to mind, etc. Furthermore, different answers to the same questions can arise: for example, there are two very different theologies of the Holy Spirit and grace that are held by Western Catholics and Eastern Catholics.

So, my conclusion is increasingly this: the Orthodox are right. They view the Gospel as ultimately a Mystery which cannot be completely explained or delineated. Instead, they define a basic amount of faith and morals which are required for all to believe. Also, they propound and evolve a living Tradition on how to live this Mystery. And then, they allow their hierarchs (and their laity!) the freedom to use their God-given and God-guided discretion to deal with the rest.

And as for the Orthodox position of birth control, it is very simple: Artificial birth control is no substitute for self-control. Hence, the need for fasting and prayer and almsgiving. Yet, if there is a need and if it is not solely for selfishness, artificial birth control can be morally used. If people distort that teaching to serve their own selfish ends, that is their problem; and repentance is available. In sum, as someone once put it: If the Orthodox consistently practiced their faith --including the fasts-- they would not generally need artificial birth control. And, for the exceptions, artificial birth control is allowed as a matter of economia.

--John

A variable must be thrown in here: artificial contraception vs. Natural Family Planning.

The Church does give Catholic laity a moral option -- such as legitimate financial constraints (i.e. legitimate, not because I want to save up to buy a new big screen TV), health concerns, etc. whereby to regulate birthing without using an artificial barrier and still maintaining the natural created order. (And it does work... many families I know successfully practice it for precisely the reasons you mention.)

That combined with self-control that you mention is the moral answer to this question.

And if one argues that it isn't fool-proof, ie. one could still conceive by virtue of some error in reading the woman's cycle, let's remember the same is true even with things like the pill, let alone condoms etc. I've known many people, including family members (non-Cathoilcs) who were on the pill and because they were taking this or that medication, conceived a child.

I've read the arguments that are geared at explaining how NFP is different from things like the barrier method in terms of moral acceptability, and I have to say I find the differences drawn out to be philosophical at best.

Rilian,

NFP relies on asceticism something we are called to through Baptism. Herein lies the chief and real difference bewteen NFP and birth control.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Posters,

I think that this thread is drifting and morphing into an entirely different subject of discussion.

Could I suggest that you create a new topic for it if you would like to see it continue?

Just a suggestion and thought.

Best regards,
Alice

Fr. Deacon Lance, in my perception nothing done in Orthodoxy should be divorced from asceticism. Everything should flow from this spiritual foundation.

In this particular case I can't see how a priest would allow someone in his charge to engage in NFP or any other method of regulating conception if done for the wrong reasons or outside of right praxis. I see this more of an issue of intention and not mechanics (assuming of course we are never talking about destruction of life).

The NFP arguments I have read actually don't take asceticism in to account (as I remember them) and place a great deal of the morality involved on the mechanics over the intention.

I remain as before, unconvinced.

[apologies, I just saw Alice's admonition.]