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

Rilian,

Everything I have heard taught with regards NFP does take the intention firmly into heart -- which is precisely why I made the distinctions I did in the original post. There must be some kind of real, grave necessity, not a selfish one.

Alice- the topic may be drifting, but it is still relevant to the original topic. That is, it is not drifting as far as these discussions often do. That is, we are discussing where the various Churches have strayed or held fast to Apostolic practice.
I would add that when the Church develops its moral teaching, it always does so in a way that is more, not less, restrictive. As the Church "ponders these things in her heart" she often finds that Christ is teaching something that challenges previously unexamined behaviour that she has allowed. Hence, the evolving prohibition on capital punishment, and evolving hesitation about warfare. You cannot find an example of a behaviour that has always -as Harmon admits- been prohibited suddenly [or even gradually] being allowed.
-Daniel, still waiting for the new baby

Dear Daniel,

You are correct, however, I thought that this might be better addressed under a more specific heading. As moderator, I gave a suggestion, not an admonition...so y'all continue as you wish.

Alice

I would agree that that the topic is drifting, but it is drifting into the nitty-gritty of the differences between Orthodox and Catholics -- and why people from one Church might feel inferior to another Church.

The issue of asceticism was brought up, and I concur: it belongs to this discussion of artificial birth control. Now, let us consider the matter of asceticism as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches practice it.

The Catholic Church, especially since Vatican II, has --in my opinion-- dangerously weakened its practice of asceticism. Yes, it is still allowed. However, it is no longer required beyond a token degree: not even the basic asceticism of fasting before receiving the Eucharist (except a token hour in advance). Yet, the Catholic Church condemns artificial birth control as "inherently evil." Well, good golly, if that's how *direly* the Catholic Church sees artificial birth control, shouldn't it be requiring and encouraging its members to "get into shape" --ascetically speaking-- to keep that injunction: namely, by requiring people to practice regular, basic self-denial as part of the practice of the faith? How can people be expected to practice self-restraint in the bedroom when they aren't asked to practice it anywhere or any time else? Yet, personal asceticism has all but disappeared in the practice of the Latin Rite. Indeed, I personally have found myself needing to explain and *defend* myself to fellow Catholics when I talk in favor of fasting and personal asceticism. I usually get looks and questions to the effect that I am mentally ill, or a masochist, or ready to whip myself or crucify myself, or simply as "pre-Vatican II," et cetera, ad nauseam, when I am simply talking about penance that leads to self-control and dispassion. Yet, those *concepts* --penance, self-control, self-denial, dispassion-- have pretty much evaporated form the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church: in which we are all supposed to "be good" and to "be joyful" and to hold hands during the �Our Father� and, of course, to smile . . .

Now, let's look at the Orthodox. They insist, encourage and require their members to practice prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Especially for fasting, they require it regularly: every Wednesday and Friday and for several extended periods throughout the year. Furthermore, this is done for a definite purpose: dispassion. And, dispassion is sought for a definite purpose: allowing the Holy Spirit the room within ourselves to harmonize our drives from vices through virtues into the beatitudes which Our Lord commended to us. And *that*, in turn, is sought in order to further the process of divinization: starting now and foretasting forever. Now, if an Orthodox actually practices this "praxis," that person shall not be having sex very often and shall be self-controlled the rest of the time. Exceptions exist, and for those exceptions, allowances are made: contraception (not abortion). Nevertheless, when the Orthodox teaching is understood properly, there is generally no need for artificial birth control because, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, people have developed self-control.

In sum: The Catholic Church has upheld a principle (by reasoning which I *still* find unpersuasive), but it has failed to give its people both the means (asceticism) and the goal (divinization) which make such a position practicable. The Orthodox Church, in contrast, has avoided the whole mess by staying focused on the goal: the Mystery of theosis. They do so by insisting on practicing the means for that goal: prayer, fasting and almsgiving or, in short, personal asceticism. Thus, when understood properly, artificial birth control is simply an allowance, under economia, for the exceptions that personal asceticism doesn't completely govern.

In my opinion, the Orthodox position makes sense. It makes much more sense than saying artificial birth control is "inherently evil" and then giving people nothing of practical help nor even a *goal* for keeping that injunction.

Also in my opinion, I find this issue illustrative of a very big difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. I increasingly conclude that the Orthodox have conserved and lived and given the fullness of the Gospel without being distracted. The Catholic Church, however, has changed so much over the ages and especially recently that is often distracted from theosis -- when theosis is even remembered. So often, the Catholic Church seems to forget the whole *point* of the Gospel --which is theosis.

Indeed, amidst the Catholic prohibition of artificial birth control --and calling it �inherently evil� -- Catholic churches are increasingly treated as meeting halls of multiple uses (instead of houses of prayer); the Consecrated Host is kept in a side chapel (instead of in a sanctuary in the center of a church); the Mass is a treated as a �celebration of the faith community� --sometimes with �liturgical dancers�-- (instead of worship and divinization); and the Eucharist is referred to as a verb, which *we* perform (instead of Jesus Christ, who seeks to save and sanctify us). Etc. On top of that, there is a priest abuse scandal, and parishes are being shut down for lack of priests. And I�m supposed to be happy about all this? I am 38, and thus I was born after Vatican II, and therefore I am not reacting to the loss of ways that I have never experienced. Instead, after having come back to Christ and the Eucharist, I increasingly find an enormous (and growing?) disconnect between what the Gospel is supposed to mean and what is done and encouraged in practice in the Catholic Church. I sometimes wonder, when I go to Catholic Mass, if I have entered the newest denomination of liberal Protestantism: a cult of �community� which happens to retain the Eucharist as a memorial meal of a semi-legendary, nice man named Jesus Christ, the friend of children. And when I look to the conservative Catholics for relief and renewal, I find instead an equal disconnect: trying to back to the 1200s or, at least, to the 1950s: with an emphasis on external piety and uncritical obedience to papal pronouncements. What the heck is going on?

Meanwhile, as I learn more about the Orthodox, I find a refreshing balance of living Tradition, faith, practice, reason, and the divinizing mystical presence of GOD. The Orthodox seem to have clearly remembered the goal of the Gospel, theosis, and they seem to practice their faith with that goal clearly in mind. The discussion of broth control summarizes this. The official Catholic position is to discuss the theology of making love and to condemn artificial birth control; the Orthodox position is to focus on theosis, and thus on asceticism, wherein artificial birth control is an allowance made exceptions. The difference in positions --and hence what is important to each Church -- is very telling.

--John

An interesting post John. I've only been able to quickly read it, but let me just throw in a quick thought and first impression.

Some of the attitudes that you are rightly concerned about in the Latin rite, aren't strictly the approach of the Church herself (in regards the liturgy, the lack of penance, etc.) but rather what is foisted upon us, often by people who aren't terribly concerned with the Magisterium, let alone sacred tradition. It is those same people who also disregard the Church's teaching on contraception. In short, they choose not only to disregard this, but disregard many Catholic things, including asceticism.

A people who want "all the benefits" (the feel good parts) of religion but none of the sacrifice.

Dear Shawn (and Everyone Else),

Thank you for the taking the time to read my posts and to respond. However, I think I need to take a little break from this Forum. I am not angry at anyone or their views; and I am not trying to gain attention or pity. I am just so angry and confused by the things I wrote about that I need to take a break and relax and refocus myself on Christ and His Gospel. Take care, God Bless, and see you later.

--John

Of course!

Dear John,

Your last post made some excellent, thought provoking points, atleast in my opinion. The whole person's spiritual well being and growth is the focus of Orthodox praxis when properly applied
.
I have only just learned to understand and appreciate this...

Please don't stay away for long. I know that when one puts as much into a topic as you have, it can become emotionally exhausting, thus creating a need for quiet time in recollection with God.

May God bless you in that time you are taking now,
Alice

Alice- my apologies; I didn't realize you were a moderator. I thought you were just offering your opinion. Mea culpa. [I still think this is a relevant diversion, especially in light of harmon's last couple of posts, which elevate the discussion considerably].
Harmon- I see your point. On the other hand, I would guess you have about the same percentage of ordinary Orthodox practicing the whole ascetic regimen of the Church as you do ordinary Catholics abstaining from artificial birth control. Humans do tend to take the easy way...
Also I would point out that asceticism is to deny oneself things which are in themselves good. Of course the point of this [in part] is to strengthen the will to resist temptation to sin, but meat, sex, etc. are in themselves good things.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. Thus, while ascetic practice would help observe periodic abstinence, it is not a question so much of asceticism, but of abstaining from serious sin. This is an entirely different thing.
-Daniel, still waiting for the baby...

I've experienced both sides, and this has not been my experience.

That is why I left my old parish. I am at a new one, I was led there by a great priest, but he is leaving soon.

Dear Rilian-
I really don't want this to descend into an anecdotal duel; suffice to say that I have plenty of tales of scandalous behaviour on the part of members of both Churches.
In part this discussion reminds me of the objections of the Pharisees in the Gospels: a lot of talk of "ritual uncleaness" [ie, bad or insipid liturgy] on the part of the Romans; criticism because they don't fast [which charge was leveled, ahem, at Our Lord as well], which somehow excuses the fact that the Orthodox have not, as a body, held to the teaching of the Apostles on one very important moral doctrine.
-Daniel, soon to be a father yet again

When you purposely refrain from having sexual intercourse with your wife while she is ovulating, you are engaging in contraception. I bet I could probably line up a list of patristic quotes that condemns this practice, though I know of no council that ever addressed it.

I�m glad it gives you comfort to think there is a moral difference between this and say a priest granting out of ekonomia the ability for a couple to use something like the barrier method to regulate conception when there are legitimate reasons for doing so.

I don�t buy that argument, just as I don�t buy the one that either church has maintained complete fidelity to the apostles on this front.

Dear Friends,

I'm just wondering how we can say the RC Church has been more faithful than anyone else simply on the level of formal doctrinal pronouncements against artificial contraception.

On that level, yes the Catholic Church has adhered to a consistent position.

But have many of her members?

And what about priests, and I've met many up here, including one who is today a bishop and holds a doctorate in canon law from Rome, who have told me that they've given absolution to penitents in confession over artificial birth control, while knowing full well they'll "do it again" and can't help "do it" in future?

Is the use of artificial birth control by Catholics today even something they themselves would see as any business of their Church?

Isn't this discussion a lot like the one we had about the Orthodox "approving" of church divorce, while the Catholic Church doesn't?

No, the Catholic Church calls such divorces "annulments."

And it doesn't matter if Rome frowns on what North American bishops do in this respect.

The point is hundreds of annulments are granted to Catholics, the bishops approve, Rome doesn't like it, and no one is excommunicated over it.

We can say that at least the Orthodox Church doesn't try to bury its head in the sand over either divorce or artificial birth control.

And, as Rilian has pointed out, do the Fathers ever approve of "natural birth control?"

I don't think they ever did. I believe they considered that every sexual act between a husband and wife had to have the potential for procreation.

Hasn't the Catholic Church changed things in this respect?

(I hope my Orthodox brothers and sisters appreciated me sticking my neck out for them in this way! )

Alex

Annulments look at a basic principle of sacramental theology (at least Western sacramental theology) to make a determination whether the couple (who are the one's who confect the sacrament) actually had the intention of the Church at heart and mind when getting married. IF that intention wasn't there, then, the sacrament isn't either. Therefore a declaration of nullity is issued stating that there was no sacramental marriage due to this or that defect which thereby affected the validity of the sacrament.

This falls into line with other such considerations over whether people like anglicans had valid priestly orders or not; whether the Eucharist is confected or not.

Therefore, this isn't hiding one's head in the sand. It is rooted in a very basic theological principle that applies to the other sacraments as well. It's also worth mentioning that people who have petitioned for such a declaration do have it denied as well. The burden of proof lay in proving there was no sacramental union. It is always assumed there is. (Sadly in today's culture, with our very secular view of marriage, with the lack of the supernatural, there are more and more people who enter marriage with no real understanding of what it is. This results in more annulments as well.)

Divorce, as used by other churches, doesn't even make such a pretense. Sacramental or not, it is viewed as fine to simply "end" the marriage.

So which position is the least desireable from a Christian perspective?

As for artifical contraception, I've spoken my piece on that. However, let me add this: we can't use the failings of the individual members of the Church to throw into question the long-standing teaching of the Church. We are not a democracy where the majority rules. Again I say, as I said in another thread, if we were to judge the Church by the failings of the apostles after the Last Supper, we likely wouldn't have a Church.