|
2 members (theophan, 1 invisible),
93
guests, and
17
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,297
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
POLL (revised): Where are people religiously at this forum ?
This is a substantially expanded version of the poll which I posted ten days ago. It begins with demographic questions, so we can have some idea of who the people are at this forum. The rest of the poll is about religious questions.
For each question, pick the option that is closest to your view. Thank you.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Note: On questions 72 and 73, one of the options should read
"because I choose to, even when I don�t feel like it."
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
The newly revised poll is now available !
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
John,
There are a few subjects that intrigue me which have come up and will come up again: "The eternality of hell", "Will all be eventually saved?" come to mind. When I've time I may jump into such discussions.
For now, I wonder about question #40. Another possible answer and the one I would have chosen is "Irrelevant". I'm not sure that we should recognize non-Christian marriages so why should we recognize non-Christian divorce. That of course means that I find the idea of "religious divorce" preposterous. Should a priest be a functionary of the government? Should legal marriages in a secular state be a non factor in a Christian marriage?
CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Dan,
I think each of those topics (the eternity of hell and the religious validity of secular marriages) are excellent topics for their own threads. If you start them, I will join in.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
The newly revised poll is now available !
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 192
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 192 |
I noticed on the question (don't know which one) about the Balamand Declarition there were a lot of answers of not sure.
I had to answer not sure too, because honestly I don't know what that is. The question does not define it. Perhaps I am not alone in not knowing what this is. Is it when the Eastern Rite churches were re-united to Rome?
Could you exlpain?
Much thanks,
Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
I refuse to answer a poll asking for my race.
Sorry.
Shalom,
Memo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5 |
I am a little bit concerned about the results of this poll so far. With twenty people having responded to it, 14 profess Catholicism as their Faith and 13 believe they will still be Catholic in 5 years.
But only 6 people accept the doctrine of Papal infallibility. 12 explicitly deny this doctrine by their selection. I can understand that the Orthodox (4 or 5) don't accept infallibility and that other people might be confused about it. But come on people, if are Catholic (western or eastern), you are required to believe what was defined by the first Vatican Council on this matter, or you are no longer a Catholic because you are a heretic. Being Catholic requires that you do actually accept all that is dogmatically taught by the Church.
Did people just select the wrong answer? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Originally posted by St. Mary of Egypt:
I noticed on the question (don't know which one) about the Balamand Declarition there were a lot of answers of not sure.
I had to answer not sure too, because honestly I don't know what that is. The question does not define it. Perhaps I am not alone in not knowing what this is. The Balamand Declaration was an agreement between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch and other Orthodox bishops in 1993. It recognized the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to exist. However, it also gave up the policy of proselytizing members of other Churches. Some Eastern Catholics saw it as a betrayal of the very reason for the Eastern Catholic Churches to exist. Some Orthodox saw it as a betrayal of Orthodoxy in favor of ecumenism. Most (?) people view it as a decision that neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox will try to steal each other's members, and that both will try to get along with each other. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Originally posted by bruno:
...But come on people, if are Catholic (western or eastern), you are required to believe what was defined by the first Vatican Council on this matter, or you are no longer a Catholic because you are a heretic. Being Catholic requires that you do actually accept all that is dogmatically taught by the Church. Are you sure about that? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
My concern when I looked at it last night was that out of 8 responses, 3 said that abortion is not always wrong. Among these same 8, 6 said it is important for the church to practice what it preaches. I found that ironic. It is also concerning because this board tends to be a much more conservative sample of the church than regular society.
I also thought it interesting that there was a consistent choice (not necessarily from the same person, but the choice consistently selected) that said gay marriage is fine, abortion is fine, Mary wasn't ever-virgin or the Mother of God, someone hasn't been to confession in over a year, someone hasn't learned about the faith in over a year, someone believes in reincarnation, that Jesus is not one of the reasons the person believes in God (all the responses at the time were among Catholic or Orthodox who intended to remain within the two), and yet every person had received the Eucharist in the last 3 months.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
Wondering,
Perhaps that means that this board fulfills an evangelistic purpose.
CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by bruno:
But come on people, if are Catholic (western or eastern), you are required to believe what was defined by the first Vatican Council on this matter, or you are no longer a Catholic because you are a heretic. ???????? Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by Wondering:
My concern when I looked at it last night was that out of 8 responses, 3 said that abortion is not always wrong. Among these same 8, 6 said it is important for the church to practice what it preaches. I found that ironic. It is also concerning because this board tends to be a much more conservative sample of the church than regular society.
I also thought it interesting that there was a consistent choice (not necessarily from the same person, but the choice consistently selected) that said gay marriage is fine, abortion is fine, Mary wasn't ever-virgin or the Mother of God, someone hasn't been to confession in over a year, someone hasn't learned about the faith in over a year, someone believes in reincarnation, that Jesus is not one of the reasons the person believes in God (all the responses at the time were among Catholic or Orthodox who intended to remain within the two), and yet every person had received the Eucharist in the last 3 months. Let me pose a moral dilemma. A young married girl presents to you with an ectopic pregnancy (The baby is growing OUTSIDE of the womb). This is not an uncommon occurance. 1 in 60 of pregnancies are ectopic. The vast majority miscarry early in the first trimester. However some do not. The girl is a Catholic. The baby cannot live and develop under such conditions, and will die in inside of her. If she does not miscarry, she will most likely die. How do you council her? Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Originally posted by Slavipodvizhnik:
Let me pose a moral dilemma. A young married girl presents to you with an ectopic pregnancy (The baby is growing OUTSIDE of the womb). This is not an uncommon occurance. 1 in 60 of pregnancies are ectopic. The vast majority miscarry early in the first trimester. However some do not. The girl is a Catholic. The baby cannot live and develop under such conditions, and will die in inside of her. If she does not miscarry, she will most likely die. How do you council her?
Alexandr I would counsel her to seek the advice of her parish priest or spiritual director, praying for their guidance and wisdom, and out of appreciation that I was not faced with such a choice. If I were, I would faithfully submit to the direction I recieved from same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by Wondering: Originally posted by Slavipodvizhnik:
[b] Let me pose a moral dilemma. A young married girl presents to you with an ectopic pregnancy (The baby is growing OUTSIDE of the womb). This is not an uncommon occurance. 1 in 60 of pregnancies are ectopic. The vast majority miscarry early in the first trimester. However some do not. The girl is a Catholic. The baby cannot live and develop under such conditions, and will die in inside of her. If she does not miscarry, she will most likely die. How do you council her?
Alexandr But you see what I am saying, it is not always a black and white answer, which I think is one of the reasons why some people said that abortion is not always wrong. Oh, and for those interested, the Catholic position, as outlined to me by the Diocese of Pittsburgh, the approved Catholic treatment is salpingectomy, removal of the fallopian tube, thereby terminating the pregnancy, and sterilizing the woman. Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5 |
Originally posted by Slavipodvizhnik: Originally posted by bruno:
[b] But come on people, if are Catholic (western or eastern), you are required to believe what was defined by the first Vatican Council on this matter, or you are no longer a Catholic because you are a heretic.
Alexandr [/b]A heretic is someone who does not accept one or more doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Denying a doctrine of the Church is a loss of faith which consequently seperates the heretic from the Church by schism. A heretic is not Catholic. Papal infallibility is doctrine taught by the Catholic Church. Depending on the circumstances, heresy may or may not matter in terms of salvation. I grabbed this quote off the Catholic Encyclopedia (follow the link to read the whole article), but I've looked at other sources in the past when I was figuring this stuff out a few years back. Catholic Encyclopedia Article on Heresy [ newadvent.org] St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".
Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity, as distinct from wanton opposition, supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create "good faith". Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable. A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the reins and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.
II. DISTINCTIONS
Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by bruno: QUOTE]A heretic is someone who does not accept one or more doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Denying a doctrine of the Church is a loss of faith which consequently seperates the heretic from the Church by schism. A heretic is not Catholic. Papal infallibility is doctrine taught by the Catholic Church. Depending on the circumstances, heresy may or may not matter in terms of salvation.
I grabbed this quote off the Catholic Encyclopedia (follow the link to read the whole article), but I've looked at other sources in the past when I was figuring this stuff out a few years back.
Catholic Encyclopedia Article on Heresy [newadvent.org]
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".
Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity, as distinct from wanton opposition, supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create "good faith". Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable. A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the reins and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.
II. DISTINCTIONS
Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical. So, you are saying that the Orthodox are indeed, heretics? Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Originally posted by bruno:
But come on people, if are Catholic (western or eastern), you are required to believe what was defined by the first Vatican Council on this matter, or you are no longer a Catholic because you are a heretic.
[ . . . ]
A heretic is someone who does not accept one or more doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Denying a doctrine of the Church is a loss of faith which consequently seperates the heretic from the Church by schism. A heretic is not Catholic. Papal infallibility is doctrine taught by the Catholic Church. Depending on the circumstances, heresy may or may not matter in terms of salvation. Bruno, you're new here, so I will give you this helpful hint: Your use of the word heretic is offensive. This forum is for everyone who is interested in Eastern / Byzantine Christianity. That includes Catholics, Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, Protestants and anyone else. The word "heretic" has been used to justify persecution, killing or just plain hate against all of those groups, by members of all of those groups. Hence, out of respect for those who were persecuted in the past, and to avoid hatred in the present, the word "heretic" is generally not used here. Be well. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
The new, revised poll is now available ! Please take the new poll and help us learn more about the people who visit this forum. Thank you.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,586 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,586 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by harmon3110:
The new, revised poll is now available ! Please take the new poll and help us learn more about the people who visit this forum. Thank you.
-- John John Confusion is setting in  So far I have voted in 2 polls - am I supposed to be voting again ?? Take pity on an old bewildered pensioner please 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Originally posted by Our Lady's slave of love: Take pity on an old bewildered pensioner please LOL !!! Just vote in whatever you want. I posted the notice only to bump the topic. Be well. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Originally posted by Slavipodvizhnik: Originally posted by Wondering: [b] Originally posted by Slavipodvizhnik:
[b] Let me pose a moral dilemma. A young married girl presents to you with an ectopic pregnancy (The baby is growing OUTSIDE of the womb). This is not an uncommon occurance. 1 in 60 of pregnancies are ectopic. The vast majority miscarry early in the first trimester. However some do not. The girl is a Catholic. The baby cannot live and develop under such conditions, and will die in inside of her. If she does not miscarry, she will most likely die. How do you council her?
Alexandr I would counsel her to seek the advice of her parish priest or spiritual director, praying for their guidance and wisdom, and out of appreciation that I was not faced with such a choice. If I were, I would faithfully submit to the direction I recieved from same. [/b]
Alexandr [/b]Alexandr: the situation you have described would not be an abortion as understood in Catholic moral theology. Abortion, in Catholic moral theology, is the willful termination of the unborn child. The medical procedure seeks to treat the ectopic pregancy. The child will certainly die as a result of this treatment, but the intent of the treatment was not to kill the child.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576
OrthoDixieBoy Member
|
|
OrthoDixieBoy Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576 |
The baby cannot live and develop under such conditions, and will die in inside of her. If she does not miscarry, she will most likely die. How do you council her? Death is not absolute in these cases. There have been ectopic pregnancies carried to term with the delivery of a healthy baby and mother. Granted they are rare, but I believe that needs to be taken into consideration. Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5 |
Bruno, you're new here, so I will give you this helpful hint: Your use of the word heretic is offensive. This forum is for everyone who is interested in Eastern / Byzantine Christianity. That includes Catholics, Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, Protestants and anyone else. The word "heretic" has been used to justify persecution, killing or just plain hate against all of those groups, by members of all of those groups. Hence, out of respect for those who were persecuted in the past, and to avoid hatred in the present, the word "heretic" is generally not used here.
Be well.
-- John [/QB] John, I'm sorry if you or anyone else is offended, but my use of the H word is legitimate. I can't help it if people have been persecuted, killed , etc in the past. I'm sorry those things happened and still happen, however, just because awful events have occured, doesn't mean that we stop recognizing that which is true or stop using a word. I'm not persecuting anyone, I'm pointing out something that is disturbing. Now, I would hope that you would understand that I would be concerned by Catholics that deny their professed faith by denying papal infallibility. The ramifications of that must be pointed out. I would expect members of any faith (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, etc) to do the same in a similiar situation. I would not expect the Orthodox members of this forum to adhere to a belief that I'm sure that they find offensive (or however they view it) and I am not offended that they don't accept it. I am offended by people who claim the same faith as I do, but then deny a required belief (dogmatically defined doctrine). I would be just as upset and I would have had to point the same issue if it were apparent from the numbers that a large numbers of Catholics denied the divinity of Christ, or the virginity of Mary, or had stated that the Eucharist were not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Heretic is not an offensive word; it is a descriptive word to describe people and their relationship to an institution, faith, etc. One last point, I joined this site because I have an interest and questions about the Eastern/Byzantine Catholic Churches. Getting into discussions of this nature was not my desire, but what we desire is sometimes secondary to what we must do. I am not particulary interested in writing anymore on this subject either as I would hope that I have made my point by now. God Bless, Bruno
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 |
Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
I found the poll interesting since it assumed that all of us Eastern Catholics have Orthodox Church counterparts. I also, found the race question interesting since as a Middle Easterner, I am considered "white", but to most of my fellow Americans they think I am African-American.
Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
[ Alexandr: the situation you have described would not be an abortion as understood in Catholic moral theology. Abortion, in Catholic moral theology, is the willful termination of the unborn child. The medical procedure seeks to treat the ectopic pregancy. The child will certainly die as a result of this treatment, but the intent of the treatment was not to kill the child. [/QUOTE] Dear Deacon John, Please understand, it is not my intention to appear snide, but this is, in the East, what would be termed Latin legalism. In a Clintonesque sort of Philadelphia lawyer manner, technically you are correct, but remember, in this instance, the fallopian tube is not the problem, it is the fetus growing on the outside surface which is the medical issue. A simile can be drawn that it is wrong to shoot Bill, but if I burn down Bills house, and Bill dies, my intent was not to kill Bill, but to burn down the house. There is nothing wrong with the fallopian tube, as there is nothing wrong with the house. Both were destroyed, with the consequence that both Bill and the unborn child died as a result. When this issue came up, I counceled her in the manner as outlined by the Diocese, as I restrict myself to working within the parameters of the patients beliefs. However, I did more research later, and even spoke to the Startsi at Pechesky about it. The concensus was, that everything should be done to see to it that the child was given every opportunity to be term. However, if the child dies in utero, or if the tube ruptures and the pt is at risk of death due to hemmorhage, the attempt to save at least one life should be made. This, to my mind at least, made more sense. I realize that this is a difficult moral dilemma, and my prayer is that no one should ever have to face this. My instincts tell me that a dose of Methotrexate, so that the child is reabsorbed, would have been safer for the mother, less traumatic, just as effective, and not sterilize her, so that she could have more children in the future. At least one catholic medical ethicist agrees with me. http://www.geocities.com/seapadre_1999/ectopicpregnancy.html Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by RomanRedneck: The baby cannot live and develop under such conditions, and will die in inside of her. If she does not miscarry, she will most likely die. How do you council her?
Jason Yes Jason, you are correct. A little less than 1% do make it to term, or nearly so. Which is why I am in agreement with the Startsi, who council watching, and waiting, giving the child every opportunity, and aborting only if the mother is in imminent danger of death. Tough subject! Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by Memo Rodriguez:
I refuse to answer a poll asking for my race.
Sorry.
Shalom,
Memo Actually, that is too bad. I was recently looking over some of the demographics of our South American parishes, and I found it quite interesting that 57% designate themselves to be non-European. I don't think that the question had any intent of denigrating ones race. It is odd that race is such an issue in the west. I have never even heard it mentioned in Europe. Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Slavipodvizhnik,
If your intent is to explain why you or someone else chose the rare cases scenario, I am perfectly happy with accepting that as the final response. It needs no argument if that is the case. My point still stands that someone chose that abortion is "OK, but it should be discouraged," as well as homosexual marriages, reincarnation, Jesus is not God, Mary is not the Mother of God, lack of confession, lack of recognition that confession is even needed, etc WHEN the people identify themselves as Catholic or Orthodox now AND that they intend to be so in the future AND that they have recently received the Eucharist.
I am not trying to argue the issues, but pointing out that these issues are major points of disagreement when taken in their totality and that they are coming from people who are active in their Orthodox and Catholic churches and expect to continue to be so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
Originally posted by Wondering:
Slavipodvizhnik,
If your intent is to explain why you or someone else chose the rare cases scenario, I am perfectly happy with accepting that as the final response. It needs no argument if that is the case. My point still stands that someone chose that abortion is "OK, but it should be discouraged," as well as homosexual marriages, reincarnation, Jesus is not God, Mary is not the Mother of God, lack of confession, lack of recognition that confession is even needed, etc [b]WHEN the people identify themselves as Catholic or Orthodox now AND that they intend to be so in the future AND that they have recently received the Eucharist.
I am not trying to argue the issues, but pointing out that these issues are major points of disagreement when taken in their totality and that they are coming from people who are active in their Orthodox and Catholic churches and expect to continue to be so. [/b] Dear Wondering, In this case, we are in 100% agreement. Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Originally posted by Wondering:
My concern when I looked at it last night was that out of 8 responses, 3 said that abortion is not always wrong. Among these same 8, 6 said it is important for the church to practice what it preaches. I found that ironic. It is also concerning because this board tends to be a much more conservative sample of the church than regular society.
I also thought it interesting that there was a consistent choice (not necessarily from the same person, but the choice consistently selected) that said gay marriage is fine, abortion is fine, Mary wasn't ever-virgin or the Mother of God, someone hasn't been to confession in over a year, someone hasn't learned about the faith in over a year, someone believes in reincarnation, that Jesus is not one of the reasons the person believes in God (all the responses at the time were among Catholic or Orthodox who intended to remain within the two), and yet every person had received the Eucharist in the last 3 months. Dear Wondering: Please consider this: more than a third of those responding to the poll were raised Christian, but not Catholic or Orthodox. For those of us who were not raised Catholic or Orthodox (and some who were, for that matter) there are certain teachings of the Church about which we find ourselves saying, "This is a difficult teaching. Who can accept it?" Now this is not the same as saying that those teachings are not true. It is a source of pain to me that I claim to be Catholic but struggle with accepting certain teachings of the Church, and I suspect that it is a source of pain to others in a position similar to mine. I would suggest that offering prayers on our behalf is the best way to address your concerns. In peace, Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Originally posted by Athanasius The Lesser:
I would suggest that offering prayers on our behalf is the best way to address your concerns.
In peace,
Ryan Ryan, I will pray for you, and ask you to please pray for me as well. We each have our crosses and struggles. I will keep that in mind and pray for the needs of all. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
One of the questions asked refers to:
Catholic, Mar Thomas
There are two Catholic Churches of the Mar Thoma Tradition:
The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
There is also one Orthodox Church under two jurisdictions:
The Malankara Orthodox Church
The Syriac Orthodox Church, Malankara Archdiocese
The Protestant body eminating from the Mar Thoma Tradition:
The (Malankara) Mar Thoma Syrian Church (of Malabar)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
There are some interesting data, at 37 responses.
Most everyone agrees on the basic teachings of Christianity (the Trinity, Christ, etc.). Happily, most everyone believes in the Eucharist. And, most everyone prays, gets to church on Sunday, studies and reads the Bible, volunteers, does good deeds, etc.
Also remarkable --and very encouraging-- was the very strong support for monasticism. 100 % of respondents think it should be encouraged.
More remarkable --and disturbing-- are the 20% of respondents who think sex outside of marriage can be ok, the 35 % who think gay marriage (or civil unions) can be ok, and the 35% who think abortion can be ok.
However, I can see (after the discussion on this thread) that I was imprecise in the options I offered for the abortion question. I should have made one option that allowed for abortion "only to save the life of the mother (like in an ectopic pregnancy)" and another option for allowing abortion "in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother." I think the breakdown would have been more nuanced, and the responses would have been more consistent with Church teaching.
Unsurprisingly, everyone (100%) believes in heaven, but hell is a less popular belief (78%).
Interestingly, Jesus Christ (78%), the wonder of nature (76%) and mystical experiences (70%) were the three most popular reasons given for belief in God. Also interesting, living in closer union with God (73%), becoming a better person (68%), and liturgy (65%) were the three most important things in religion to respondents. This strongly implies (among other things) that efforts at evangelization by Eastern Christians should emphasize the mystical and liturgical and transformational parts of Eastern Christianity, in order to find more like-minded people.
Finally, I find it truly remarkable that only half of the respondents believed in the Eastern Catholic Churches (either as a means for Church unity or as their spiritual home). The other half either didn't believe much in them or didn't know what their future would be. Perhaps not coincidentally, 11 % of respondents were not sure what religion they would be five years from now.
Thanks to everyone who has participated in the poll and for some interesting comments.
And, I hope that more people will choose to participate in the poll.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
Dear John,
Another question that left me perplexed was one on hell. There was no option for the theologumenon that although hell does exist, perhaps God in his Mercy may find in someway for it not to be eternal and will somehow bring his fallen sheep back into the fold.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Michael,
About the Mar Thomas Churches, I only listed one option for both of the Mar Thomas Catholics. I decided that they wopuld know who they are and pick that choice. I didn't list the other Mar Thomas churches because, then, I would have to list many other churches besides, and the list would have been unworkable. I wanted to list several of the Eastern Christian Churches without having too long of a list. I hope people understand this and are not offended by it.
About the hell question, I tried to include the idea that hell is temporary as one of the options. That was the the second option: "hell exists, for a while, till the next reincarnation or spiritual evolution."
Be well.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
<bump> The new poll is available; please take it if you haven't yet !
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
<bump> The new poll is available; please take it if you haven't yet !
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hello, I refuse to answer a poll asking for my race.
Actually, that is too bad. You know, you're right. The bad thing about it is that there are not enough options. You see, culturally I am Hispanic (Mexican, to be precise, "Chilango" for those who care about those things), my skin tone is quite European, my face has some definite African strokes. I have birthmarks, er... elsewhere on my body... that tell of Asian ancestry (most probably through Native Meso-Americans) and my father's mother's last name puts me on the list of descendents of a Jewish sailor who was forcibly converted to Catholicism during the times of the Spanish Colony. I refuse to answer a race question, because my particular answer is WAY too complex for a multiple-choice poll. Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 709
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 709 |
Originally posted by Michael_Thoma:
Dear John,
Another question that left me perplexed was one on hell. There was no option for the theologumenon that although hell does exist, perhaps God in his Mercy may find in someway for it not to be eternal and will somehow bring his fallen sheep back into the fold. Ditto! I believe in Hell, but I also believe in the everlasting love of God, whose Love could not bear eternal separation from ANY of his beloved children. Also ... I did not say that I believe in God because of Jesus Christ. Ummmmm... isn't Jesus Christ GOD? That would be like saying I believe in the Theotokos because of the Virgin Mary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Originally posted by Penthaetria: Originally posted by Michael_Thoma:
[b] Dear John,
Another question that left me perplexed was one on hell. There was no option for the theologumenon that although hell does exist, perhaps God in his Mercy may find in someway for it not to be eternal and will somehow bring his fallen sheep back into the fold. All I can say is I apologize for the poor wording of my question. I thought I covered your view by the second option for that question, namely, [hell] "exists, for a while, till the next reincarnation or spiritual evolution." [emphasis added] Also ... I did not say that I believe in God because of Jesus Christ. Ummmmm... isn't Jesus Christ GOD? That would be like saying I believe in the Theotokos because of the Virgin Mary. Of course Jesus Christ is God. The question is why people believe in God. Some people come to faith in God because of belief in Jesus. Others maintain their faith in God by belief in Jesus. The key for this option is the person of Jesus Christ and how faith in Him can cause or sustain faith in God. For example, some people don't believe in God but they do believe that a historical person named Jesus existed and that He was a very good person. That belief in the humanity of Christ can grow --with a mustard seed of faith and grace-- into faith in the Divinity of Christ and faith in God. For another example, some people might lose their faith in God for various reasons. However, they may remember their experience of the person of Jesus. That experience of Jesus can maintain or enable faith in God. In short, some people believe in God because they have experienced --personally, in their hearts and souls and lives-- that Jesus is God. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
<bump> The new poll is available; please take it if you haven't yet !
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 45
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 45 |
Greetings and Blessings, John.. Monday 30 October 2006
Well...I have retaken the new POLL questions...and I see you have really broken down some of the questions with more detail...which is good.
The strong trend of the migration from RC to O/BCC is still represented in an important way. And, all of these questions clearly identifies how important the level is of how we each share our Catholic faith. It also gives emphasis to those who are still searching with showing where the importance is in describing the basis of faith. Another words, this POLL is a great learning tool for those who are seeking.
John...have you thought of publishing a booklet or something with the data you have received here from "both" POLL's? You certainly have enough data to contribute to such an undertaking. Self-publishing is pretty easy now days...I think you should consider it....what do you think?
A great job, John!!
Many Blessings of the Lord to you!
....Ignatius
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oblate of St. Benedict
"FOLLOWING THE MASTER"
++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 148
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 148 |
Do I win? Am I the only Evangelical Protestant still posting here? Just wondering.
The answers to some questions were not precisely what I would choose. I.E. I am a homemaker by choice, but I consider myself a home educator by "profession" not a teacher.
When I fast I don't follow the disciplines of the East, I merely abstain from food for a time, so "Not much" wasn't really an appropriate answer.
The Eucharist-I, like some other Evangelicals, find it very hard to define the nature of communion. Surely it is more than mere symbol-after all, Christ is really present and we really have a living encounter with Him-but I am not convinced that the Eucharist truly becomes the body and blood of Christ and that it is the primary vehicle God uses for bestowing grace in the life of a believer. Even Calvin believed that the Eucharist was more than many modern Evangelical pastors teach.
The Bible-do I believe that the Word of God is only safely interpreted by the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit? No. Do I believe that the Holy Spirit can act through the Word of God to instruct and even sometimes convert someone to belief in Jesus Christ? Yes, I do. But I do not believe that I will grow much in grace and truth if I stick to just the Bible and me. The believer should submit himself to the teaching of a pastor who teaches the Word of God in the context of all of Christian history and teaching. As Evangelicals we should not be so arrogant that we dismiss the truth because it comes from some place outside of our tradition. We all stand on tradition to some degree or another-this is a point I will gladly concede.
Finally, why do I come to the forum now? You left off one very important option-for the fellowship and the prayers of other believers. It is also true that I still come to learn more about Byzantine Christianity, and lots of other things as well, but I come back because I want to know what people on the forum are thinking and talking about, what wisdom they have about goings-on in the world and for the prayers of God's faithful people.
Thank you
Michele
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 45
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 45 |
Greetings and Blessings to you, Michele..
I know God blesses you for your dedicated and prayer life to the Holy Bible...
With all charity and humility I present to you to look and explore Church history and learn and see how it has developed these last 2000 years. There were several brakes with the Holy church...Martin Luther, a Catholic Priest, because of the state of the Catholic Church in that time, thought reform was necessary...and today you see the results of that period!
The basis of our Catholic Church (Roman/Orthodox/Byzantine) have all a baseline link of a Sacramental link that extends from Peter and the Apostles. To learn about the Byzantine/Orthodox way of life, you have to go back into our Church history to learn and love and appreciate the Sacramental life we all have and share. This where the "true" Church exists...and that is through our Sacraments. Holy Scripture gives us the basis of understanding for these Holy Sacraments.
Michele, I truly hope you continue to grow in your faith, and may God continue to Bless You for that!
Always in the Spirit of the Lord,
....Ignatius...
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oblate of St. Benedict
"FOLLOWING THE MASTER"
++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Ignatius, thank you again for your kind words, sir.  Michele, I thank you for your good comments. I will take them into account if I revise and repost the poll. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 510
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 510 |
John- Thanks for the revised poll. It's quite good. However, I again don't like the answers to some of the questions, and am gratuitously and unsolicitedly posting my answers to those questions. The Eastern Catholic Churches (Byzantine, Melkite, etc.) are Patriarchates, Major Archeparchies and Eparchies of the Church of the Byzantine tradition who have chosen to be in communion with Rome. We do not exist because we are useful in the cause of "reunion" - even if it's a subject of considerable interest to us. We exist because we are real Churches. Who, then, can be saved ? that's God's decision. There are certainly certain parameters, but still it's ultimately up do Him, who is full of mercy and loves mankind. When the leadership of a church wants to change its liturgy, it should do so if it's pastorally appropriate and in line with the rest of its tradition. If it's the Roman Rite, Rome has to do it. If not, then it has to be done very carefully and only for necessary reasons. However, it has been done before, even in the Byzantine tradition and in principle I don't have a huge objection. I might also add that liturgical changes by a particular eparchy are different from bad translations. nonexistent. We have movable chairs. Part of me would like to see them go. But the part of me that wins out are my legs, which get tired and need somewhere to sit during the homily, after standing all morning through Orthros and Liturgy. Preserving an ethnic heritage (language, food, etc.) at your church is as hard as it is for me to say this, this should not be the church's function at all. This should be the focus of individuals, perhaps even a local [pick a country]-American society or club, but not the church. I say this very hesitantly because I know the first-generation parishoners need some kind of link to the places they grew up, and God's people should be served. But I still think the church should get out of that, and let that be the work of a non-Church society; the church can and should however work with that society. I only say this because I think heavy ethnicism will get in the way of the primary mission of the parish. By the second generation, I've found that many of the children are indifferent to a lot of the heavier ethnic issues. I wouldn't say at all that they object to it, or hate it; it's just not as central to them as it was to some of their parents. The third generation is even more indifferent, and of course converts have no ties to the ethnic group at all. A heavy ethnic focus can put off the second generationers and coverts. I went to St. Konan's Slobovian Orthodox Church a while ago [OK, I changed the proper nouns but the rest of the facts are the same]. A bishop from Slobovia was soliciting donations for a worthy Slobovian cause, saying about how all us Slobovians should help our brother Slobovians. However, he failed to notice that of the 9 clergymen (from reader on up) at St. Konan's, only one was first-generation Slobovian, and only 2 were even of Slobovian descent (2nd and 3rd gen.). The remainder were non-Slobovian converts. He also failed to notice that there wasn't a single ethnic Slobovian in the (full!) first three rows of pews. Now, I don't think that this hurt the response to his appeal. But the appeal to Slobovian interests certainly was not the way to go in this highly successful parish. However, I do have to say that I like Slobovian food. Oh, and welcome, Michele!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Originally posted by MarkosC: John-
Thanks for the revised poll. It's quite good.
However, I again don't like the answers to some of the questions, and am gratuitously and unsolicitedly posting my answers to those questions. Cool  ; thank you sir ! It makes for interesting reading. It also makes for useful comments in case I revise and repost the poll one day. Thank you all for taking the poll and your comments! -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 148
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 148 |
The other concern I had was with the abortion question. I responded that it is never ok. However, I have believed that it is regrettably acceptable only in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Until now, I had no idea that there was any hope of a child surviving this. At any rate, your option "in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother' is too broad for me to answer yes in good conscience. Even in the case where the mother's life is in danger it is not black and white to me. A mother agrees to lay down her life for her child the instant she opens herself up to pregnancy. If there is no hope for the child and the mother is in clear danger of death, then the mother's life should be saved. In the case rape or incest, as evil as these surely are, they still provide an opportunity for the Father to heal,redeem and restore and the child is still a child. Having said that, I would find it heartbreakingly difficult to ask a 13,14 or 15 year old girl to endure such a situation. Pray for these little ones and come quickly, Lord Jesus!
Blessings
Michele
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Originally posted by doulos:
The other concern I had was with the abortion question. I responded that it is never ok. However, I have believed that it is regrettably acceptable only in the case of ectopic pregnancy. [ . . . ] At any rate, your option "in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother' is too broad for me to answer yes in good conscience. I know: it is a difficult call when the issue of ectopic pregnancies is concerned. However, after thinking some more about polling the abortion, I think I would leave the options as they are. People who feel and believe such as you will select the "never" option because ectopic pregnancy is so rare and narrow of an exception. The "rape, incest and save the life of the mother option" represents a much broader range of acceptable exceptions. And then are the options for those who, basically, think abortion ok: with some discouragement or with no discouragement. In short, I'm trying to gauge a range of views of abortion: from never acceptable to always acceptable. The options I present aren't perfect, but I think they are workable. Thank you for your comments, Michele. Another thing I would like to explore (if I ever revise and repost the poll) is how strongly people feel about their views and how often they waver or change their views... Are other people interested in this kind of thing ? -- John
|
|
|
|
|
