|
0 members (),
261
guests, and
25
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
You skip over this The Orthodox Church accepts the Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, and Sacred Tradition as the basis for the moral life....
In Orthodoxy, when we speak of authority we point to Christ as the source of all teachings and doctrines including the ethical life....
The authoritative basis of the Christian ethical life is Christ. The primacy of doing good is the expression of obeying the divine will and the moral commands of God...
The emphasis of the authority of Orthodox ethical life is God Himself. The norm for the Christian ethical life is God and the basis for doing good is God Who is "goodness" and worthy of our love...
The Christian understanding and authority of morality remains always true to divine revelation and the fullness of the God-given vocation is to practice the commandment of love...
In conclusion, I reiterate that the law of God is the basis for the moral life according to the Orthodox tradition. As St. Gregory Palamas states, there is no conflict between the moral authority of the Decalogue of Moses and the Evangelical Law of Christ. I end my brief remarks with St. Paul's words, "make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts..." (1Cor. 1:1) to get to this, the only reference to "natural law": "Where does this lead us who live in the American pluralistic society? I am confident that once people live according to the natural law of God, the written law of Moses and that of Christ's evangelical law of love, all of us would live together in harmony. Where we all fall short is the violation of God's law of love and tolerance, which is opposed by insisting on human arrogance of individualistic morality", which is explained towards the beginning: The teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles as well as those of the Fathers of the Church are directly or indirectly related to moral issues and the way a Christian ought to live his or her life. From the Orthodox perspective, Christ is the final or absolute authority of morality in a Christian society. Even though tolerance and respect of other faiths are a necessity within a pluralistic society, Christ is the supreme authority for the particular Christian community.
The expression of Christ's authority within the world is that of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as is manifested in the Church. According to Orthodoxy, the Law of God as applied to the authority for a moral life is manifested in three ways. First, as natural law (the inner conscience), second as the written law (the Old Testament), and third as spiritual, evangelical law (the Gospel of Christ). These three laws are not in conflict with each other, but rather have similar authority because all three have the same source, God, and the same goal, which is to guide man to attain moral perfection.
The question of authority is bound to revelation. Revelation as authority is a religious and theological matter before it becomes psychological, social and political. Revelation is that which makes authority authoritative without being authoritarian. It does not destroy freedom but rather fulfills it. Religious authority must always be collaborated with personal consent before it can function, otherwise is becomes coercion and an exercise of compulsion over human thought and action. For that reason, Christ's authority is that of a personal nature and is intended for a personal acceptance and established by faith. The Bible, Church and Tradition are witness to the authority of revelation of God's will for man. Authority in the Church is a spiritual bond uniting the present with the past and moves on with hope to the future. Not the "the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us" as HV has it. Natural law provides no guidance on how to live out the Image of God towards the likeness of Him. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htmI have read other EO sources affirming the correctness of HV in the past and speaking favorably of the Natural Law. Some people are still living in the Western Captivity. I have not seen one so affirm HV with the Orthodox phronema/mindset of the Fathers on the basis of Scripture and Tradition, but if you can produce one, I'll look at it. I guess there is not a consensus in EO'xy about the matter. Depends on what you call a consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Dear brother JJP,
Assuming that God's Natural Law is the basis for the theology of HV, can you please explain two things to me.
1) What is the patristic basis for the Eastern Tradition's denial of the Truth of God's Natural Law? Brother Isa is not the first one I've met who has made the claim (that the Eastern Tradition denies the Truth of the God's Natural Law). That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with the things which have not been delivered to us by the holyProphets, and Apostles, and Evangelists.
No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.
God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28. Orthodoxy doesn't reject any Truth of "Natural Law," just realizes it a vague source of knowledge and in some areas just wrong (no "Natural Law" argument can be made for monasticism, for instance. The Summa tries and fails miserably). 2) Is this denial actually part of the Eastern Tradition, or is it more a modern overreaction to the Latin emphasis on it? Somenting has to be invented to react to it. We don't spend time in making up problems to "solve" them. "Overreaction"? Depends: I personally hold that the reaction should be commesurate with the insistance of ingraining Natural Law into Orthodoxy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother jjp,
Thank you for your clarifications.
My next questions would be:
1) As there is no definite rejection of Natural Law from the Eastern Tradition, would you be willing to assume (even for the sake of argument) that Natural Law constitutes the theological basis for HV?
2) If so, would you aver to investigating the principles of Natural Law in an attempt to understand the "theology" behind HV?
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. My capitalization of "Natural Law" is a personal preference, indicating that it refers to a specific range of ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2 |
1) As there is no definite rejection of Natural Law from the Eastern Tradition, would you be willing to assume (even for the sake of argument) that Natural Law constitutes the theological basis for HV? Sure, I'm here to learn. 2) If so, would you aver to investigating the principles of Natural Law in an attempt to understand the "theology" behind HV? So long as it is a "theological" explanation, why not? P.S. My capitalization of "Natural Law" is a personal preference, indicating that it refers to a specific range of ideas. I wonder if the author you cite deliberately did not do this for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Dear brother Isa, Not unless you can demnostrate a seperation between that and the policy of detente that EP Athenagoras adopted (over the objections of the rest of the Church IIRC). I don't understand what you mean. IIRC, the only objection was in regards to the mutual lifting of excommunications. Oh, there was more objections than that. But yes, things like that. Do you mean there was also a public objection to his approval of HV? Can you give some sources for that claim? Even today, those who object to HV don't refer to it usually, because it has no authority for us. The first denunciation, for instance, of Ineffibilis Deus and Pasto Aeternus that I know of came decades later, and then in response to the revisionism of Pope Leo addressed to the Orthodox Patriarchs. Usally when the topic of EP Athenagoras comes up, the focus is on teh lifting of the anathema, but basically all this involvement with the Vatican, including the brief cable (AFAIK, no details were ever given on what was to be praised in HV, so unlike, with its absence of Tradition, any Orthodox encyclical) is basically all the same to us. Its not like anyone condemns the lifting of the anathema and praises HV. For my part as a Copt, I will also say that Natural Law is a certain principle of the Alexandrian Tradition, so it is not merely a Latin thing. With all due respect, over the years I have asked you to substantiate that assertion, with no results. Not even the obvious example of St. Clement of Alexandria (who on this point, however, was rather stillborn in Greek Alexandrian Tradition, let alone Copt). Forgive me if I’ve never noticed your prior requests. You've asked for sources with regards to other topics, but AFAIK, never with this one. Perhaps it is difficult for you to appreciate the uniqueness of the Coptic Tradition apart from the lens of your Byzantine perspective? Not being Byzantine nor really Roman, and speaking Coptic and personally quite familiar with the Cotpic Tradition, what Byzantine perspective are you talking about? As always, I always ask Coptic Orthodox in communion with the Pope of Alexandria when speaking of their Tradition. The primary principle of Natural Law is that God placed in man the natural ability to distinguish right from wrong. Many early fathers called this the “rational soul” that separated him from the animals. Another principle of Natural Law is that God’s design for creation is evident in Nature itself, and the rational soul, with the help of Grace, can distinguish this divine design as an aid for holy living. This last part is the problem. Take for instance St. Clement: “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature....Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor.” (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3). This condemnation of what HV would call "Natural Family Planning," based on "Natural Law," not only does not seperate man from the animals, but explicitely calls on the former to imitate that latter. Natural Law serves its purpose when debating with those who do not have revelation, to lead them to take the leap of Faith, and to explicate what is known through revelation. A means, not a source, of theology. When it is taken by Christians (who ought to know better) as a source of theology and ethics alongside revelation, it oversteps its proper place, leading to all sorts of absurd results. Christian ethics are always based on teleology, the end know through Christ, not the action theory of the means of Natural Law. Natural Law imposes on its supposed authority a paradigm born of philosoophy supposition, not observance. Like quantum mechanics, the observer clouded by oridinal sin cannot explicate his observationss from a fallen world. Instead of clarifying answers already known from reveletion, it sets its own "Natural Theology" as a peer of theology proper,i.e. revelation. The god of the philosphers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Whose fullness was pleased to dwell in Christ. St. Clement and Origen are good early representatives of this element of Christian anthropology in the Alexandrian Tradition. I'm not sure "representative" is the correct word, as they brought it in, and of course represent its dangers: much of St. Clement is just Stoicism with a veneer of the Gospel, and Origen got anathematizing for spreading that veneer too thin. You can also find it in St. Athanasius. THAT is what you have said, but never given a citation as an exaple. Btw, how would distinguish St. Clement, Origen, St. Athanasius from a "byzantine" lens, given that the first was a Greek, the second hellenized, and the last expressed himself through Greek-and not just the language? For a non-Alexandrian source, off hand, I can think of St. Basil of Caesaria in his work Hexamaeron. Anything specific? From another Cappadocian: "There is nothing remarkable," says St. Gregory of Nyssa, "to want to make of man the image and likeness of the universe; for the earth passes away, the sky changes and all that is contained therein is as transient as the container. People said, Man is a microcosm . . . and thinking to elevate human nature with this grandiloquent title, they did not notice that they had honoured man with the characteristics of the mosquito and mouse. The perfection of man does not consist in that which assimilates him to the whole of creation, but in that which distinguishes him from the created order and assimilates him to his Creator. Revelation teaches us that man was made in the Image and Likeness of God. http://books.google.com/books?id=e-uBWoO-e7oC&pg=PA114&dq=%22The+perfection+of+man+does+not+consist%22&hl=en&ei=vGRyTaSzCcfKgQfg_dw2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20perfection%20of%20man%20does%20not%20consist%22&f=false I've only had time to skim through this and the following. This one only mentios natural law (as pointed out, uncapitalized) twice, both times agreeing with the natural law of St. Gregory as against the Natural Law of Aquinas and HV. Given what it says The first mistake that science makes which contradicts the Bible is that it attempts to classify man as an animal, which is against the Bible. Science classifies man as a primate and attempts to attribute his intellectual and physical properties through scientific comparisons and similarities with other animals. This is erroneous and not according to the Bible, since the Bible makes it clear that man is in his own class, and he has no relation to animals in any way, either physically, mentally, spiritually. I don't know why you cite it as support for the Natural Law basis of HV. Practically the only point on this point is the summary of St. Clement "b) The behavior pattern of homosexuality is considered contrary to nature." Contrary to nature does not lead to Natural Law theory. I don't see anything here to help your case at all. Thank you for your interest in finding out more about the Coptic Tradition. I am ever interesting in the Coptic Tradition (and traditions), but that has nothing to do with HV or Natural Law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
How so? The text you quoted refers to "a large part of the Catholic hierarchy" and to "Popes and bishops," not just Popes. A bit late to the game on this one, we've moved past that point in the conversation and are focusing on the theological justification for all of HV's teachings. Still waiting on any enlightenment on that front, sadly. I'd rather that someone who believes in (rather than agrees with) HV and the Natural Law on which it is based summarize it, but to move this along: HV states that the Vatican's magisterium (ordinary or extrodinary, no distinction is made) has the authority to lay down the law and norms of marital life. It claims to do so on the basis of its observations on nature, from which it derives its directives that each and every marital act must have the same elements involved EXCEPT the intention to procreate may be absent in some acts (i.e. infertile periods) for reasons of a higher good (spacing chidren, economic circumstances, health of mother, etc.). Any other act which lacks any other element (marriage, lack of barrier to conception, lack of action against fertility, conception in the womb, insemination by intercourse, carrying pregnancy to term, etc.) is a grave perversion of nature, and hence forbidden and danmable. Those who belive in HV and/or Natural Law, please correct if I have misstated your position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Isa, Not unless you can demnostrate a seperation between that and the policy of detente that EP Athenagoras adopted (over the objections of the rest of the Church IIRC). I don't understand what you mean. IIRC, the only objection was in regards to the mutual lifting of excommunications. Oh, there was more objections than that. But yes, things like that. Do you mean there was also a public objection to his approval of HV? Can you give some sources for that claim? Even today, those who object to HV don't refer to it usually, because it has no authority for us. The first denunciation, for instance, of Ineffibilis Deus and Pasto Aeternus that I know of came decades later, and then in response to the revisionism of Pope Leo addressed to the Orthodox Patriarchs. Usally when the topic of EP Athenagoras comes up, the focus is on teh lifting of the anathema, but basically all this involvement with the Vatican, including the brief cable (AFAIK, no details were ever given on what was to be praised in HV, so unlike, with its absence of Tradition, any Orthodox encyclical) is basically all the same to us. Its not like anyone condemns the lifting of the anathema and praises HV. Ok. So you don't have any specific sources, but just a general impression. That's all you had to say. For my part as a Copt, I will also say that Natural Law is a certain principle of the Alexandrian Tradition, so it is not merely a Latin thing. With all due respect, over the years I have asked you to substantiate that assertion, with no results. Not even the obvious example of St. Clement of Alexandria (who on this point, however, was rather stillborn in Greek Alexandrian Tradition, let alone Copt). Forgive me if I’ve never noticed your prior requests. You've asked for sources with regards to other topics, but AFAIK, never with this one. Perhaps it is difficult for you to appreciate the uniqueness of the Coptic Tradition apart from the lens of your Byzantine perspective? Not being Byzantine nor really Roman, and speaking Coptic and personally quite familiar with the Cotpic Tradition, what Byzantine perspective are you talking about? As always, I always ask Coptic Orthodox in communion with the Pope of Alexandria when speaking of their Tradition. I guess you were not aware that "Byzantine" is often used by Catholics to refer to the Eastern Tradition which Eastern Catholics share with the Eastern Orthodox. That's why I referred to your perspective as "Byzantine." I thought it would be convenient since it seems some Eastern Catholics also share your perspective. Since you don't seem used to the term, I'll use "Eastern Orthodox" instead, while conversing with you in particular. The perspective I'm talking about is your low regard for God's Natural Law. Judging from your comments below, your perspective is not the same as the Coptic (or Latin) perspective on the matter. I'll explain more below. The primary principle of Natural Law is that God placed in man the natural ability to distinguish right from wrong. Many early fathers called this the “rational soul” that separated him from the animals. Another principle of Natural Law is that God’s design for creation is evident in Nature itself, and the rational soul, with the help of Grace, can distinguish this divine design as an aid for holy living. This last part is the problem. Take for instance St. Clement: “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature....Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor.” (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3). This condemnation of what HV would call "Natural Family Planning," based on "Natural Law," not only does not seperate man from the animals, but explicitely calls on the former to imitate that latter. There's a definite divide here between your EO perspective and the Coptic perspective (btw, when I say "your EO perspective" I don't mean to say that your perspective is wholly representative of the EO Tradition. I use it only comparatively, because from what I see, your perspective, while found in the EO Tradition, is not normally found in the Coptic Tradition). Copts have a very high regard for God's creation. All that God created is good. And we can find good and examples of goodness in Nature. You speak of St. Clement's reference to the natural cycle of fertility in "unreasoning beasts" with a disparaging tone, but Copts would not do the same. Even our Lord Jesus Christ used Nature to demonstrate God's goodness and purpose towards Man (or had you forgotten that?). Further, I don't know what "condemnation of Natural Family Planning" you are referring to. Please explain. I suspect you have a poor understanding of the Catholic teaching on NFP if you think that St. Clement's statement in any way "condemns" it. I can't be sure until you explain yourself. Natural Law serves its purpose when debating with those who do not have revelation, to lead them to take the leap of Faith, and to explicate what is known through revelation. A means, not a source, of theology. When it is taken by Christians (who ought to know better) as a source of theology and ethics alongside revelation, it oversteps its proper place, leading to all sorts of absurd results. Christian ethics are always based on teleology, the end know through Christ, not the action theory of the means of Natural Law. Here's another difference between your EO perspective and the Coptic perspective. The Coptic Tradition would not oppose Natural Law and Revelation (and neither does the Latin Tradition). They are both from God. They each have their proper place in the life of the Christian, and both the Coptic and Latin Traditions understand that. I am not aware of the Latin Church making Natural Law "overstep" its bounds. Please explain exactly in what way you think the Latin Church does this. All you are doing is spouting some high-handed language with really nothing to back it up. Natural Law imposes on its supposed authority a paradigm born of philosoophy supposition, not observance. Like quantum mechanics, the observer clouded by oridinal sin cannot explicate his observationss from a fallen world. Instead of clarifying answers already known from reveletion, it sets its own "Natural Theology" as a peer of theology proper,i.e. revelation. The god of the philosphers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Whose fullness was pleased to dwell in Christ. Like I said, high-handed language with nothing to back it up. St. Clement and Origen are good early representatives of this element of Christian anthropology in the Alexandrian Tradition. I'm not sure "representative" is the correct word, as they brought it in, and of course represent its dangers: much of St. Clement is just Stoicism with a veneer of the Gospel, and Origen got anathematizing for spreading that veneer too thin. And because of this, are we suppose to believe that nothing good came from them? You can also find it in St. Athanasius. THAT is what you have said, but never given a citation as an exaple. I suspect you are selective of your reading of St. Athanasius, a selectiveness borne of your EO perspective or sources. I don't have time right now to look for quotes. I'll be free in about a week to be able to do research. Btw, how would distinguish St. Clement, Origen, St. Athanasius from a "byzantine" lens, given that the first was a Greek, the second hellenized, and the last expressed himself through Greek-and not just the language? The EO lens interprets these persons differently from the Copts. I think it is a matter of focus. The Coptic Tradition focuses on certain things that the EO do not. For example, the notions of the Justice of God and Natural law are found by Copts in these Fathers. For some reason or other, many EO don't. For a non-Alexandrian source, off hand, I can think of St. Basil of Caesaria in his work Hexamaeron. Anything specific? You've never read it? I don't have the time for research right now. Give me a week. From another Cappadocian: "There is nothing remarkable," says St. Gregory of Nyssa, "to want to make of man the image and likeness of the universe; for the earth passes away, the sky changes and all that is contained therein is as transient as the container. People said, Man is a microcosm . . . and thinking to elevate human nature with this grandiloquent title, they did not notice that they had honoured man with the characteristics of the mosquito and mouse. The perfection of man does not consist in that which assimilates him to the whole of creation, but in that which distinguishes him from the created order and assimilates him to his Creator. Revelation teaches us that man was made in the Image and Likeness of God. I don't understand why you think this opposes the principle of Natural Law. Please explain. I suspect you have a different understanding of Natural Law than Copts (and Latins). I've only had time to skim through this and the following. This one only mentions natural law (as pointed out, uncapitalized) twice, both times agreeing with the natural law of St. Gregory as against the Natural Law of Aquinas and HV. As stated, I don't see how your quote from St. Gregory opposes Natural Law. TBH, I haven't read much of Aquinas. How exactly does St. Gregory oppose HV? Please, cease with this "uncapitalized" rhetoric. That's just sophism. Let's get to the meaning. You have yet to explain your claims. Given what it says The first mistake that science makes which contradicts the Bible is that it attempts to classify man as an animal, which is against the Bible. Science classifies man as a primate and attempts to attribute his intellectual and physical properties through scientific comparisons and similarities with other animals. This is erroneous and not according to the Bible, since the Bible makes it clear that man is in his own class, and he has no relation to animals in any way, either physically, mentally, spiritually. I don't know why you cite it as support for the Natural Law basis of HV. First of all, you simply asked for sources that affirmed that the Coptic Tradition recognized and accepted the principle of Natural Law, and I've done that. Secondly, if you wanted me to present to you a Coptic source that connects the Natural Law with NFP, then you should have been more specific. Here's a resource: http://www.copticchurch.org/node/140Thirdly, even assuming I was using it in the context of NFP/HV, I don't see how that quote contradicts the principles of NFP/HV. I suspect we have different understandings of "Natural Law." Practically the only point on this point is the summary of St. Clement "b) The behavior pattern of homosexuality is considered contrary to nature." Contrary to nature does not lead to Natural Law theory. Why not? But before you answer that, I still need to understand what you mean when you use the term "Natural Law." So far, I really don't think we mean the same thing, and I suspect your arguments against the principle of Natural Law are really nothing more than straw men. I don't see anything here to help your case at all. I don't know what "case" I'm supposed to be making. All you asked for were sources to demonstrate that the Coptic Tradition recognizes and accepts the principle of Natural Law. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2 |
the theological justification for all of HV's teachings.
Still waiting on any enlightenment on that front, sadly. I'd rather that someone who believes in (rather than agrees with) HV and the Natural Law on which it is based summarize it, but to move this along: HV states that the Vatican's magisterium (ordinary or extrodinary, no distinction is made) has the authority to lay down the law and norms of marital life. It claims to do so on the basis of its observations on nature, from which it derives its directives that each and every marital act must have the same elements involved EXCEPT the intention to procreate may be absent in some acts (i.e. infertile periods) for reasons of a higher good (spacing chidren, economic circumstances, health of mother, etc.). Any other act which lacks any other element (marriage, lack of barrier to conception, lack of action against fertility, conception in the womb, insemination by intercourse, carrying pregnancy to term, etc.) is a grave perversion of nature, and hence forbidden and danmable. Those who belive in HV and/or Natural Law, please correct if I have misstated your position. Thanks... Anybody else have anything to add or is this a satisfactory summary?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Dear brother Isa, You can also find it in St. Athanasius. THAT is what you have said, but never given a citation as an exaple. I suspect you are selective of your reading of St. Athanasius, a selectiveness borne of your EO perspective or sources. I don't have time right now to look for quotes. I'll be free in about a week to be able to do research. I suspect you have a different understanding of Natural Law than Copts (and Latins) We'll be waiting. In the meantime, this attribution to Pope St. Athanasius of Natural Law as "a true law: right reason...in conformity with nature...diffused among all men....immutable and eternal; its orders summon[ing] to duty; its prohibitions turn[ing] away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely" (CCC 1956, quoting Cicero (!), making the Stoic origin even more blatent), reminds me of the two places where the phrase natural law (uncapitalized) appears in "On the Incarnation," and includes a passage (here underlined) which MIGHT be one of the few errors of this Great Defender of the Faith: Such are the notions [of the philosophers and gnostics] which men put forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the divine teaching of the Christian faith. From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word. He says as much in Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; and again through that most helpful book The Shepherd [of Hermes ],
"Believe thou first and foremost that there is One God Who created and arranged all things and brought them out of non-existence into being." Paul also indicates the same thing when he says, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which we see now did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared." For God is good—or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of
the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow,
pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, "Of every tree that is in the garden thou shalt surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in the day that ye do eat, ye shall
surely die." "Ye shall surely die"—not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption. (the problem being, if Pope St. Athanasius is saying that Adam and Eve were destinted to die to go to heaven even if they had not fallen. He might, however, just be indicating the change that would have occured when Christ was incarnated if there had been no Fall). This, then, was the plight of men. God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. Then, turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by counsel of the devil, they had become the cause of their own corruption in death; for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created. That is to say, the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural
corruption, as also Wisdom [of Solomon] says: God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world." When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment. Indeed, they had in their sinning surpassed all limits; for, having invented wickedness in the beginning and so involved themselves in death and corruption, they had gone on gradually from bad to worse, not stopping at any one kind of evil, but continually, as with insatiable appetite, devising new kinds of sins. Adulteries and thefts were everywhere, murder and rapine filled the earth, law was disregarded in
corruption and injustice, all kinds of iniquities were perpetrated by all, both singly and in common. Cities were warring with cities, nations were rising against nations, and the whole earth was rent with factions and battles, while each strove to outdo the other in wickedness. Even crimes contrary to nature were not unknown, but as the martyr-apostle of Christ says: "Their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature; and the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, flamed out in lust towards each other, perpetrating shameless acts with their own sex, and receiving in their own persons the due
recompense of their pervertedness." "On the Incarnation." I purposely took the citations from a Coptic site. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdfSo Pope St. Athanasius sees natural law (uncapitalized) as something not to be embraced, but what Christ had to free us from. Here natural law (uncapitalized) does not bring us to revelation, but rather is the force of corruption. Elsewhere, Pope St. Athanasius agrees with the Copts, other OO and EO (and WRO) that the natural theology of the pagans prepared them to receive the teaching of the Gospel (and to hold on to it after the Gospel is as foolish as the Judaizers of the Galatians). What you (and the Latins) claim in common with him, I'll leave to you to assert.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Dear brother Isa, Not unless you can demnostrate a seperation between that and the policy of detente that EP Athenagoras adopted (over the objections of the rest of the Church IIRC). I don't understand what you mean. IIRC, the only objection was in regards to the mutual lifting of excommunications. Oh, there was more objections than that. But yes, things like that. Do you mean there was also a public objection to his approval of HV? Can you give some sources for that claim? Even today, those who object to HV don't refer to it usually, because it has no authority for us. The first denunciation, for instance, of Ineffibilis Deus and Pasto Aeternus that I know of came decades later, and then in response to the revisionism of Pope Leo addressed to the Orthodox Patriarchs. Usally when the topic of EP Athenagoras comes up, the focus is on teh lifting of the anathema, but basically all this involvement with the Vatican, including the brief cable (AFAIK, no details were ever given on what was to be praised in HV, so unlike, with its absence of Tradition, any Orthodox encyclical) is basically all the same to us. Its not like anyone condemns the lifting of the anathema and praises HV. Ok. So you don't have any specific sources, but just a general impression. That's all you had to say. All you have as a source is a telegram with a general impression: http://books.google.com/books?id=OOO_DdsPNu0C&pg=PA197&dq=Telegram+Patriarch's+agreement+Humanae+Vitae&hl=en&ei=o6J1TePGNcGqlAe61-CBCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Telegram%20Patriarch's%20agreement%20Humanae%20Vitae&f=false Towards the healing of schism: the Sees of Rome and Constantinople : public statements and correspondence between the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1958-1984 Why would I need to say more? AFAIK, EP Athenagoras and his Holy Synod never issued an encyclical or any other formal or official approval of HV, nor an encyclical nor any other formal teaching which resembles HV. If HAH was "in total agreement" with HV, he and his synod evidently kept that to themselves. In contrast, the Holy Synods of OCA and the Russian Orthodox Church (at least, mentioned and linked above) have made official pronouncements which directly contradict the stance of HV. Both statements (and others) make the distinction between abortion and non-abortifacients (as opposed to HV's "ABC" and "NFP"), issue only broad principles with the command to pastors to deal with the details of the individual circumstances (opposed to HV's detailed delineation, limiting the pastor's discretion), and base its decisions on teleological paradigms based on theology (versus HV's basis on Natural Law). If, as the OP asked, an example of the Orthodox approach is sought, the Russian Bases of the Social Concept http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspxwith the normal Orthodox referencing to Scripture and Tradition and "telos" end of the issue at hand represents the Orthodox approach, not the Phanar's cable. The latter of course is odd, if it was an endorsement of the views of HV, in that it was sent outside the Church and not addressed to the Church. Does anyone know if the Joint Commission has taken the issue of HV up? Btw. I don't know if the OP has seen "The encyclical that never was: the story of the Commission on Population, Family and Birth, 1964-66" http://books.google.com/books?id=P1...d=0#v=onepage&q=Orthodox&f=false(btw, NOT an unbiased source) has some references to the Melkites and Greek Orthodox, but not in the formation of HV, so perhaps it means that the Eastern perspective (of whatever sort) had no part in HV's formation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450 |
IAlmisry,
This subject must mean a great deal to you personally for being so passionate and outspoken here in having such long long and numerous posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2 |
IAlmisry,
This subject must mean a great deal to you personally for being so passionate and outspoken here in having such long long and numerous posts. As the OP of this thread looking for insight, I appreciste his and Marduk's posts very much. Is there anything you would like to add to the conversation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
People know none of this makes sense, and they follow their conscience accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2 |
People know none of this makes sense, and they follow their conscience accordingly. Honestly, it's a conclusion that seems unavoidable, and it's not what I was hoping for. Not just in this forum either, anywhere I look for information about it.
|
|
|
|
|
