www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why is it that EC has had to follow the RC policies

I like the fortune cookie idea as well

However, I have a question. If indeed Rome wants us to figure out for ourselves why it takes the positions it takes, why go through the trouble to issue a lengthy encyclical or book?

Therefore, taking the analysis beyond "becasue the Pope said so," does not the fact that Rome provides lengthy rationales for its thinking is, in and of itself, a madate as to how we "good Catholics" are to present the point to those who may disagree?

I maintain, in all humility, my view that the Roman approach is to give the Faithful a pre-packaged system of beliefs on as many issues as humanly possible and leave little to the interpretation.

I'm not making a value judgment here, mind you. Probably, as with everything else, the Roman approach is no better or worse than the Byzantine or any other approach. Just different.

Yours,

hal

Hal -

Whatever Rome says is the result of someone, somewhere, thinking long and hard about the question being addressed. The Church has been figuring out these questions for 2,000 years; why should She keep that Her knowledge confined to a select few (who would those be, anyway?) and leave the laity to reinvent the wheel time and again? In your earlier post, you challenged people to tell others why birth control and extramarital sex are wrong; that's exactly what Rome does with encyclicals and letters.

Documents from Rome aren't - well, you don't necessarily have to agree with the reasoning. Or even the position taken. Unless you do have to. :p What such documents do is present a position of the Church, and a line of reasoning supporting that position which one can read, understand, and agree with or not. In that, they go far beyond "Birth control is wrong" - rather, it's "birth control is wrong, and here is an argument for why." If Rome just issued - oh, doctrine cookies, and left the reasoning up to whomever wanted to tackle it, it'd be very nasty very quickly.

I have a feeling I'm not completely clear on where you're coming from - maybe I've just been conditioned by one too many years of Roman theology studies?

-Peggy

Hal, if you don't mind me asking, have you ever read Humanae Vitae ? It doesn't sound like it. And if the Eastern approach has resulted in permission to contracept, I'd say it has failed.
Of course modern medicine and science has resulted in much good; I owe my life to it, in all probability. Much evil has resulted from technological progress as well and I for one can not attempt to unravel which has been greater. However, when I speak of "modernity" as evil I am not speaking of these things but of the philosophical direction the world has been heading in since the Reformation, which has been evil and destructive of souls. Rome alone seems able to hold to the Apostolic tradition on morals. Orthodoxy, because of its Apostolic origins and the grace of the Sacraments, enjoys a certain immunity not shared by, say, Protestantism. I mean I seriously doubt Orthodoxy would ever allow abortion or homosexual behaviour, but it has not persevered on contraception. There are of course good Orthodox who intuite the truth on this matter, like the priests and laymen of the Stephanos Project, but as a body they have failed.

Dear Sirs:

Perhaps Orthodoxy has failed, perhaps not. That's not the point. The point is that Byzantine Orthodoxy has chosen a path and has stuck to it.

We of the Byzantine Rite in communion with Rome, however, are obligated to follow the Pope's teachings on certain moral issues on which prelates of our own Rite and tradition speak, shall I say, more softly.

The question remains, therefore, is having to listen to Rome when it speaks on such issues a forced Latinization or not.

Talk all you want about what is or is not universal truth (whatever that is anyway). It is the path by which we reach that truth that is the issue at hand, and as yet no one has given me a satisfactory anser to that.

Yours,

hal

Dear all,

Forgive me if this digresses from your topic, but what I want to know is whether or not MORALITY/MORAL ISSUES/MORAL THEOLOGY is a salvific matter. If it is not, then there can be genuine differences in opinion. If it IS a salvific issue, then there MUST be a DEFINITE standard- there are no two ways about it. God will not say, "it is a sin to kill," and then say "it is not a sin to kill;" "it is a sin to steal," and then say "it is not a sin to steal." If it IS a salvific issue, then there is no such thing as "East" or "West" on the issue. Salvific matters are UNIVERSAL and MUST NECESSARILY BE SO.

Personally, I do not think that the Western Catholic definitions of moral issues are problematic for Easterns. Hal, I do not think it is true that Easterns are "more soft" on moral issues than the Westerns. What we as Easterners may permit "by economy" implies (or rather dictates) that there is a higher moral standard from which a certain circumstance forces a deviation. We should not forget that the West also has such "permissions;" the only difference is that they don't use the language of "economy;" rather they subsume it under the mitigating factor of "invincible ignorance" (though I admit the parallel is not complete), and the proper definition of "mortal sin" (for instance, though abortion is intrinsically evil, it is not ALWAYS a "mortal sin" because one of the factors involved in "mortal sin" is full consent. Often, those who have an abortion are really in a state of mental and emotional coercion which precludes a "full consent." Similarly, though killing another human being is intrinscially evil, the accidental killing of someone is not a "mortal sin," because "full consent" was not involved).

So it is not right to assume the East is "more soft" or the West is "too hard." Eastern Catholics should thank the West for giving your Church the sure and solid foundations of moral theology that it possesses. What the West can learn from the East is to add a dimension of "mercy" to those standards of "justice" that the Pope has declared. If I am wrong, please correct me, but my discussion in the previous paragraph seems to indicate that the West already has much of the measure of mercy that Easterns would normally insist upon by reason of "economy."

Theotokos, pray for our unity.

Marduk

Well said, Marduk! Hal seems to be under the impression that the teachings in question are "policies", apparently dictated by the whims of the Roman pontiff. I would urge him to study the history of Christianity's approach to artificial contraception; rather than some sort of odd novelty Rome only reiterates what every Christian body believed about contraception until 1930, when the Anglicans allowed it, under strict limitations, which very soon went by the wayside. And it is sort of like watching a magic show: don't be distracted by the chatter, watch their hands. Every permissive statement out of these communions is filled with references to the blessing of children, the dignity of sexual love, etc before they get down to business. Hell, even the Protestant bodies which allow abortion preceed the betrayal with Scripture quotes and hand-wringing. The only other religious body which has held the line is the Old Order Amish. It has been affirmed by some that ROCOR also forbids the practice but I've never been able to confirm that. Anyone?
And Hal, are you implying that you don't believe in Universal Truth? A Byzantine relativist: what an odd concept.

Moral TRUTH is part and parcel of natural law, which is a manifestation of Divine Law: God's Law.

There is, therefore, NO relative moral truth. It is as it was and always will be.

Thanks Marduk and Daniel C. for your affirmation of unerring Catholic teaching!

Amado

I did not say that - so why the >>bleep<< are you putting "more soft" in quotes. What I said was that the East speaks more softly. Big difference.

The inability to have an intelligent discussion on this board without having certain people jump down one's throat and accusing one of disagreeing with Catholic moral teaching when nothing of the sort has been stated makes me sad.

Oh, and iconophile, if you wish to say something to me, address me. Don't refer to me in the third person. I find it disrespectful and rude - as is your name-calling.

In parting, I say this:

I have attempted to conduct myself with decorm and humility whenever here.

I have attempted to question and gain deeper understanding without disobeying.

I have made every effort to be kind and generous to those who I meet here and accept their stated views, whatever they may be, at face value without judgment or bias.

These attempts have now been met with disdain, name-calling, and false accusations.

I realize now that discussion here is a dirty word.

I realize now that this has become a place of intolerance.

So long,

hal

Dear Hal,

Please do not be angry. I do not think I expressed any anger or disdain towards you. I simply think that in the issue of moral standards, it is better to think of it as the hegemony of the entire Church, rather than to think of it in terms of "East" and "West."

I was trying to show that what some Easterns may see in the West as "imposing" is not actually so, if one takes into account the West's defintions of "invincible ignorance" and "mortal sin." In this, there can be rapprochement between "East" and "West."

As far as what others had to say, though they may have come off a bit harsh, can you at least admit that perhaps your statement regarding universal Truth - i.e., "whatever that means" - can be easily regarded as a questioning of the existence of universal Truth? If there was misunderstanding, all you need do is explain your statement, and I am sure others here will have the grace to admit their misunderstanding.

Finally, please do not take what I'm about to write as a criticism. Regarding the issue of "more soft" and "speaking more softly": I submit there is no difference because we are to proclaim the Truth from the rooftops. To speak "more softly" about an issue that may have consequences for salvation would not be conducive to our Great Commission as Christians. In this world of relativism, we really cannot afford to speak "more softly." To "speak more softly" IS to be "more soft." The Eastern hierarchy should NOT "speak more softly" in such matters as morality. On the pastoral level, it is more important to forcefully delineate between moral good and moral evil, than to blur the lines. The principle of economy is a principle of EXCEPTION, not rule (I'm not saying YOU are saying this, Hal; I just think it needs to be said for those who might think that the Eastern principle of economy is an excuse for moral permissiveness/laxity).

I believe the very purpose of this forum is to promote understanding, so your continued presence and responses will be much appreciated.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Hal, please excuse me, but I was addressing Marduk. True, I was discussing your misunderstanding -as I see it- about the difference between moral law and disciplinary policies. And I did address you to ask if you didn't believe in absolute truth. I think the inference that you did not, and the idea that you did not believe in the moral teachings in question arose from your own words. Rather than telling us off and leaving, why don't you clarify what it is that we have misunderstood?