www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Questions from a possible convert

Dear Patrick Shane,

I implore your forgiveness, Brother, as it was not my intention to impute anything to you but to simply "smoke you out!"

What I mean by that is that I didn't know where you were coming from in your earlier posts.

Your comprehensive post above answered all my unstated questions and I understand where you are coming from and the sense of your earlier questions in a way I did not before.

Please forgive me for all else, but I think the richness and comprehensiveness of your post above was well worth it!

May God bless you and guide you on your spiritual journey as an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome!

And, of course, "Erin Go Bragh!!"

Alex

Catholic Universities offering programs devoted to Homosexual studies, parishes like St. Joan of Arc presenting materials supporting that lifestyle, and groups of bishops standing up saying they don't see a problem with this is an order of magnitude of difference from a fringe lay group like Axios. The fact is the teaching isn�t clear when these things go on, especially in regards to what is being taught in Catholic universities.

Regarding NFP, I guess it depends on what you call natural. It doesn't seem natural to me to track a woman's ovulation and restrict sex to periods of infertility. That actually seems contrary to nature to me. I also bet, as I said, you can find a ream of patristic quotes that condemn controlling conception, no matter what the means.

The patristic view, whether we accept or not, seems pretty obvious to me. Sex is for procreation, and attempts to control conception are wrong. We can all in our own ways try and back pedal from this, but it's pretty much unavoidable. I have read the NFP vs. artificial contraception arguments, and they strike me as completely specious.

One is not free in any sense in Orthodoxy in this regard. One is obliged and be obedient to the judgment of ones spiritual Father and confessor in regards to this aspect of their life.

It's not a jab, it's an observation based on something I find very odd. If the sexual ethics of someone like Fr. Meyendorff are so wrong, how could what else he says be held in esteem? That personally makes no sense to me.

What I find polemical is the notion that for instance the Orthodox teaching on the Theotokos is misguided or confused.

Frankly, I hate these kind of threads. There are plenty of problems in both churches. If somebody wants to be Catholic, that�s their business. They should do it because they like Catholicism though and not because they think Orthodoxy is screwed up, because guess what, Catholicism is screwed up in its own ways. Forgive my rather frank way of stating that.

Andrew

PatrickShane,
I have noticed in my interaction with 2 of the 3 Russsian Catholic Churches in this country, that there are no Latinizations, unless you could count some of the icons on the iconostasis of St Therese of Liseux a latinization.
At one time they were working on getting that removed if I remember correctly.
Stephanos I
PS Interesting to note that you were a convert from Lutheranism too.

Exactly. And with this we are in agreement. Both are both "screwed up in their own ways". That is a fact of fallen human nature. Frank or otherwise it is the truth. As Soloviev said, the greatest misfortune to befall mankind was the division between East and West. May we all pray it end.
FDD

Andrew, Do you hold St. John Chrysostom in high esteem? Or perhaps, one should not be held in high esteem only be being so wrong (period) on matters of sexual ethics? Or?

That seems like a rather poor analogy. IIRC St. John Chrysostom in one of his homilies alluded to the possibility that the Theotokos may have sinned incidentally through vanity, yet he did refer to her as �Panagia� or All-Holy. The liturgy that bears his name also has numerous testimonies to her purity. I don�t see these as like scenarios.

Suppose one day you ran across the writings of one of your favorite Catholic theologians, and you seem to notice he openly condones something you consider to be a grave sin. Would you recommend this theologian to someone else to read? Would your view of him change?

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I agree as to the polemical content of the points you raise!

The Orthodox teaching on the Theotokos is NOT confused etc.

What I find TRULY confusing is the RC teaching on Original Sin in recent years . . .

Is it the inherited guilt of Adam's sin? What is exactly meant by "stain of Original Sin?" Did it always mean that? And if "stain" means what the East understands about Original Sin, then why did they need the doctrine in the first place?

Alex

DEar Father DIAKon,

Since silence gives consent, thank you for agreeing with me!

Alex

The point of this thread was for me to ask a couple questions about the Dormition as it relates to the Immaculate Conception.
I think this thread has become out of hand. I never said that the Eastern teaching on the Theotokos was misguided. I said the Orthodox teaching was confused.
Nor was it ever my intent to "bash" the Orthodox Church. I am becoming Catholic as I said, to receive the fullness of the Faith. However, that also naturally means that the "Orthodox Church" is missing something.

Dear PatrickShane,

How are you today, brother?

What is the Orthodox Church missing from the Faith it holds?

Let's leave aside the matter of the papacy.

If you are saying that the faith of Orthodoxy is missing something, and I don't know that you are, what is it exactly?

Alex

I'm good brother, glory to Jesus Christ!

You are asking a loaded question. I said I am becoming Catholic to receive the fullness of the faith. I said the Orthodox Church was missing something and I already pointed out what I believe those things to be. Like I said you are asking a loaded question and conditioning the question for an answer favorable to your argument by saying "Let's leave aside the matter of the Papacy..." Like I said, I am becoming Catholic to receive the fullness of the faith.

I assume that all people get some things wrong. But that does not mean that they get everything wrong: there may be many things of value in their writings that are of great value. Fathers are not esteemed because they got everything right, but because the things that they did get right were especially illuminating.

As to you specific question:
I would recommend the true things in the writings guard against the wrong things, and be grateful that we have the church to help us discern the difference.

Perhaps, but one thing is certain from posts here - at least one of our Orthodox Andrew's has it wrong, period.

Alex - although not especially recent, the answers to these questions that you like to ask are given, for example, here. [newadvent.org] Section VI nicely lays out the description of the "hereditary stain": not death (as has been suggested in other threads) and suffering; nor concupiscence (as has been recently suggested on the forum) - even though both are consequences of the ancestral sin; but the privation of sanctifying grace - that is the hereditary stain. Confusion about the IC is, I think, typically linked to confusion of what is meant by the stain of original sin.

That was a good play on the emphatic nature of my earlier post. Please elucidate your point.

Andrew