I really struggle with this issue. I *feel* like communion with Rome is important but I don't intellectually if I understand why it's important.

So why is it important to be in communion with Rome?

Because Rome is the seat of the succesor of St. Peter. St. Peter was the head of the apostolic college, the Pope is the head of the episcopal college. Christ wants unity for His Church and the Pope is the visible sign and locus for that unity.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

In reference to your response to Jennifer I think that it would be significant to mention that the Bishop of Rome is believed by those in communion with Rome to be the Vicar of Christ as well as a "visible sign and locus for that unity."

If this is to be accepted why is it that there are 25,000 to 30,000 different denominations who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome around today that are the result of the reformation? Do keep in mind that many of these folk�s ancestors used to be in communion with Rome. These folk's did not find the Bishop of Rome to be a source of unity, as they did not agree with what Rome was doing under the direction of the Pope like the selling indulgences. How in the world could the Vicar of Christ ever come up with such a notion? So I ask you this, how was the Bishop of Rome the locus of unity in reference to the reformation? Could one argue that it was really Luther's fault for releasing a rebellious spirit by not being obedient to the Bishop of Rome�s idea�s and practices?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

Well, in an ideal world, the Pope of Rome would be in communion with the Orthodox Church - and you would then be one of the most ardent Papalists around!

No?

Alex

Dear Jennifer,

I've asked that question many a time myself.

And I think the answer to it is one that is very personal - there is no "one size fits all" for Eastern Christians (the West is a different story).

I think we begin with the reasons for NOT being in communion with Rome.

Why? Because the early Church until the Schism of East and West (whenever we date it exactly and I don't think there can be an exact date) did acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and as John Meyendorff and others have said, the Petrine Ministry was indeed the expression of the Church's unity.

So if you answer "I strongly agree" to these points, I think it would be an indication that you should not be in communion with Rome:

1) Rome has fallen into heresy and is therefore cut off from the Body of Christ (as of 1054 or afterwards).

2) The moral teachings of the Pope are too onerous and legalistic - we have the Councils.

3) The current Pope sets a bad Christian example.

4) The teaching of papal jurisdiction contradicts Eastern Christian ecclesiology.

5) Papal authority is too absolutist.

6) The papal teaching of infallibility contradicts my understanding of the inerrancy of the Church.

7) There is too much power and charism placed in one bishop, namely, the pope.

8) The Pope is not the only successor of St Peter - all bishops are. He is a first among equals only.

9) There is no evidence to suggest that the Pope ever had authority over other Churches, including moral, teaching authority.

10) To submit to the Pope is an anachronistic, medieval idea that has no place in the modern world. Besides, it places the Eastern CHurches' patrimony at risk, as has happened with the Latinization of the EC Churches.

After you ask yourself these questions and face your own feelings and beliefs as honestly and openly as possible, give yourself to prayer.

And may God be with you, wherever you go!

Alex

Matthew,

Schism has existed in the Church from the time of the Apostles, should we blame them also for the actions of heretics and schismatics? That individuals fail in their office, as many popes, patriarchs and bishops have, is not an arguement that the office should not exist. Some use the same arguement you are articulating in condemning the office of bishop. As for indulggences please do not repeat Protestant errors and fiction about them. Please see:
http://www.catholic.com/library/myths_about_indulgences.asp

The Catholic Church teaches that all bishops are vicars of Christ. The Pope in his role as Supreme Pontiff and the Servant of the Servants of God embodies in a unique way as the successor of St. Peter.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

Do I error in understanding that indulgences had been sold?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Here we go again, I did not put forth and argument that the office of a Bishop should not exist, irrespective of how some other people use the premise. You seem to have imported understandings to what I have written that are not there. How did I repeat an error about indulgences, they do exist you know. As you have stated the unique role of the Bishop of Rome is different than other Bishops for no other Bishop is in the infallibility mode in the same way I think no matter how you might codify such things.

I should have known better.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Jennifer, I also have and continue to struggle with this, sometimes on a daily basis.

We are all told the rote answer that Fr. Deacon Lance gave in catechism and in the seminary, but it often simply doesn't hold water with me anymore, and all the EWTN justification in the world on paper doesn't satisfy me.

It is something in your heart, often that cannot be put into adequate words. As Alex says, it is a very personal thing.

This idea of the definition that Fr. Deacon Lance gives is simply not the idea of the early Church. There was a much simpler monarchia, one of love and desire for unity and EQUALITY of the churches, and not one of montanist authority and structure. Rome was first among equals, not the montanist authority such as we see in the 19th century.

I am in communion because I want to be, and not because I have to be. Atrocities have been committed against Easterns in the name of Rome, and vice versa. All have sinned.

We both indeed need each other. Orthodoxy needs primacy, as the lack of agreement and sometimes even communion between jurisdictions has borne out. Afanasiev, Schmemann and Meyendorff anmd others have all written about this need.

The famous Russian philisopher Vladimir Soloviev concluded that there was mutually nothing between us being in union, only a mutual lack of will to forgive and understand the other, like family members who had long ago stopped speaking with each other.

But primacy is not some magical panacea. Primacy has not guaranteed liturgical consistency and orthodoxy in the west, especially in the last 30-40 years. That is a very frightening thing to the Eastern mind who takes most seriously the maxim of St. Prosper of Aquitane "lex orandi, lex credendi".

Even theological orthodoxy is not necessarily assured with primacy, as there are priests saying things from the pulpit in Roman churches that are questionable at best (I've heard some of those myself), and you will find their names in good standing in the diocesan rolls.

Primacy also needs as a full brother or sister the faithful attachment to liturgical and theological orthodoxy. One cannot debate the tenacity of Orthodoxy in keeping to the teachings of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils and very faithfully preserving liturgical tradition.

I am very much more sympathetic to the Orthodox concerns about unity as a Greek Catholic, that being my mother church from which I am somewhat estranged, than I am about trying to justify an absolute primacy given the current liturgical, spiritual and theological state one often finds the Roman Church embroiled in.

But every game needs an umpire. As Afanasiev observed, the need for a first among equals to decide the disputes of his brothers is sorely needed to keep Orthodox Christianity united. An umpire is NOT a dictator, but one who has the authority, will, and love to step in and "make the call", and then step back out and let the game continue.

With the rise of increased secularism, anti-Christian movements and religions, sometimes radical and violent, we so much do need each other as churches of Apostolic Succession.

We do not need nor will tolerate a return to an ultra-montane primacy of a Pio Nono. All things considered, I would almost surely not be in communion with Rome if this sort of "primacy" was returned.

As a Greek Catholic, I am in communion with Rome more because I want to be, and not because I feel I have to be or forced to be. That being said even when Rome has not always honored her part of the bargain from the decrees of Union.

The conciliar approach of the Latin Church since Vatican II along with her greater outreach to Eastern Christians, both in communion and not in communion with Rome, has been a personal source of great hope with me. With that impetus I pray we can move towards glorious days of more full Christian union. "So that all may be one"...

Diak, longing for Constantine, Justinian, Theodosius....

Dear Diak,

Yes, I'm for a Byzantine-style monarchy too!

What did you think of my ten points above?

The administrator might say I'm just trying to call attention to myself.

Perhaps thats true . . . prelest is so insidious, you know!

Alex

Subdeacon Randolph,

I am sorry my reply was lacking in your sight. Perhaps it was rote but it is what I believe and it is what the Catholic Church teaches. That is not to say I do not have questions and problems about how the primacy is exercised. But at the end of the day I do believe St. Peter had a special function beyond that of the other Apostles and that function is passed on to his successors. And I do also believe the early Church believed this. I agree it is a primacy based on love and service and not one of monarchy and exaltation. However, the primacy must include authority or it is no primacy at all.

Fr. Deacon Lance

As one who feels a tremendous attraction to Orthodoxy, and who's head spins at the arguments and counterarguments, I always come down to the fact that Rome has held to the Apostolic teaching on contraception, against widespread opposition from her own people, as living proof that she is shielded from error in her teaching office. This does not at all mean that this authority has always been wielded wisely, nor that there is not widespread dissent and error among her members, but she has held to this ancient moral teaching, and Orthodoxy, in any authoratative way, has not.

Dear Daniel,

I've no problem with what you've said.

But what if one comes up against RC theologians and priests who privately support contraception and say so in confessions?

Does the shield not apply to Rome's priests or to Rome alone?

Alex

"You will know them by their fruit."

Which Christian church is the largest?
Which Church has the most hospitals?
Which church hs the most orphanages?
Which church has the most schools?
Which church has the most universities?
Which church offers the most relief aid?
Which church offers the sacraments to the most people?

The church that Christ built on Peter, the Rock, and the apostolic college. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. No bad popes, no pedophile clergy, no unjust wars, no scandal. Nothing that man or Evil can do will destroy the Church of Jesus Christ.

God bless our separated churches. God's grace is found in them. May we be united as Christ prayed.
"Love one another."

Paul
(just had to get that off my chest)

Certainly, "most" is not the be all and end all. The proofs of the Church are not based on a "majority" of this and that. The Orthodox Church does ALL of the above things along with Catholic Christians. One upmanship is not needed either.

Dear Paul,

I'll have to go with Brian on this one - the Orthodox Churches do all that Rome does, absolutely.

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is so large does not necessarily mean that all those on its baptismal rosters are practicing Catholics today - the same is true of Orthodoxy.

And I guess I personally wouldn't see a difference between the RC and Orthodox Churches - I see them as two equally valid parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Besides, I once made the same argument you are making to Brian and I got my knuckles wrapped for it by Fr. Thomas Soroka.

And the Administrator agreed with Fr. Thomas.

I just don't think it is fair for me to get my knuckles wrapped and for you not to in this instance . . .

Alex

I knew I would get in trouble for my statement. I do consider the Orthodox and Catholic churches and all the baptized to be the one church of Jesus Christ (no denominations in heaven, you know).

I stand by my original statement because I think it is true.

To put it in a larger context I would say that of all the armies that ever marched and all the leaders who ever ruled nothing has given life to the world as Christ and His holy Church, His body on earth.

Paul

Paul, remember there was a time when the Arians held nearly all of the Churches and dioceses in Christendom, does that mean they were the "True" Church then?

Dear Moe,

Perhaps the Arians, if they lived today, would vote for John Kerry?

After all, they thought they had the majority and didn't like conservative thinkers . . .

Where did I put that fax just now . . .

Gotta go!

Alex

Dear Paul,

As long as we don't make what would be a patently false assumption that the Orthodox Churches don't practice charity, then that's fine.

The RC Church also promoted the Crusades and other wars, even against other Christians, then there's the Inquisition etc. etc.

We must temper our views here with the teaching of our Lord on the Church in Matthew 13:24-30.

Alex

Dear moe,

I'm not very familiar with the Arians, but I do know that they were heretics. And I do know that orthodoxy triumphed over Arianism.

I don't know if a heretic is still technically a member of the church. I don't think that the indelible mark of baptism can be removed by any sin. I could be wrong on that. They may just be bad Catholics. Are there any bad Catholics left?

Paul
(definitely a sinner)

Dear Paul,

I just wanted to warn you to try and not provoke MOE with hidden references to John Kerry . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank You.

I early voted. Been there done that.

Paul

Fr. Deacon, I do not disagree with you in substance, and intended nothing disrespectful of your answer.

I just meant that myself and most people have heard that before, many times, and sometimes black and white simplifications don't do much to satisfy the deeper longings and answers to the questions.

The monarchia of the early church was very different than that today. Rome had authority because of her place as first among equals, and exercised it appropriately. The whole idea of authority and how it was exercised and percieved was drastically different to the post-Trent Catholic Church, especially after the Counter-Reformation.

She did not confirm who was elected Patriarch of another church of the Pentarchy, as she demands of all Eastern churches today. She did not set up "congregations" and other dicasteries to oversee/regulate/meddle with every aspect of Eastern Church life.

But at the end of the day I am still in communion with Rome because I want to be, and not because I feel I have to be. It, like everything else in life, is an act of free will.

I hope and pray that Rome can return to the way of treating her Eastern children with full trust and respect we deserve, truly self-governed with the Pope as our intercessor should be in a situation where our hierarchs cannot or will not act in grave matters of faith and morals. In all other things we need to take charge and truly govern ourselves according to the full meaning of "sui iuris". Most Eastern Churches are not ready for that yet, but we need to keep moving along.

Dear Subdeacon Randolph:

In the recently concluded elections of the Chaldean Patriarchate, the Holy Synod was previously at an impasse and failed to elect by majority their successor Patriarch in Baghdad even after a number of sessions.

Under the Eastern Code of Canons, the Pope is empowered to appoint a Patriarch (from among the Chaldean Bishops) in such a case but the Holy Father instead exercised his "universal" pastoral prerogative by "inviting" all the members of the Chaldean Holy Synod of 22 Bishops to Rome and urged them to hold elections again. Eventually, they elected their Patriarch, His Beatitude Emmanuel III Delly.

I think this is an example of what you have been longing to see in the exercise of the Pope's primacy?

Amado

That's it, lawyer-man. And that's one reason why I stay in communion becuase there is hope.

This Pope has been exceptional in his writings and actions, even himself looking very introspectively at the nature of his primacy. He gives all of us great hope with actions such as these and writings such as Orientale Lumen and Slavorum Apostoli.

But it will take more than that, applied to all of the Eastern Churches, and the respect for their communion with Rome needs to be given for such things as restoration of patriarchates and exarchates sorely needed but inhibited by Vatican politics. Her children are the most important thing. Political dealings outside the Church need to come second.

OH THE NUMBERS GAME AGAIN!

So if I follow you line of reasoning - Islam is becoming the largest religious body in the world and being so, I should belong to it despite my Orthodox Catholic Faith? Remember, the Church was very small at Pentecost but it was and still remains the True Faith.

JoeS

//Originally posted by paromer:
"You will know them by their fruit."

Which Christian church is the largest?
Which Church has the most hospitals?
Which church hs the most orphanages?
Which church has the most schools?
Which church has the most universities?
Which church offers the most relief aid?
Which church offers the sacraments to the most people?
Paul
(just had to get that off my chest)//

I agree with Joe. It is what is in the heart, and has nothing to do with numbers.

Our Lord couldn't even win a popularity contest against Barabbas, and certainly he and a few frightened apostles represented perhaps the smallest religious minority of the time.

Dear Iconofile,

You know the Orthodox Church still teaches that chastity is a virtue, that has not changed either.

There is quite a list of current and older authoritative writings for you to read in that regard should you feel that some form of substantiation is required.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

Yes, I think that only some Orthodox priests in the very few liberal jurisdictions there are teach that birth control is all right.

And I think that apart from Rome, there are many RC episcopal conferences around the world who have "reinterpreted" Rome's teaching on birth control so that it basically becomes rather meaningless.

(The same is true about how the teaching on pro-abortion politicians became, truth be told, watered down by the U.S. episcopate.)

And if I'm wrong about the U.S. episcopate, please show me how I'm wrong - I'm addressing this to the Latins here!

Alex

I think of the occasional Orthodox mission that meets regularly in a Catholic church, and know that there is probably more going on there than simply use of a convenient space. The bonds of friendship and cooperation of people at the local level will hopefully lead to greater trust and acceptance, and help push some of the hierarchical politics aside. That's worth some prayer time, don't you think?

Thanks everyone for your insight. I really do struggle with this issue. Honestly, I don't think I can accept papal supremacy as it is currently understood in the latin Church. But on the other hand, I do believe communion with Rome is important. It's hard for me to explain why it's important. It seems to add some unity to the Church.

My delimma is that I feel that my views might place me outside of the communion with Rome. It's a difficult issue. And I think that Eastern Catholics, better than anyone, understand that tension between trying to be what the Church used to be and maintaining communion with Rome despite the fact that Rome has 'evolved' in its understanding of its primacy.

I must confess that I have been told, in no uncertain terms, that my view of the papacy is not Catholic. Sometimes I feel like I'm in a spiritual no-man's land, in that I feel like I was baptized and confirmed so so don't want to 'lie' by being re-christmated or God forbid re-baptized to become Orthodox, but on the other hand, not accepting the montanist view of the papacy. I see that many Eastern Catholics share my limited view of the papacy which gives me hope that I can find a home here.

But it's frustrating to be told by your fellow Catholics that you're a heretic. It's also very frustrating for me to hear Roman Catholics say the Orthodox are outside of the Church. It's hard to hear RCs insist that the "Roman Catholic Church" is the only Church founded by God.

Jennifer, you should gently remind them of the teaching of their own church from Vatican II, Orientale Lumen, Ut Unum Sint, and Slavorum Apostoli. I also have dealt with this kind of nonsense most of my life. Unitatis Redintegratio also has very strong language about the position of the Orthodox as part of the Apostolic Church.

In a recent discussion about this very topic with an RC, he finally concluded that the pope was a heretic for refusing to try to convert the Orthodox.

The delimma is whether to educate the RCs or to leave them alone. My observation is that it's very troubling to them to hear about things like the Balamand Agreement. I think it stems from all of the problems in the latin Church.

Honestly, I think given the many problems in the latin Church today, it's almost better for them to 'live in ignorance,' so to speak, about the new approach to the Orthodox.

Let's be honest here, some of the responses here (that I agree with, btw) would be greeted with tremendous hostility by the typical conservative RC.

Dear Jennifer,

That all depends on your definition of a "conservative" Roman Catholic.

Bill

Alex- the shield from error exists only for the Pope, and the decisions of Councils that he recognizes. The situation you describe is inevitable, given the age we live in and the freedom of the human will.
Matthew- I know there are old canons against contraception; there are also old [pre-1928] Protestant denunciations against that sin. However, pace Alex, the mainstream Orthodox are permissive about contraception, though their writings have all the prerequisite Scripture quotes and hand-wringing before they pronounce its acceptance. Of course the Orthodox believe in chastity; so, on paper, do the Episcopalians, for whom chaste behavior includes buggery. I am certainly not equating the Orthodox with those scoundrels, only making a point. When Christian bodies depart from Apostolic tradition they never say so directly; it is always made to seem in continuity with the tradition.

I wouldn't throw out numbers altogether. Our Lord told the apostles to "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matt 28:19a). I think "all" is a pretty big number.

Christ is our peace,

Paul

Dear Paromer,

This only proves that the Catholic Church, being part and parcel of Western society, has the structural capacity of contributing to societies needs. Thus, we should thank them for this ability.

It also proves, that our Lord made societies as well as people 'different'. Each should be recognized for the gifts they contribute for the benefit of our souls, and His glory.

Zenovia

Zenovia,

You say that so well.

St. Augustine said, "Unity in necessary things, liberty in doubtful things, and in all things charity."

Christ is our peace.

Paul

Dear Jennifer,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have been officially Roman Catholic all my 30 years, a practicing Catholic for the last six and a half years, and an unofficial Byzantine Riter for almost two years. I have felt strongly tempted to go Orthodox, especially when I see the stupidity and religious relativism that's unofficially being taught by our so-called spiritual leaders.

I have resisted the temptation to leave the Catholic Church because St. Peter was given a special primacy.

In Matthew's Gospel, all of the Apostles (the form of "you" in this verse is plural) were given the authority to "bind and loose" (to declare something lawful or unlawful; really, a better translation would be "open" and "shut."

But only Peter was given the "keys" (Jesus uses the singular form of "you", showing that He was addressing only Peter). The "keys", if you look at Isaiah 22:22, signifies tremendous authority; in short, Christ is making Peter His "Prime Minister."

Think about it: if all bishops (successors of the Apostles) can "open" and "close", but only Peter has the KEYS, what does that say? Seems to me that the bishops of the Church need to be in communion with that Bishop who holds the keys if they are to be able to "open" and "shut."

Okay, that's my theological argument. Now for my historical argument:

When serious heresies sprung up in the East (especially regarding Christ's divinity), it was to the Pope of Rome that the Eastern Church turned for help, and it was thanks to his help that the heresies didn't destroy the Church.

Today, sad to say, the Eastern Orthodox Churches allow divorce and have even caved in on the sin of artificial contraception. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church which has remained faithful to ALL of the teachings of Christ, regardless of what the bishops and priests personally say or do.

Has the authority of the Pope been abused? Certainly. Have popes done scandalous things? Absolutely. But because his authority is abused doesn't make it illegitimate.

The idea of a totally concilliar Church, with all bishops being equal, has never made much sense to me, and seems to be a recipe for division... like a body without a head. There is really nothing keeping Eastern Orthodox churches in communion with each other.

For the above reasons, I remain in communion with the Catholic Church and the successor of St. Peter.


- Karen

But our faith keeps us in communion with each other. Granted we are a cantankerous lot with plenty of arguments between us to last a lifetime but with a very exception, there is a unity of faith within the Orthodox Church.

This should not be taken as an attack on the Catholic Church but there is a sizable minority within it (especially in the "First" world which seems to challenge long-held assumptions and beliefs of the church (we haven't had any problems with women wishing to becomes priests, for example but who knows what the future bodes...)

Anton

You're NOT wrong. The U.S. "episcopate", by and large is about as "Catholic" as the Arian bishops were............

Dear Friends,

I think we need to be careful about suggesting that the Roman Church is true because it has a higher standard of morality than anyone else.

I don't see that as part of the argument for a Petrine Primacy in this case.

What Orthodox Patriarch ever spoke in favour of abortion, birth control etc?

And yes, Rome is against artificial birth control, abortion and celibate priests abusing children . . .

I think this forum is the only place where I've come across Latin Catholics who affirm the teaching against artificial birth control.

And if we are saying that those Latin Catholics who flaunt the Church's law on these issues are excommunicated, then the Latin Church is a small entity indeed.

Again, the point is that the Orthodox Church does NOT deny the Petrine Primacy.

It is because it considers Rome to be cut off from the true Church that Rome has forfeited its rights to the Primacy.

When that is healed, the Primacy can be restored throughout the entire Church.

Eastern Catholics believe that the teachings of Rome do not contradict what they believe the ancient teachings of the Church express and that, therefore, there is no reason to continue to maintain the schism.

Alex

I highly agree with my friend and tv celebrity Alex on this one, we must be cautious with the labeling the Church at Rome the"True Church".

For there is much Truth in the East & West, just expressed a might different.

My 2 zolties worth,
james, often called a "Roaming Traditional Catholic " , stuck on the fence .

Alex- you are obviously hanging around with the wrong crowd. My friends have large families: four is considered a small family, like it was when I was growing up, more commonly they have from seven to twelve children. I have four children, but then I married late. However, I have a much younger wife and I doubt we are through. NFP may be fine for some [and I can think of several reasons why we would be justified in stopping with our four] but for those of us who are tempermentally incapable of keeping track of our car keys, the idea of approaching the marriage bed with a periscope and a tape measure [or whatever it is they want you to do] is a bit daunting. Besides, we LOVE babies, and when our little ones get to talking in whole sentences we miss having a baby around...
And what Orthodox patriarch has condemned contraception? It is the silence that deafens.
peace, Daniel

Dear Daniel,

It is true that the church in Canada is somewhat more liberal than what you have in the U.S. (for example, there was a lot of opposition here to having Mother Angelica's station etc.)

But I know lots of priests who have told me their views on artificial contraception, including two canon lawyers and professors. I won't repeat what they have told me they tell people in confession, but, believe me, you wouldn't like it (and neither did I).

The Orthodox do take part in pro-life rallies and otherwise support that.

And whether one can draw a moral distinction between "silence" on the part of Orthodox Patriarchs who expect their faithful to know the canons of the Church, and pronouncements from Rome that Catholics, Catholic priests and bishops, as well as theologians, would contradict, publicly or privately, - I think the Orthodox are better off.

At least they don't suffer the insolence of their faithful contradicting their hierarchs, as often occurs in the Catholic Church.

Alex

Alex- It's hard to contradict a non-teaching, isn't it? I think the clarity of Catholic opposition is a much better situation, dissidents be damned.
And the situation is getting better, if you haven't noticed. I would wager a poll of priests ordained in the last fifteen years would show overwhelming support for Church teaching on contraception.
I would also note that a disproportionate number of these younger vocations themselves were raised in non-contracepting families....
-Daniel

I've generally tried to stay out of controversial topics on the Forum of late; I prefer simply to read, draw my own conclusions, and try to respect the beliefs of others'.

However, Alex, I must say that it makes no sense to say the Orthodox are "better off" on the contraception issue because their hierarchs don't specifically condemn it, or Orthodox teaching doesn't specifically condemn it.

The Church has always had dissidents- - -both within the hierarchy and in holy orders as well as outside of them. The difference is that every Catholic knows, or is able to find out, what Catholic Teaching is concerning contraception.

Who the heck cares what some canon lawyers or priests say about it? They're not the ones creating dogma for the Church; they are only spewing venom. But for me, I rest well in the fact that I know what the Church teaches concerning contraception, whether or not 99.9% or 0.5% of the Church acknowledges it.

Common explanation of Church Teaching wasn't all roses during the Arian Crisis, either.

But at least we can ascertain what Holy Mother Church has taught since time immemorial, and for that I am very grateful.

Anyway, I've said my peace and don't plan on revisiting this subject- - -I am more and more often finding it much more calming to read other's opinions than to share my own, unless I feel it completely necessary.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

Actually, I know that Orthodox priests prepare their faithful for marriage by giving them the ancient teachings of the Fathers about the evils of artificial contraception (which they did regard as being abortifacients etc.)

One problem is that Latin Catholics who know about their church's teaching on birth control and ignore it seem to think that it is a teaching invented by recent Popes.

And they also seem to think that a future "modern" Pope can abrogate it.

The reason the Orthodox are "better off" is precisely because they appeal to Tradition and know their bishops are but the bearers and defenders of that Tradition.

The RC Church's papal tradition seems to have the Pope say "this is so because I say so" has the negative consequence of seeing a teaching as rooted in a given historical pope and therefore as something that can be changed at the whim of a future pope.

Our Catholic moernists do indeed pray for the coming of a less traditionalist pope who will ordain women etc.

But the RC Church is so divided along traditional and modernist lines that it is difficult to speak to one or the other without getting the feeling that one is "out of sync" with the Church's teachings - as either side understands them.

My modernist Catholic friends from school and at work see the current Pope as a 'superstar' but one whose time is running out and who will make room for a less "reactionary" pope.

EC's and Orthodox simply don't have that kind of problem because we have Tradition - you either accept it or you don't and if you don't, then you are outside the Church.

And I wouldn't take your argument or that of Solanus and others here to present to modernist Catholics as they will simply wink and say, "Just tell them 'whatever you say.'"

I've had that told me in Catholic high school.

That whole thing is one of the reasons that made me look Eastward with wider eyes.

Alex

Alex- That is a caricature; have you actually read Humanae Vitae ? The teaching is clearly rooted in Tradition, not some papal whim.
If the Orthodox priests you mention are counseling engaged couples against contraception, they are doing it on their own, and are not reflecting the thought of their Churches, which allow contraception.

Why did the Papal Commission set up by Pope Paul VI to study the question advocate liberalizing the teaching on birth control?? Surely they were not Freemasons or Marxists conspiring against the Church???

Dear Daniel,

I was going to mention this well before you even brought up Humanae Vitae, but I thought why bother.

How individual Priest's speak with married couples in confession or in confidence is a personal matter. However your implication that the collective thought of the Orthodox Church is to allow contraception for married couples is the result of your own conclusions. I would think that at the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Council a statement should be made.

Anyway, be advised that some of us live in America and may have a limited view of the Orthodox Church. Many people and Orthodox Hierarchs have read Humanae Vitae and have commented on it.

Here is an example which is a communication to Pope Paul VI in 1968 from the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Patriarch Athenagoras.

(We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God's help to continue your mission in the world.)

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

A certain local Roman Catholic Elementary school recently held a mock debate pitting two female students, one representing Bush the other Kerry and the subject of planned parenthood came up. The Kerry "proponent" argued that it is a womans right to have an abortion and should have the freedom to choose. The Bush "proponent" argued against it. Some of the students cheered the argument for choice vs. Pro-life. One wonders if they were cheering for the ability to debate the subject or were they cheering the Kerry side of the argument?

JoeS

Matthew- I hadn't ever heard of the EP's response to Humanae Vitae; that is refreshing.
I am basing my observation on what I know of Orthodoxy in this country. Perhaps that is a strength of Catholicism: because of the papacy, it by nature transcends local cultural and social pressures. Though not necessarily by the members of those cultures! As we American Catholics well know. But still, we know where to turn to hear a voice that is unfettered by our limits.

Dear Daniel,

Actually, I don't think it is a caricature.

I've read Humanae Vitae and when it came out, I presented a paper on it in my graduate class on its connection with developmental issues in the Third World.

I'm simply saying that the impression is sometimes there that the Pope, rather than tradition, is who defines morality - and there are liberal Catholics who see the coming of a liberal Pope as the time of their vindication.

Your own comment on the Orthodox is what also gives the impression that if a patriarch, like the pope, hasn't taught or defined something, then it is a "non-teaching."

As with the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption et al., that is simply not the case.

Alex

Dear Daniel,

But please remember - there's nothing I loathe more than artificial birth control.

As you say on another thread, we need more children to fill the pews in our churches (if our parish is into pews that is!).

And my school needs more kids too - at our parents' meeting, I told the parents to reread Humanae Vitae and to take it to heart . . .

Alex

Brian- Whether the members of the commission which recommended changing the ancient prohibition were Freemasons or Marxists I don't know. I do know they were children of this world and were following its dictates and Pope Paul VI was following the Holy Spirit.
Alex- Yes, the world treats the Church like it can evolve in whatever direction humans decide to take it, and worldlings among the Church treat it the same way.
And no, a Patriarch's silence does not necessarily mean anything, only when it is combined with widespread violation of the ancient canons and justification for this among his theologians.
I know we argue a lot but anyone who loathes artificial birth control AND prays his beads is all right by me.

Dear Daniel,

To bead or not to bead - there really should be no question . . .

And I'll do one more plug for Tammy Kelly, our great beadswoman!

As for the last part of your post on the widespread violation of the church's canons - how many Canadian Catholics DO you know . . .

Alex

How exactly do you know that?????? How can you make such a blanket condemnation of members of that commission?? Also, Humanae Vitae did not invoke infallibility but like all Encyclicals was to be read and received by Catholics as a part of forming their consciences, nothing more. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is involved in all Papal encyclicals???

Dear Brian,

Well, yes.

Papal encyclicals are there to instruct, teach and guide.

They aren't all necessarily "infallible," but that doesn't mean that Catholics aren't obliged to give their assent to them as to legitimate teaching of the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The same goes for the statements issued by Orthodox Patriarchs or Hierarchs.

Alex

In Orthodoxy, infallibility rests with the Church in Council not with one particular Hierarch.

Dear Brian,

As I understand my Catholicism, the Pope can indeed speak with all the bishops throughout the world in communion with him.

And even when he speaks alone, he speaks from within the context of Tradition not to create NEW tradition but to defend and/or elucidate Apostolic Tradition.

In days when heretics held sway, the voice of a single Pope of Rome was quite sufficient to defend the Faith of the Apostles when MANY hierarchs fell into heresy.

Whether it is one or many, it is the Christian Tradition that the Spirit speaks and acts through them on behalf of the Body of Christ.

That's all I can think of right now . . .

Have a great day!

Alex

[The reason the Orthodox are "better off" is precisely because they appeal to Tradition and know their bishops are but the bearers and defenders of that Tradition.]

Amen!

{If the Orthodox priests you mention are counseling engaged couples against contraception, they are doing it on their own, and are not reflecting the thought of their Churches, which allow contraception. ]

They do? Sez who?-


October 7, 2004
Russian Orthodox Church condemns contraception -

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/oct/04100710.html

http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ274.HTM

OrthoMan

Who da man?

YOU da man!

You da ORTHOMAN!!

With respect and affection,

Alex

I must respectfully disagree with this sentiment. In fact, this attitude, taken to what I believe is an extreme, is one of my few major "hang-ups" with Orthodoxy.

Tradition is extremely important when it comes to determining WHAT we believe. Our Faith is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. However, it is not always so good when it comes to explaining WHY we believe what we believe, especially in areas of morality.

Appeals to tradition when it comes to contraception fall flat on the modern ear. They appear the same as "women should not vote" arguments - because we did it like that a century ago, we must do it like that today. The modern "advancement" in artificial contraception cannot simply be seen as inadmissible because "we've always been against it" - most people believe that this is a "new situation", and Tradition does not address it. (Same for in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and other such "new" topics). It is vital for our bishops to explain, often in new ways, why our Traditional teaching is still valid. It is in this area I see little from our Orthodox brethren.

The Catholic Church has been the only major religious institution - without exception - that has been actively fighting against the evil of artificial contraception - one of the most destructive forces against the family out there. And they have been fighting it by explaining (mostly by the Pope) WHY it is so destructive to families and to women in particular. In this country at least, I haven't seen anything of that nature from the Orthodox Churches. Some (such as the OCA) seem to leave it to the individual (which in this country is like opening a loophole so large a truck could drive through it), and others seem to just say "it's always been wrong, so it's still wrong", and leave it at that. To me, this seems like a situation where the devil is attacking us with an entire army and we are responding with a water gun. We must use all the forces at our disposal to fight back, and I believe only the Catholic Church is attempting to do so in this area.

Regarding the idea that it is better to have Tradition against birth control as opposed to just the Pope, this is falling into the fallacy the media and other anti-Catholic forces wish to perpetuate. They want it to be just the one old guy in Rome against birth control, and not the Church, so they frame it such. But those who wish to understand the Church know that this Pope is simply preaching our consistent magisterial teaching without compromise. It's not his teaching, it's the Church's.

So I would say that the artificial contraception situation is an excellent example of why communion with the See of Peter is important. I believe the Holy Spirit guides that See like no other, and keeps it faithful to the Gospel. The very fact that Paul VI's advisors told him to compromise the teaching (and most thought he was personally receptive to this), and yet he did not is, in my mind, a great testament to the Holy Spirit's protection of his office. No other bishop, either Catholic or Orthodox, is so protected.

Or, as my devout Catholic father-in-law used to teach his four daughters growing up, "just follow the Pope and you'll be okay".

Dear Francis,

And I must respectfully acknowledge your argument AND disagree with it at the same time.

The Pope simply cannot be seen as the person from whom all doctrine comes - as IF any given Pope is the one who frames it.

We know that is NOT the case - but the argument of modernists is precisely that - get a "modern" Pope in Rome, and he will ordain women priests etc. etc.

It is much better to appeal to Tradition as the one constant, unchanging factor in our lives of faith.

The fact that Paul VI was advised to "change" indicates that his advisors felt he could, as Pope.

Popes have, in the past, decreed disciplines that contradicted Councils, for example.

And they were censured by Councils for doing so e.g. the move of the Wednesday fast to Saturday.

Some may believe this is a matter of small consequence.

And it is, that's not the point.

The point is that one doesn't go against a Council, even though one is a Pope.

The attitude that a Pope can overrule Councils leads to the situation where Popes set themselves up as their own rules of faith.

And, frankly, I believe that attitude is what has led to the "conservative/liberal" divide in the Latin Church today.

It is a serious divide and there is a great struggle going on, especially at the parish level.

Alex

If anyone knows where to find the full text of the Russian Church's statement on contraception, I would appreciate it if they would post it. I am not certain from the news reports whether that Church spoke against contraception in principle or only against the demographic catastrophe it has occasioned in Russia. If they did, God bless them.
The Stephanos Project,that you also linked to is quite conscious of being a minority voice in Orthodoxy trying to recover the ancient teaching.
And yes, the Holy Spirit does speak in the encyclicals, and when an encyclical echoes 2000 years of consistent teaching, as did Humanae Vitae, it is infallible. Heck, when I echo 2000 years of Christian teaching I am infallible! Why not the Pope?

Alex,

Yes, there is a illegitimate attitude among a goodly number of "conservative" Romans that the Pope is the font of true doctrine - a heresy, to say the least. He is the protected preacher of the True Faith, not it's source. Humanae Vitae is just one example of this protected preaching.

I think one should appeal to Tradition, but not solely. The Church must also be able to develop new ways of preaching the Gospel. If Paul had stuck to preaching simply the "Traditional" way (i.e. like the 12 apostles did), the Faith would have never taken hold outside of Palestine! This current Pope has done a wonderful job of preaching the Traditional Faith in new ways - something that is sorely needed in the post-modern, post-Christian world.

A good point.

What does it mean then that some Orthodox jurisdictions have not condemned birth control unequivocally and have in fact "softened" their position in recent years (I'm thinking mostly of OCA)? Did they feel that they could change Tradition? Or is it because no ecumenical council has condemned artificial contraception that they felt they could make adjustments?

I don't see a problem with the Pope going against a Council when it comes to disciplines, but not when it comes to doctrine. It seems obvious to me that disciplines are there to simply help us live the Faith, and can be changed for new situations that a council may not know about. Of course, even when a Pope overrides a discipline, it should be done with much prayer, and deep consideration for the present circumstances (and should never be done to other sui juris Churches except in extreme circumstances). I think the fact that the Orthodox only allow an ecumenical council to change disciplines, yet have not had an ecumenical council in over a millinium shows a lack of understanding of the need to preach the Traditional Faith in new ways to the modern world (whether that "modern world" is 16th century, 19th century, or 21st century).

Note: I am also well aware of the danger of taking this attitude too far. Whereas I think the Orthodox have taken an unhealthy extreme, I also think many modern Catholics have as well - often in the other direction.

As someone intimately involved in that struggle, I don't disagree with it's existence. However, I'm not sure I understand why you believe the "conservative/liberal divide" is connected to the practice of the papacy. Perhaps you could elaborate? Is it because you see each "side" simply depending on the Pope, and not Scripture and Tradition, to promote their viewpoint and that will settle the matter?

Dear Francis,

As always, I appreciate reading your posts and learning from you!

Your last point on how both traditionalists and liberals are divided on the basis of how they view the Pope - I had not thought of that and what you say is food for much thought and reflection.

I agree that both the Pope and Tradition are needed, the latter to elucidate the unchanging truths of our Faith and the former, together with the bishops, to interpret that unchanging Faith for contemporary times.

That there are issues over this in both the RC and Orthodox Churches simply shows that they both ultimately need each other in a reunified Church in which the experience of the other can be shared and adapted for the good of the Body of Christ.

Alex

I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly!

Dear Jennifer.

I advise you to stay in the Catholic Church for the following reasons.

1. Jesus gave Peter the authority to guide his Church after his Ascension. Though all the bishops are participant in the Apostolic Tradition, only Peter has the primacy.
2. John Paul II carries two responsibilities.
a) As the occupant of the "Cathedra Petri" he is the legal sucessor of S. Peter and thus Pontiff of the Catholic Church (Western or Eastern).
b) As the occupant of the "Cathedra Latronenses" he is the Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, as all the Eastern Rites have their respective patriarchs, the Latins also have theirs. The only thing is that the Western Patriarch is also the Pontiff.

Another important thing is that all the Castholic Patriarchates recognise JPII as Pope and Pontiff beacuse they are obeyent to the words of Jesus in the Gospel.
As example I can mention His Beatitude Gregor III Lahan, Melkite Patriarch. He is the 13th sucessor of Peter in the Antiochine Cathedra. Even being Peter's sucessor he knows and respects the primacy of the Roman Cathedra and this way the authority of the Pope.

In corde Christus et Maria

Nelson