Posted on 11/21/2005 11:58:28 AM PST by NYer
Best of both worlds! The Catholic Church breathes with two lungs - a Roman Catholic may attend the liturgy or join the parish of an Eastern Catholic Church. It also helps to have a definitive voice at the Vatican ;-D
From the oca.org website, I quote the following:
"The Orthodox Church recognizes the sanctity of marriage and sees it as a life-long commitment. However, there are certain circumstances in which it becomes evident that there is no love or commitment in a relationship.
While the Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.
The Order of the Second or Third Marriage is somewhat different than that celebrated as a first marriage and it bears a penitential character. Second or third marriages are performed by "economy" -- that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule, so to speak."
This quote seems to indicate that the Orthodox Church has it both ways. Honestly, I'm more confused about its position on divorce than before. And the Catholic Church, while it doesn't permit divorce and remarriage, does provide for annulments, which involve a decision on the sacramental nature, or lack thereof, in a marriage. I see nothing about the sacrament of marriage in this description of divorce and remarriage within Orthodoxy - only situations in which there is "no love and commitment in a relationship."
Not sure if it was the History, TLC or Discovery Channel but one of them recently did a show on how Jesus communicated. They used the Sermon on the Mount to disprove He ever delivered it from a 'mount' or a valley, citing the large numbers who were in attendance. It was not possible, accoustically they claim, to project such a message from either locale. The deduction? He communicated the message through His apostles to small communities on different days. "Click" went the remote control.
" "Why Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?"
Best of both worlds! The Catholic Church breathes with two lungs - a Roman Catholic may attend the liturgy or join the parish of an Eastern Catholic Church. It also helps to have a definitive voice at the Vatican ;-D"
Trumpets our resident voice of Uniatism! :( This attitude is precisely what drives the Orthodox insane and which the Roman Church has disavowed!
And on contraception, I again quote from oca.org:
"Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a foetus already conceived." - http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19
Before joining the Orthodox Church I actually looked up that one a lot (the view on birth control and contraception).
The OCA site stands in contradiction to a lot of published official materials from the various churches.
A difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics is that there isn't one top down canon, there's several different self governing churches (Antiochian, Greek, OCA, ROCOR, Moscow Patriarchiate, etc). On issues like this there are gaps, and further within those churches there are the occasional lapses in clarity which lead to some otherwise knowledgable folks misinforming others about the doctrine, it's why I linked to a bunch of sites. You find the same thing betwen dioceases in the Catholic church.
I have seen both the "tolerated in some situations within marriage but consult your priest first" and the "absolutley wrong never do it".
There's a rather exhaustive look at the debate here:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ162.HTM
I do not suspect this is entirely undebated within Catholic circles either. (After all there are even bishops defending openly gay clergy)
And here's some Catholic bishops who do as much:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200511141386.html
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/NEWS01/511150330/1002/NEWS
I suspect if you asked anyone in a ROCOR parish they'd be 100% against contraception in any circumstances. (These are folks afterall who have a sign on the parish door reminding folks that women should cover their head in church).
Hey any chance of you helping me explain the official doctrine on contraception and divorce?
Haven't you heard the Uniate church is in no way an attempt to win over converts in Orthodox areas by exempting them from key aspects of Catholic doctrine, and giving all orthodox parishioners and clergy a free pass to join. (/sarc)
"Hey any chance of you helping me explain the official doctrine on contraception and divorce?"
Simple. Civil divorce followed by an ecclesiastical divorce and remarriage is a matter of economia and is purely and simply an accomodation to the civil society around us and has been since the first Imperial divorce statutes in, I think, the 7th century, though it may have been the 8th century. You stated the basis of that economia as well as it can be stated.
Non-abortifacient contraception is considered to be a matter between a spiritual father and a married couple. Abortion of course is condemned as a grave sin. Orthodox theology does not hold with the basically Augustinian foundation of the Latin Church's teachings on contraception. This raises another broader point. In the Latin Church, the pope, under certain circumstances can proclaim dogma and bind all members of that Church to the teaching. In Orthodoxy, nothing becomes dogma until the people proclaim their AXIOS by living out the proclaimed dogma. In the case of contraception, after what, 40 odd years, it is quite apparent that the Roman Catholic laity has not proclaimed its AXIOS; quite the contrary if polls are to be believed.
Here's a comment from the GOA website:
"Fertility control, or contraception, is the practice by which mechanical, chemical, or other means are used, either before or after a sexual act, in order to prevent fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, thus circumventing the possible consequences of the sexual act - the conception and ultimate birth of a child.
General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:
1. since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
2. contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.
Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love."
"I do not suspect this is entirely undebated within Catholic circles either. (After all there are even bishops defending openly gay clergy) "
Regardless of the opinions of some members of the clergy, even bishops, I have an objective and unchanging standard against which to measure all doctrine. In contrast, however, there appears to be little in the way of such objective standards within Orthodox Christianity.
So, even though it may be far from undebated within Catholic circles, everyone knows precisely the official stand of the Church on matters like these. I haven't found the same clarity in my research of Orthodoxy.
"In Orthodoxy, nothing becomes dogma until the people proclaim their AXIOS by living out the proclaimed dogma."
Do you mean that the faithful determine the dogmas of the faith? Then what is to prevent ANY dogma of the faith from being changed in the future?
That is such a humorous discription of the situation.
The official Orthodox and Catholic doctrine are identical, and the level of capitulation in various circles is identical. The level of false teaching against doctrine however is much higher in the Catholic church especially in America.
Paul says it's a sin for women to talk in church or pray uncovered, I don't see the Catholic doctrine following that one.
Further manditory priestly celibacy, which is also against both scripture and the early church, is forced in the Catholic church as a result of mideval politics.
What about the lack of clarity & consistency regarding primacy and papal infailbility? Purgatory?
Have you ever been to an Orthodox liturgy? Have you ever seen either the Latin Rite or Eastern Rite overseas?
I've never met only one divorced Orthodox, and I've met numerous divorced Catholics. I've never read an article about an abusive Orthodox priest and I've read at least a hundred with Catholic priest and Bishops.
Shouldn't something be said with regard to by their deeds you'll know them?
"Do you mean that the faithful determine the dogmas of the faith? Then what is to prevent ANY dogma of the faith from being changed in the future?"
Hasn't happened yet...2100 years and counting. In any event, I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. Dogma isn't dogma until the people accept it. Once accepted, it can't be changed. The only ones to do that were the Romans with the filioque and perhaps the Immaculate Conception. Beyond that, since the Great Schism there have been no great councils to proclaim dogma since the whole Church by definition can't get together. Canons do fall into disuse (ie no riding in public conveyances with Jews or using a Jewish doctor) and I suppose one might say they have been changed but of course not all canons are even close to dogma.
"I've never met only one divorced Orthodox, and I've met numerous divorced Catholics. I've never read an article about an abusive Orthodox priest and I've read at least a hundred with Catholic priest and Bishops."
Wish I could say the same. I do believe our divorce rates are lower than among most other Christians for example, here in the States its about 14% while the Roman Catholics have a rate of about 19%, but that's nothing to crow about. It is interesting to note that in Greece as a whole, the rate is about 15% while in the US its 43% and in Russia 65%!
"Shouldn't something be said with regard to by their deeds you'll know them?"
That's a positively Protestant statement. Of course you'll know INDIVIDUALS for their deeds. The Church consists not just of the wheat, but also the chaff.
"Further manditory priestly celibacy, which is also against both scripture and the early church, is forced in the Catholic church as a result of mideval politics."
You misunderstand the difference between dogmas/doctrines, which cannot be changed, and disciplines (such as priestly celibacy, Friday abstinence from meat), which are subject to change. Furthermore, the Eastern churches permit married clergy, and Rome has no problem with that. It is simply a discipline of the Roman rite.
"Paul says it's a sin for women to talk in church or pray uncovered, I don't see the Catholic doctrine following that one."
Another issue of a permissible (though not required) discipline, in contrast to a required and unchangeable dogma. Try again.
"I've never read an article about an abusive Orthodox priest and I've read at least a hundred with Catholic priest and Bishops."
I wasn't going to do this until you threw that last comment out there. Here are at least two mentions of clergy sexual abuse in the Orthodox churches:
A Call for a Reporting Policy on Sexual Abuse in the Orthodox Church: http://www.helleniccomserve.com/sexabuse.html
Ad Calls for Bishops to Account In Case of Defrocked Priest
http://www.pokrov.org/Editorials/cromidasJuly162005.html
Keep in mind that you'll obviously see more cases of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, particularly in America, because the Church is so much larger here than the Orthodox Churches.
"Dogma isn't dogma until the people accept it."
Right. In other words, the faithful have some say in what is and isn't absolute truth. I like the Roman position much better, thank you.
Thanks so much for the ping list. I converted five years ago, and these threads really help me "catch up" on all that I've missed the first 30 years of my life!
I find that I am very interested in the history of the Church - do you have any recommendations on a book to read this holiday season?
"Right. In other words, the faithful have some say in what is and isn't absolute truth. I like the Roman position much better, thank you."
Well, you demonstrate one of the differences between the One Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and what developed in the West. The Orthodox system is one of "syndeesmos" or a sort of partnership among the hierarchs, clergy and the laity, each having its own function and proper role and together making up The Church. The Roman Church is a top down system. In Orthodoxy, infallibilty rests with The Church while in the Roman system it dogmatically rests with the Pope; two different systems which, having lasted a very long time, have formed the essential, and different, phronema or worldview of each particular church and its members. As Orthodox, we believe that the Roman system has lead to error and innovation but we also recognize the historical fact that the proper exercise of the Petrine Office also, on numerous occasions in the Pre Schism Church, assured the survival of Orthodoxy against the assaults of heretical groups.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.