www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic looking into Eastern Orthodox - need help

I only asserted that claiming what Father Stephanos said was false - from the standpoint that it either objectively is, or is not something in a book he has - is problematic. Before we go making it sound like Father is a liar, we should have the courtesy to ask this priest if he would do us the good favor of citing the source of his contention.

The way the objection was phrased, it made it sound like Father Stephanos was being accused of making something up. I do agree it would be wise from the get go when making such an assertion to immediately offer references.

That being said, there are some Orthodox writers and organizations that have been dissatisfied with some of the statements made in the past two decades by churches and hierarchs. Folks invovled with the Stephanos Project [web.archive.org] (an Orthodox lay initiative) have themselves expressed some concern over the appearance of ambiguity in some statements made, and a recent article by Owen the Ochclophobist sites an article [ochlophobist.blogspot.com] from an Orthodox pro-life newsletter of a decade ago taking to task some statements they themselves found problematic.

All that being said, a Catholic friend of mine is always amazed at the Orthodox presence at Pro-life rallies in Washington, D.C. that he attends. I wouldn't point to any of these problematic writings (some of which I readily concede exist) to demonstrate anything more than the personal speculations of their authors. They clearly don't represent the ideals of the ancient Church which Orthodoxy prides itself on making every effort to uphold.

Joe how would you get around having charges of relativism or consumerism being leveled at you for such a statement? Trying to better understand your thoughts on this, but it seems that you are offering a sort of metaphyscial shopper's guide to finding the right church for "your active lifestyle". On the face of it, it almost sounds like a real estate agent advising a midwesterner to weight the merits of East-coast living v. West-Coast living based on the merits of wether they are more of a "Manhattan man" or a "SoCal Living sort of guy". If this is the case, one I suppose could expect a population shift between these two communions based on personality types... "You guys that like to have everything spelled out and defined, go Roman! - You folks that prefer more fluid, less hard-n-fast definitions and more room for speculation, go Orthodox!" Certainly this would be a minority position...


A qualification a lot of people privately make in their explanation. With all due respect, we should all be afforded the time and education to wade through some of these weighty matters well above the pay-grade and scholarly capacity of 90%+ of the world... (I went to college, but ask me the difference between RNA & DNA - something I must have known to pass tests at one point - and you will be met with a blank stare.) I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable for some of us in turn to ask (especially after hearing your qualifications) why these important matters aren't more clearly annunciated officially. More bluntly, in the OCA's website, the matter of contraception being allowable is addressed. On hear you and many others qualify it with an insistence that "well of course abortifacients are not allowed, we all know that!" Some of us are wondering why some materials and literature like the OCA website doesn't so very simply and quickly make this clarification as well. Given how "The Pill" is the single most popular approach to contraception among married people in the culture that the OCA's membership and wider "seeker audience" is coming from, doesn't it seem incumbant to point out that inasmuch as it is often abortifacient, "The Pill" would be off-limits?

Apropos invitro, I will simply say this is a matter where - to take this stand you assert - there essentially is a need for faith and science to be co-workers in the service of truth. To make an informed decision about IVF, one really has to have a grasp of the science behind it... When one becomes aware of the probability that process will demand multiple tries using multiple embryos, most of which will not be expected to implant and live (some of which will be stored for a later date or destroyed if implantation works)... Well in defense of Rome, I see some of the high-level scholarship as largely being in the service of the Christian faithful to help them make informed decisions.

A few months ago while folding my laundry I caught the last 45 min of a lecture on EWTN on stem cell research given by a priest with advanced degrees in ethics and biology. He was eloquent and able to communicate at a non-grad student level, and the arguments he made were cohesive and cogent. While some would decry this as another example of the Catholic Church being too "sciencey" and "legalistic" I viewed it as the sort of precision that I would reason we can hope for from a living breathing Church established by Christ to guide the faithful through the pitfalls and perils of a modern, ever more complicated world.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not mean for it to "sound like Father is a liar". My apologies if it was interpreted as such. The falsehood is contained in this "Orthodox catechism" which apparently condones abortion.

I am waiting for a reference.

Your points are well taken. I am not saying, by the way, that Rome's teaching on this issue is wrong. I was merely saying that I'm not convinced that it is proven to be correct. I will say that I do, in fact, find IVF problematic for a number of reasons. I just don't deem myself competent to say unequivocally that every instance of IVF is sinful.

Joe

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23777134-2,00.html

We can agree that this certainly would be (I hope). And this is where I think we've opened Pandora's Box. We have lacked a sufficient ethical construct to answer what is demonstrably acceptable and what is not acceptable. Many people have painted the whole thing gray and hope that in the fulness of time our betters will separate the white from the black. I much prefer a 'look before you leap' mentality especially where human lives are concerned.

Let us agree on what respects His will and then see what science can do and not the other way around. Our science is leaping past our "popular" morality and I fear the consequences.

Hello Keith!

I too live in Colorado. There are a few bogus groups here in this state that call themselves "Orthodox" that are NOT Orthodox. If they give you an address of where their church is and you try to look it up you will find that they even lie about their church building as they have none. I do not understand the motivation of these people but I assure you that they are NOT Orthodox.

In Christ,
-Adrian

This is the one thing that concerns me about being a slavic Orthodox Christian in the United States. You have to be on guard if the random parish you may find while traveling is a canonical Orthodox church.

If I'm in Winnemucca Nevada and see what looks like a Ukrainian
Orthodox church, I can bet it probably isn't. After all, it's not in Pennsylvania.

Here in Southern California we have sedevacantist "Catholic" Churches claiming lineage from Brazil. One in particular is run by a Bishop Sebastian who has been busy handing out excommunications to those who defect from his parishes.

To make matters worse, I recently discovered another schismatic "Catholic-Orthodox" group found worldwide that claims to be Catholic and Orthodox with bishops who claim apostolic succession from that same line in Brazil and from Orthodox Bishops.

Then of course, there is Bishop "Curtain Rod."

Singing ... to the tune of "Where have all the flowers gone"

When will this madness end

When will it ever end.


One can never be too careful because not every church that claims to be Eastern Orthodox is indeed Eastern Orthodox.

In the Western Industrialized world, such as the USA, people are confused about the social role of a person. The role of a father, a mother, a circus clown, a priest, a farmer, homosexual, heterosexual, life, death. They do not know where one begins and one ends. They think that technology and enlightened philosophy can bring utopia on earth.

No Orthodox Church will ever accept contraception or in vitro fertilization as good holy practices. There are no canons that accept them in history of the world, nor will there ever be. Individual clergy's opinions to the contrary show themselves as heresies.

You noted,"No Orthodox Church will ever accept contraception or in vitro fertilization as good holy practices. There are no canons that accept them in history of the world,..." You are correct that there are no canons on the issue. My comments here are directed only toward contraception and withhold judgment on the issue of in vitro fertilization. If there are no canons in place on the issue, then birth control is not forbidden by the EOC. In fact, most Greek Orthodox clergy I know have no problem with family planning. I am sure there are some at the other end of the spectrum also. The issue is left in the hands of the family. The differences on the issue between the two churches' position on the issue is due to variances in interpretation of those passages in the Bible which are used to justify the two positions.