|
0 members (),
528
guests, and
127
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,524
Posts417,640
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
I suspect that the position opposing Humanae Vitae on the question of artificial birth control has very little to do with Eastern Christianity and a great deal to do with feelings and American view of the world. For me it does have everything to do with Eastern Christianity and nothing to do with my emotional feelings. My world view is not American but Byzantine Christian and I try my best to view the world through that vain. I'll stick with Eastern Catholicism Which is not in agreement with Humahnae Vitae. Also, you mischaracterize the importance of the conscience in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy. From Archbishop Raya book Crowning: The Christian Marriage: Vatican Council II has clearly established that conscience is the most sacred core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. Archbishop Raya, of Blessed Memory, is an authority on Eastern Catholicism perhaps it would be wise to listen to him? Also, I am currently readings The Sacrament of Loveby Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimos, which is recommended by Metropolitian Kallistos (Ware). If you want the Eastern perspective on marriage and crowning I would suggest that book. It has depend my love for my wife and helped me see the truly awesome vocation we have as a married couple. And he is quoted by the thrice blessed Archbishop Raya in his work on marriage. Since no one can actually say what the "Eastern" Church believes on this topic To finish with a quote from Archbishop Raya in which he sums up the Byzantine Churches position, [quote]The Byzantine Church does indeed believe that the Sacrament of Crowning establishes the man and woman as prophets, king and queen of supernatural worth, and robes them with the Royal Priesthood of Christ. Their dignity is real. Consequently, their vocation will be to form personal decisions, and to judge situations, in order to find solutions to the individual circumstances of their lives."[/quote] Sounds like following your conscience to me, which again is part of the Catholic/Orthodox theological outlook. One becomes a Catholic or Orthodox Christian not to be a slave but to be free in Christ.
Last edited by Nelson Chase; 09/01/11 01:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
Since no one can actually say what the "Eastern" Church believes on this topic Why the quotes? It believes different things on the topic, depending on whom you ask. The two most common beliefs in Eastern Catholocism and Orthodoxy are either 1) aligned with HV, or 2) provided that the methods are not abortifacient (something each church condemns equally vigorously), it is a matter that is left to the couple, crowned in marriage, and their priest / spiritual father. You may find some variations on those two points, but they largely sum it up. Usually, objections to HV are that the theology espoused in it is exclusively Western and Augustinian in mode and expression, and that the actual theology that it spells out is based not on Scripture or Tradition, but in secular philosophy and ultimately unconvincing, and based less on the morality of sexuality and more on the authority of the church in maintaining positions that it is loath to relent on, since it would be "letting the Protestants win". That the East has never taken such a stand that it would need to undo is not part of the usual conversation. and cannot define what the difference in theological perspective might be on this topic except to say "follow your conscience" I didn't see that anywhere here. I suspect that the position opposing Humanae Vitae on the question of artificial birth control has very little to do with Eastern Christianity and a great deal to do with feelings and American view of the world. I think you misunderstand the topic greatly. You began this topic by asking how Eastern Catholics should discern what to accept from the Pope, but I think you have already made that decision. It might not fall in line with how other Eastern Catholics, archbishops and great holy men and women among them, view the matter. You may take up his encyclicals with all the fervor of a devout Roman and nobody will begrudge you for it, but to say that we must as well is a different matter. "Let ones conscience be ones guide" is not a Christian position. I think you are confusing "conscience" with "desires". I'll stick with Eastern Catholicism.
CDL Me too!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
I very much fear that your understanding of (the primacy of the) conscience is neither Eastern nor Catholic! Is this a reply to Nelson or JJP or who?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Unless I misunderstand Nelson, jjp, and one other poster if Eastern Catholicism were as you say neither I nor my priest nor my bishop would have anything to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
I can only conclude that you do misunderstand, I don't see how you arrived to that from my post.
Ot'ets Nastoiatel's comments are addressed to you in the subject field above his posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,520 Likes: 10
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,520 Likes: 10 |
Here is what His Grace John Elya, bishop emeritus of the Eparchy of Newton had to say: Papal Encyclicals and the Melkites: "My question is regarding the position of an Eastern Catholic (a Greek-Catholic, such as a Melchite) as to the pope's encyclicals. In particular, this came up in a discussion on Humanae Vitae and a person made the statement that the encyclical only pertained to the Roman Catholics and didn't concern us at all, especially since the "Orthodox Church" has a different position on birth control. It is my understanding that we are not "Orthodox in communion with Rome" but we are Greek Catholics in union with Rome therefore we are obliged to accept Roman doctrines such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility and their positions on birth control. Is this true? Bishop John's Answer: When we declared our union with Rome - in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances - we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be "more papist that the Pope;" but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as "Orthodox united to Rome" only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for "unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit." There is no 'Eastern truth' vs 'Western truth'. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by "party line" positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given "identity." The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say "Oh, we don't believe that in the East." This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical "dialogue." All too frequently, such "dialogue" seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak "your truth" and I'll speak "my truth" and we'll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia. As to the Catholic position on birth control, we have no choice to accept it or leave it. If we leave the Catholic position, can we still pretend to be Catholic? "Humanae Vitae" is a given. However time is too short here to elaborate on its interpretations and implications by various theologians and National Episcopal Conferences. I must add, however, that Humanae Vitae is now much more appreciated in many academic circles as we come to realize its merit, especially regarding the dignity of marriage and the great abuses in recent years such as surrogate motherhood, sperm banks and cloning of humans, to name but few. Here are two relevant canons from OUR Eastern Catholic Church Law: c. 597 CCEO: "The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held." c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching." Source: http://www.melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Thank you griego. This is my understanding as well. Truth is truth. I'm tired of playing the relativist game. I've come home and I'm not leaving.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Problem is, Bishop John's position is not that of the rest of the Melkite Synod, including both our Patriarch Gregorios and our new Bishop Nicholas. As to what Bishop Joseph Tawil, or Patriarch Maximos V might have said. . . well, the fact is, our job is to be the voice of the absent brother (that would be the Orthodox), as well as the "Loyal Opposition". As Father Lawrence Cross wrote, in Eastern Christianity: The Orthodox Tradition (p.121): Providence may intend [the Eastern Catholics] to witness of Catholicism and to Orthodoxy, showing both that there is room, in a true unity of Christ's Church, for two legitimate expressions of the one faith. Among Roman Catholics, they must defend, to the point of schism, if necessary, the legitimate claims of Eastern theology, Church life and spirituality. They must reject all encroachment upon the ancient rights and dignity of the East, such as celibacy laws for clergy. If they fail, the Orthodox will never be convinced the same pressures would not be applied to them in a reunited Church. There is a certain mindset that seeks certitude above all things. But Christianity does not offer us certitude, it offers us hope. The issues that divide the Catholic and Orthodox communions are by definition unsettled. The ambivalent position occupied by Eastern Catholics puts us in a unique--albeit uncomfortable--position of being in both camps at once, and as such, we should not be interested in certitude, but in truth, wherever it should lie.
Last edited by StuartK; 09/02/11 08:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Rather vague, Stuart. Not very satisfying. Too easy to slip into indifferentism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I'm pretty indifferent to the higher management. It is the Tradition that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
I'm pretty indifferent to the higher management. It is the Tradition that matters. I suppose that explains something.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208 |
The "higher management" has a pronounced proclivity to tell you what the meaning of the Tradition is and how it is to be lived out in the here and now.
One word for this tendency is "magisterium."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
The "higher management" has a pronounced proclivity to tell you what the meaning of the Tradition is and how it is to be lived out in the here and now.
One word for this tendency is "magisterium." That's true. We aren't Protestants or anabaptists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208 |
OK: so we have a magisterium. It's allegedly there to serve us.
Problem is, what it has to say ain't always perceived as plausible or convincing. Especially when some of its oracles have destroyed or at least maimed their credibility by, say, enabling crazy priests to molest children and then protecting and even promoting such priests.
The magisterium is often (not always) regarded as mighty intrusive and therefore a big fat pain in the toe.
Sometimes it's not easy to distinguish between authentic magisterial pronouncements and the personal, hidden agendas of it's spokesmen.
My approach is to be mighty cautious when dealing with the "God-speakers" and exercise healthy scepticism in regard to them.
Last edited by sielos ilgesys; 09/03/11 09:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
What do you do when the "magisterium" (which is a function, not an office, and most certainly not a person) belongs exclusively to one Church, and insists that its theology, spirituality and doctrinal expression is binding upon all other Churches, including those just as venerable, if not moreso, than itself? What does one do when this "magisterium", instead of preserving the Tradition intact, has unilaterally altered or made additions to that Tradition, without reference to any other Church, including those whose Tradition is as old-or older--than its own?
This is the fundamental problem: despite Vatican II, the Latin Church still thinks it is the Catholic Church, and that its doctrines, its usage, its perspectives, are normative for all.
|
|
|
|
|
