www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why is communion with Rome important?

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???