Some Reasons Why I Am Fond Of Eastern Orthodoxy

[dairygirl4u2c]

here are some beliefs of orthodoxy, that seem to make more sense to me than the catholic church's teachings. this is based on basic internet research, i can't vouch for saying it's all true for sure. conservative orthodox may not agree with some of the more modern ideas like contraception etc, but these are still the standard views as far as i can tell. i encourage corrections, and reflections on these ideas. 

 

1 atonement. jesus' death was about triumphing over death and sin and we by emulating our lives after his teachings join in that, not so much about his death involving a bunch of legalistic substitutions of himself to appease God's wrath.  

 

2 hell. they believe there is no separation from God, only that our inward disposition is a form of hell if we reject God, we can't vibe with God's ways. catholics teach historically that hell is a bunch of physical pain, albeit with the main pain being eternal separation from God. catholics officially focus on punishment, while orthodox focus on a state of being. catholics just tend to brush aside historic views and currently focus on separation, but all around it's concerning the things they teach. 

 

3 remarriage. they believe Jesus when he said in matthew 19 that you can't divorce and remarry, unless there's been adultery, sexual immorality. catholics teach no remarriage in those cases. as far as i can tell, the orthodox also dont have baseless divorce loop holes such as the petrine and pauline privileges. 

 

4 eucharistic mysteries. they prefer not to worship the eucharistic host, preferring to conclude that it's not wise to worship when we don't know when the transubstantiation occurs. just that it occurs sometime during services. 

 

5 no papal infallibility. there's too much absence of solid evidence of something akin the the papacy as currently understood by catholics, in early history. it looks more like a "first among equals", as the orthodox believe. also, 'no salvation outside the catholic church' and limbo, look like contradictions of teachings by catholics, which of course can't occur if papal infallibility is true. 

 

6 original sin. they believe mankind inherited only the propensity to sin, not actual original sin. 

 

7 contraception. while only within the last hundred years has the standard views changed, it's now allowed. of course, catholics have a great argument to be made about consistency here, and the underlying plea for solid truth. 

 

i know there's other differences like rebaptism scenarios etc etc, but these stand out to me. 

Edited June 15, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct."

-catholic encyclopedia

[Anastasia13]

1 atonement. jesus' death was about triumphing over death and sin and we by emulating our lives after his teachings join in that, not so much about his death involving a bunch of legalistic substitutions of himself to appease God's wrath.  

 

Could also be two sides of the same coin. No triumph unless he paid the price for us. No value in the substitution unless he triumphs over it.

 

 

2 hell. they believe there is no separation from God, only that our inward disposition is a form of hell if we reject God, we can't vibe with God's ways. catholics teach historically that hell is a bunch of physical pain, albeit with the main pain being eternal separation from God. catholics officially focus on punishment, while orthodox focus on a state of being. catholics just tend to brush aside historic views and currently focus on separation, but all around it's concerning the things they teach. 

If we reject God, we reject fellowhip in our hears with Him, and we have separated our souls from Him in a sense no matter how close we are. Even a new vegan may crave sustinance at a delicious BBQ/In&Out. There is a difference in emphasis-no doubt, but I am uncertain that the underlying concept is so divergent.

 

4 eucharistic mysteries. they prefer not to worship the eucharistic host, preferring to conclude that it's not wise to worship when we don't know when the transubstantiation occurs. just that it occurs sometime during services. 

Is this required of you?

 

infallibility. there's too much absence of solid evidence of something akin the the papacy as currently understood by catholics, in early history. it looks more like a "first among equals", as the orthodox believe. also, 'no salvation outside the catholic church' and limbo, look like contradictions of teachings by catholics, which of course can't occur if papal infallibility is true. 

No salvation outside of the Catholic church also takes into account the concept fo the invisible church-something shared in Orthodoxy, not in the same sense but in that "we know where the truch is but we do not know where it is not"as long as one considers the state of the heart of a person-a humble heart after God being of importance.

 

7 contraception. while only within the last hundred years has the standard views changed, it's now allowed. of course, catholics have a great argument to be made about consistency here, and the underlying plea for solid truth. 

Don't know the history and there are different views, but for discussion's sake, my friend's EO priest wrote hist master's thesis on how when people have sex, they should always be trying to conceive a child.

 

i know there's other differences like rebaptism scenarios etc etc, but these stand out to me. 

Rebaptism depends who you talk to. If you

[Apotheoun]

 

7 contraception. while only within the last hundred years has the standard views changed, it's now allowed. of course, catholics have a great argument to be made about consistency here, and the underlying plea for solid truth. 

 

 

The Russian Orthodox Church condemns contraception as contrary to the Orthodox faith, which is why Metropolitan Hilarion - head of the Russian Orthodox Church's Department for External Church Relations - has proposed an alliance between the autocephalous Orthodox Churches and the self-governing Catholics Churches in defense of marriage and the family, and in order to promote the objective moral norm in civil society. In connection with this proposed alliance Metropolitan Hilarion said the following:

 

"Apart from the issues of militant secularism, liberalism and relativism, which I already listed, it should [i.e., the proposed alliance], in my view, concentrate on various aspects of family and sexual ethics, as well as on bio-ethical questions. The Catholic Church has already made its official position on family, marriage, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, cloning etc. known to the world, so have some Orthodox Churches, notably the Russian Orthodox Church in its Bases of the Social Conception. But where is a united position?

 

I believe that the modern battle between traditional Christianity (by which I mean primarily the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches) on the one hand and secularism, liberalism and relativism on the other is primarily centred round the question of values. It is not a theological argument, because it is not the existence of God that is debated: it is the existence of an absolute moral norm, on which human life should be founded, that is put into question. The contest has an anthropological character, and it is the present and future of humanity that is at stake.

 

By defending life, marriage and procreation, by struggling against legalization of contraception, abortion and euthanasia, against recognition of homosexual unions as equal to marital ones, against libertinage in all forms, Catholics and Orthodox are engaged in a battle for survival of the European civilization, of European peoples, of Europe as such. Let us unite our efforts and form a common front of traditional Christianity in order to protect Europe from being irrevocably devoured by secularism, liberalism and relativism."

[Apotheoun]

 

4 eucharistic mysteries. they prefer not to worship the eucharistic host, preferring to conclude that it's not wise to worship when we don't know when the transubstantiation occurs. just that it occurs sometime during services. 

 

It is not so much that Orthodox do not know when the Eucharistic elements become the true Body and Blood of Christ, because the elements are clearly consecrated during or by the conclusion of the Eucharistic Anaphora; instead, Eastern Christians do not expose the Eucharistic elements for worship outside of the liturgical synaxis because that is not their purpose. The Eucharistic elements are inseparably united to the liturgical assembly and its re-presentation (anamnesis) of Christ's saving life, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and glorious second coming. The Eucharistic elements are meant to be consumed.

[Byzantine]

It is not so much that Orthodox do not know when the Eucharistic elements become the true Body and Blood of Christ, because the elements are clearly consecrated during or by the conclusion of the Eucharistic Anaphora; instead, Eastern Christians do not expose the Eucharistic elements for worship outside of the liturgical synaxis because that is not their purpose. The Eucharistic elements are inseparably united to the liturgical assembly and its re-presentation (anamnesis) of Christ's saving life, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and glorious second coming. The Eucharistic elements are meant to be consumed.

Question: Wouldn't the bow after the epiclesis and at other times be considered "worship?"

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's lots of places on the internet that says contraception is legit within the orthodox church, such as

http://www.hli.org/abortion/138?task=view

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#Eastern_Orthodoxy

 

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Contraception

 

im sure as i said that there's sects that disagree as i said. that's all i could make of this issue. 

Edited June 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Apotheoun]

Question: Wouldn't the bow after the epiclesis and at other times be considered "worship?"

Yes, that would be worship, but it occurs during the liturgy. Even the worship of the Eucharistic elements during Great Fast occurs during the liturgy of the pre-sanctified, and not through a para-liturgical exposing of the elements for the faithful to look at them. All worship of the Eucharistic elements in the Byzantine Tradition occurs during the liturgy and with the purpose of reception of the elements in the rite of holy communion.

[Apotheoun]

there's lots of places on the internet that says contraception is legit within the orthodox church, such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#Eastern_Orthodoxy

 

im sure as i said that there's sects that disagree as i said. that's all i could make of this issue. 

Wikipedia is not Holy Tradition, nor does what is written there necessarily conform to the teachings of the Holy Fathers. That said, are their Orthodox Christians who try and promote contraception? Yes, just as there are Roman Catholics who promote things contrary to the faith. The Tradition of the Apostles is not determined by what a majority of people in a given Church may do at any one moment in time; instead, the rule of faith, which comes to us from the Apostles, is made manifest by its constant practice in the Church everywhere, always, and by all.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the edited link seems a little more authoritative 

 

-----

 

quote from St John Chrysostom

From the page on Sex:

"Saint John Chrysostom writes: 'If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want' (On Virginity, quoted by [George] Gabriel, [You Call My Words Immodest], p. 3)."[5]

This seems to be a clear approval of contraception. --Fr Lev 01:41, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

 

Edited June 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Apotheoun]

the edited link seems a little more authoritative 

 

-----

 

quote from St John Chrysostom

From the page on Sex:

"Saint John Chrysostom writes: 'If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want' (On Virginity, quoted by [George] Gabriel, [You Call My Words Immodest], p. 3)."[5]

This seems to be a clear approval of contraception. --Fr Lev 01:41, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Periodic continence is not contraception, and in the Byzantine tradition the marital fast, which is not about spacing births but is about prayer and fasting in order to grow in the spiritual life, is a custom of Apostolic origin.

 

As far as the quotation is concerned, it has been nicely ripped from its context, a context that actually involves the promotion of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. St. John Chrysostom did not believe in contraception, which he referred to as a form of murder in his homilies on the book of Romans.

 

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His natural laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks." 

 

+ St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, no. 24

Edited June 16, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

 

This seems to be a clear approval of contraception. --Fr Lev 01:41, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

The bold faced word is important. Sometimes what seems to be the case is not in fact true. Context is everything.

[dairygirl4u2c]

seems is indeed an important word.

 

in the st john quote just mentioned it seems he might be talking about contraception as a way to never conceive. at least it's possible that's what he meant. the first quote by him is more specific and is hard to really argue against... 

"come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving"

[dairygirl4u2c]

seems is indeed an important word.

 

in the st john quote just mentioned it seems he might be talking about contraception as a way to never conceive. at least it's possible that's what he meant. the first quote by him is more specific and is hard to really argue against... 

"come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving"

[Apotheoun]

seems is indeed an important word.

 

in the st john quote just mentioned it seems he might be talking about contraception as a way to never conceive. at least it's possible that's what he meant. the first quote by him is more specific and is hard to really argue against... 

"come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving"

Where does the quoted text come from? It comes from a treatise on virginity, not contraception. St. John in the text, and again the quotation has been ripped out of its proper context, is talking about whether there is an absolute need to procreate - with due regard for the fact that the resurrection of the body is now possible. He is not saying that a married couple should avoid having children through unnatural and unlawful means, which he condemns outright in his homily on Romans. That the quotation when not seen in its proper place within the entire treatise on virginity can be used to support something immoral is not hard to grasp. I can twist your posts in a similar fashion if I want to, but it would not prove anything.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Apotheoun