Catholicism Vs. Orthodoxy - Moral Issues

[Katholikos]

Reza, I'm working on a response to your Orthodox vs. Catholic post and hope to respond soon. In the meantime, let’s discuss another Catholic vs. Orthodox issue – morality.

Before 1930, every Protestant denomination taught that contraception was contrary to the will of God -- an abominable evil absolutely forbidden in Christian marriage. At the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Anglicans voted their approval of contraception in certain limited circumstances within marriage. It wasn't long until contraception was permissible in marriage under any and all circumstances. Every Protestant denomination soon caved in on the issue. Protestants can't even remember when this "abominable evil" became a recommended part of their denomination's marriage preparation and couples were advised to contracept. Now approval of this former sin is so pervasive that Protestants are usually surprised to learn that their churches ever preached against it. [b]Flip-flop. Flip-flop. It was a sin and now it's not.[/b]

From the beginning of Christianity, the One (undivided) Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has taught the sinfulness of contraception. After the Great Schism, the Orthodox Churches continued to teach that contraception was a grievous sin. But they, too, have caved in to the social pressures and have reversed centuries of teaching. Orthodox leaders not only allow contraception, but they permit a form of contraception that sometimes results in the killing of unborn babies -- The Pill – a known abortifacient. I know of no Orthodox statement favoring any particular method of contraception; the method is left up to the couple and many, with equanimity and without objection from Orthodoxy, choose the abortifacient Pill. And all the time, unlike the many Protestant denominations that support both chemical and surgical abortion, the Orthodox claim they are strongly pro-life.

My question is, precisely when did the Orthodox flip-flop and begin teaching that contraception is [b][i]not[/i][/b] a sin? When considering Orthodoxy, I saw this reversal in doctrine as a serious moral failing that disqualifies the Orthodox as the True Church.

These quotes illustrate the change in Orthodox teaching:

[b][i]The Orthodox Church,[/i][/b] by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
First Edition, first printing, 1963, pg. 302

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

[i][b]The Orthodox Church, [/b][/i]by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
First Edition, revised 1984, pg. 302

"The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father."

[i][b]The Orthodox Church[/b], [/i]New Edition, by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia)
Penguin Books, 1997, Pg. 296

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences"

END QUOTE

My other problem with morality and Orthodoxy is that they permit three marriages and two divorces. My second question is, since this is not biblical, how did they arrive at this number? The Catholic teaching is that if a marriage is sacramental (i.e., a true Christian marriage as ordained by God), separation or divorce can be permitted in certain circumstances, but remarriage is not allowed. The Church cannot condone adultery, as Orthodoxy has.

Peace be with you,

Likos

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure what rez's ideas are for you, but i would caution you about basing your choice to be catholic on simply a changing attitude towards moral things like that. now, i'm sure you base your choice on that and many other things historical. but, be sure to attack issues when people say the CC itself has contradicted itself. as not infallible, the orthodox church is free to change some, the CC cannot by its own rules. if you cannot adequately attack a contradiction that is alleged, as is my case, then you simply basing it on the morality stuff, and reasonably disputed evidence from history. which means an orthodox has just as much basis to claim legitimacy as anyone.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Contraception in the Orthodox Church is different then Roman Catholicism, in that there isn't a univeral position on it. It's important that you definately seperate some of the orthodox churches, because for example, the Orthodox Church of America is very liberal [and has alot of problem] and I wouldn't nessessilary consider it to be "orthodox" in alot of it's practices.

I find it a contradiction for Roman Catholics to point their finger at Orthodox about "not taking a firm enough stance on Contraception" and yet not having a problem with "the rhythem method" of contraception. What's the point of contraception? It's to keep a life from being conceived, the Rhythem method is just a natural method to that same institution. I'm also going to say that the Orthodox Churches have NEVER taken an official position against or for contraceptions. Individual bishops have spoken their minds about the issue, but its never been something that's been universal throughout the church.

Moreover: "The reasons" that you've given for not being Orthodox seem so distorted and petty. I'm not saying this to bash or nothing, just that you obviously don't understand orthodoxy if the "reasons" that you chose against orthodoxy was because the Liturgy of a particular Orthodox Congregation involves cultures that are foreign to you [as if culture is part of the spiritual life, which it isn't.] Particularly when there are ethnic groups [Chaldonian] inside of Roman Catholicism itself.

Reza

Edited April 29, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[RezaMikhaeil]

PS: I'm still waiting for your response to my other post about the compilation of the Bible, etc.

[Mateo el Feo]

At the risk of intruding, a comment and a question:

Comment: Reza is a member of the Coptic Church, which is Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox.

Question: Regarding the compilation of the Bible, Reza, if you had the opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the Ethiopian Orthodox's Bible canon (vs. the canon of other members in the Oriental Orthodox communion), let me know. Thanks!

[Katholikos]

Reza, I gave Orthodoxy more credit for unity than it was due. I was aware of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, but I had no idea that they were not united in belief.

Orthodox means "right belief," but how can all Orthodox Churches be "right" if there is no unity in doctrine or morals? I thought the name 'Orthodox' identified a Church as having a certain set of beliefs. I was wrong, right?

Was your question about the Bible in your long post which I'm now in the process of answering? Maybe I haven't gotten to it yet. I was sidetracked by a trip to surgery on my eye, and I'm still not seeing well.

Your patriarch (is that the right title?) seems to be more forgiving of the past than you are: (from Wikipedia)

QUOTE
In the 20th century, the Chalcedonian schism was not seen with the same relevance any more, and from several meetings between the Roman Catholic Pope and Patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodoxy, reconciling declarations emerged.

"The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon."

From the common declaration of Pope John Paul II and HH Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984

END QUOTE

Peace be with you,

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1259457' date='Apr 29 2007, 01:03 AM']Reza, I gave Orthodoxy more credit for unity than it was due. I was aware of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, but I had no idea that they were not united in belief.

[color="#FF0000"]I don't think you gave enough credit, at times either. It's true that there isn't a formal unity between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches but in reality, the only difference is that which is "phraseology" [the way things are worded]. This has been declared by Saints for quite some time, and most Bishops in the church recognize some sort of unity [IE: Allow Copts to take communion at Eastern Orthodox Churches, etc] among the Orthodox Churches.[/color]

Orthodox means "right belief," but how can all Orthodox Churches be "right" if there is no unity in doctrine or morals? I thought the name 'Orthodox' identified a Church as having a certain set of beliefs. I was wrong, right?

[color="#FF0000"]The Orthodox Churches do have a great amount of unity among moral principals and the major doctrinal points, the points that separate us are largely "phraseology" as I'd pointed out in the above sentences. IE: Eastern Orthodox define the nature of Jesus Christ as two natures that are not seperatable thou not mingled, Oriental Orthodox refer to the nature of Jesus Christ as two distinct natures that are not seperatable thou not mingled, but should be referred to as one nature because these natures are never seperatable [divine and human]. Jesus Christ was but one being, and was God while also being human. If you notice, this is just phraseology.[/color]

Was your question about the Bible in your long post which I'm now in the process of answering? Maybe I haven't gotten to it yet. I was sidetracked by a trip to surgery on my eye, and I'm still not seeing well.

[color="#FF0000"]I didn't have a question, I corrected you where you misrepresented the Orthodox Churches.[/color]

Your patriarch (is that the right title?) seems to be more forgiving of the past than you are: (from Wikipedia)

QUOTE
In the 20th century, the Chalcedonian schism was not seen with the same relevance any more, and from several meetings between the Roman Catholic Pope and Patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodoxy, reconciling declarations emerged.

"The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon."

From the common declaration of Pope John Paul II and HH Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984

END QUOTE

[color="#FF0000"]His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas isn't my patriarch, he's the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, whom I greatly admire. Furthermore, I'm more then forgiving in regards to the past but I also stand by the truth. His Holiness Pope John Paul II once came to His Holiness Pope Shenounda III [my Patriarch] and asked that Copts join the Roman Catholic Church and adopt their traditions. His Holiness Pope Shenounda III declined as such, "We Love You...." Notice that His Holiness Pope Shenouda loved Roman Catholics, but also knew that the original traditions of the Coptic Orthodox Church couldn't be compromised and so he stood by the Truth.[/color]

Peace be with you,

Likos

[color="#FF0000"]My only issues is that if you're going to make claims about the Orthodox Church, make sure that these claims are doctrinal, not just hersay. It was hersay that caused Copts to be mascured because of not having adequate representation at the council of Chalcedon. Copts were declared to be Monophysites, when in reality Copts were Miaphysites. This contributed to their persecution for hundreds [and probably thousands] of years because the truth wasn't given an opportunity to be known. I'm not going to lie, your comment about Orthodox putting emphisis on culture/race, etc. has no roots in the churches tradition and isn't part of the doctrines of the Church.

Hope your health problems get resolved,
Reza[/color][/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1259418' date='Apr 28 2007, 10:58 PM']At the risk of intruding, a comment and a question:

Comment: Reza is a member of the Coptic Church, which is Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox.

Question: Regarding the compilation of the Bible, Reza, if you had the opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the Ethiopian Orthodox's Bible canon (vs. the canon of other members in the Oriental Orthodox communion), let me know. Thanks![/quote]

Let me do some research on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, so I'm on top of my game, and I'll def start a thread about it or something

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1259276' date='Apr 28 2007, 10:01 PM']PS: I'm still waiting for your response to my other post about the compilation of the Bible, etc.[/quote]

I ask again, where is this post?

Likos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1259275' date='Apr 28 2007, 09:58 PM']Contraception in the Orthodox Church is different then Roman Catholicism, in that there isn't a univeral position on it. It's important that you definately seperate some of the orthodox churches, because for example, the Orthodox Church of America is very liberal [and has alot of problem] and I wouldn't nessessilary consider it to be "orthodox" in alot of it's practices.[/quote]

It's important to separate the Orthodox Churches because they have different doctrines in faith and morals. I don't need to separate them -- they're already separated.

[quote]I find it a contradiction for Roman Catholics to point their finger at Orthodox about "not taking a firm enough stance on Contraception" and yet not having a problem with "the rhythem method" of contraception. What's the point of contraception? It's to keep a life from being conceived, the Rhythem method is just a natural method to that same institution.[/quote]The rhythm method is old technology. The Church does not teach the rhythm method. She teaches Natural Family Planning, a sympto-thermal method. Billings also works.

"Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility. .... Never does the couple practicing NFP choose to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse -- ever" (Christopher West, [i]Good News About Sex and Marriage,[/i] p. 112-113).

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not contraception. Contraception makes sterile a fertile act; NFP abstains.

NFP is birth control God's way -- it is based on the way God made us. Contraception thwarts the will of God and is greviously sinful.[/quote]Moreover: "The reasons" that you've given for not being Orthodox seem so distorted and petty. I'm not saying this to bash or nothing, just that you obviously don't understand orthodoxy if the "reasons" that you chose against orthodoxy was because the Liturgy of a particular Orthodox Congregation involves cultures that are foreign to you [as if culture is part of the spiritual life, which it isn't.] Particularly when there are ethnic groups [Chaldonian] inside of Roman Catholicism itself.[/quote]

My reasons for choosing not to be Orthodox have nothing to do with Liturgy or cultures. The Eastern Rite Catholics have their own culture, language, liturgy, and law. But they are united with each other and with all other Catholics, professing the same Faith, sharing the same morality. I love the Eastern Catholic liturgies. I attend the Maronite, But I choose not to be involved in a schism against the Chair of Peter.

My point was that (I'll say it again) the Orthodox are autonomous Churches with no overarching connection, nothing which unifies them. They will always remain separate Churches -- unless they come home to Rome. I want to belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. It is God's will. He clearly did not intend that His Church be splintered.

Peace be with you,

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not contraception. Contraception makes sterile a fertile act; NFP abstains.

[color="#FF0000"]No Contraception is:[/color]

the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

[color="#FF0000"]Notice that it's the deliberate prevention of conception![/color]

the act of conceiving; the state of being conceived.

[color="#FF0000"]Therefore Roman Catholicism does encourage different methods to contraception, just not through the pill but for those couples not at the point in their lives to which they'd like to have children, methods to avoid a child being conceived.[/color]

It's important to separate the Orthodox Churches because they have different doctrines in faith and morals. I don't need to separate them -- they're already separated

[color="#FF0000"]Again, this is a large gross overexaggeration. There are differences but everything major we agree upon. The differences are primarily phraseology.[/color]

I ask again, where is this post?

[color="#FF0000"]The Thread it titled: How 27 Writings Became The New Testament! It's that same thread that you said you couldn't respond to because of my reply method [highlighted red].[/color]

My reasons for choosing not to be Orthodox have nothing to do with Liturgy or cultures. The Eastern Rite Catholics have their own culture, language, liturgy, and law. But they are united with each other and with all other Catholics, professing the same Faith, sharing the same morality. I love the Eastern Catholic liturgies. I attend the Maronite, But I choose not to be involved in a schism against the Chair of Peter.

[color="#FF0000"]That's not what you said in the previous thread, you said:[/color]

[quote]I also couldn’t accept the ethnic divisions within Orthodoxy. I had to choose among the autonomous Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Coptic, or other Orthodox Churches.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]And as I'd pointed out in the other thread:[/color]

[quote]This is a large misconception: Orthodox doesn't put faith in Ethnicity, this is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church puts emphisis on Europeans. History lesson: St. Mark brought the truth of Jesus Christ to the Egyptians. Coptic means "Egyptian", St. Mark didn't try and change their culture but rather adapted their culture around the message. The only difference in liturgy between the Ethopian Orthodox [for example] and the Coptic Orthodox is the language and instrumentation, etc. This doesn't mean that Copts or Ethopians are "superior" as God doesn't care, the reason that it hasn't been changed is that the Apostles gave it to us as such, and we don't believe in changing the traditions, even the slightest bit, so we keep them the same.

Romans is also a race, Chaldeon also refers to an ethnic group [both submitting to the Roman Catholic Pope]. It doesn't mean that there is spiritual significance to these ethnic groups. I'm not racially Egyptian, yet I'm not considered "lessor" of a person spiritually. St. Moses the Etheopian is one of our most honored Saints and he's racially not Egyptian but he's Coptic [was a Monk in the Desert]. The Russian Orthodox Church was founded in Russia, amongst Russians, so why wouldn't it involve their culture? The Greek Orthodox Church was founded amongst Greeks, so why wouldn't it involve Greek Culture [Fun Fact: Most Christian Palestinians are Greek Orthodox]? The Apostles didn't seek to massively abolish every culture of the people, in order to minister but "baptized" the culture.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]You'd also gone on to say:[/color]

[quote]They're too identified and integrated with the governments of those countries, IMHO. [/quote][color="#FF0000"]and my response was:[/color]

[quote]This also is very far from the truth: Syriac Orthodox [persecuted by their muslim governments], Coptic Orthodox [persecuted by their muslim government], Russian Orthodox [persecuted by the communists], and the list goes on... What do you think the Roman and Byzintine Crusades were trying to do? They were trying to use military force to get people to follow their agenda [religious and political]. Now it goes without saying that the Christians have had a posetive impact of such government secular institutions. Why wouldn't it? The Saints of Jesus Christ during the 3rd century had an impact of Diocletian's government too [caused him to go insane, as ridding the government of him].[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]It's true that we reject this tradition:[/color]

[quote]The Church needs a center of unity -- the Pope, our Papa, the successor to St. Peter. This is the biblical model of the one unified Church. [/quote][color="#FF0000"]Because we believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church, the only head of the church [which is truely biblical]. That patriarches are given certain responsibility but God is the head of the church![/color]

My point was that (I'll say it again) the Orthodox are autonomous Churches with no overarching connection, nothing which unifies them. They will always remain separate Churches -- unless they come home to Rome. I want to belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. It is God's will. He clearly did not intend that His Church be splintered.

[color="#FF0000"]To quote His Holiness Pope John Paul IV:[/color]

[quote]You are indeed the head of a church whose origin goes back to the Evangelist Mark and which had in Saint Athanasius...the invincible defender of our common Nicene faith, that is, faith in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ."[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]His Holiness Pope John Paul knew the Church's History, and therefore knew that the Coptic Patriarch was indeed the only true successor of St. Mark! He also understood that Jesus Christ was the head of our church, the head of THE CHURCH [ever rite that the Apostles founded]. St. Athansius wrote the Nicene Creed and was "the head dude on earth" submitting to Jesus Christ at the time that the council of Nicene met, it had nothing to do with the "supremacy of Rome" or anything of the sort, St. Athansus was Coptic, as His Holiness Pope John Paul pointed out!

Reza[/color]

Edited April 29, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I'll try to make a distinction between contraception and NFP. NFP utilizes a woman's physiology, contraception artificially imposes its will against the natural end of the procreative act. NFP [i]avoids[/i] pregnancy by working through nature, while contraception [i]prevents[/i] pregnancy with some artificial method. God bless!

Edited April 29, 2007 by thedude

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1259468' date='Apr 29 2007, 04:55 AM']Let me do some research on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, so I'm on top of my game, and I'll def start a thread about it or something [/quote]No pressure. I just recalled that we had spoken about this a few weeks ago.

[Socrates]

NFP and contraception are [i]not[/i] the same thing.

NFP involves periodically [i]abstaining[/i] from sexual intercourse.
Sexual abstainence is not an immoral act.

Contraception involves performing a sexual act while [i]doing something [/i]deliberately (physically or chemically) to hinder the conception.

Morally, that is a great difference. There have been a number of threads on here on the past discussing this issue in depth, if anyone cares to dig them up.

And the Catholic Church has always been firm and consistant on its official teachings on the morality of contraception, while other sects' positions have changed with time and blown in the wind.

[kateri05]

oh i'm so glad some more succint and smarter than i clarified the NFP vs. contraception point i was trying to figure out how to dive into that one!