Zobel, how much time have you studied our faith in order to pass such judgments? Seriously.
One holy catholic and apostolic church
15,577 Views |
394 Replies |
Last: 14 days ago by Zobel
747Ag said:The Banned said:747Ag said:The Banned said:747Ag said:The Banned said:Zobel said:
Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.
Abuses to the NO I get.
Pachamama I get.
Neither of those are teachings, which I think you'd agree
But the NO itself?
All 7 sacraments changed by committee, some members of which were of dubious character. Severed the apostolicity of the liturgy. Liturgical calendar removed some seasons and further decimated our required penances. How many Catholics abstain from meat on every Friday (or substitute an equal penance)? Lectionary revised. Feasts shifted.
And all of these invalidated the faith and sacraments? They are no longer true and licit?
Read this again. Severed the apostolicity? Is this a sedevecantist argument?
Lololol... No, not sede. It's a new and novel set of rites, rites not of apostolic origin. Like I said, it was written by a committee. It didn't grow organically like the rites rites of the east and the ancient Roman rite.
And no, I'm not making a validity/liceity argument either. Vatican II and its resultant liturgical committee said our eastern brethren should retain their traditional liturgies whereas the Romans got something all together new. My guess is that we Catholics wanted to be like the others more than being ourselves. In the east, we stayed looking more like the Orthodox. In the west, we adopted more protestant ideas. Basically, most of us just have no clue as to who we are as Catholics.
I can resonate with this. I think the primary issue is that much of the rite AS IT WAS WRITTEN is not nearly the monumental change as we ended up seeing. The novus ordo still had ad orientem. It was supposed to retain Latin in pride of place. It what the bad actors did with it (bad interpretation or intentional misinterpretation) is the problem. This is why you can find reverent and beautiful novus ordos, as rare as they may be. I've been blessed to attend two in my entire life.
That said, I don't think the average Catholic wanted it. The stories I hear from the olds are stories of horror, but they stayed anyway. I think it was some very bad actors that wanted this and got it. I don't think it will stand for long. We're seeing a small movement in certain larger parishes towards a more traditional novus ordo mass. I pray it picks up steam until/if/when the TLM or a very recently novus ordo is reinstated.
Certainly. Resonates much. Circling back to some of the points between you and Zobel, the new Mass and to a larger degree the active war against the old Mass presents an obstacle to reunification with the Orthodox. I recall seeing some takes from various Orthodox circles on Traditiones Custodes and it was not favorable to Rome. We are our rites. It's my opinion that the changes we experienced in the west have yielded poor results.
Essentially agree. Prayerfully asking for change.
PabloSerna said:
Zobel, how much time have you studied our faith in order to pass such judgments? Seriously.
It's ok for him to question. We should use the same charity in accepting questions to the faith as we do from Protestants.
Catag94 said:PabloSerna said:
For me it boils down to the fruit of the tree.
Please elaborate. I love this concept myself. I just want to see how you mean it.
One of the charges brought against Jesus was when he said, "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days" - we know he was talking about the resurrection, but the others took it to mean a literal threat against the building saying that it took 46 years to build it.
I see an analogy when we get so wrapped up in the liturgy and neglect our brother/sister in need.
The message of the kingdom is a message to all. Some seem to treat it as an exclusive club for the few. I don't see it as such. We are to be salt and active in the world at the table in as many fronts as we can.
Sorry, to which part do you object?
When I said teachings are another issue I was talking about papal infallibility, filioque, whatever else.
Teaching and praxis are hand in glove, clearly.
Teaching and praxis are hand in glove, clearly.
Zobel said:
When I said teachings are another issue I was talking about papal infallibility, filioque, whatever else.
Teaching and praxis are hand in glove, clearly.
Can a teacher teach truth and fail to live it out themselves? Is it more important for the continuation of the faith that the teaching is sound, or that the practice is perfect. Ideally it's both/and, but if we have to pick?
I am not sure I understand what you're getting at.
What I was saying was set aside the filioque and papal fallibility issues, the stuff going on that I mentioned is a problem in and of itself. Even if we magically fixed the one, the other would remain as a barrier to union.
What I was saying was set aside the filioque and papal fallibility issues, the stuff going on that I mentioned is a problem in and of itself. Even if we magically fixed the one, the other would remain as a barrier to union.
Zobel said:
I am not sure I understand what you're getting at.
What I was saying was set aside the filioque and papal fallibility issues, the stuff going on that I mentioned is a problem in and of itself. Even if we magically fixed the one, the other would remain as a barrier to union.
What I'm trying to say is that what you see as a barrier to union in the liturgy falls under what we would label as a discipline. The teaching on what the mass is and does has not changed. What it looks like has changed a few times in history and can change again. For example, we have writings that talk about receiving the Eucharist on the hand. That changed to increase reverence. I believe it should have stayed that way, but to change it back to allowing receiving on the hand is a discipline. A prudential judgment that was either right or wrong and will be judged by its fruits.
I pray that one day a truly reverent liturgy is fully restored, but the teaching and prayers behind the current liturgy is sound. Hence it is a valid mass and valid sacrament despite how ugly it came sometimes look.
However, in my opinion, incorrect teaching cannot stand. That's why I brought up the contraception issue. If there is a blanket ban for over 1900 years due to the teaching of its inherent evil against God, how can the church possibly relax on this? To say it is an evil for all that time only to relax it to a sort of judgement to be made by the married couple is to say the church was wrong in its teaching for 1900 years. It's not this form of the mass or that. It's changing the very essence of right and wrong.
Morality itself has either changed, or the church was wrong about morality all along. Idk how to get on board with that.
This is why I give pope Paul VI credit. Despite all the pressure from both inside and outside the church, he told the cardinals, bishops, priests and layman that the contraception ban was, is and always will be the truth. So when Catholics cling to papal infallibility, it's not his prudential judgement. It's the Spirit's protection of the pope when it comes to matters of authoritative teachings.
Ok, and speaking for myself and not all orthodox people, I don't really care how you justify making those changes and saying they're reversible or whatever. Wholesale changes to your rites look bonkers from the outside. Why would we want to mess with that?
The church's stance hasn't changed on contraceptives. Not sure why you keep beating that drum.
The church's stance hasn't changed on contraceptives. Not sure why you keep beating that drum.
Zobel said:
Ok, and speaking for myself and not all orthodox people, I don't really care how you justify making those changes and saying they're reversible or whatever. Wholesale changes to your rites look bonkers from the outside. Why would we want to mess with that?
The church's stance hasn't changed on contraceptives. Not sure why you keep beating that drum.
Most Catholics in the 1960s and 70s thought it looked bonkers. After learning more myself, k agree it looks bonkers. Don't blame you there.
Before I beat the drum again, do you mind telling me what you believe the historical and current teaching on contraceptives is for Orthodox Church? I don't want to claim something on your behalf.
That being open to and having children is part of the marriage bed. Abortifacients are abortion. Natural methods and the medical use of hormonal birth control is part of pastoral and marital economy.
Zobel said:
That being open to and having children is part of the marriage bed. Abortifacients are abortion. Natural methods and the medical use of hormonal birth control is part of pastoral and marital economy.
But that's not the historical teaching of the church. ALL methods that separate potential procreation from the marital act is evil. Church father after church father after church father wrote on this. What you typed is exactly why I keep bringing it up. The EO changed their teaching on morality. What was once immoral become moral if "done correctly". I don't see how to reconcile this.
I know you appreciate Chrysostom:
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], 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 meneven to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).
Numerous other references here: https://www.catholic.com/tract/contraception-and-sterilization
yeah, man, you're misunderstanding.
natural methods mean the natural family planning / 'rhythm method' or similar... which the RCC explicitly endorses.
medical use of hormonal birth controls means there's an actual medical issue going on, which is why its something to be dealt with by pastoral and marital economy. "i don't want to have kids right now" is not an actual medical issue.
nobody changed anything.
and even if -- canons are canons. standards. their application is to be done by bishops. you effectively have one bishop - the pope. each and every one of our bishops function exactly like the pope. if a person goes to the pope with a difficult question between goods - like, hey, i have a serious health problem that can be treated with hormonal birth controls, but that obviously is a problem - and after discussion he blesses their use - who are you to gainsay that? bishops are not constrained by canons, their job is to apply them for the benefit of their flock, and their responsibility for that application is to God. where the RCC defaults to legalistic approach (and i don't mean that as a pejorative, i just don't have a better adjective) the Orthodox default to economy.
natural methods mean the natural family planning / 'rhythm method' or similar... which the RCC explicitly endorses.
medical use of hormonal birth controls means there's an actual medical issue going on, which is why its something to be dealt with by pastoral and marital economy. "i don't want to have kids right now" is not an actual medical issue.
nobody changed anything.
and even if -- canons are canons. standards. their application is to be done by bishops. you effectively have one bishop - the pope. each and every one of our bishops function exactly like the pope. if a person goes to the pope with a difficult question between goods - like, hey, i have a serious health problem that can be treated with hormonal birth controls, but that obviously is a problem - and after discussion he blesses their use - who are you to gainsay that? bishops are not constrained by canons, their job is to apply them for the benefit of their flock, and their responsibility for that application is to God. where the RCC defaults to legalistic approach (and i don't mean that as a pejorative, i just don't have a better adjective) the Orthodox default to economy.
Zobel said:
yeah, man, you're misunderstanding.
natural methods mean the natural family planning / 'rhythm method' or similar... which the RCC explicitly endorses.
medical use of hormonal birth controls means there's an actual medical issue going on, which is why its something to be dealt with by pastoral and marital economy. "i don't want to have kids right now" is not an actual medical issue.
nobody changed anything.
and even if -- canons are canons. standards. their application is to be done by bishops. you effectively have one bishop - the pope. each and every one of our bishops function exactly like the pope. if a person goes to the pope with a difficult question between goods - like, hey, i have a serious health problem that can be treated with hormonal birth controls, but that obviously is a problem - and after discussion he blesses their use - who are you to gainsay that? bishops are not constrained by canons, their job is to apply them for the benefit of their flock, and their responsibility for that application is to God. where the RCC defaults to legalistic approach (and i don't mean that as a pejorative, i just don't have a better adjective) the Orthodox default to economy.
So you would say that the use of hormonal birth control in order to control the time frame in which children are allowed to be conceived is wrong? Hormonal birth control is only licit for non-fertility related health reasons?
ETA: in this "every bishop is a pope" framework, are you not suggesting that unity is essentially impossible? Maybe it works for a good long while, but at the the end of the day any bishop is capable of making a call that the rest of the bishops disagree with and that's a valid way of moving forward?
Quote:
So you would say that the use of hormonal birth control in order to control the time frame in which children are allowed to be conceived is wrong? Hormonal birth control is only licit for non-fertility related health reasons?
Kids are a natural outcome of sex. If you're using hormonal birth control to have sex and not have kids, there's a problem.
Quote:
ETA: in this "every bishop is a pope" framework, are you not suggesting that unity is essentially impossible? Maybe it works for a good long while, but at the the end of the day any bishop is capable of making a call that the rest of the bishops disagree with and that's a valid way of moving forward?
Or unity is possible, because that's exactly how it works. Your scare quotes is literally the EO church and the whole church til the schism.
And yes, any bishop can do that. And if he does, and it's a problem, there will be a break in communion.
Who knows, one might cut himself off from the rest of the church, declare himself the universal bishop, then infallible, then start making a bunch of changes to the rites his faithful follow. Really out there, low probability kind of stuff though.
Zobel said:Quote:
So you would say that the use of hormonal birth control in order to control the time frame in which children are allowed to be conceived is wrong? Hormonal birth control is only licit for non-fertility related health reasons?
Kids are a natural outcome of sex. If you're using hormonal birth control to have sex and not have kids, there's a problem.Quote:
ETA: in this "every bishop is a pope" framework, are you not suggesting that unity is essentially impossible? Maybe it works for a good long while, but at the the end of the day any bishop is capable of making a call that the rest of the bishops disagree with and that's a valid way of moving forward?
Or unity is possible, because that's exactly how it works. Your scare quotes is literally the EO church and the whole church til the schism.
And yes, any bishop can do that. And if he does, and it's a problem, there will be a break in communion.
Who knows, one might cut himself off from the rest of the church, declare himself the universal bishop, then infallible, then start making a bunch of changes to the rites his faithful follow. Really out there, low probability kind of stuff though.
So when I review multiple EO pastoral sites that say using contraception is a valid method to space children, how does that sit with your parish(???) and your bishops views? Are they heretical or something else? And if they are their own pope, how can you be sure that your bishop is right? For example:
https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2016/02/25/orthodoxy-and-contraception/
https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/contraception-orthodox-church/
if an (insert type) orthodox bishop here in the states decides that the metropolitan he reports to back in the motherland is heretical and splits off, is that splitting communion just a split in communion? Is this church split off just as valid as the church they split off from?
Not as a gotcha, but to try to understand your perspective, would you be willing to answer my Peter in the minority hypothetical I posted yesterday?
Lastly, you haven't answered, so maybe I haven't asked directly enough: is the new rite of the mass a form that invalidates the sacrament of the Eucharist? If it isn't invalid, is your discomfort with the rite worthy of schism, or something you should advocate on changing form within the church? Or does all of this not really matter since, as a bishop, he has that right and our break in communion isn't really that big of a deal?
I really appreciate this. As an "Outsider" (to the Catholic Church) I can say that it sometimes feels that way too.
When discussing arise about "Faith alone" or "Faith plus works", the fruit of the tree is my litmus test and explanation.
All people produce fruit. For some it's fruit of the flesh, and for a few it's fruit of the Spirit.
Those who produce the fruit of the Spirit are the faithful. Those who say they have faith but only produce fruits of the flesh, are liars. True faith always yields fruits of the Spirit. The fruits (works) are the proof.
Now, setting out to earn Gods grace and mercy through works is a fools errand in that you can't.
I think through history, when the "faithful in the church" were acting out in ways that lead to these councils and their rulings on doctrine that have divided us, their actions were clearly not fruits of the Spirit.
Perhaps this is the best litmus test of all!
When discussing arise about "Faith alone" or "Faith plus works", the fruit of the tree is my litmus test and explanation.
All people produce fruit. For some it's fruit of the flesh, and for a few it's fruit of the Spirit.
Those who produce the fruit of the Spirit are the faithful. Those who say they have faith but only produce fruits of the flesh, are liars. True faith always yields fruits of the Spirit. The fruits (works) are the proof.
Now, setting out to earn Gods grace and mercy through works is a fools errand in that you can't.
I think through history, when the "faithful in the church" were acting out in ways that lead to these councils and their rulings on doctrine that have divided us, their actions were clearly not fruits of the Spirit.
Perhaps this is the best litmus test of all!
You know better than this. Is a website of a book review anything like dogma? doctrine? Of course the answer is no. Is the opinion of a parish priest on the same level as a canon even a local council? Of course the answer is no.Quote:
So when I review multiple EO pastoral sites that say using contraception is a valid method to space children,
The teaching hasn't changed. Some people don't agree with it, or don't like it. The tradition on this matter in the RCC and EO is the same. I would suggest that the number of people who do not accept it both among the laity and the clergy(!) is likely similar in both.
The formality of answering a question that was only possible to conceive of in the past 50 years - I'm talking about hormonal birth control - is an unreasonable standard in the history of the church. The church moves slowly, and in the interim, we work from principles and tradition out. Which is why I say it is much more important to affirm that being open to and having children is part of the marriage bed. Everything else flows from there. You'll note that this would also affirm the traditional teaching of the RCC that natural family planning is also not something to be done except in grave circumstances. Here we have probably the actual difference between the two. The RCC tends to emphasize the procreative aspect, and the EO probably tends to emphasize the uniative aspect.
In the meantime, we have pastoral economy which includes guidance from and obedience to our bishop.
I was never under obedience to Metropolitan Ware (memory eternal), but my own bishop. I can only speak for the guidance my parish priest gives, which is what I've described above. That also isn't how "heresy" works, and I think you know that as well. Even if there was a radical departure in teaching, that would be between my bishop and someone else's - and the decision of how to address that, which could lead to a break in communion, is absolutely not my decision to make (thank God!).Quote:
how does that sit with your parish(???) and your bishops views? Are they heretical or something else? And if they are their own pope, how can you be sure that your bishop is right? For example:
As to how can I be sure my bishop is right? I mean, surely you see the irony of this question given the overall topic of conversation?
I don't know. Just because you're a bishop doesn't mean you're not under obedience. When it happens, I'll let you know how the bishops handle it.Quote:
if an (insert type) orthodox bishop here in the states decides that the metropolitan he reports to back in the motherland is heretical and splits off, is that splitting communion just a split in communion? Is this church split off just as valid as the church they split off from?
I don't know what you're referring to here.Quote:
Not as a gotcha, but to try to understand your perspective, would you be willing to answer my Peter in the minority hypothetical I posted yesterday?
You're starting to talk like an RCC with legalese that I'm not sure I know the specific meaning of. I think what you're asking me is - even with the stuff going on post Vatican II / NO is the Holy Spirit still present in your Eucharist? I would say that I do not and will not have an opinion on this. It is so far from being my business or something I could opine on. I certainly hope it is. God is merciful, even to groups in schism.Quote:
Lastly, you haven't answered, so maybe I haven't asked directly enough: is the new rite of the mass a form that invalidates the sacrament of the Eucharist? If it isn't invalid, is your discomfort with the rite worthy of schism, or something you should advocate on changing form within the church? Or does all of this not really matter since, as a bishop, he has that right and our break in communion isn't really that big of a deal?
Taking the approach above, though, let's look at this on a principles basis. Is there a point where something would become unacceptable? Yes. For example, idolatry or sexual immorality being part of the service, or some kind of theological confession that shows a difference in the God we worship. There's a massive area between the 'clear and easy' things and the 'complete unity' things.
I don't think we are on the same page as to schism. Schism isn't the same as a break in communion. Schism is a break in communion plus an active denial of the validity of the other, as evidenced by setting up competing churches against the other. So what made 1054 schism vs break in communion was when (forgive me) Rome began setting up Latin churches in Greek episcopal sees. A break in communion doesn't make two churches. Schism does.
I didn't say a break in communion wasn't a big deal. It is a tear to unity. At the same time, the bishop has the authority to do that. Whether he has the right is another matter entirely.
I want to come back to this:
Unity is not found in having a single monarchial bishop over all bishops at the top of the hierarchy. Unity is found in the Eucharist, in Christ, which is why the fathers say that the bishop and the laity is the catholic church. I think this is a very great temptation for people in your position.Quote:
in this "every bishop is a pope" framework, are you not suggesting that unity is essentially impossible?
If I could rephrase your objections here, it seems that you're saying something like "if each bishop has the same authority as the pope, there is risk of chaos and change." Again... there is some irony here, don't you think? Between the two sides of this, east and west, where has there been chaos and change, novelty and schism, new rites and strange teachings? Where has there been unity?
The fact that the Orthodox church operates on consensus is a guard against change, it actually makes it more difficult, not easier. And this is clear by inspection and by history.
Zobel said:
Sorry, to which part do you object?
I don't think it is profitable to go down that line of explanation when you have a clear bias. You have God given wisdom and I commend you for weighing in from the EO perspective because there is truth in much of what you write.
However, I can tell by some of your words that you have a partial understanding of why the RCC has acted in recent times on matters of ecumenical dialogue, for instance, and liturgical reforms.
I don't know why, but it is not important that one "wins" every time. It's ok to share knowledge without judging.
I understand the need to get on the same page in pastoral matters. So a council to accomplish this is important and no doubt led by the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me that the various councils were reactive and by that were divisive. Council of Trent for instance.
I just don't want to lose sight that Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for not understanding the will of God. I'm not trying to minimize the sacred liturgy, however, it has become (in the RCC) a very heated issue. So much so that some will judge the truthfulness of the people based on the location of the tabernacle or modern decor.
This is what I feel Jesus was saying to the people when they essentially boasted about the temple. Jesus wasn't that impressed.
It seems to me that the various councils were reactive and by that were divisive. Council of Trent for instance.
I just don't want to lose sight that Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for not understanding the will of God. I'm not trying to minimize the sacred liturgy, however, it has become (in the RCC) a very heated issue. So much so that some will judge the truthfulness of the people based on the location of the tabernacle or modern decor.
This is what I feel Jesus was saying to the people when they essentially boasted about the temple. Jesus wasn't that impressed.
It's not about winning. Like St Mark said:
andQuote:
There is truly a need for much investigation and conversation in matters of questionable dogmas, so that compelling and conspicuous arguments might be considered. There is profound benefit to be gained from such conversation if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the intention is not solely to triumph over others...Inspired by the same spirit [as the apostles at the council of Jerusalem] and bound to one another by love, the goal should be to discover the truth, and we should never miss the purpose that lies before us; even when its pursuit is prolonged, we should still always listen carefully to and address one another amicably so that our loving exchange might contribute towards oneness of mind.
andQuote:
We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us.
These are the points and it it always comes back to the papal claims, which gave rise to differences in confession in the symbol of faith and the rites. You can't have union without unity, and there will never be unity with the idea of a bishop with universal jurisdiction.Quote:
[The Latins and the unionist Orthodox] read two Creeds as they did before. They perform two different liturgies one on leavened and the other on unleavened bread. They perform two baptisms one by triple immersion and the other by aspersion; one with Holy Chrism and the other without it. All our Orthodox customs are different from those of the Latins, including our fasts, Church rites, icons, and many other things. What sort of union is this then, when it has no external sign? How could they come together, each retaining his own?
For man it is impossible, but for God nothing is.
I'm really glad that you and I are confessing the same creed every week.
I obviously don't think a book review is authoritative but it did a good job of summarizing the teachings of a metropolitan without having to scan multiple versions of the whole book for those quotes. The reason I see this as a huge deal is because it has change the teachings on morality itself. It is either calling a sin not sin. Or the church was calling not sin a sin for a long time. And it's being taught with authority. It's not just priests or lay people holding contrary beliefs but the public teaching of a metropolitan.
Compare this to the Catholic Church where it is clear we have bishops who want to teach it and even take it up to the line, but know they can't without facing excommunication. Our super fabulous James Martin does his song and dance but still won't outright teach against the church and he knows he can't. Any priest who publicly taught this could and should easily be laicized.
So when you say something like there being a fear of chaos and change, I mean in matter such as these. Teaching that something that has been considered a mortal sin is now somehow not mortally sinful if done correctly. It's no different than orthodox divorce and remarriage laws which I would say are serious error.
I'm not afraid of liturgical changes if the authority to do so lays with the cardinals and pope to do so and the Eucharist is still present. I don't like it, but it's doable. It's also reversible. Is the summit if the faith the Eucharist or what the mass looks like?
But if the pope changed the teaching on contraception, homosexual marriage, divorce and remarriage etc. I would have to question all of the church's long standing teachings. To say something was a mortal sin for 2 millennia only to relax on it later would be to say the church was wrong on matters of eternal importance. This is exactly why the office of pope is so important. With all the chaos in praxis of the largest church on earth, the *office* of pope helps the church to endure the crazy and stay sound in official teaching.
I'll redo the Peter question in a separate post
Maybe I never posted the Peter question and I just thought I did.
The council in Acts: let's say all 13 apostles are in attendance to vote on circumcision of the gentiles. 9 apostles vote in favor of mandatory curcumcison. 3 vote against. Peter adds his vote to the 3 against, making the final vote 9 in favor of circumcision and 4, including Peter against, how do you think the official teaching goes?
It's obviously a hypothetical but I'm curious what your thoughts are.
The council in Acts: let's say all 13 apostles are in attendance to vote on circumcision of the gentiles. 9 apostles vote in favor of mandatory curcumcison. 3 vote against. Peter adds his vote to the 3 against, making the final vote 9 in favor of circumcision and 4, including Peter against, how do you think the official teaching goes?
It's obviously a hypothetical but I'm curious what your thoughts are.
I am not Zobel but, where do we have a vote tally in Acts 15?
What we have is it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit; consensus.
You are approaching from a modern viewpoint. They worked together, they brought their different view points and they came together as one with the Holy Spirit to give their ruling.
What we have is it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit; consensus.
You are approaching from a modern viewpoint. They worked together, they brought their different view points and they came together as one with the Holy Spirit to give their ruling.
No, it did not summarize the teaching of a metropolitan. It summarized a book about orthodoxy written by a layman (initial version) who became a monk, priest, bishop, and metropolitan. I don't know what Met. Kallistos teaching was on contraception. Do you?
How can the church be calling something a sin which did not exist? Hormonal birth control wasn't invented until the 1950s. You're assuming they are functionally equivalent to all methods of contraception. But the church has never made the claim that all methods of contraception are identical, because NFP *is* contraception and is not inherently sinful.
You're taking the teaching of your church which has been in schism from the EO since 1054 on something invented in the 1950s and saying if there's not lockstep agreement there has been a change in teaching. Nevermind the fact that as far as I know there has been no formal teaching about hormonal birth control by the EO.
And it's the same as divorce and remarriage. These are pastoral issues. Far better to have bishops exercising judgment than legalistic (forgive me) fictions such as annulment etc. They aren't change simply because we don't agree with you. I mean we don't even have the category of "mortal sin".
A priest can be laicized by his bishop in our church for not aligning with his bishop. The problem is if we have one bishop in error, we have one bishop in error…If you have one bishop in error, the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Or you can just shrug and say well he wasn't a real pope which some are already wont to do. So in the end it just seems a no true scotsman kind of useful fiction.
In the end you're just talking in circles here. You say the pope keeps things the same by appealing to teaching and ignoring the things that are changing. You create arbitrary categories where change is permissible and others where it isn't, and handwave the changes as "reversible" and somehow unimportant. This is just sophistry. I again point to the record. Where has the consensus teaching changed? Which side of the schism has more change? Which side has more chaos? If we're appealing to the actual record it is not close.
How can the church be calling something a sin which did not exist? Hormonal birth control wasn't invented until the 1950s. You're assuming they are functionally equivalent to all methods of contraception. But the church has never made the claim that all methods of contraception are identical, because NFP *is* contraception and is not inherently sinful.
You're taking the teaching of your church which has been in schism from the EO since 1054 on something invented in the 1950s and saying if there's not lockstep agreement there has been a change in teaching. Nevermind the fact that as far as I know there has been no formal teaching about hormonal birth control by the EO.
And it's the same as divorce and remarriage. These are pastoral issues. Far better to have bishops exercising judgment than legalistic (forgive me) fictions such as annulment etc. They aren't change simply because we don't agree with you. I mean we don't even have the category of "mortal sin".
A priest can be laicized by his bishop in our church for not aligning with his bishop. The problem is if we have one bishop in error, we have one bishop in error…If you have one bishop in error, the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Or you can just shrug and say well he wasn't a real pope which some are already wont to do. So in the end it just seems a no true scotsman kind of useful fiction.
In the end you're just talking in circles here. You say the pope keeps things the same by appealing to teaching and ignoring the things that are changing. You create arbitrary categories where change is permissible and others where it isn't, and handwave the changes as "reversible" and somehow unimportant. This is just sophistry. I again point to the record. Where has the consensus teaching changed? Which side of the schism has more change? Which side has more chaos? If we're appealing to the actual record it is not close.
No idea and I don't know why it matters. I don't recall a vote. And St James renders the verdict and speaks last, as the one in charge as St John Chrysostom notes. In the end there was unity, affirmed by the Holy Spirit.
TSJ said:
I am not Zobel but, where do we have a vote tally in Acts 15?
What we have is it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit; consensus.
You are approaching from a modern viewpoint. They worked together, they brought their different view points and they came together as one with the Holy Spirit to give their ruling.
Which is why I said it's a hypothetical
Ok so let's really test it then, Peter vs the 12. He is the only one against. He was given the keys. Does a vote even matter?
What role do the apostles play? Do they get a vote?
What role do the apostles play? Do they get a vote?
TSJ said:
Ok so let's really test it then, Peter vs the 12. He is the only one against. He was given the keys. Does a vote even matter?
What role do the apostles play? Do they get a vote?
Multiple things in multiple places. In this particular setting, it's to pray, advise and work with him to settle the matter. This is how we see papal statements usually work.
But for the sake of the hypothetical, I would think the others would acknowledge his say, even if begrudgingly.
Instead in scripture we see the opposite, and St Paul publicly rebukes him.
Zobel said:
Instead in scripture we see the opposite, and St Paul publicly rebukes him.
Rebukes his actions, not his teachings, which the Catholic Church teaches. In fact he uses Peter's teachings against Peter. Our first example of a hypocritical pope and why Catholics, while wishing and praying the current papal issue was better, don't have to worry
He started writing while a monk. He updated it though his career, much of it as a bishop. And we do know his teaching because he wrote it down. There's actually several writings from synods, priests, abbots, Patriarchate, etc. allowing for this sort of contraceptive usage when we have church father after church father condemning the sexual act when anything contrary to reproduction. It can be unitive, sure. But it can't be intentionally sterile. And the Holy Synod of Constantinople published a document saying opposite.
*I fail to understand how the EO arrive at "official teaching" or something like it, so if these aren't definitive enough examples, I'm open to hearing what does qualify as definitive*
This is where the idea of hormonal birth control being "new" comes in. It's an artificial hormone made in a lab and marketed for the purpose of being able to have sex without the fear of conceiving. It's not "something new". It's just a new way to do something old. We use to immobilize joints after ligament surgeries. Now we know that it's better to be mobile immediately. This is just a new treatment for the same problem of fixing a ligament injury. The pill does that same thing all other artificial contraception did (sterile sex). The fact that it sterilizes sex differently doesn't matter. I'm not asking the church to solve a brand new problem in 70 years (not 50). I'm asking the church to teach what it has always taught. And all of this ignores the fact that the term we're seeing used is not hormonal birth control but "non abortifacient contraceptives". It's not even stopping at the pill.
NFP uses abstinence. No one can say abstinence goes against historical teaching. Now you can say people may abuse abstinence by applying too much science in order to thwart more life, but it's nowhere near the same thing as artificially sterilizing yourself or your wife for the sake of having sex without concern for a new baby
And same to the divorce issue. I'm not saying your teaching has changed because you don't agree with us. I'm saying that up to 3 marriages (under certain conditions) changes what the Bible said, what the church fathers wrote, and how the early church operated. It changes the teaching. Call an annulment fictitious all you want, but I know one who had it denied, and several more through friends who have had theirs denied. It a process to see if the marriage was ever really a marriage. The council of Trullio mentions the concept of nullification of a marriage. That was well before the split. Divorcing and remarrying was taught as specifically condemned prior, but now taught as possible by the EO
I know this sounds divisive, but I don't mean it to be, so I'll bring this back to the idea of "one church" and why I lean on teaching versus the rite of the mass. The liturgy of the mass as the basis of "one church" doesn't work because we've never had one liturgy. It's never existed. If that's the basis for union, then we were never in union.
If it's the idea that a rite should never change, our rite changed once or twice in the first few hundred years. Were those worthy of disunity? Apparently not. This is why I categorize it differently: it's very clearly different. We have always looked different than you, there have been changes and revisions in the past and none of this caused a schism. It was teaching that caused schism, so I don't know why you keep driving at the liturgical changes as some sort of proof that Catholicism is wrong or a barrier to reunification. It doesn't follow. No different than me saying Catholics have baptized billions of people while the EO has stayed a small, regional sect doesn't invalidate your church.
However, I can prove teaching is what divides. I can go to an Eastern Catholic liturgy tomorrow and commune. You can go to an eastern catholic Liturgy that does NOT recite the Filioque, is very reverent and should feel much more familiar to you than it does to me, and you can not. The discussion of the liturgy is secondary to teaching on tenets of the faith and has been since the beginning. Why? Because changing of the liturgy always has happened. And if it makes you uncomfortable, there are plenty of options open to you in the Catholic Church. Heck, your bishop could choose to bring his whole diocese to the Catholic Church and we won't make you change your liturgy. This is about the correct teaching of the faith
So to answer your last questions: your side has more change where it matters most. If your church is potentially sanctioning sinful actions denounced by all the fathers, that is a much larger change than anything we have. Chaos? Definitely us. But this is a result of being over a billion person church locked in consistent debate with what is now almost another billion Christians for 500 years. Growth causes issues, as the early church record, and a final, authoritative teaching is the only way to combat it.
Featured Stories
See All
12:54
12h ago
5.2k
Offering a behind-the-scenes a look at February signees of the past
by Ryan Brauninger
14:10
11h ago
2.5k
Where A&M's NCAA Tournament resume sits entering the bye week
by Luke Evangelist
Ag06Law
IRS Issuing Out Letters Denying NIL Collectives Tax-Exempt Status
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
161
Captain Hindsight 20/20
IRS Issuing Out Letters Denying NIL Collectives Tax-Exempt Status
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
73
ChiAggie2012
CFB analyst Josh Pate joins TexAgs Live as a Tuesday-morning regular
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
66
BOBHICA
Baseball America polled 50 coaches on the 2025 national champion
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
63
RAB87
CFB analyst Josh Pate joins TexAgs Live as a Tuesday-morning regular
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44