Orthodoxy and Capital Punishment

I thought you all wanted a quote from St. Augustine... well... My point is not what the Fathers say indidually rather the consensus of the Church...does with OCA and other Hierarchs... Have any one see any EO hierarchs that talk for CP? I would like to see it too. And as far as GOA site yes... but if you are careful it says that we "obey" what the Goverment ordains as a law and we follow it... not that CP is the teaching fo the Fathers... Show me where in the whole EO consience the Fathers are clear about it or that they endorse it... There seems to me more to oppose it. I have yet to read and get my hands on St. Maximus the confessor, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory of Nyssa also St. Amrbrose and St. John Chrysostome who talks against the DP for the heretics..... But in time I will since I have access to some of my professors from the seminary. Talk to you later for now.


and God bless,
Philothei

Yes, and the GOA also seems to have a syncretistic view of salvation as revealed in the document posted in the Vatican thread.



What does this has to do with CP....

Philothei said:

Yes, and the GOA also seems to have a syncretistic view of salvation as revealed in the document posted in the Vatican thread.



What does this has to do with CP....

Click to expand...

It means that they can't always be trusted to have the proper perspective on things.

paleodoxy said:

Yes, and the GOA also seems to have a syncretistic view of salvation as revealed in the document posted in the Vatican thread.

Click to expand...

But I do think its worth noting that bishop Seraphim (his statement on the death penalty is on the Orthodox Research Institute website) is OCA.

I dont know about any bishops, but I know that at least my priest said that governments have the right to use the DP, but that it should be used selectively.

I would love for someone to produce the writings of any of the church fathers exegeting Scripture on the death penalty, and cogently explaining in careful exegetical fashion why it no longer applies.

But I don't think you are going to produce that, because they don't exist. It wouldn't even matter if you could prove that a majority of fathers personally disavowed capital punishment from the O.T. Unless the opposing view can be or has been theologically and exegetically demonstrated, there is no Tradition on the issue other than what we have in the O.T., in which case (as I have repeated on numerous occasions) that O.T. evidence constitutes the real Tradition, which means that hierarchs who oppose it are resisting the Tradition.

paleodoxy said:

I Unless the opposing view can be or has been theologically and exegetically demonstrated, there is no Tradition on the issue other than what we have in the O.T., in which case (as I have repeated on numerous occasions) that O.T. evidence constitutes the real Tradition, which means that hierarchs who oppose it are resisting the Tradition.

Click to expand...

you will need to support this view of the OT (in its wholeness, to which the Law belongs) using patristic sources.

Some wisdom from another thread elsewhere in the Cyberworld......

For some, jurisdictional matters are the meat and marrow of their Orthodoxy.... So, as the Lord once said, "those of your own family will be your worst enemies."

Click to expand...

Paleo, lay off the "jurisdictionalism."

paleodoxy said:

I would love for someone to produce the writings of any of the church fathers exegeting Scripture on the death penalty, and cogently explaining in careful exegetical fashion why it no longer applies.

But I don't think you are going to produce that, because they don't exist. It wouldn't even matter if you could prove that a majority of fathers personally disavowed capital punishment from the O.T. Unless the opposing view can be or has been theologically and exegetically demonstrated, there is no Tradition on the issue other than what we have in the O.T., in which case (as I have repeated on numerous occasions) that O.T. evidence constitutes the real Tradition, which means that hierarchs who oppose it are resisting the Tradition.

Click to expand...

I think I have enough resources to do such thing but.... in the end it will still will not prove to you anything since you are so deadbolt on your perceptions. I posted St. Augustine like you said and St. John Chrysostome .... I am not willing to spoon feed. You can count one and one... together. Also St. Vlad and many Hierarchy ... if St. Nicholas is not a good enough example for you I doubt my words or the most brilliant Church Fahter will persuade you.... No problem this is not why we are here. May the Lord have mercy on us all


God bless,
Philothei

It means that they can't always be trusted to have the proper perspective on things.



Neither do Protestant or Catholic theologians since the first ones are doing "partial" theology and the latter they distort and manipulate dogma to fit their theology. We do none but trust the organic concience of the church ethos... the Patristic view that is the consensus of the Church

God bless,
Philothei

Philothei said:

I think I have enough resources to do such thing but.... in the end it will still will not prove to you anything since you are so deadbolt on your perceptions. I posted St. Augustine like you said and St. John Chrysostome .... I am not willing to spoon feed. You can count one and one... together. Also St. Vlad and many Hierarchy ... if St. Nicholas is not a good enough example for you I doubt my words or the most brilliant Church Fahter will persuade you.... No problem this is not why we are here. May the Lord have mercy on us all


God bless,
Philothei

Click to expand...

If anyone has been doing the "spoon feeding" of the patristics it has been jackstraw...and no one has sufficiently grappled with the texts he provided other than to assert that they don't necessarily mean what they say.

Philothei said:

My point is not what the Fathers say indidually rather the consensus of the Church...does with OCA and other Hierarchs... Have any one see any EO hierarchs that talk for CP?

Click to expand...

What the "hierarchs" say TODAY doesn't necessarily indicate what has always been said in the past, or what will be said tomorrow, or next year, or in the next generation.

I would like to see it too. And as far as GOA site yes... but if you are careful it says that we "obey" what the Goverment ordains as a law and we follow it... not that CP is the teaching fo the Fathers...

Click to expand...

I agree that Paul could very easily have only meant in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the authorities, without necessarily indicating a definite position one way or another. I have never relied solely on Romans 13 to make my argument. The O.T. has played a far more prominent role in my argument.

Also, I am really getting tired of people saying that we can't follow the O.T. anymore, that the patristics didn't support this. It has never been that black and white. There are many things from the O.T. they continued to support, and many other things they recognized as being abrogated. The challenge is to discern what applies and what doesn't.

Show me where in the whole EO consience the Fathers are clear about it or that they endorse it...

Click to expand...

Show me where the whole conscience of the Church categorically rejects it.

There seems to me more to oppose it. I have yet to read and get my hands on St. Maximus the confessor, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory of Nyssa also St. Amrbrose and St. John Chrysostome who talks against the DP for the heretics.....

Click to expand...

I reject the DP for heresy and heretics, and so do the Theonomists I read. Heresy is a separate issue from the moral, civil and judicial penological practices of ancient Israel. A person would not receive capital punishment merely for believing heresy or teaching it within their own community. Now, if the heretics began to publicly proselytize in order to convert an Orthodox nation's people from the Truth, then the state would have the right to interpret that as sedition.

Okay, here you go: the clinching argument. Karl Marx supported the abolition of the death penalty...so what does that tell you?

Philothei, did you know that, in addition, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Theodosius II supported CP?

Theodosius (instrumental in organizing the Third Ecumenical Council) actually enacted a legal code specifying capital crimes.

paleodoxy said:

Um, since when has the prohibition on CP ever been a dogma?

Click to expand...

It's not, and the Patriarchs who write the lwetters in the OP were never trying to suggest that there was ever or ever will be a dogma on it. I know you weren't necessarily saying the signers of the letters in the OP were saying this, but I think this is a very very very important point. CP in and of itself is most certainly defended as a right of the State in the Scriptures and by many many Church fathers and to suggest otherwise... well, I don't understand how one can't see that.

Xpycoctomos said:

It's not, and the Patriarchs who write the lwetters in the OP were never trying to suggest that there was ever or ever will be a dogma on it. I know you weren't necessarily saying the signers of the letters in the OP were saying this, but I think this is a very very very important point. CP in and of itself is most certainly defended as a right of the State in the Scriptures and by many many Church fathers and to suggest otherwise... well, I don't understand how one can't see that.

Click to expand...

I never said that the State does not have a rght to enforce it and the Fahters do say that we have to obey the state just to clarify here.

God bless,
philothei

nutroll said:

I hate that I feel compelled to point this out, but by my recollection, Paleo has said the same thing about contraception and public nudity. And every time he does so, it seems to be a way of then introducing heterodox teaching as a substitute for Orthodox teaching. The mind of the Church may not be clear, but it is not to be found in heterodox sources. Why don't we focus on what the church has taught on any given subject rather than seeking answers elsewhere. And as Protoevangel said, there is a difference between insisting that we are mandated to uphold the death penalty and insisting that the church's mind is unclear. Either the church clearly teaches something or it doesn't. When it doesn't we can't speak authoritatively as Paleo is.

Click to expand...

But this is where I see a disticition... and sheds light I why I am confused.

I can see someone saying "The mind of the Church is that you shall not use contraception... it is wrong to use."
But what does this mean: "The mind of the Church is that you shall not not use CP... it is wrong to not use?" (and this is NOT intended to be a quote of Paleo, but it is the only way I can praphrase his stance SO FAR. Obviously I am missing something, because the above is absurd, so I need Paleo to shed light on this for me)

I don't understand what that means at all in practice. So, we just need to make sure we use it.... When? What circumstances?

paleodoxy said:

Guys, I understand how easy it is for you, when defending something that you feel emotional about, to simply brush off arguments with the "he's only a catechumen" approach. If you want to cop out on that, fine. I won't stop you. I just ask that you not reduce the issue to that, and actually make serious attempts to deal with the same arguments made by your beloved cradles like jackstraw and buzuxi. Kinda hard to make the "only a catechumen" argument then.

Click to expand...

Paelo... cmon, it's no more emotional for me that it is for you. It's a bit condescending to act as if it is just emotional for us. Honestly, I have no emotion behind it. I don't agree with you becuase I don't see your points. SO far, they aren't convincing TO ME (I still have to read more here... I am so far as far as this quoted post of yours). Look, I can see the points of those who support its use today even if I don't agree with it.

But I do not understand how any one can claim that 1) it's a mandate of God's or 2) the State has no right to use it. The two extremes I simply don't see represented in the mind of the CHurch (both scripturally and patristically on the whole).

Please don't discount what we are saying as mere emotions.

paleodoxy said:

Yes, and the GOA also seems to have a syncretistic view of salvation as revealed in the document posted in the Vatican thread.

Click to expand...

And why isn't it their right to speak out against it to lead their flock as they see fit in this day and age (I am just repeating my question in different ways hoping you can maybe see where I am coming from).

Xpy

paleodoxy said:

Okay, here you go: the clinching argument. Karl Marx supported the abolition of the death penalty...so what does that tell you?

Click to expand...

He also wore coats made of animal skins to keep him warm in the winter. And he always ate his green vegetables as his mother told him.