I don't want Orthodox union with Rome

[GregConstantine]

Well stevenhorr, you should have kept reading because you would have found out that the Church isn't a human organization but a theanthropic organism that is the very Body of Christ Himself, therefore, has all the characteristics of Christ (eternal, perfect, indivisible, holy, etc) Did you know that we believe that the Church existed for all of eternity and that it didn't start on Pentecost?

Your characterization of Roman Catholicism is unfortunately incorrect. I was a cradle Catholic, as is my entire family. Coming from that background, I can tell you with certainty that the Roman Catholic Church has changed.

Your characterization of us always being focused on what makes us different instead of what makes us similar compared to the RCC's is also incorrect. In my entire time being Orthodox, I've rarely heard a detailed discourse expounding on those differences or in a homily week to week. It comes up because people ask us questions that cause us to have to bring that subject up. Most Orthodox are focused on being Orthodox.

You'll probably dismiss what I have to say, but, perhaps someone else would read what I wrote and not be misled.

 

[dzheremi]

Why is this thread now about one ex-EO person's reflections on why they're not EO anymore/what's wrong with Eastern Orthodoxy? I have my problems with the Eastern Orthodox as well (or else I'd be one), but this is not the right forum for that. That's what St. Justin Martyr's forum is for.

 

[GregConstantine]

Because people don't read and stay on topic.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I apologize if my post gives off the message that ONLY sodomy and same-sex perversion caused the flood. Naturally that was only one of the sins. The idolatry, violence, impurities, hatred, and self-absorbed ungodliness of the people prompted the Flood from the Lord. But I think Romans 1:18-32 really can be applied to the Flood situation. Paul speaks of the reprobate mind that God allows when He is pushed out of the lives of folks. When the Lord departs and people are left to their own devices, we see sodomy and same-sex perversion always one of the key sins mentioned. There were plenty of awful things going on at the time of the Flood, but I think sexual perversion was one of the biggies.

Where are you getting that the flood was caused by gay sex? Is that from the saints?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Probably the only reason you're in here is because there aren't enough OO's out there to populate a forum and you need someone to talk to! .

I do have to wonder, if you have a problem with EO, why caucus with us so much, bro!?

I have never understood why someone would choose Oriental Orthodoxy, so I wouldn't bother to post there or hang there. I never do? But hey, to each his own. You're a good guy and post some great stuff, so I'll shut up.

Why is this thread now about one ex-EO person's reflections on why they're not EO anymore/what's wrong with Eastern Orthodoxy? I have my problems with the Eastern Orthodox as well (or else I'd be one), but this is not the right forum for that. That's what St. Justin Martyr's forum is for.

 

[dzheremi]

Probably the only reason you're in here is because there aren't enough OO's out there to populate a forum and you need someone to talk to! .

Likewise not the topic, but yeah, basically. Nobody ever posts there, and when I've tried, nobody really replies. There just aren't enough of us online, I guess. My point was more that it's fine to disagree with the EO (i.e., other posters in other threads who have argued that they're not allowed to disagree aren't correct), but do it on the right board.

I do have to wonder, if you have a problem with EO, why caucus with us so much, bro!?

You just wrote about it!

I have never understood why someone would choose Oriental Orthodoxy, so I wouldn't bother to post there or hang there. I never do? But hey, to each his own. You're a good guy and post some great stuff, so I'll shut up.

Fair enough.

 

[Arcangl86]

In response to the OP, which is the Roman Church talking about ordaining woman to the diaconate a problem? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that historic practice of the Church?

 

[buzuxi02]

It was a rarity in the western church. There is no evidence that the Roman church ever had deaconesses. A few places in the west had appointed females for various tasks usually widows. Deaconesses were primarily found in the East, common in some diocese and almost non-existant in others (very scant evidence that deaconesses were used in Jerusalem) but common in Constantinople and Cappadocia, etc.

Also the word ordain today is reserved for the sacerodotal higher orders. In those centuries it had a broader usage to describe the appointments (laying hands on) to minor orders as well. Modern day politics covers this fact up.

 

[St Herman's Ghost]

7 years? 7 years isn't even enough time to properly understand the Philokalia, let alone all of Orthodoxy. Besides, I'd like for Christendom to be united however we have things to be ironed out and these aren't trivial administrative differences.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm completely burned out on the "Our church is the TRUE church" banter. If it helps you in your faith to believe that your church is right and all others are wrong, then I suppose you must do what you must. The notion that one tradition is "correct" and the others "incorrect" is black and white thinking of the worst and most destructive kind.

only destructive to those who think the Faith can be watered down. if one Body says baptism saves, and another says it doesn't, one is not listening to the Holy Spirit (or both aren't). both however, cannot be true.

But your efforts are well wasted on me.

that's fine.

The Spirit blows where it will.

no doubts here.

I am little interested in Christian tribalism or polemics.

same here, but Truth is Truth, and not everyone has it.

And "pure doctrine", I repeat, does not make a saint.

and it was not given for no reason either.

A broken and contrite heart, on the other hand, does (and I'm quite certain perfect doctrine has little to do with this).

while the first part is totally true, the second is untrue. you gotta know God to realize your brokenness before Him. dogma teaches about God

 

[stevenhorr]

My comments clearly did not belong here. I appreciate some of the more thoughtful responses. I apologize for my inflammatory remarks and for unintentionally hijacking this thread. Peace.

 

[ArmyMatt]

i don't think you said anything really inflammatory, even if it might be better for another thread.

 

[stray bullet]

at least, not the current Roman Church.

(I mistakenly posted this on the OBOB forum but it really belongs here, since it is directed at Orthodox).

Like most Orthodox, I have my differences with Roman Catholic theology, which I have expressed here and elsewhere: Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, the Immaculate Conception and absolute sinlessness of Mary, indulgences and purgatory, scholasticism, and others.

Yet I love a lot of conservative Roman Catholics, including my Opus Dei wife. And theoretically, I could not be happier if Roman Catholics became more Orthodox in theology and praxis, thereby enabling reunion of Rome with the Orthodox Church.

Yet based on some of the proposals made public at this week's Synod on the Family in Rome, I would hate to be in communion with many of the Roman church hierarchy, including the current Pope. Here is a sampling of ideas being discussed openly this week by Roman bishops:

• Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried
• General absolution for everyone
• A new catechetical approach for those living in sin
• An end to mean, exclusionary language calling homosexuality sin and homosexuals sinners
• Letting different parts of the world determine different approaches to dogma
• The ordination of women to the diaconate
• Avoiding calling sinful situations what they are because those are negative judgments

Now, I know Orthodoxy has a more nuanced approach to divorce and remarriage than Rome and I agree with it. Also, I know we have certain liberal priests (fortunately not Bishops) in places like Boston who are soft on homosexual sin, so who are we to throw stones.

But the liberal tendencies of RC bishops from Germany and Belgium, amongst other countries, are quite striking. Conservative Roman Catholics are fighting some significant battles just to preserve traditional Roman Catholic teaching on sex and marriage.

Would anybody here want to fight those battles within Orthodoxy for the sake of reunion with Rome?

I wouldn't.

As I mentioned in the thread in OBOB, the topics are being discussed primarily in the context of pastor care, not in the sense of what unchangeable doctrines should change.

Unfortunately the media has a way of spinning anything and everything the Catholic Church does. The only issue that is not in the "How do we approach this with pastoral care" is women in the diaconate because the door has not been permanently closed on the issue. Putting a permanent end to that discussion is well beyond the scope of the synod and I can't understand why a bishop would bring it up and confuse/scandalize the faithful.

 

[stray bullet]

You're right, "gay" sex is no big woop. It only prompted a flood and an ark and got an entire ancient city wiped off the face of the map. Nothing worrisome there.

I wonder what it would be like for a Christian to have to choose between his sexuality and his faith. I'd imagine God would be merciful towards that individual and expect mercy in return.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The term "sexuality" concerns me a bit as if it's intrinsic to the person's being? A person with same-sex attraction who is a Christian hopefully can do the math and realize that anal sex is unnatural and uneven, filthy, and can't produce children, so it's just a disordered urge. I suppose it's like choosing between being a drug addict and being a Christian or being a drunk or a Christian or any other compulsion or addiction or attraction that is wrong and being a Christian. I don't envy them. But I'm convinced a person suffering from same-sex attraction who is able to exercise self-control and maybe even slip up and hurry to confession and continue the struggle will do better in the end with salvation that folks like myself. I haven't had that awful monkey on my back to prove my love to that degree. God bless them. But if they persist in the lifestyle, make excuses, and try to justify it as their nature and something wholesome and just, then they're putting themselves in serious spiritual jeopardy. I can't imagine the difficulty of living like that.

I wonder what it would be like for a Christian to have to choose between his sexuality and his faith. I'd imagine God would be merciful towards that individual and expect mercy in return.

 

[stray bullet]

The term "sexuality" concerns me a bit as if it's intrinsic to the person's being? A person with same-sex attraction who is a Christian hopefully can do the math and realize that anal sex is unnatural and uneven, filthy, and can't produce children, so it's just a disordered urge.

I am sure you know that heterosexuals have anal sex and homosexuals don't necessarily have anal sex. So I do not see what that has to do with orientation? Heterosexuals engage in all the same sex acts as homosexuals, except homosexuals have sex that cannot produce children. And that is just due to the nature of their bodies. You have condemned sex that is "unnatural" and "can't produce children" and unlike homosexuals, heterosexuals deliberately do that in using birth control (which is unnatural and non-procreative)... so I am having a hard time understanding your point here? I am not arguing, I am pointing out how I do not see the difference.

I suppose it's like choosing between being a drug addict and being a Christian or being a drunk or a Christian or any other compulsion or addiction or attraction that is wrong and being a Christian. I don't envy them. But I'm convinced a person suffering from same-sex attraction who is able to exercise self-control and maybe even slip up and hurry to confession and continue the struggle will do better in the end with salvation that folks like myself. I haven't had that awful monkey on my back to prove my love to that degree. God bless them. But if they persist in the lifestyle, make excuses, and try to justify it as their nature and something wholesome and just, then they're putting themselves in serious spiritual jeopardy. I can't imagine the difficulty of living like that.

I think we are all sinners and that could compel us to mercy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The term "orientation" is another term I have issues with for the same semantic reasons above. Yes, SB, I'm aware that "straight" folks have anal sex. And I would hope you'd realize that I condemn that as well, right? Sodomy isn't ok no matter who it's with. I think you're playing into the logic that the Pope in Humanae Vitae predicted would be used when birth control came to the fore. When procreation is removed, there would be the very logic you've used here. He called it to a tee for sure. I submit, though, that at least "heterosexual" normal couples CAN have children and at least at some point do. Show me a couple of men giving birth through an anus and I might change my mind. At least at some point a normal couple can procreate, hopefully on several occasions, but the "gay" folks haven't a shot. If we are to extend your argument angle, we'd say that an elderly couple in their late 70's are sinning by having sex because they can't produce kids, which would be a silly argument. I don't think you can do an apples and oranges comparison of sodomites with normal folks who don't intend to have a kid every time they have intercourse. And I don't think you really can, in the end, find anal sex anywhere near normal. And the very nature of it is, well, obviously pretty darn nasty, no?

I am sure you know that heterosexuals have anal sex and homosexuals don't necessarily have anal sex. So I do not see what that has to do with orientation? Heterosexuals engage in all the same sex acts as homosexuals, except homosexuals have sex that cannot produce children. And that is just due to the nature of their bodies. You have condemned sex that is "unnatural" and "can't produce children" and unlike homosexuals, heterosexuals deliberately do that in using birth control (which is unnatural and non-procreative)... so I am having a hard time understanding your point here? I am not arguing, I am pointing out how I do not see the difference.



I think we are all sinners and that could compel us to mercy.

 

[stray bullet]

. I submit, though, that at least "heterosexual" normal couples CAN have children and at least at some point do. Show me a couple of men giving birth through an anus and I might change my mind. At least at some point a normal couple can procreate, hopefully on several occasions, but the "gay" folks haven't a shot.

I am not aware of any act that is made sinful, or not, based on the potential to engage is another act in the future with the intent of doing something else. It was my assumption that the sinfulness of an act depended on its nature and the intent at the time, not the nature and the potentiality of intent of a separate act at a later time.

If we are to extend your argument angle, we'd say that an elderly couple in their late 70's are sinning by having sex because they can't produce kids, which would be a silly argument.

I wasn't make an argument - I was trying to follow yours. What you said above would seem to fall in line with what you said. People in their 70s frequently engage in sex that is unnatural (aided by medications and personal products) and their is no potential for having children.

I don't think you can do an apples and oranges comparison of sodomites with normal folks who don't intend to have a kid every time they have intercourse. And I don't think you really can, in the end, find anal sex anywhere near normal. And the very nature of it is, well, obviously pretty darn nasty, no?

I am not seeing how you can say you can't make that comparison given what you initially said. The only difference is that heterosexually actively try to make it non-procreative.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I am not aware of any act that is made sinful, or not, based on the potential to engage is another act in the future with the intent of doing something else. It was my assumption that the sinfulness of an act depended on its nature and the intent at the time, not the nature and the potentiality of intent of a separate act at a later time.




I wasn't make an argument - I was trying to follow yours. What you said above would seem to fall in line with what you said. People in their 70s frequently engage in sex that is unnatural (aided by medications and personal products) and their is no potential for having children.



I am not seeing how you can say you can't make that comparison given what you initially said. The only difference is that heterosexually actively try to make it non-procreative.

Wow, I started a thread about the Pope and now it's about anal sex. They always do, don't they

In a sense, I agree with you SB: homosexuality is not wrong because they engage in anal sex. That may be wrong, but then it is also wrong for heterosexuals.

Moreover, homosexuals may engage in certain types of actions--passionate hugging and kissing, for example--which Christians do not generally consider wrong, and yet would be wrong if performed by homosexuals. Likewise, adultery is wrong, even if the sexual acts the adulterous pair engage in are not, per se.

No, homosexuality is wrong because the Apostolic faith, as revealed in Scripture and understood by the Fathers and the Church, has always considered it sinful. The Bible and the Fathers only condemn and never condone homosexual sexual activity. Any justification today of homosexuality would be not only to change the Apostolic faith but also change the epistemology used to arrive at that faith, thereby rendering that justification self defeating.

We might speculate on why God would forbid homosexuality. But understanding God's motive is not a prerequisite for our need to follow God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It was my assumption that the sinfulness of an act depended on its nature and the intent at the time, not the nature and the potentiality of intent of a separate act at a later time.

no, the sinfulness of an act is if it misses the mark of God. so if it is not how God created us to be, it is sin.