Progressive Revelation

[Erose]

I was checking out information in the TAW subforum, and was trying to find info on the Pan-Orthodox synod, when I came across an accusation made by an Orthodox member claiming that the Catholic Church believes in progressive revelation.

As a Catholic I admit never heard of the term before, so I did research on the matter, and two options came up: 1) That revelation through Scripture is progressive from Moses to the Apostles; and 2) The belief that divine revelation is still progressing even after the death of St. John.

From the language used I concluded (rightly from their responses) that they were accusing the Catholic Church of the number two option. Being a faithful Catholic I simply corrected their false idea. Well all Hades broke loose, and the thread got derailed and I am bringing the discussion here.

Here is the point: The Catholic Church does accept that there is a development of doctrine, but not progressive revelation after the last Apostle. Orthodox though claim that development of doctrine and progressive revelation are synonyms. This was pointed out that was false, but they didn't want to accept the fact.

Here is what Development of Doctrine means: It is simply that after 2000 years of some of the greatest and holiest minds meditating upon the Reveal Truths given to us, that we have come to a greater understanding concerning the Deposit of Faith. The Doctrine doesn't change, but our understanding becomes much more clear. Its like driving down the road and seeing a sign at a distance. We know it is a sign, but we can't make out the shape or what is written on it. The closer we get we can make out the color and shape of the sign, and even closer we can finally read what is on the sign. The sign doesn't change, just our clarity of the sign does. Hopefully that makes sense.

The Catholic Church accepts the development of Doctrine, as is evidenced even before the schism became final, but rejects progressive revelation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it might be more accurate to say that certain teachings of the Catholics are seen by the Orthodox as being novel, without seeds in the Apostolic period. I realize that we would disagree on this point, and I've spoken with Catholics in the past who traced what was, in their understanding, a line to the apostolic period on these doctrines.

Since the Orthodox share a common beginning with the Catholics, we look to the same historic deposit of faith, and nowhere do we see these doctrines.

Such doctrines as papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction, the immaculate conception, original sin (guilt), purgatory, and some of the teachings on the necessity of temporal punishment for all sin (which led to indulgences and talk of merit and is connected to created grace), and the rather confusing sometimes (to me at least) questions on the possibility of referring to the Virgin Mary as "co-redemptix" or the suggestion that she might never have physically died. I know the Catholics do not necessarily embrace all of these unquestioningly or to the degree they seemed to at one time. But to us they all represent novel introductions of doctrine.

 

[Erose]

I think it might be more accurate to say that certain teachings of the Catholics are seen by the Orthodox as being novel, without seeds in the Apostolic period. I realize that we would disagree on this point, and I've spoken with Catholics in the past who traced what was, in their understanding, a line to the apostolic period on these doctrines.

Anastasia, as I can respect the view point from the Orthodox side, as they would to a certain point have to have that position; and to be quite honest there are quite a few Orthodox teachings I have the same view as being novel. But that wasn't the accusation made. The accusation was that the Catholic Church believed in progressive revelation, which it doesn't. That was what I was correcting in the thread initially.

 

[dzheremi]

I maintain that the RCC does in fact believe in progressive revelation, they just don't call it that, which gives RCs room to sincerely claim that they do not. "Meditating upon the revealed truths given to us" and "coming to a greater understanding of the deposit of faith" are nice-sounding things, but when the result is the introduction of various beliefs and practices that are alien to the early Church and our common fathers (and remember, I'm OO not EO, so I'm speaking of much earlier and more basic concepts and people, since my communion doesn't have the additional ~600 years of shared experience with you guys that the EO do), then it is progressive revelation, but by a different name for the sake of maintaining that they don't believe in that even as they practice it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Anastasia, as I can respect the view point from the Orthodox side, as they would to a certain point have to have that position; and to be quite honest there are quite a few Orthodox teachings I have the same view as being novel. But that wasn't the accusation made. The accusation was that the Catholic Church believed in progressive revelation, which it doesn't. That was what I was correcting in the thread initially.

I'll step out if you prefer, and no offense at all.

But it just seems to me that you're only going to get, at best, a series of "yes you do" "no we don't" "uh-huh" "uhn-uh" if the talk is simply whether Catholics do or don't, unless the terms are defined and explained. I was trying to lay out the issue in a more concrete way using examples. But of course, there is a danger there as well - to focus on specific doctrines/dogmas instead of overall processes.

I hope you are able to get the kind of discussion that is productive all around. God bless you.

 

[hedrick]

The whole question of post-apostolic revelation is a minefield. Is the Trinity revealed? A lot of people would say that it is. But it’s clear that the Trinity as currently held developed over time. To view it as inspired you’d have to say that the concept was implicitly there, and the details were worked out. But once you accept that you can accept pretty much anything.

At least in the West (since I can seldom guess what the East will say), I think if you want to be Catholic you have to accept that things worked out by the Church from Apostolic beliefs can be inspired. But this can be pretty loose, such as the example (which you cite) of the immaculate conception.

To my knowledge, only liberal Protestantism actually restricts inspiration to things that based on sober historical reasoning we can say were taught by Jesus or the Apostles in that form.

Given the Catholic commitment to the continuing infallible guidance by the Holy Spirit, I don’t see why this should be an issue for you. Of course it is for us, since we don't accept that the Church has a guarantee of infallibility, even in the somewhat flexible sense in which the Catholic Church asserts it.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

I think it might be more accurate to say that certain teachings of the Catholics are seen by the Orthodox as being novel, without seeds in the Apostolic period. I realize that we would disagree on this point, and I've spoken with Catholics in the past who traced what was, in their understanding, a line to the apostolic period on these doctrines.

Since the Orthodox share a common beginning with the Catholics, we look to the same historic deposit of faith, and nowhere do we see these doctrines.

Such doctrines as papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction, the immaculate conception, original sin (guilt), purgatory, and some of the teachings on the necessity of temporal punishment for all sin (which led to indulgences and talk of merit and is connected to created grace), and the rather confusing sometimes (to me at least) questions on the possibility of referring to the Virgin Mary as "co-redemptix" or the suggestion that she might never have physically died. I know the Catholics do not necessarily embrace all of these unquestioningly or to the degree they seemed to at one time. But to us they all represent novel introductions of doctrine.

On original sin , it is present among Irenaeus of Lyons writings , it's simply a variant of ancestral sin , although many take it too far

 

[Erose]

I'll step out if you prefer, and no offense at all.

But it just seems to me that you're only going to get, at best, a series of "yes you do" "no we don't" "uh-huh" "uhn-uh" if the talk is simply whether Catholics do or don't, unless the terms are defined and explained. I was trying to lay out the issue in a more concrete way using examples. But of course, there is a danger there as well - to focus on specific doctrines/dogmas instead of overall processes.

I hope you are able to get the kind of discussion that is productive all around. God bless you.

I prefer you not to step out of this conversation. I don't want to make it a discussion about every single proposed difference between our faith traditions, as I think that will cause this to derail the thread. I do think though that we need to have a series of discussions about the said differences between our faith traditions though, as in my opinion from other discussions I've had that most are really reconcilable.

 

[Erose]

I maintain that the RCC does in fact believe in progressive revelation, they just don't call it that, which gives RCs room to sincerely claim that they do not. "Meditating upon the revealed truths given to us" and "coming to a greater understanding of the deposit of faith" are nice-sounding things, but when the result is the introduction of various beliefs and practices that are alien to the early Church and our common fathers (and remember, I'm OO not EO, so I'm speaking of much earlier and more basic concepts and people, since my communion doesn't have the additional ~600 years of shared experience with you guys that the EO do), then it is progressive revelation, but by a different name for the sake of maintaining that they don't believe in that even as they practice it.

So you are saying that this belief is what? The best kept secret doctrine of the Catholic Church? Seriously that is your argument. We believe in it, but don't teach it?

Anyway considering that their hasn't been any new teachings that have popped up, then no the accusation made doesn't hold water.

The only doctrine(s) that one can possibly argue that popped up after the Apostolic/early church time period would be the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother, with really the only evidence, (and I think significant evidence,) is that no one claims to possess any relics of her. But concerning her assumption, that wouldn't necessarily be a standard doctrine, but more of a historical claim, much like the resurrection and Ascension of our Lord.

 

[Erose]

The whole question of post-apostolic revelation is a minefield. Is the Trinity revealed? A lot of people would say that it is. But it’s clear that the Trinity as currently held developed over time. To view it as inspired you’d have to say that the concept was implicitly there, and the details were worked out. But once you accept that you can accept pretty much anything.

At least in the West (since I can seldom guess what the East will say), I think if you want to be Catholic you have to accept that things worked out by the Church from Apostolic beliefs can be inspired. But this can be pretty loose, such as the example (which you cite) of the immaculate conception.

To my knowledge, only liberal Protestantism actually restricts inspiration to things that based on sober historical reasoning we can say were taught by Jesus or the Apostles in that form.

Given the Catholic commitment to the continuing infallible guidance by the Holy Spirit, I don’t see why this should be an issue for you. Of course it is for us, since we don't accept that the Church has a guarantee of infallibility, even in the somewhat flexible sense in which the Catholic Church asserts it.

The issue is the understanding of the role of infallibility. Infallibility is not he ability to establish newly revealed doctrines, but rather a safeguarding of what we already have. The Church (including the pope) has never dogmatized a doctrine that she didn't already have.

When it comes to the development of doctrine, it's us as a Church meditating of the truths given, and gaining a clearer understanding of those truths. The early ecumenical councils are a perfect example of this process occurring, with each one providing a greater clarity concerning the teachings of our faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I prefer you not to step out of this conversation. I don't want to make it a discussion about every single proposed difference between our faith traditions, as I think that will cause this to derail the thread. I do think though that we need to have a series of discussions about the said differences between our faith traditions though, as in my opinion from other discussions I've had that most are really reconcilable.

Thank you, Erose. I do think examining the beliefs one by one can be beneficial (and I did so on many of them when I was investigating things a few years ago, and have continued at time for the sake of learning).

I'm just not really sure that a meta-discussion without going into particulars would go anywhere. I realize you and I have different positions. The Assumption was mentioned, which I don't actually consider a novel invention UNLESS one insists that the Theotokos never died a physical death. And while I've spoken with Catholics who seem to believe that, I've never yet seen it codified in the Catechism, so perhaps it was merely a misunderstanding on their part? What I have seen in the Catechism can IMPLY that (such statements that she was not subject to the decay of death) but being as we have incorrupt Saints, I actually read that as incorruption, not a failure to die. But without that frame of reference, one could read it as never dying.

And as far as original sin/ancestral sin - the seed is there. I have not read perhaps what Iranaeus said that is being mentioned here? But it is a matter of degree, and the implication of guilt that we would disagree on?

Anyway, I don't want to get into particular cases, if you don't wish to. I just don't know how to discuss it otherwise. In many cases, the seeds may be there, but I think that I see doctrines working together to affect one another within Catholicism which leads to what we would consider a change in the foundational belief.

And I think you would disagree with some part of that, at least? So I'm not sure how to move forward without specifics.

 

[Erose]

The question that I want to discuss in this thread is whether or not the Orthodox accusation is correct that the Catholic Church teaches Progressive Revelation. I would like to keep it focused on that topic. I think we should have other threads discussing the perceived differences between our faith traditions. That way perhaps it doesn't get convoluted.

When I am able this week I will start a thread comparing and contrasting original sin vs ancestral sin. I think that will be a good place to start.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The question that I want to discuss in this thread is whether or not the Orthodox accusation is correct that the Catholic Church teaches Progressive Revelation. I would like to keep it focused on that topic. I think we should have other threads discussing the perceived differences between our faith traditions. That way perhaps it doesn't get convoluted.

When I am able this week I will start a thread comparing and contrasting original sin vs ancestral sin. I think that will be a good place to start.

Fair enough.

In answer to your question, as stated, I noticed you capitalized Progressive Revelation. If by that you mean a specific, named doctrine, then firstly I am not familiar with the borders of it, and secondly, I don't know what the Catholic teaching concerning it would be, so my comment would have to be "I don't know." And I would not base an accusation on what I don't know.

However, without naming a doctrine per se, I would say that from the Orthodox point of view, the Catholic teaching goes too far in adding to what we originally received from the Apostles. That is where the disagreements come from, IMO.

"Going too far" is a subjective thing. The way Orthodoxy handles the faith, it is too far. Perhaps the way Catholics handle the faith, to them it is not. So I suspect our differences begin there.

 

[Erose]

Fair enough.

In answer to your question, as stated, I noticed you capitalized Progressive Revelation. If by that you mean a specific, named doctrine, then firstly I am not familiar with the borders of it, and secondly, I don't know what the Catholic teaching concerning it would be, so my comment would have to be "I don't know." And I would not base an accusation on what I don't know.

You are right I capitalized it for a reason, for from the accusations made by some of your Orthodox Brethren, they made it sound like that the Catholic Church believed this as a doctrine.

However, without naming a doctrine per se, I would say that from the Orthodox point of view, the Catholic teaching goes too far in adding to what we originally received from the Apostles. That is where the disagreements come from, IMO.

If I was looking at this in a black and white manner, then I could claim the same about Orthodox. I will admit right off the bat that I am not an Orthodox scholar, and I don't know everything that you guys believe. But there are a few things that your church teaches that I would call novel, IF I viewed thing just black and white. For example allowing divorce and remarriage, Divine Energies, no created grace, allowing of contraception, etc.

But one thing I have learned, and here is why I don't accuse Orthodox of progressive revelation, is that when I read the Fathers, I see various schools of thought, predominately from the three main Patriarchates in early Christianity (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch). And the Saints from these differing Patriarchates, would take the same doctrine, and understand it in three different ways. I never saw this as a bad thing, but as a means by which we as a whole Church could gain greater understanding of said doctrine.

A great analogy I heard once from an Eastern Catholic, who are on the front lines I believe, between the West and the rest of the East, is that its like if you take two people who walk into a church. One from the front, and the other from a side door. When they enter they both see the same church, but they see it differently. There may be things that one can see that the other cannot see, because of the direction in which they are coming in. This is the EO, OO and CC. We all are walking into the same church, but we are walking into it from different doors, and our perception of that Church is going to be slightly different, and sometimes significantly different.

The question then is can these differing views of a certain doctrine, can be reconciled. I believe that the far majority can.

"Going too far" is a subjective thing. The way Orthodoxy handles the faith, it is too far. Perhaps the way Catholics handle the faith, to them it is not. So I suspect our differences begin there.

To be honest, I think that this is a fallacy of the Orthodox church. There seems to be a blindness, IMO, to the various changes that the EO has gone through throughout the centuries. From my view the only thing that really hasn't changed much in the EO is the liturgy. The rest, well that can be debated.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I understand your point of view.

Divine energies you might especially have a point on, since it articulates something about the nature of God Himself. I can't speak to that because I don't know the evolution of the theology. The problem being, some aspects of Trinitarianism can be said to be the same, and none of us deny the Trinity, though it took a little time to fully articulate, and none of us has changed doctrines concerning the Trinity - ah .... Forgive me, I really did write that before realizing that yes, actually, the Filioque DOES concern Trinitarian doctrines, and the Catholic Church DID change that. Those are the level of questions we concern ourselves with MUCH more.

No created energies falls into the category of major doctrines as well. But I am inclined to ask whether or not it is just as easy to claim one side "changed" as the other. Again, I cannot really speak to that, but it would fall under the category of major doctrines.

As far as allowing divorce, remarriage, and contraception, these are pastoral matters, IMO, and not created doctrines. While I tend to agree that at times the Orthodox Church is perhaps not as strict as she should be (though I don't know what passes between a penitent and their Confessor), I also disagree with the Catholic's absolute supposed rigidity. You and I both know, however, that there are ways of "getting around" the divorce/remarriage question in the Catholic Church (annulment) which I don't believe is strictly honest in many cases either. And we would also both have to recognize that there are surely Catholics who practice contraception and still attend Mass and receive Communion. Also, the Orthodox Church does not favor contraception, and whether or not she "allows" it can sometimes be argued depending on who you ask. At any rate, it is a matter of relaxing application of law if it is allowed, for the good of the individuals involved. When all is said and done - as I said, I would not put this in the same category as actual doctrines about sin, God, salvation, mankind, etc.

I would rather see the Church have the authority and compassion to exercise some judgement in the application of these, for the sake of the salvation of the individuals involved, rather than strictly apply law with no mercy. Though as I said, I do have a concern that it might not be as strictly applied at times as it should be.

However - I attend a Greek parish in the US, which is often charged with being too lenient. I know one lady who married (first and only marriage) simply outside the Church's authority, and as a result was barred from Communion for ten years. IMO, that's pretty strict.

And what if you have a woman undergoing treatment for cancer, if she is denied contraception she may have the worry of killing her children with the treatment, or herself by foregoing it?

We can similarly create scenarios all day long in which the merciful thing, or the better scenario for the salvation of the persons involved, might be to allow contraception or divorce.

Incidentally, the ethos of the Orthodox Church is indeed one marriage - forever. Not even just for life. It is not a requirement, but many will choose not to remarry even if a spouse dies.

As I said, matters such as this fall under the umbrella of pastoral care, IMO.

Divine essence and energies are major doctrines, as is the articulation of the Trinity itself, but I'm not sure of how to conclude who might have changed what.

The Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, Papal Infallibility, Universal Papal Jurisdiction, Purgatory, Original Sin (inherited guilt), and temporal punishment of sins would fall under the category of major doctrines as well. From our (Orthodox) point of view, we look at all of these things, and this I think is why you hear Orthodox say that Catholics change things, as none of them are acknowledged by us. One of the sayings of the Orthodox Church is to defend "that which has been believed by all, in all places, across time" and so we reject these things as not being part of the deposit of faith initially handed down by the Apostles to the Church.


Now, I am by no means any kind of expert in this at all. I'm still learning, and am only reporting what I see and understand so far. As such, I am fully open to correction from my Orthodox brothers and sisters in case I have unintentionally misrepresented anything. I've had a few years to work on this, but it has not been my primary concern - not at all.

And I pray I have not been offensive in anything I have expressed.

 

[Erose]

I understand your point of view.

Divine energies you might especially have a point on, since it articulates something about the nature of God Himself. I can't speak to that because I don't know the evolution of the theology. The problem being, some aspects of Trinitarianism can be said to be the same, and none of us deny the Trinity, though it took a little time to fully articulate, and none of us has changed doctrines concerning the Trinity -

True.

ah .... Forgive me, I really did write that before realizing that yes, actually, the Filioque DOES concern Trinitarian doctrines, and the Catholic Church DID change that. Those are the level of questions we concern ourselves with MUCH more.

The question is did we really? Or did Constantinople? But that is a matter for another thread.

No created energies falls into the category of major doctrines as well. But I am inclined to ask whether or not it is just as easy to claim one side "changed" as the other. Again, I cannot really speak to that, but it would fall under the category of major doctrines.

Ok.

As far as allowing divorce, remarriage, and contraception, these are pastoral matters, IMO, and not created doctrines. While I tend to agree that at times the Orthodox Church is perhaps not as strict as she should be (though I don't know what passes between a penitent and their Confessor), I also disagree with the Catholic's absolute supposed rigidity.

Pastoral matters are and must be based upon doctrine. Divorce, remarriage and contraception and the position that the Church has had on these matters are doctrinal not just pastoral.

You and I both know, however, that there are ways of "getting around" the divorce/remarriage question in the Catholic Church (annulment) which I don't believe is strictly honest in many cases either.

Concerning an annulment, three things here: 1) It isn't as easy as some like to think. 2) The number of annulments being given today, is that a testament of the annulment process, or a testament of our society's influence upon people's impression of what true matrimony is? 3) Abuses do not dictate doctrine, and those who are dishonest during the process, may be given a letter saying that their marriage is annulled; but God knows the truth, and that truth will not set you free.

And we would also both have to recognize that there are surely Catholics who practice contraception and still attend Mass and receive Communion.

Again, those sinning or going against Church doctrine, do not dictate doctrine.

I would rather see the Church have the authority and compassion to exercise some judgement in the application of these, for the sake of the salvation of the individuals involved, rather than strictly apply law with no mercy. Though as I said, I do have a concern that it might not be as strictly applied at times as it should be.

My question here is this: Is it more merciful for the Church to teach what is right and wrong, so that you don't fall into that which is wrong, or to give a person a pass to do what is wrong?

However - I attend a Greek parish in the US, which is often charged with being too lenient. I know one lady who married (first and only marriage) simply outside the Church's authority, and as a result was barred from Communion for ten years. IMO, that's pretty strict.

Why would it be? I speak from experience, as I also married outside the Church. But when I went through those long years before my wife was willing to get our marriage blessed in the Church, I understood why the Church gave me this requirement. I don't call it strict, I would call it an act of mercy.

And what if you have a woman undergoing treatment for cancer, if she is denied contraception she may have the worry of killing her children with the treatment, or herself by foregoing it?

I've know (sadly) quite a few people who have gone through chemo, and I can't see where the opportunity to have sex would be something they think about quite honestly. Then you throw in the fact that they run a much higher risk of infections, sex really should be the last thing on their mind. But if they still want to, then NFP is a perfect method they could use.

Incidentally, the ethos of the Orthodox Church is indeed one marriage - forever. Not even just for life. It is not a requirement, but many will choose not to remarry even if a spouse dies.

Then what are the 2nd and 3rd spouses considered then? Concubines? Just curious.

Divine essence and energies are major doctrines, as is the articulation of the Trinity itself, but I'm not sure of how to conclude who might have changed what.

By looking to the early Church Fathers. I don't know a great deal of the Divine energy belief, but what I have read of it, it truly doesn't make much sense to me, and perhaps it is due to the language used. Energy is always something created in science, so perhaps the term energy is not a very good one to convey to true understanding of the teaching.

The Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, Papal Infallibility, Universal Papal Jurisdiction, Purgatory, Original Sin (inherited guilt), and temporal punishment of sins would fall under the category of major doctrines as well. From our (Orthodox) point of view, we look at all of these things, and this I think is why you hear Orthodox say that Catholics change things, as none of them are acknowledged by us. One of the sayings of the Orthodox Church is to defend "that which has been believed by all, in all places, across time" and so we reject these things as not being part of the deposit of faith initially handed down by the Apostles to the Church.

Or where they rejected after the Schism, since all of these teachings existed well before the Schism even started, and they weren't issues then.

Now, I am by no means any kind of expert in this at all. I'm still learning, and am only reporting what I see and understand so far. As such, I am fully open to correction from my Orthodox brothers and sisters in case I have unintentionally misrepresented anything. I've had a few years to work on this, but it has not been my primary concern - not at all.

Understand.

And I pray I have not been offensive in anything I have expressed.

Nope, we are having a conversation on the matter. I wished that more of your brethren and mine, would get involved, but it seems that they don't want to leave the comfort of their sub-forums to do so.

 

[~Anastasia~]

True.

The question is did we really? Or did Constantinople? But that is a matter for another thread.

Very well.

Pastoral matters are and must be based upon doctrine. Divorce, remarriage and contraception and the position that the Church has had on these matters are doctrinal not just pastoral.

Agreed, but if there is only one answer, where is the pastoral considerations?

As I said, we could discuss many different situations, but I think that would side-track your thread.

It might be better to simply ask - if there is not possibly a case in which allowing a less-good behavior might not be better for the person in the long run. I don't know the Catholic position - what if someone married unwisely, divorced due to something like spousal abuse, then converted to Catholicism. Would the Catholic Church allow them to remarry? What if refusing to allow it resulted in fornication? Or abandoning the Church? Or the children suffering due to lack of ability of the single parent to provide for them? I'm not trying to justify anything, but divorce is not an unforgivable sin. I'm only asking might there not be cases where the person's spiritual health might not be better, being allowed to marry?

Concerning an annulment, three things here: 1) It isn't as easy as some like to think. 2) The number of annulments being given today, is that a testament of the annulment process, or a testament of our society's influence upon people's impression of what true matrimony is? 3) Abuses do not dictate doctrine, and those who are dishonest during the process, may be given a letter saying that their marriage is annulled; but God knows the truth, and that truth will not set you free.

And again, at the risk of derailing your thread. I do realize that (1) people might have wrong impressions. Indeed, I knew of a situation where the annulment was nearly impossible to get, and I think that in itself was a problem in that case. (2) Should it matter? The Church should not bend to society's influence (one more reason we resist changes in doctrine. And (3) Very good point, and true. But in a sense, that can make my point as well. Granting an annulment doesn't necessarily "undo the marriage" in God's eyes, so then wouldn't the Catholic Church be issuing a license to sin? My point is that it's possible in the case of the Catholic practice to do so as well.

Again, those sinning or going against Church doctrine, do not dictate doctrine.

True. But if the Church is setting up a situation that pushes people into that situation, there may be a problem.

Not that "giving permission" makes it ok. If the Church were to allow something clearly sinful (God forbid!) that would not change the nature of sin. I'm only saying that a wise Confessor or Bishop can apply things in the way that best helps the individual.

My question here is this: Is it more merciful for the Church to teach what is right and wrong, so that you don't fall into that which is wrong, or to give a person a pass to do what is wrong?

Of course it is not merciful to give a pass to sin. And believe it or not, I'm rather in sympathy with your position on all of this, in many, many (most) cases. This is why I worry about the possibility of too liberal an application in some cases. But I likewise worry about an application SO strict that it could damage. Really ... it isn't possible to explain what I mean without going into situations and details. You may very easily misunderstand what I mean.

But a great many Orthodox, from my experience, would say the same. We don't generally believe in allowing divorce and remarriage. We don't generally agree with contraception. And we absolutely don't agree with abortion (I'll throw that one in there too). But there is the possibility for divorce, and for remarriage, but it must be approved by the Bishop, there are questions that must be answered, and it is a process. We are somewhat similar to the process of annulment, except we don't claim no marriage ever existed. Contraception I can't comment overmuch on. I do know abortion would not be approved for the sake of rape, incest, etc. and even IVF is problematic because typically too many embryos are produced and they can't all be given the chance to be born.

Why would it be? I speak from experience, as I also married outside the Church. But when I went through those long years before my wife was willing to get our marriage blessed in the Church, I understood why the Church gave me this requirement. I don't call it strict, I would call it an act of mercy.

I did not mean, btw, that the Church was wrong. I was not there. What I do know is that she endured the time, her husband eventually was received into the Orthodox Church, and she's a wonderful person always in Church and heading up several ministries.

What I meant is that some think the Greek Church just turns a blind eye and allows anything with no censure, and I have seen the opposite.

I've know (sadly) quite a few people who have gone through chemo, and I can't see where the opportunity to have sex would be something they think about quite honestly. Then you throw in the fact that they run a much higher risk of infections, sex really should be the last thing on their mind. But if they still want to, then NFP is a perfect method they could use.

Well, chemo is not the only treatment for cancer that can kill the unborn. I don't know that NFP is perfect, as the cycles might not work properly.

Then what are the 2nd and 3rd spouses considered then? Concubines? Just curious.

Fair question. But I doubt it. As I said, it is not forbidden to remarry after a spouse dies. Just many, many choose not to, because we don't consider relationships and love to be severed by death. I imagine they are considered husbands and wives. But I think they still have to be married using the service for second marriages, which is penitential in nature.

By looking to the early Church Fathers. I don't know a great deal of the Divine energy belief, but what I have read of it, it truly doesn't make much sense to me, and perhaps it is due to the language used. Energy is always something created in science, so perhaps the term energy is not a very good one to convey to true understanding of the teaching.

Maybe you're right that the scientific understanding clouds the issue. I can't speak for the ECFs on the topic very much. I just have not had time to study to that point.

FWIW, I don't understand it as an energy such as that produced by a power plant or burning gasoline. But I hesitate to introduce language to describe how I do think of it. This wasn't done in English to begin with. But I will simply say that my own understanding might be called an "emanation".

Or where they rejected after the Schism, since all of these teachings existed well before the Schism even started, and they weren't issues then.

Well, that would be something to look into, especially how the rest of the Church interacted with them in that case. But as we know, simply the AGE of a teaching doesn't make it right. Arianism, Nestorianism, and so on were early teachings too.

Nope, we are having a conversation on the matter. I wished that more of your brethren and mine, would get involved, but it seems that they don't want to leave the comfort of their sub-forums to do so.

Who knows the motives of another? Perhaps they have not noticed the thread or are busy?

 

[Erose]

It might be better to simply ask - if there is not possibly a case in which allowing a less-good behavior might not be better for the person in the long run. I don't know the Catholic position - what if someone married unwisely, divorced due to something like spousal abuse, then converted to Catholicism. Would the Catholic Church allow them to remarry? What if refusing to allow it resulted in fornication? Or abandoning the Church? Or the children suffering due to lack of ability of the single parent to provide for them? I'm not trying to justify anything, but divorce is not an unforgivable sin. I'm only asking might there not be cases where the person's spiritual health might not be better, being allowed to marry?

If someone wanted to join the Catholic Church and was previously married, they will have to go through the annulment process. For some, it will be an easy process, for others (especially baptized non-Catholic Christians) it will be much more difficult.

In the Catholic Church, for a marriage to be a valid marriage it has certain requirements. Some of these are that both spouses must have the intent of remaining married till death, intent to have children, and to remain monogamous. There is probably more, I just can't remember. Anyway if one or both did not have these intents then the marriage may not be valid. In the case that you speak of the woman, most probably entered marriage for the wrong reasons and thus probably not a valid marriage.

Now you asked a question about if the person is not allowed to remarry, then it might result in fornication. Well if someone has entered into a new marriage and is validly married to another then they are already committing adultery.

Speaking of abandoning the Church. Quite honestly no one ever claimed that being a Christian was easy. There are times in our lives that we have to make decisions, and sometimes those decisions are follow God or... In those cases the person must make that decision. Follow God or choose a created love over Him.

I truly don't think that anyone should ever get married just for the reason to provide for their children. That in itself would make the marriage invalid.

And again, at the risk of derailing your thread. I do realize that (1) people might have wrong impressions. Indeed, I knew of a situation where the annulment was nearly impossible to get, and I think that in itself was a problem in that case. (2) Should it matter? The Church should not bend to society's influence (one more reason we resist changes in doctrine. And (3) Very good point, and true. But in a sense, that can make my point as well. Granting an annulment doesn't necessarily "undo the marriage" in God's eyes, so then wouldn't the Catholic Church be issuing a license to sin? My point is that it's possible in the case of the Catholic practice to do so as well.

Concerning 2) It isn't the Church that I am speaking of here, but the people getting married. I think society's doctrine of what marriage is has overridden in most people's minds what the Church teaches what marriage is. Marriage is no longer a sacred vocation in most people's minds, but rather a long term sex partner, who you may or may have have kids with, and who you may or may not stay faithful to, and who you may drop whenever you no longer "feel" in love with them. I think personally so many young couples go through premarital counseling (that is if they do) without even listening to the priest explain these things to them. Thus when they get married, they have no intention of having kids, or remaining faithful, or whatever.

True. But if the Church is setting up a situation that pushes people into that situation, there may be a problem.

Speaking the truth is never the problem. Its how one may take that truth is the problem.

Not that "giving permission" makes it ok. If the Church were to allow something clearly sinful (God forbid!) that would not change the nature of sin. I'm only saying that a wise Confessor or Bishop can apply things in the way that best helps the individual.

They can, but a wise confessor or bishop is going to always steer an individual toward God and never away from Him.

Of course it is not merciful to give a pass to sin. And believe it or not, I'm rather in sympathy with your position on all of this, in many, many (most) cases. This is why I worry about the possibility of too liberal an application in some cases. But I likewise worry about an application SO strict that it could damage. Really ... it isn't possible to explain what I mean without going into situations and details. You may very easily misunderstand what I mean.

No I understand completely. And I agree with you that black and white is not how a confessor should look at things, but the idea needs to be to guide the individual towards the light, and never away from it.

But a great many Orthodox, from my experience, would say the same. We don't generally believe in allowing divorce and remarriage. We don't generally agree with contraception. And we absolutely don't agree with abortion (I'll throw that one in there too). But there is the possibility for divorce, and for remarriage, but it must be approved by the Bishop, there are questions that must be answered, and it is a process. We are somewhat similar to the process of annulment, except we don't claim no marriage ever existed. Contraception I can't comment overmuch on. I do know abortion would not be approved for the sake of rape, incest, etc. and even IVF is problematic because typically too many embryos are produced and they can't all be given the chance to be born.

Ok.

I did not mean, btw, that the Church was wrong. I was not there. What I do know is that she endured the time, her husband eventually was received into the Orthodox Church, and she's a wonderful person always in Church and heading up several ministries.

I think in the end for me, it let me know how important it was. Also it taught patience that I needed as well.

What I meant is that some think the Greek Church just turns a blind eye and allows anything with no censure, and I have seen the opposite.

In all reality a lot of this is dependent upon the priest. I'm sure that your Church is like mine. You have good priests and not so good priests. You have good confessors and not so good confessors. You have knowledgeable priests, and not so knowledgeable. And worse of all you have priests who think they know more than their Church does, and thankfully most are humble enough to stay within the teachings of their faith. etc.

Fair question. But I doubt it. As I said, it is not forbidden to remarry after a spouse dies. Just many, many choose not to, because we don't consider relationships and love to be severed by death. I imagine they are considered husbands and wives. But I think they still have to be married using the service for second marriages, which is penitential in nature.

I'm not really speaking of widow(er)s, here; but those who are divorced and remarried.

Maybe you're right that the scientific understanding clouds the issue. I can't speak for the ECFs on the topic very much. I just have not had time to study to that point.

I don't know of any, (and I say this by claiming that I haven't read them all, but a good number) that spoke of grace as being this uncreated energy.

FWIW, I don't understand it as an energy such as that produced by a power plant or burning gasoline. But I hesitate to introduce language to describe how I do think of it. This wasn't done in English to begin with. But I will simply say that my own understanding might be called an "emanation".

I understand.

Well, that would be something to look into, especially how the rest of the Church interacted with them in that case. But as we know, simply the AGE of a teaching doesn't make it right. Arianism, Nestorianism, and so on were early teachings too.

When it came to Arianism, Nestorianism, and so on, when these heresies where identified they were attacked immediately. If the first millenium Christians had issues with these teachings, why on earth did it take the Schism for them to become an issue? Remember now that the Schism wasn't over anything doctrinal, except maybe the rejection of papal authority for imperial authority. But I would consider that more political than doctrinal.

 

[Erose]

Ok, it seems that this thread really isn't getting much traction, so lets shift it a little bit then. In John 16 we read: 12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14* He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Now the question here is this: By what means will the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth? Does this refer to that all Divine Revelation will be given to the Apostles and ended with them? And/or does it claim that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in coming to a fuller understanding of that Divine Revelation?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sorry had something to say, though it might not have taken it much further. Just limited how much I can type right now sometimes. Sorry about that.