Latin vs Orthodox

[rhiamom]

In the society which which we live, we have a Christian duty to act within our power to protect the most fundamental basis of our community---the right to life. We cannot ignore the image of God in every human being, including in those society deems unworthy of life. "What you do to the least of Me, you do to Me." We are not islands---we bear some responsibility for those around us.

So then, why doesn't the RCC put an equal burden on voting for a candidate who does not oppose the death penalty? Why do people not have a defective conscience if they vote for a politician who is in favor of it? That hasn't been made a matter of faith. And what about the millions of Iraqi civilians killed, not to mention the soldiers? But it seems protecting their lives isn't a matter of faith, either, and I can vote for a pro-war candidate with a clear conscience. No, the RCC in the US is playing politics, not protecting life.

Yes, we do have a Christian duty to live a Godly life. We do not have a Christian duty to impose Christian morality on other people. We are to be the light, the shining example. That itself presupposes that others will not be living the same way and will need the example. And, in fact, it is only the morality of the RCC and the Fundamentalists, not all Christians that they are trying to impose. The mainstream Protestant churches and the Orthodox Church quite rightly admits the existence of a grey area regarding abortion, when one has to balance the life of the unborn child against the life of the mother. In the RCC there is no balance, the life of the child trumps the life of the mother, and abortion should be illegal at any time and for any reason. It's back to the same thing again, rigid rules blindly enforced instead of wisdom administered with compassion.

[simplygermain]

To Rhiamom!: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH! SNAAAAPPP!!!!

I can hear the Baptismal Font filling up already! This one's gonna be an apologetic Orthodox Christian yet.
Break out the Holy Chrism! Where's the red Cross patch?! I got the candles!

[rwprof]

In the society which which we live, we have a Christian duty to act within our power to protect the most fundamental basis of our community---the right to life. We cannot ignore the image of God in every human being, including in those society deems unworthy of life. "What you do to the least of Me, you do to Me." We are not islands---we bear some responsibility for those around us.

So then, why doesn't the RCC put an equal burden on voting for a candidate who does not oppose the death penalty? Why do people not have a defective conscience if they vote for a politician who is in favor of it? That hasn't been made a matter of faith. And what about the millions of Iraqi civilians killed, not to mention the soldiers? But it seems protecting their lives isn't a matter of faith, either, and I can vote for a pro-war candidate with a clear conscience. No, the RCC in the US is playing politics, not protecting life.

Yes, we do have a Christian duty to live a Godly life. We do not have a Christian duty to impose Christian morality on other people. We are to be the light, the shining example. That itself presupposes that others will not be living the same way and will need the example. And, in fact, it is only the morality of the RCC and the Fundamentalists, not all Christians that they are trying to impose. The mainstream Protestant churches and the Orthodox Church quite rightly admits the existence of a grey area regarding abortion, when one has to balance the life of the unborn child against the life of the mother. In the RCC there is no balance, the life of the child trumps the life of the mother, and abortion should be illegal at any time and for any reason. It's back to the same thing again, rigid rules blindly enforced instead of wisdom administered with compassion.

This is nonsense, and you have a problem with your moral compass if you think the death penalty -- taking the lives of murderers -- and murdering innocent children are comparable. As for "balancing the life of the unborn child against that of the mother," that's all very nice, but nearly all abortions have nothing to do with such issues, and are performed as birth control for the convenience of the woman who should have kept her legs together. The stats are easily available. Almost no abortions are performed because of rape, incest, or even health issues.

[lubeltri]

The mainstream Protestant churches and the Orthodox Church quite rightly admits the existence of a grey area regarding abortion, when one has to balance the life of the unborn child against the life of the mother.

Hmm, I wonder what our hosts think of your grouping them in with the liberal Protestant mainline, most of whom are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

[lubeltri]

As for the tired "imposing Christian morality" trope you employ, the less said the better. In my experience, those who use this have no problem doing the "imposing" with regard to the issues they think are important.

Forgive me for thinking protecting human lives from being killed is something worth "imposing."

[Gabriel]

This is nonsense, and you have a problem with your moral compass if you think the death penalty -- taking the lives of murderers -- and murdering innocent children are comparable.

Are all equal in God's eyes or not?

[simplygermain]

This is nonsense, and you have a problem with your moral compass if you think the death penalty -- taking the lives of murderers -- and murdering innocent children are comparable.

Are all equal in God's eyes or not?

Are they?? From an OT perspective, one could easily argue the case that the Jews were His chosen people. And from the new Testament, we find scripture that posits ......."He shall rule them with a rod of iron; They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter's vessels'-"  ( Rev. 2:27 )

It seems that to God, (IMOO) that those whom He choses and those who choose Him are covered in His Mantle. But He is fully aware of the fact that not all will make it and seems to be o.k. with that. We are His creation anyway. I'm not going into a Job-esque debate with the BIGMAN about why He can't save everyone. I'll accept what I've got and struggle for salvation, along the way helping to relieve the burden from others. Fighting the fight against the injustices I see which He gives me inspiration to do so. 

[simplygermain]

BTW - Wow! Way off topic now! 

[rhiamom]

When has this thread ever been ON topic?

[simplygermain]

Rhaimom, good question, although I am still watching how it all turns out...kind of like a horror film.

[ody30]

Perhaps this is not the right forum, but I am hoping that someone can confirm. If a person is confirmed in the Latin Church, does that mean that they MUST accept all Canon laws as Dogma?  I presume so, but I am not sure. 

[Marc1152]

You make it seem very legalistic. It is not, and I speak from experience.

Ah, but it IS legalistic. When I expressed a desire to join the RC church, I was required to take the RCIA classes. No allowance was made for the fact that I knew as much or more than the people teaching the class. It was the rule, you see, that all converts have to take that class. Having an equivalent level of knowledge, which could have been ascertained in a short interview, was not an option even though I asked about it.

Yes, some Catholics are devout people striving to live better lives. But that isn't the main focus of the RCC. The main focus of the RCC is on your sin, not your relationship with God. Yes, the priest tailors the penance to suit the gravity of the sin. But there you encounter more legalism in determining if a sin was mortal or not. It's always about the rules, and not the individual.

Maybe they wanted you to demonstrate humility when they asked you to take RCIA. You know, like a test of your meekness etc.

For example, let's say someone with a Phd. in religion decided to covert to the Catholic Church. They suggest that he take the RCIA classes. He mentions nothing about his PhD. in religion and keeps it to himself. He obediently goes to class, does not show off his education and participates in a friendly way... We would consider such a person to have demonstrated an Orthodox like  demeanor.

Okay  ?   

[John Larocque]

Adultery is a greater sin than swiping a stapler not because the sin itself is worse, but because you broke a sacramental vow. Why is missing Mass a greater sin than swiping a stapler?

Unless things have changed greatly in the past 40 years, deliberately missing your Sunday obligation does place you in a state of mortal sin. That's how the old catechisms put it. I've sometimes talked to Catholics over the years who were surprised to learn that that is the case (these are the same Catholics who do miss Sunday mass, and for whom it is no big deal). Sunday is the Christian Sabbath and you must keep it holy. I suppose that smacks of "legalism" and frankly I don't know how serious missing Divine Liturgy is in the Orthodox.. The terminology for sin is different - so I guess the question would boil down to, "If I deliberately miss Sunday Divine Liturgy, don't confess it and come back the next week, can I receive the body and blood of Christ?" I'm positing this because I genuinely don't know, but it's a good question, is it not?

[pensateomnia]

If a person is confirmed in the Latin Church, does that mean that they MUST accept all Canon laws as Dogma?

Not all canon law is dogma. Within the RC system, some parts of the Code are based on "positive" law, not divine law.

[Schultz]

Perhaps this is not the right forum, but I am hoping that someone can confirm. If a person is confirmed in the Latin Church, does that mean that they MUST accept all Canon laws as Dogma?  I presume so, but I am not sure. 

For starters, canon law =/= dogma.  The understanding is that, when Confirmed, one does except those things the RCC holds has dogma to be true and submits oneself to canon law which, in practice, is more of a process than anything.

Those who have any experience in the RCC know that canon lawyers are worse than secular lawyers when it comes to finding loopholes

[Fr. George]

The understanding is that, when Confirmed, one does except those things the RCC holds has dogma to be true and submits oneself to canon law which, in practice, is more of a process than anything.

I may not be a canon lawyer, but I do believe you probably meant to say "accept" instead of "except."

[Schultz]

Eep!  Yes, strike "except" and replace with "accept".

Color me embarrassed for this gross negligence.

[pensateomnia]

Time for a canonical penance (epitimia)!

(Otherwise known as sweet, sweet ecclesiastical smackdown)

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Latin vs Orthodox