Posted on 05/05/2009 9:02:29 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Pro-life: opposition to all abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, in-vitro fertilization and gay “marriage” are proclaimed by the Church to be instrinsically evil: there is no circumstance where these activities could be allowed to happen, or legislation enabling them be supported. Other elements of the social policy are such that Catholics may hold a wide range of views without commiting a grave sin: taxation, poverty relief, foreign policy, law enforcement, immigration, and many others. Dow this answer your question of what the Church teaches?
Now back to bishop Martino: he is teaching in his Pastoral Letter his own flock on matters of social policy and makes the same point I just made. He is doing his divinely ordained job very well.
Your rude attack on him is without foundation.
“Dow this answer your question of what the Church teaches?”
You didn’t answer my question, Alex. Are you saying that anti-abortionism isn’t a dogma of the Latin Church? From what you have posted, it certainly looks like it is and frankly the response on this forum to whatever anti-abortionism is certainly makes it look like one of Rome’s post schism, novel “dogmas”. If it is a Latin Rite “dogma”, then I trust you will agree that Martino is a raving heretic and should be deposed. The sooner he is deposed, the better since all those in communion with him, so long as they are in communion with him, are similarly enemies of God as the Fathers teach us. Or is heresy OK in the Latin Church when it comes to fighting pro-abortion politicians?
“Your rude attack on him is without foundation.”
He’s a heretic, Alex, and as such a danger to the souls of the faithful.
Opposition to abortion has been the teaching of the Church since at least the time the Didache was written. Till now I was not aware that “anti-abortionism” is NOT likewise a position of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The Church never, to my knowledge, defined the relationship that exists between the social teaching of the Church and the theological dogmas, but is surely never taught that the former somehow overrules the latter. In fact, the social teaching of the Church, regarding abortion or any other, is a logical consequence of the theological dogmas of Catholic Orthodox Christianity.
I don't think he was killing the Manichees PRIOR to his conversion.
Wow. Sure you're not Protestant? Your editing of Scripture reminds me quite a bit of Luther.
And remember what the early Church Fathers, the Apostolic Constitution, and St. John Crysantamum all had to say about faithless people acting in the Church.
“So what would be the preferred Eastern Orthodox response to the scandal of a pro infanticide agnostic politician giving a commencement address at an Orthodox university?”
Probably nothing at all.
“At best it is a very grave scandal, giving harm to the souls of those who attend such an event (in that they may think such views are OK).”
Not at all, r. Such a person speaking at a commencement wouldn’t affect the faith of the laity. The idea that a politician’s beliefs would adversely impact on the souls of the faithful, to an Orthodox mind, is laughable. We spent centuries, in some places more than a millennium, under politicians who very nearly destroyed us physically. Its a shame some in the Roman Church are so very afraid of Obama that they are willing to embrace the heresy of the likes of the heresiarch Martino.
“And remember what the early Church Fathers, the Apostolic Constitution, and St. John Crysantamum all had to say about faithless people acting in the Church.”
Indeed. A great Russian hierarch, Metropolitan Philaret of New York, first hierarch of ROCOR, noted:
“The poison of heresy is not too dangerous when it is preached only from outside the Church. Many times more perilous is that poison which is gradually introduced into the organism in larger and larger doses by those who, in virtue of their position, should not be poisoners but spiritual physicians.”
There’s the problem, r! Heretics like Martino and those in communion with him who would drag the faithful into the spiritual shipwreck of the uncanonical practices.
The Orthodox Church does oppose abortion, Alex. It is not, however, the central, overarching tenet of the Faith, as the heretic Martino seems to profess it is for the Roman Church, so overwhelmingly central that all other considerations fall before its demands, including obeying the canons of Ecumenical Councils.
Alex, am I to assume that you simply refuse to answer my question or that you don't know the answer? Its not an unfair question, Alex.
Undeniably so, except that there was no agreement by the whole Church as to when the child was "ensouled." Tertullian believed that human life (soul) started at the moment of conception, that the product was human from the start. Others thought and taught otherwise.
It was this disagreement that led to the development of the doctrine of the soul in the Church. Blessed Augustine, for example, was unsure as to when the product had life. He argued that what has no life cannot be killed.
Ancient Church knew that aborted embryos in the first trimester, especially those in the first week of pregnancy, could not breathe on their own and appeared dead on arrival.
They also didn't "look" human. Many of them had gills, and other non-human elements which only straightened the belief that the product was in the process of being complete but was not complete, and for that reason had no life (i.e. couldn't breathe on its own).
Thus, an aborted fetus in the early pregnancy was believed not ensouled yet; as such, abortion was not murder at this stage; the child was not a child, and wasn't 'killed' because it was never alive.
Apparently, the idea that the child would have been able to breathe on its own if it were not destroyed never entered the discussion! As far as the Church was concerned, no murder took place. Even if the interruption of pregnancy was considered unnatural interference (like contraception is today), and as such a sin, the gravity of early abortion did not have the stimga or murder.
It was not until the 1700's that the Church (in part due to advances in medical knowledge) finalized its position on when life begins. In her 1700 year-old history the Church, individual exceptions notwithstanding, did not consider first trimester abortions as murder.
The Church never, to my knowledge, defined the relationship that exists between the social teaching of the Church and the theological dogmas
The only dogmas are those beliefs acclaimed as incumbent on all members of the Church by an Ecumenical Council, not what a local church decides to teach in a given political and social environment.
Resistance to abortion by the Orthodox is based on the core principles of the Christian faith and does not need to be stated as a separate teaching, or "dogma."
I didn't realize Justinian converted! Christianity was well established by the time he was born and it was a state religion, so I would imagine that he was baptized shortly after birth.
Eastern sainthood is attained by spontaneous popular veneration. Many kings were sainted for what they have done for the Church. Heads of state are not held directly responsible for lawful (not necessarily "just") killings committed by the state. I am not sure that Justinian personally killed anyone.
You are making a strawman.
Fat chance. It wasn't just Luther; the Church did her share of selecting and editing of scriptures ad nauseum.
So, you believe in talking donkeys?
If he was coming to preach infanticide, I assure you the university would not invite such a person. If he was invited to talk about secular issues that concern the audience, his private views would matter exactly nill.
At best it is a very grave scandal, giving harm to the souls of those who attend such an event (in that they may think such views are OK).
Is Obama coming to talk about the "beneifts" of abortion? If not, why is that a grave scandal any more than the pope praying in a syngaogue?
What’s missing form my answer? Pro-life is a social policy doctrine of the Church. It is not a theological dogma like, for example, divinity of Christ. The entire teaching of the Magisterium is to be obeyed, whether it is on social policy, morals, or faith. None of that contradicts the whole.
So, which canon do you think bishop Martino is in violation of, teaching on sanctity of life in his own diocese?
I don’t disagree with your post, and indeed to separate the teaching on abortion from the totality of the doctrines of the Church is incorrect.
The development and deepening of the understanding of when life begins is not a solely theological question. Ensoulment hypothesis was an attempt to understand fetal development, that is now obsoleted by science. We know what constitutes a human being; in the Middle Ages, they did not.
That Obama speaks is not a scandal at all, for reasons, more or less, that you articulated. Scandal is that he is honored as a lawyer, while being an avowed deathist.
Pope Alexander VI is honored as an orthodox pope who engaged in fornication and fathered illegitimate children.
“It is not a theological dogma like, for example, divinity of Christ.”
Thank-you. I take it that anti-abortionism is therefore not a belief which must be held in order to attain salvation, but rather merely a disciplinary canon of some sort, though of all, the most important of them. Am I also correct in assuming that obedience to this social teaching is as important in the Latin system as obedience to a dogma established by an Ecumenical Council. Is it, in light of Martino’s ordering of importance, more important than maintaining a belief in the propriety of the veneration of icons or that Panagia is the Theotokos and not the Christotokos? What is the practical difference for a Latin between denying that Panagia is the Theotokos and taking a pro abortion stand?
Alex, I suggest that in the heretic Martino’s mind, there is a difference; namely that the social policy is more important than the dogma. There is no doubt in my mind that it is at least of equal importance to the heresiarch and his political agenda as a dogma established by an Ecumenical Council.
“So, which canon do you think bishop Martino is in violation of, teaching on sanctity of life in his own diocese?”
No canon at all. Preaching the sanctity of life in one’s own diocese isn’t a violation of anything. Raising that preaching to the level of dogma is heresy. Like I said, he should be silenced, deposed and sent to a monastery.
Perhaps we learned something from it.
Did Pope Alexander VI also teach that there should be a law encouraging fornication and illegitimacy?
Absolutely it must be held. Participation in murder is a sin that cries out to heaven and damns the sinner for all eternity. The Orthodox do not think murder is sin?
Is it, in light of Martino’s ordering of importance, more important than maintaining a belief in the propriety of the veneration of icons or that Panagia is the Theotokos and not the Christotokos?
How do we know unless we ask him? The Pastoral letter that you are quoting is silent on this.
“The Pastoral letter that you are quoting is silent on this.”
Not at all. The letter is quite clear that all other considerations pale in the face of anti-abortionism.
“”“No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.””
Is this simply heretical hyperbole excusable because of the the nature of abortion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.