This latin man speaks the truth in this instance.
"We just haven't changed our teaching." Thank God this is one of the things that the Latin (papal) Catholic Church has not changed. Unlike for instance the Roman heterodox view of cremation. I desire to be in communion with the Church that does not change it's true teaching to demonic lies.
I object to Invitro Fertilization for the same reasons that the Georgian Orthodox Church objects to it.
The bold arrogant questioning from some members of my motives is an insult to the Georgian Church and true Orthodoxy. I was hoping to find consistency in upholding the truth among Churches which claim to be Orthodox. Throughout history heresies have crept into the Church, with great prayer and struggle the heresies do not succeed because at least one part of the Church always believes in the truth.
"It is well known that it was at the Ignatian Council of 869-870 that this Pentarchic idea was particularly developed. It will suffice here to cite the words by which the patrician Baanes, the representative of Basil I, defined this idea:
God founded His Church on the five patriarchs and in the Gospels He defined that it could never completely fail because they are the chiefs of the Church. In effect Christ had said: "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her," which means: if two of them should happen to fail, they will turn to the three others, if three of them happen to fail, they shall address themselves to two others; and if by chance four of them come to failure the last who dwells in Christ Our God, the Chief of all, will restore again the rest of the body of the Church." (from a book by Francis Dvornik)
I wish to be under the jurisdiction of a Metropolitan, Catholicos or Patriarch that upholds the same true teaching as the Georgian Catholicos Illia II. Otherwise I must be part of the Georgian Church (which I do love quite deeply with their very unique almost armenian traditions) I have nothing further to say on this matter that would not be said by any Georgian representative. Knowing that masturbation of genitals can be involved only adds to the perversion of this gravely de-humanising demonic act. Despite the fact that a perforated condom exists I would be amazed if they were actually required to be used by many of the "orthodox" representative hierarches in the USA.
In the sinful act of "contraception" we see fear and spurning of children. In the sinful act of "invitro fertilization" we see the fear of having no children.
In both acts as in all sin there is a lack of trust that God cares for us and will protect us.
There is no faith. Of course however we must accept children no matter how they are conceived as the Georgian representative says. Children are innocent in the sins of their parents.
The acceptance of invitro-fertilization is part of the slippery slope of moral decline which is a grave threat to human life. The line between abortion and contraception and invitro fertilization is very thin. From their influence and popularity we gradually find acceptance of human cloning, of mixing animal and human DNA. Thoughts that cause the demons great delight.
That one or two people here insinuate masturbation to not be disordered is shameful.
I am no longer posting any further responses to this question for this forum.
I thank you for your views where they have been helpful. Especially from "Super Mensch" and PetertheAleut.
Below I list quotes from the internet of Orthodox and Heterodox views of procreation
This is the Orthodox Church I believe in:
One of the reasons for Ellen’s secrecy is because the Georgian Orthodox Church is against in-vitro fertilization. Vakhtang Akaladze is the general director of the Georgian Patriarchate Health Affairs Department, his position in the Orthodox Church is “Hegumen” and he is also a medical doctor in the Patriarchy’s health care facility. The Patriarchy of Georgia is the owner of a facility which treats both paying patients and which takes all women with state health insurance on for free. “The creation of a human is more then just putting these cells into test-tubes. The in-vitro fertilization method is unacceptable because with in-vitro only the couple’s male and female cells are presented, there are none of the psychological, endocrine or hormonal processes that are presented during the normal fertilization process,” says Akhaladze. But he also mentioned that the kids created using this method are ordinary kids and society should not have a ‘special’ attitude toward them.http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2880&Itemid=134
According to Akhaladze there are other ways to have a baby. In Bodbe, in the Kakheti region, the monastery of St.Nino has a spring whose water is considered to be able to work miracles. For many years, even in winter, childless women have come to this place and have bathed in the cold water. “If a woman really believes in positive results this method will work – and I know many women who became pregnant after visiting this place. There are also such places in Tsalka, and the Javakheti region,” says Akhaladze.
B – TEST TUBE BABIEShttp://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/goarch_moral_statements_1984.htm
However, in vitro fertilization (test tube babies) according to which the ovum and the sperm are united outside the wife’s body present serious problems to the Orthodox conscience. In this procedure the cells which produce the ova (oocytes) are removed from a wife’s body, fertilized by the sperm of husband or donor, kept in a laboratory culture solution until they reach a certain stage of development (blastocyte stage) and subsequently transferred and implanted in the mother’s womb. Serious objection is raised here to the fact that many more eggs are fertilized than can be used; those not used are discarded. This is easily seen to be the killing of potential life: abortion. Though there are a few cases of well born test tube babies, we do not know the effects of this procedure on all children who would be born from these methods. We do know that many deformities can and have taken place in test tube experiments. Finally, objections must be raised in terms of the mentality created by such a practice. As a step which dehumanizes life and which separates so dramatically the personal relations of a married couple from childbearing it is very suspect. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Orthodox Church does not encourage its members to become involve din invitro fertilization procedures, nor does it seem that it would be wise for society in general to encourage this practice.
This is the Hetero-dox Church I do not believe in:
"artificial insemination....does not violate the integrity of the marital union and does not differ basically from the natural conception and takes place in the context of marital relations"
As mentioned earlier by another forum user, we see from the Moscow synod that they are in heresy by the teaching of their synod.
So, now you say, "One of the purposes is the procreation of children. So, if there was a means to make this happen, or help it happen, what would be wrong with it?" Well, an argument that could be used, say, from the "old" Roman Catholic tradition would be, "It's artificial." But, that doesnâ€™t really make sense. Can only sex be "unartificial," while everything else in our lives can be artificial, that is technological? In class, I used to take my glasses off at this point and say, "I guess my glasses are sinful because theyâ€™re technological." Is there something wrong with technology just because its technology? One of the things that I like to point out from eucharistic theology, especially in ecological discussions, is that bread does not fall off trees. Bread is a technological invention, as is wine. Both of those are not just nature. Weâ€™re not offering fruits - actually according to the canons, weâ€™re not allowed to offer fruits with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. We offer what we have already mixed into our intellect, our artistic ability, our technology, as represented by this bread and wine.http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/2.1.5
So, to me, to be human is to be homo technicus in some way, though not totally. How does this apply to in vitro fertilization? If, somehow or another, husband and wife can be assisted in procreation - we donâ€™t stop elsewhere - the glasses were an example - this would help one of the purposes of marriage to be fulfilled. And that is good.
But, there is a caveat. The primary source for this argument is marriage. So, the endorsement of in vitro fertilization applies to spouses only.
"Orthodox writers have not dealt with artificial inovulation and in vitro fertilization procedures. It would seem consistent, though, to hold that, so long as the sperm and ovum are those of the husband and wife, and the wife carried the child to term, such procedures would not in themselves be objectionable."http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8076
"I hope I don't get my head bitten off here but the OCA, GOA and AOC all allow invitro. They require all embyros to be implanted but they do allow it. You can find this on the websites."http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/290113/Re_Catholic_looking_into_Easte
"Of two couples I know from AOC parishes they both were given the go from their priest without the "all must be used requirement"... well let me be specific: one couple was told that they could do it as long as they made sure the unused portion was given to people who couldn't conceive. I'm more of the opinion that that is more Franken-science than the more common total use requirement"
*To some Orthodox this also excludes artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, but that is another issue.(notice some and not all, as if it is individual personal preference and there is no absolute universal truth taught by the Church and God throughout the ages of ages.)http://www.stsophiaacademy.net/node/16948
Pro-life couples going through in-vitro fertilization can (and Orthodox faithful do) specify that no “extras” be conceived than will be implanted in the mother.http://www.antiochian.org/stem-cell-research