OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 06:00:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxy's view on contraception?  (Read 26003 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #180 on: May 20, 2010, 08:38:29 PM »

St. Clement of Alexandria says that a characteristic of true Christians is that once they have had children they live as brothers and sisters. just throwing that out there ... have fun!
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,288


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #181 on: May 20, 2010, 08:57:25 PM »

St. Clement of Alexandria says that a characteristic of true Christians is that once they have had children they live as brothers and sisters. just throwing that out there ... have fun!


  "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). -Clement of Alexandria-



Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #182 on: May 20, 2010, 09:00:44 PM »

St. Clement is hardcore!
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,288


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #183 on: May 20, 2010, 09:21:20 PM »

I found this helpful and worthy of consideration. Not sure who the author is.


Nature

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

 
Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it....

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

 
Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).



Selam

Post edited to comply with moratorium.--YtterbiumAnalyst
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 09:35:24 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,711


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #184 on: May 20, 2010, 09:28:37 PM »

Quote
For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism,"


On the contrary. Onanism is another word for masturbation.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,288


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #185 on: May 20, 2010, 09:35:50 PM »

Quote
For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism,"


On the contrary. Onanism is another word for masturbation.

Wrong. Read the sentence again. "Certain forms of contraception..."


Selam
Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,205


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #186 on: May 20, 2010, 11:22:50 PM »

I found this helpful and worthy of consideration.
Where did you find it?  I hope you'll give us a link.

Not sure who the author is.
Then why should we trust this essay if we can't question the author?

Nature

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.


Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it....

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.


Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).



Selam
Still fighting the straw man, Gebre?

It seems that you're also quite good at putting your word into the mouth of the Church and claiming it's absolute truth.  Your words in this argument aren't wrong; they're just your words.

Quotation edited to agree with edit to the source.--YtterbiumAnalyst
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 09:36:18 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,282


WWW
« Reply #187 on: May 20, 2010, 11:35:06 PM »

I found this helpful and worthy of consideration.
Where did you find it?  I hope you'll give us a link.

The source for Reply #145 is the encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae, by Pope Paul VI issued in 1968.   
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,205


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #188 on: May 20, 2010, 11:40:45 PM »

I would also like to know something else, Gebre.  You identify the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as "the Church".  You have repeatedly stated on a number of issues that you take the dogmatic authority of the EOTC to be absolute and that you willingly submit to her teachings without question.  I understand that the EOTC tends to be quite strict, in many regards stricter than the EO, on a number of praxis issues.  Why, then, must the strictness of the EOTC be exalted as though it's the Tradition of the entire universal Church, such that there's no wiggle room for the exercise of discernment in pastoral application of our moral rules in the EO churches?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 11:41:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,288


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #189 on: May 21, 2010, 12:35:55 AM »

I would also like to know something else, Gebre.  You identify the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as "the Church".  You have repeatedly stated on a number of issues that you take the dogmatic authority of the EOTC to be absolute and that you willingly submit to her teachings without question.  I understand that the EOTC tends to be quite strict, in many regards stricter than the EO, on a number of praxis issues.  Why, then, must the strictness of the EOTC be exalted as though it's the Tradition of the entire universal Church, such that there's no wiggle room for the exercise of discernment in pastoral application of our moral rules in the EO churches?

Do what you want Peter. I have no authority to prevent you from exercising your freedom of choice. Find the Priest and Church that accommodates your subjective views and have fun. I have given you arguments from nature, Scripture, and apostolic Tradition. I have repeatedly said that if you have ecclesiastical evidence that refutes my position, then I am willing to reconsider. But you have failed to even try to provide such evidence. I'm not the Pope brother. But perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic about insisting that all Orthodox Christians accept your subjective view that birth control is simply a matter between married couples and their Priests- that is, unless you have clear apostolic evidence to support such a dogmatic position.


Selam


Logged

"If we are unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we demonstrate that we are interested not in the truth so much as in being right." ~ Thomas Merton ~
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,205


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #190 on: May 21, 2010, 12:44:08 AM »

I would also like to know something else, Gebre.  You identify the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as "the Church".  You have repeatedly stated on a number of issues that you take the dogmatic authority of the EOTC to be absolute and that you willingly submit to her teachings without question.  I understand that the EOTC tends to be quite strict, in many regards stricter than the EO, on a number of praxis issues.  Why, then, must the strictness of the EOTC be exalted as though it's the Tradition of the entire universal Church, such that there's no wiggle room for the exercise of discernment in pastoral application of our moral rules in the EO churches?

Do what you want Peter. I have no authority to prevent you from exercising your freedom of choice. Find the Priest and Church that accommodates your subjective views and have fun. I have given you arguments from nature, Scripture, and apostolic Tradition. I have repeatedly said that if you have ecclesiastical evidence that refutes my position, then I am willing to reconsider. But you have failed to even try to provide such evidence. I'm not the Pope brother. But perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic about insisting that all Orthodox Christians accept your subjective view that birth control is simply a matter between married couples and their Priests- that is, unless you have clear apostolic evidence to support such a dogmatic position.
Trying to turn the tables around, eh?  The problem with this tactic is that I've never asserted any belief outside of the belief that you're too strict and that you're poisoning this discussion with your dogmaticism and your unwillingness to listen, a belief that I gladly defend as merely my opinion.  Therefore, I have nothing to prove. Wink
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 03:10:55 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #191 on: May 21, 2010, 12:50:24 AM »

I would also like to know something else, Gebre.  You identify the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as "the Church".  You have repeatedly stated on a number of issues that you take the dogmatic authority of the EOTC to be absolute and that you willingly submit to her teachings without question.  I understand that the EOTC tends to be quite strict, in many regards stricter than the EO, on a number of praxis issues.  Why, then, must the strictness of the EOTC be exalted as though it's the Tradition of the entire universal Church, such that there's no wiggle room for the exercise of discernment in pastoral application of our moral rules in the EO churches?

Do what you want Peter. I have no authority to prevent you from exercising your freedom of choice. Find the Priest and Church that accommodates your subjective views and have fun. I have given you arguments from nature, Scripture, and apostolic Tradition. I have repeatedly said that if you have ecclesiastical evidence that refutes my position, then I am willing to reconsider. But you have failed to even try to provide such evidence. I'm not the Pope brother. But perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic about insisting that all Orthodox Christians accept your subjective view that birth control is simply a matter between married couples and their Priests- that is, unless you have clear apostolic evidence to support such a dogmatic position.
Trying to turn the tables around, eh?  The problem with this approach is that I've never asserted any belief outside of the belief that you're too strict and that you're poisoning this discussion with your dogmaticism and your unwillingness to listen, a belief that I gladly defend as merely my opinion.  Therefore, I have nothing to prove. Wink

well youre asserting that he's too strict rather than being right on the money ... i think he wants you to demonstrate that ...
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,205


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #192 on: May 21, 2010, 01:38:11 AM »

I would also like to know something else, Gebre.  You identify the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as "the Church".  You have repeatedly stated on a number of issues that you take the dogmatic authority of the EOTC to be absolute and that you willingly submit to her teachings without question.  I understand that the EOTC tends to be quite strict, in many regards stricter than the EO, on a number of praxis issues.  Why, then, must the strictness of the EOTC be exalted as though it's the Tradition of the entire universal Church, such that there's no wiggle room for the exercise of discernment in pastoral application of our moral rules in the EO churches?

Do what you want Peter. I have no authority to prevent you from exercising your freedom of choice. Find the Priest and Church that accommodates your subjective views and have fun. I have given you arguments from nature, Scripture, and apostolic Tradition. I have repeatedly said that if you have ecclesiastical evidence that refutes my position, then I am willing to reconsider. But you have failed to even try to provide such evidence. I'm not the Pope brother. But perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic about insisting that all Orthodox Christians accept your subjective view that birth control is simply a matter between married couples and their Priests- that is, unless you have clear apostolic evidence to support such a dogmatic position.
Trying to turn the tables around, eh?  The problem with this approach is that I've never asserted any belief outside of the belief that you're too strict and that you're poisoning this discussion with your dogmaticism and your unwillingness to listen, a belief that I gladly defend as merely my opinion.  Therefore, I have nothing to prove. Wink

well youre asserting that he's too strict rather than being right on the money ... i think he wants you to demonstrate that ...
Nah.  That's not what he says he wants people to demonstrate, since he started his "prove me wrong" racket before I even started posting on this thread, and he hasn't changed his tune yet.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #193 on: May 21, 2010, 01:57:16 AM »

I would also like to know something else, Gebre.  You identify the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as "the Church".  You have repeatedly stated on a number of issues that you take the dogmatic authority of the EOTC to be absolute and that you willingly submit to her teachings without question.  I understand that the EOTC tends to be quite strict, in many regards stricter than the EO, on a number of praxis issues.  Why, then, must the strictness of the EOTC be exalted as though it's the Tradition of the entire universal Church, such that there's no wiggle room for the exercise of discernment in pastoral application of our moral rules in the EO churches?

Do what you want Peter. I have no authority to prevent you from exercising your freedom of choice. Find the Priest and Church that accommodates your subjective views and have fun. I have given you arguments from nature, Scripture, and apostolic Tradition. I have repeatedly said that if you have ecclesiastical evidence that refutes my position, then I am willing to reconsider. But you have failed to even try to provide such evidence. I'm not the Pope brother. But perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic about insisting that all Orthodox Christians accept your subjective view that birth control is simply a matter between married couples and their Priests- that is, unless you have clear apostolic evidence to support such a dogmatic position.
Trying to turn the tables around, eh?  The problem with this approach is that I've never asserted any belief outside of the belief that you're too strict and that you're poisoning this discussion with your dogmaticism and your unwillingness to listen, a belief that I gladly defend as merely my opinion.  Therefore, I have nothing to prove. Wink

well youre asserting that he's too strict rather than being right on the money ... i think he wants you to demonstrate that ...
Nah.  That's not what he says he wants people to demonstrate, since he started his "prove me wrong" racket before I even started posting on this thread, and he hasn't changed his tune yet.

right, well from what ive seen from my skimming of this thread is that he puts forth his evidence for why he believes what he believes and others say he's wrong so he asks where does the Church show him wrong? seems like the obvious question for him to put forth when told that he's wrong ...
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #194 on: May 21, 2010, 02:04:00 AM »

Skim a little more.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,205


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #195 on: May 21, 2010, 02:11:53 AM »

I would also like to know something else, Gebre.  You identify the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as "the Church".  You have repeatedly stated on a number of issues that you take the dogmatic authority of the EOTC to be absolute and that you willingly submit to her teachings without question.  I understand that the EOTC tends to be quite strict, in many regards stricter than the EO, on a number of praxis issues.  Why, then, must the strictness of the EOTC be exalted as though it's the Tradition of the entire universal Church, such that there's no wiggle room for the exercise of discernment in pastoral application of our moral rules in the EO churches?

Do what you want Peter. I have no authority to prevent you from exercising your freedom of choice. Find the Priest and Church that accommodates your subjective views and have fun. I have given you arguments from nature, Scripture, and apostolic Tradition. I have repeatedly said that if you have ecclesiastical evidence that refutes my position, then I am willing to reconsider. But you have failed to even try to provide such evidence. I'm not the Pope brother. But perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic about insisting that all Orthodox Christians accept your subjective view that birth control is simply a matter between married couples and their Priests- that is, unless you have clear apostolic evidence to support such a dogmatic position.
Trying to turn the tables around, eh?  The problem with this approach is that I've never asserted any belief outside of the belief that you're too strict and that you're poisoning this discussion with your dogmaticism and your unwillingness to listen, a belief that I gladly defend as merely my opinion.  Therefore, I have nothing to prove. Wink

well youre asserting that he's too strict rather than being right on the money ... i think he wants you to demonstrate that ...
Nah.  That's not what he says he wants people to demonstrate, since he started his "prove me wrong" racket before I even started posting on this thread, and he hasn't changed his tune yet.

right, well from what ive seen from my skimming of this thread is that he puts forth his evidence for why he believes what he believes and others say he's wrong so he asks where does the Church show him wrong? seems like the obvious question for him to put forth when told that he's wrong ...
Gebre started his "prove me wrong" refrain on the first page of this thread in an apparent reply to Heorhij, who called his strict dogmatic position BS.  Otherwise, I acknowledge that what you just said in your last post is fundamentally correct.  (I'm just not one of those who says Gebre's position is wrong--too strict, maybe, but not inconsistent with Tradition.)
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #196 on: May 21, 2010, 08:06:29 AM »

St. Clement of Alexandria says that a characteristic of true Christians is that once they have had children they live as brothers and sisters. just throwing that out there ... have fun!

And that's the "Moral Law of the Church" that Gebre means? Surely not?

My personal opinion (Greek "herese" or "yerese," pun intended) on this matter is that quotes from Fathers like the one above show us that certain things they said are ultimately stupid and should not be considered as the teachings we should live by. Sorry Fathers. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,816


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #197 on: May 21, 2010, 10:44:46 AM »

Unless someone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church Teachings that specifically advocate articifial birth control as appropriate for Orthodox Christians, then I will continue to condemn it as contrary to the Teachings and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Individual Priests and Bishops may have subjective opinions about the matter, but their opinions do not override 2,000 years of Church Teaching on the matter.
But when you present your interpretation of our Tradition on an Internet discussion board, your condemnation of artificial birth control comes across as an unnecessarily dogmatic opinion.  Why should your interpretation of Tradition trump the interpretation of Tradition that guides the pastoral practice of so many of our priests and bishops?  Are you somehow more qualified to interpret Tradition for us than they?

Neither my interpretation nor the interpretation of Priests and Bishops trumps the 2,000 year old interpetation of the Church. That's why I said that I will gladly stand corrected if anyone can provide me with Patristic texts or Church canons that clearly advocate or condone the use of artificial birth control. My opinion on the matter is based on objective ecclesiastical Teaching and Tradition, not on my own subjective ideas.


Selam

As you probably know, cannons dont work like that. The don't say "It's fine to use birth control" rather they restrict something or another.

Your argument is specious.

Oh and birth control isnt "artificial".. any more than wearing clothing is artificial warmth...
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #198 on: May 21, 2010, 11:56:29 AM »

St. Clement of Alexandria says that a characteristic of true Christians is that once they have had children they live as brothers and sisters. just throwing that out there ... have fun!

And that's the "Moral Law of the Church" that Gebre means? Surely not?

My personal opinion (Greek "herese" or "yerese," pun intended) on this matter is that quotes from Fathers like the one above show us that certain things they said are ultimately stupid and should not be considered as the teachings we should live by. Sorry Fathers. Smiley

you dont think its possible that perhaps they knew a lil more than you and i, cause, you know ... they kinda knew God more than we do ...?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #199 on: May 21, 2010, 12:23:53 PM »

St. Clement of Alexandria says that a characteristic of true Christians is that once they have had children they live as brothers and sisters. just throwing that out there ... have fun!

And that's the "Moral Law of the Church" that Gebre means? Surely not?

My personal opinion (Greek "herese" or "yerese," pun intended) on this matter is that quotes from Fathers like the one above show us that certain things they said are ultimately stupid and should not be considered as the teachings we should live by. Sorry Fathers. Smiley

you dont think its possible that perhaps they knew a lil more than you and i, cause, you know ... they kinda knew God more than we do ...?

I don't know. Yes, I heard this argument - that "they were canonized by the Church for a good reason." And yet, when I read something like what you quoted, I can't help but think, "stupid, stupid, stupid. And evil...." Sorry.
Logged

Love never fails.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #200 on: May 21, 2010, 02:26:26 PM »

I am waiting with baited breath for Gebre to break out into a Monty Python song.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #201 on: May 21, 2010, 03:09:25 PM »

How certain are you that this is the only motivation for using what you call artificial birth control?

Indeed. Let's posit that, for example, a woman undergoes multiple cesarean sections because there are multiple complications with the vaginal deliveries of several infants. After having two or three of these, her doctor informs her that to have additional children would endanger her life and safety, because her uterine wall will likely rupture from the multiple incisions. In other words, it would be suicide to have anymore kids.

Are her and the husband then forever forbidden to engage in sexual activity, knowing that they would have to use some form on contraception (be it a vasectomy or at least condoms) to ensure the safety of the wife's life? In this scenario, it has nothing to do with avoiding children, but rather has to do with protecting life while seeking to retain the intimate bonds of affection in marital relations.

First, you continue to assume that artificial birth control is the only effective means of precluding conception. That's a false assumption.

Second, if impregnating my wife would cause her death, then I would not have sexual relations with her anymore. How selfish would I be to take that chance? It would be better to abstain from sex and trust in God. He can work wonders you know, and perhaps my wife would be healed of her condition and be able to bear children once again. But if I had a vasectomy, then what?

You see, anytime we go against God's natural will and order, we cause ourselves harm. That's my point.

Rather than looking at it from the negative ("God forbids this and that," etc), we should look at it from the positive. Life is a blessing, children are a blessing, sex is a blessing, marriage is a blessing- and they all go together. Satan always wants us to see God and His laws as burdens, but they are actually liberations.


Selam


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Get in that situation, bub, and watch your high and mighty opinion crumble to the ground.  You talk like it's the *man* who wants it.  So she wants it, the priest says do it, and I say, "Nope, sorry babe.  This guy on the internet said it would be selfish of me to listen to my priest." 

I'll stick with what my priest tells me.  I hope nobody on this forum who has a weak sense of their faith and is in that situation actually listens to you.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #202 on: May 21, 2010, 03:14:09 PM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility...

NFP is a dead duck in the water.....  The Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States reports that an estimated 2-3% of married Catholic couples use it.   The rest simply don't.  

Given the immense effort that the Catholic Church invests into persuading its people to use NFP, I think that the 2-3% statistic really says it all.  Catholics won't use it.

Don't sell it short.  Hippies nationwide are going to it.  I know.  I've been to Austin where all the Texas hippies go.

Ummm.  Oh yeah.  I use it.  It works great.  Don't tell anybody else from Texas or they'll think I'm a hippie.


I'm going to the range to shoot at some silhouettes now.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #203 on: May 21, 2010, 03:29:25 PM »

I have to agree with Quinault here:  NFP sounds really good until you try practicing it.  It takes an enormous amount of monitoring, self-control, and communication with your partner.  That's not to say that those things immediately rule NFP out as a possibility and indeed, I think it's a good way (used in conjunction with a barrier contraceptive) to be more responsible and not violate the teachings of the church.  However, biology is often unpredictable.  As much as one can monitor, abstain, etc., there is always the possibility that the calculations are off or the wife misread her body's cues and to me, it is irresponsible in this current economic and sociological climate to just leave it up to chance whether pregnancy occurs.  Do not think I am saying that children are a burden or are unwanted when they are conceived, because I believe they are wonderful and I thank God for the two I have now.  I am saying that medically and financially speaking, sometimes it is better to prevent pregnancy than to become unable to care for yourself and your children.

Been using it for years, my friend, and used it as soon as we got married.  It worked for two years and then I decided it was bull and that one of us wasn't working.  BAM came one BAM BAM came two BAM BAM BAM came three BAM BAM BAM BAM came four  BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM came five.

Went back to it.  I do believe it works now and there's not much stopping us.  It's been a few years now.  Yeah.  I'm a slow learner.  Doctor said no more, as my wife has a condition that's pretty dangerous.  We lost our daughter when my wife went into labor.  Well, I tell you, NFP is mostly all we use (sometimes we use the conjunction thing, but not that often). 

If you ain't communicating enough to do NFP, brother, you got a whole other set of problems.  It ain't "enormous amounts."  "Hey honey."  "Hey yourself, you touch me tonight I'm gettin the frying pan."  "Okay.  Let's watch a Jackie Chan movie, then." "I'll make the popcorn."  Wow.  Tough.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #204 on: May 21, 2010, 03:52:45 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 03:54:05 PM by Quinault » Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,237



« Reply #205 on: May 21, 2010, 03:53:51 PM »

I found this helpful and worthy of consideration. Not sure who the author is.


Nature

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

 
Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

 
Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).



Selam

I'm with you on this one, Gebre. I recall Our Lord saying something along the lines of "be fruit and multiply" not "be fruitful and multiply, but feel free at any time to stop multiplying." Are you familiar with the documentary called "Demographic Winter"? It's fairly recent and was actually done by sociologists without  any type of "religious bias." We watched it in my biology class and it is really well done. The documentary is about how due to lack of reproduction (of which contraception is a huge factor), many nations are seeing their birth-rates plummet, which is quickly followed by their economy taking the same plummet. Look no further than Russia and Romania.

My priest had this to say when I was inquiring about Orthodoxy:
Quote
We have been taught that using contraceptives is not the way to have a Godly marriage, that children are a blessing from God, although you may run into some "modern liberal" Orthodox in America who ignore that. However, as Orthodox we also refrain from marital relations during fasting periods, i.e. Tuesday and Thursday nights (the eves of the Wed and Fri. fast), on any evening before receiving Holy Communion (such as Saturday evening and before the 12 Great Feast days), and during the entire time of the four fasts: Lent, Nativity Fast, Apostles Fast, and Dormition Fast. This adds up to more than half of the year that we abstain, and it seems to me upon cursory inspection that "large" Orthodox families are about half the size of "large" Catholic families. Also, you may know that while women are exclusively breastfeeding (on demand, no supplemental feedings) the hormones act as a natural birth control with about 98% effectiveness. Of course women are only fertile a few days every month, and abstinence during that time is a fairly effective method if needed. However, women are much more "interested" when they are fertile than at other times, so that has its frustrations. Basically though, we need and want more Orthodox babies and families for the sake of our souls (our spiritual growth and responsibility) and theirs.

I'll probably be blasted for this post judging from many of the other posters on this thread, but oh well!  Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #206 on: May 21, 2010, 03:55:45 PM »

Except my eldest- all of our kids have been conceived when nursing Wink
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #207 on: May 21, 2010, 04:06:28 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.

What really strikes me in the discussions about NFP is that people who are using it have the INTENTION not to conceive a child. I think this is what really matters, not that they are not putting some mechanical or pharmacological barrier to prevent conception. Their thoughts, desires, inclinations are still exactly the same as in those couples who use the pill or the barrier methods.

And it's terrible because it takes away the wonderful spontaneity of lovemaking... Turns marital relations into some sort of following a medical procedure: "no, honey, not today, let's watch the Jackie Chan movie," like Cizinec said. Not my idea of marriage.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 04:07:05 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #208 on: May 21, 2010, 04:13:21 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.

What really strikes me in the discussions about NFP is that people who are using it have the INTENTION not to conceive a child. I think this is what really matters, not that they are not putting some mechanical or pharmacological barrier to prevent conception. Their thoughts, desires, inclinations are still exactly the same as in those couples who use the pill or the barrier methods.

And it's terrible because it takes away the wonderful spontaneity of lovemaking... Turns marital relations into some sort of following a medical procedure: "no, honey, not today, let's watch the Jackie Chan movie," like Cizinec said. Not my idea of marriage.
Its not the same because those practicing NFP have to develop self control and master their passions. Those using artificial birth control just doing what they want when the want. Which practice is more Christian?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #209 on: May 21, 2010, 04:18:24 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.

What really strikes me in the discussions about NFP is that people who are using it have the INTENTION not to conceive a child. I think this is what really matters, not that they are not putting some mechanical or pharmacological barrier to prevent conception. Their thoughts, desires, inclinations are still exactly the same as in those couples who use the pill or the barrier methods.

And it's terrible because it takes away the wonderful spontaneity of lovemaking... Turns marital relations into some sort of following a medical procedure: "no, honey, not today, let's watch the Jackie Chan movie," like Cizinec said. Not my idea of marriage.
Its not the same because those practicing NFP have to develop self control and master their passions. Those using artificial birth control just doing what they want when the want. Which practice is more Christian?

If both members of the couple are believers (not my case), they have plenty of opportunity to learn to master their passions during fasts...
Logged

Love never fails.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #210 on: May 21, 2010, 04:19:23 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.

What really strikes me in the discussions about NFP is that people who are using it have the INTENTION not to conceive a child. I think this is what really matters, not that they are not putting some mechanical or pharmacological barrier to prevent conception. Their thoughts, desires, inclinations are still exactly the same as in those couples who use the pill or the barrier methods.

And it's terrible because it takes away the wonderful spontaneity of lovemaking... Turns marital relations into some sort of following a medical procedure: "no, honey, not today, let's watch the Jackie Chan movie," like Cizinec said. Not my idea of marriage.
Its not the same because those practicing NFP have to develop self control and master their passions. Those using artificial birth control just doing what they want when the want. Which practice is more Christian?

If both members of the couple are believers (not my case), they have plenty of opportunity to learn to master their passions during fasts...
So master your passions... except in this one area where you don't feel like mastering your passions.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #211 on: May 21, 2010, 04:36:02 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.

What really strikes me in the discussions about NFP is that people who are using it have the INTENTION not to conceive a child. I think this is what really matters, not that they are not putting some mechanical or pharmacological barrier to prevent conception. Their thoughts, desires, inclinations are still exactly the same as in those couples who use the pill or the barrier methods.

And it's terrible because it takes away the wonderful spontaneity of lovemaking... Turns marital relations into some sort of following a medical procedure: "no, honey, not today, let's watch the Jackie Chan movie," like Cizinec said. Not my idea of marriage.
Its not the same because those practicing NFP have to develop self control and master their passions. Those using artificial birth control just doing what they want when the want. Which practice is more Christian?

If both members of the couple are believers (not my case), they have plenty of opportunity to learn to master their passions during fasts...
So master your passions... except in this one area where you don't feel like mastering your passions.

As a man who has been married for more than 26 years, I can tell you that sometimes mastering your passions means giving sexual satisfaction to your spouse whether you feel like it or not. Smiley "Mastering" in this delicate area is not necessarily negative.
Logged

Love never fails.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,237



« Reply #212 on: May 21, 2010, 05:03:45 PM »

Except my eldest- all of our kids have been conceived when nursing Wink

Perhaps, it was the Lord's will?  Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #213 on: May 21, 2010, 05:17:48 PM »

I am sure that they were the Lord's will. But to say that breastfeeding is 98% effective at keeping fertility at bay is a misconception. What he speaks of is something called ecological breastfeeding
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1421/43/

But that is only effective for the first 6 months for most women, if that. And if you must work you can not practice ecological breastfeeding at all. Pumping does not release the same hormones as breastfeeding. So while some women that pump can have lactation induced extended ammorreha, that isn't something that pumping mothers can really count on. Not to mention if you don't co-sleep, ecological breastfeeding doesn't work.

I have practiced ecological breastfeeding with all of our children so far. But I don't think it should be as highly praised as it often is in NFP circles.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 05:33:26 PM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #214 on: May 21, 2010, 05:21:05 PM »

Here is a little essay of dissent on ecological breastfeeding
http://buildingcathedrals.blogspot.com/2008/06/ecological-breastfeeding-crunchy.html
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,205


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #215 on: May 21, 2010, 06:04:46 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.

What really strikes me in the discussions about NFP is that people who are using it have the INTENTION not to conceive a child. I think this is what really matters, not that they are not putting some mechanical or pharmacological barrier to prevent conception. Their thoughts, desires, inclinations are still exactly the same as in those couples who use the pill or the barrier methods.

And it's terrible because it takes away the wonderful spontaneity of lovemaking... Turns marital relations into some sort of following a medical procedure: "no, honey, not today, let's watch the Jackie Chan movie," like Cizinec said. Not my idea of marriage.
Its not the same because those practicing NFP have to develop self control and master their passions. Those using artificial birth control just doing what they want when the want. Which practice is more Christian?
Christian?  According to whose standards?

Papist, If you want to discuss an RC view of contraceptives, I'm sure you'll find plenty of places to do so on the Orthodox-Catholic Board.  Otherwise, I ask that you please allow us Orthodox to discuss this matter from our Orthodox perspectives on the Orthodox Faith Issues board.  After all, the constraint was set in the very title of this thread.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 06:09:16 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #216 on: May 21, 2010, 10:28:19 PM »

What really strikes me in the discussions about NFP is that people who are using it have the INTENTION not to conceive a child. I think this is what really matters, not that they are not putting some mechanical or pharmacological barrier to prevent conception. Their thoughts, desires, inclinations are still exactly the same as in those couples who use the pill or the barrier methods.

Well, and there's nothing particularly natural about using calendars or thermometers or the like to determine periods of infertility.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #217 on: May 22, 2010, 07:20:15 PM »

I am glad it works for you. In my case I regularly ovulate twice in a cycle which is very difficult to track. As I said before, we have used this method for over ten years. But babies number #3 and #4 (while completely blessings!) are the result of multiple ovulations in a cycle. Our fourth is especially proof since my husband was gone most of that time period on deployment. Her due date was even very much up for debate because of this since there were less then a handful of days in which it would have been PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to conceive her. And our 3rd child was literally conceived at a time when it should have been physically impossible to do so. He is really and truly a miracle baby. I love them both, but they are the reason we use NFP and....

But if you EVER use NFP in conjunction with a barrier method you are "violating God's law" according to Gebre and Pope John Paul.

That's funny!  We got our last one that way too!  My wife had a double ovulation, which is *not* the norm for her and while she was breastfeeding.  Talk about a surprise.  That's why we tend to use both, although sometimes not, depending on certain things. 

Don't worry about these crazies on here.  You got a priest.  It sounds like you've got a mighty fine man and kids.  Are you from Texas?
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #218 on: May 22, 2010, 07:33:14 PM »

No, I am not from Texas (and I will not expound on my views about Texas from my brief visit there). I am a proud indigenous pacific northwesterner.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 07:35:01 PM by Quinault » Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #219 on: May 22, 2010, 08:42:55 PM »

No, I am not from Texas (and I will not expound on my views about Texas from my brief visit there). I am a proud indigenous pacific northwesterner.

LOL.  Well, be careful.  You probably didn't see much of it and, if you stay for too long, the whole world starts making sense.  When that happens, you'd better get out before you become one.  My mom is from Lincoln City (I think it was Culver City when she lived there) and my dad is from Salem.  I lived in Oregon when I was a kid.  Land of milk and honey.  Nice place.  I'd move there, but I don't think I could cope with the way folks act in public.  My dad has been here so long, he can't move back.  He's semi-retired and he won't even think about moving into Oklahoma or Arkansas.  Too far north.  If you haven't been there, btw, don't knock it.  Arkansas and Oklahoma have some amazingly beautiful places that you've never heard of.  I think the locals like it that way.

I've visited some nice Serbian Orthodox churches in Oregon, but their choirs aren't as good as ours.   Grin  In fact, I think I'll start a thread on our new church.

Concerning EO's view on contraception, I think the consensus has been that you should ask your priest and let the internet prophets alone.  It's always good to see real people who have had real pastoral issues stand up to the pontifical expostulations of the young and the superdox.  Folks that come on here need to know that they should get their answers from their local priest.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,517


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #220 on: May 22, 2010, 08:59:12 PM »

My husband attended his MOS training in San Angelo Texas. I saw enough to never want to go back. I am far too crunchy to live there without blowing my top. Literally there was trash EVERYWHERE. The fire ants, and life threatening heat (I start getting heat exhaustion once the temp is higher than 95 or so)....I could go on. But I will always reserve a special hatred for the water in San Angelo. You take a shower and have a film of something greasy all over you. No one drinks the water there. I am sure it is better elsewhere, San Angelo is just horrible, you couldn't pay me to live there.

My best friend moved to Oklahoma after living up here on Whidbey Island. She is depressed with how incredibly flat it is. My mother's family moved from Oklahoma to Oregon and never looked back.

I was raised in OR, Salem for the most part. I need to live near the western coast with lots of green. I prefer to have more gloom so I can have more green. I can drive to a rainforest, desert or mountain/volcano in any direction in 1-3 hours. If we ever moved, it would be to Alaska. Right now we live in the puget sound.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:04:31 PM by Quinault » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,636



« Reply #221 on: May 22, 2010, 09:44:22 PM »

No, I am not from Texas (and I will not expound on my views about Texas from my brief visit there). I am a proud indigenous pacific northwesterner.
Can't speak for the Pacific NW, but I love TX. Haven't been to San Angelo, though. Almost everywhere else, except the extreme southern parts.  I heartily concure on OK: nothing to look back at.

We used NFP to conceive our first.  Our second was a suprise (at least to me.  She thought him a mistake, and treats him so Angry Embarrassed Cry)
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,636



« Reply #222 on: May 22, 2010, 09:45:20 PM »

St. Clement of Alexandria says that a characteristic of true Christians is that once they have had children they live as brothers and sisters. just throwing that out there ... have fun!
St. Clement didn't always know what he was talking about.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,287



WWW
« Reply #223 on: June 11, 2010, 09:00:05 PM »

Hello, all.  this last Sunday my priest gave a sermon on lust.  he said that the church demands a monogamos, heterosexual union.  but he also said that when we participate in intercourse, we should only doso with the intention of pro-creation.  this does not make sence, as I thought that the churchpermits contraception.  would someone please explain this?

Your priest is simply wrong.
How so?

Teaching that married couples should have sex only with the intention to procreate.

I really would't go so far as to say he's wrong as he is a very intellegent and holy man.  this is exactly what has confused me!  if the church says that using contraception is OK,thatn there is clearly no intention of procreation there.  I really need to ask him about this.

We had a discussion about this in our OCF group a few meetings ago. We didn't actually come to a conclusion about the nature of married love etc.

What else did your priest say?

Hal
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #224 on: June 11, 2010, 09:12:26 PM »

There is a consensus among the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches (I cannot speak for the other Churches since I have never had the opportunity to become acquainted with their teaching on this matter.)

The above Orthodox Churches allow contraception when

1.  it is non-abortive

2.  it is for grave and justifiable reasons

3.  it is for a limited time
.........(although health consideration may influence this)

4  it is used with the blessing of the parish priest or spiritual father or mother
.........(although this is not strictly necessary)

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)

Logged
Tags: contraception birth control 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.184 seconds with 71 queries.