Author Topic: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms  (Read 47920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #135 on: November 28, 2010, 07:50:09 PM »
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This appears to be the OCA's stance on the subject:

"Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a foetus already conceived."

This makes perfect sense to me. 
That's the general consensus of the Orthodox Churches on the matter.
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

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #136 on: November 28, 2010, 07:54:36 PM »
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.

I see.  I must just be asking the wrong questions then, because I'm still not clear what you're saying.  I do not understand why the decision to not conceive is considered immoral.  But I'm trying to.  I'm unfamiliar with your sources for this stance, so I'm genuinely interested in finding out!


The decision to avoid pregnancy is not immoral, you do that when you're abstinent. The decision to use sex purely for it's pleasure while simultaneously and actively removing the ability of the natural sex act to take place, i.e. Condom, withdrawal, "the pill", etc.

NFP is attempting to avoid pregnancy, but the "sexual act" is still complete.

I'll see if I can find something more official.



http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml
Quote
2351
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.


...

2361
"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

2363
The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.


...

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2367
Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:


When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156


   

I'm going to need this.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #137 on: November 28, 2010, 07:58:30 PM »
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.

Because the Vatican says so doesn't make it moral or immoral. I know it thinks otherwise. The Vatican at one point was preaching the immorality not having as many children as possible because of the need for man power in the armies of the states allied to it.


You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.


Sometimes the Popes get it wrong.  I wouldn't lean on them too heavily.  How old are you?  Do you stretch back into the 1940s?   Up until 1950 the Roman Catholic Church did not allow anesthesia during childbirth.  It was immoral;  it removed the pains of labour which God had commanded for women to endure.

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.." ~Gen. 3:16

So using any anesthesia was immoral and contrary to the will of God for women.

I was attempting to keep this debate objective considering the Latinclasm. As you can see, when it's associated with Rome, it suddenly loses all credibility.

I'm not arguing because of Rome. I'm debating morality.

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #138 on: November 28, 2010, 08:13:14 PM »
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.

Because the Vatican says so doesn't make it moral or immoral. I know it thinks otherwise. The Vatican at one point was preaching the immorality not having as many children as possible because of the need for man power in the armies of the states allied to it.


You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.


Sometimes the Popes get it wrong.  I wouldn't lean on them too heavily.  How old are you?  Do you stretch back into the 1940s?   Up until 1950 the Roman Catholic Church did not allow anesthesia during childbirth.  It was immoral;  it removed the pains of labour which God had commanded for women to endure.

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.." ~Gen. 3:16

So using any anesthesia was immoral and contrary to the will of God for women.

I was attempting to keep this debate objective considering the Latinclasm. As you can see, when it's associated with Rome, it suddenly loses all credibility.

I'm not arguing because of Rome. I'm debating morality.

Oh?
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.
This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.
I'll see if I can find something more official.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

If you have argued a moral basis for your position other than relying on the Vatican's dogma, I must have missed it.

I (and I presume Father Ambrose) are interested in what the Moscow Patriarch has to say, but no direct interest what the Vatican says either way.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 08:14:59 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Michał

  • ['mi:hɑʊ]
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 821
  • "Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #139 on: November 28, 2010, 08:14:09 PM »
You still have free will to reject God. You can reject life both by killing as well as by prevention.

Just like we can kill people out of justified reasons (confirmed in the Bible), we can as well - also out of justified reasons - prevent conception.

For justified reasons, of course. Selfish desire isn't a justification.

Agreed.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #140 on: November 28, 2010, 08:17:43 PM »
I was attempting to keep this debate objective considering the Latinclasm. As you can see, when it's associated with Rome, it suddenly loses all credibility.

I'm not arguing because of Rome. I'm debating morality.

Oh?
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.
This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.
I'll see if I can find something more official.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

If you have argued a moral basis for your position other than relying on the Vatican's dogma, I must have missed it.
[/quote]

I know you knew where the teaching came from, I was obviously mistaken to think you could debate it without dismissing it outright.

You also missed the part he requested where the Roman Catholics teach this.

You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.




I see.  I must just be asking the wrong questions then, because I'm still not clear what you're saying.  I do not understand why the decision to not conceive is considered immoral.  But I'm trying to.  I'm unfamiliar with your sources for this stance, so I'm genuinely interested in finding out!


« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 08:22:12 PM by Azurestone »

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #141 on: November 28, 2010, 09:12:54 PM »
I was attempting to keep this debate objective considering the Latinclasm. As you can see, when it's associated with Rome, it suddenly loses all credibility.

I'm not arguing because of Rome. I'm debating morality.

Oh?
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.
This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.
I'll see if I can find something more official.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

If you have argued a moral basis for your position other than relying on the Vatican's dogma, I must have missed it.

I know you knew where the teaching came from, I was obviously mistaken to think you could debate it without dismissing it outright.

You pull weeds out by the root. Are you admitting you are gathering fruit off the Vatican's tree (I which case we have already dealt with those roots). You will also have to change your thoughts or substantiate them
My argument isn't based on waste.

The morality is based on intent and mindset (openness to children).
because part of the Vatican's arguement rests on its ideas about wasting semen. If you derive your teaching from them, then you will either accept their basis or find another basis.

Quote
You also missed the part he requested where the Roman Catholics teach this.
No. Just poining out that you can't take the Vatican as your teacher and then claim you are not arguing for its position.

You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.

I see.  I must just be asking the wrong questions then, because I'm still not clear what you're saying.  I do not understand why the decision to not conceive is considered immoral.  But I'm trying to.  I'm unfamiliar with your sources for this stance, so I'm genuinely interested in finding out!



You take the Vatican's statements on morals as a given, and then reject that we do not take your arguments.  If you have a reason for making the artificail distinction between the rhythm method and withdrawl or condoms, other than the Vatican says so, please share.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 09:14:37 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #142 on: November 28, 2010, 09:22:21 PM »
I was attempting to keep this debate objective considering the Latinclasm. As you can see, when it's associated with Rome, it suddenly loses all credibility.

I'm not arguing because of Rome. I'm debating morality.

Oh?
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.
This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.
I'll see if I can find something more official.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

If you have argued a moral basis for your position other than relying on the Vatican's dogma, I must have missed it.

I know you knew where the teaching came from, I was obviously mistaken to think you could debate it without dismissing it outright.

You pull weeds out by the root. Are you admitting you are gathering fruit off the Vatican's tree (I which case we have already dealt with those roots). You will also have to change your thoughts or substantiate them
My argument isn't based on waste.

The morality is based on intent and mindset (openness to children).
because part of the Vatican's arguement rests on its ideas about wasting semen. If you derive your teaching from them, then you will either accept their basis or find another basis.

Quote
You also missed the part he requested where the Roman Catholics teach this.
No. Just poining out that you can't take the Vatican as your teacher and then claim you are not arguing for its position.

You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.

I see.  I must just be asking the wrong questions then, because I'm still not clear what you're saying.  I do not understand why the decision to not conceive is considered immoral.  But I'm trying to.  I'm unfamiliar with your sources for this stance, so I'm genuinely interested in finding out!



You take the Vatican's statements on morals as a given, and then reject that we do not take your arguments.  If you have a reason for making the artificail distinction between the rhythm method and withdrawl or condoms, other than the Vatican says so, please share.

I find truth in the words. You mistake that as using the Vatican as my teacher. There is a difference.

I'm going to need this.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #143 on: November 29, 2010, 03:14:08 AM »
The Vatican can't teach. It's a Roman hill. Hills don't talk.

Now the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church (also immemorial for Orthodoxy until recently) is another matter. :)
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 03:14:33 AM by lubeltri »

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #144 on: November 29, 2010, 03:17:11 AM »
I always like to bring up the pithy quotes of G.K. Chesterton on these interminable threads about contraception.

"What is quaintly called Birth Control . . . is in fact, of course, a scheme for preventing birth in order to escape control." ("The Surrender upon Sex" The Well and the Shallows)

"Normal and real birth control is called self control." ("Social Reform vs. Birth Control")

"Birth Control is a name given to a succession of different expedients by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while violently and unnaturally thwarting the process itself." ("Social Reform vs. Birth Control")

"We can always convict such people of sentimentalism by their weakness for euphemism. The phrase they use is always softened and suited for journalistic appeals. They talk of free love when they mean something quite different, better defined as free lust. But being sentimentalists they feel bound to simper and coo over the word "love." They insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control. We could smash them to atoms, if we could be as indecent in our language as they are immoral in their conclusions." ("Obstinate Orthodoxy" The Thing)

http://www.chesterton.org/qmeister2/24.htm

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #145 on: November 29, 2010, 07:34:44 AM »

The Vatican can't teach. It's a Roman hill. Hills don't talk.

Mons Vaticanus - the Hill of Sorcerers.  Probably just as well it cannot talk.   :laugh:

You're objecting to a common figure of speech.  I am not sure if it is synecdoche or metonymy.  We speak of the Phanar when  we mean the Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople.  The Phanar is the run down suburb where he lives. We speak of Jerusalem or the Holy City when we mean the Patriarch who lives there.  We say that Buckingham Palace has announced this or that when of course the Palace cannot announce anything and we mean the Queen.  We say "the kettle is boiling" but of course the kettle is not boiling; it is the water in the kettle which is boiling.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #146 on: November 29, 2010, 07:43:06 AM »
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.


What you seem to be reducing it to is not a question of morality but to whom you give the authority to define morality.  In this instance the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church teach a different morality.  To which of them do you assign the superior authority?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #147 on: November 29, 2010, 10:11:52 AM »
I find truth in the words. You mistake that as using the Vatican as my teacher. There is a difference.

As you admit, you took those words right out of the ex cathedra's mouth. You haven't backed those words up, just took them as a given. So unless you are claiming to speak ex cathedra, we have to go to the Vatican to see the basis of your teaching (or rather, your preaching of their teaching).
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #148 on: November 29, 2010, 10:19:17 AM »
I always like to bring up the pithy quotes of G.K. Chesterton on these interminable threads about contraception.

"What is quaintly called Birth Control . . . is in fact, of course, a scheme for preventing birth in order to escape control." ("The Surrender upon Sex" The Well and the Shallows)

"Normal and real birth control is called self control." ("Social Reform vs. Birth Control")

"Birth Control is a name given to a succession of different expedients by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while violently and unnaturally thwarting the process itself." ("Social Reform vs. Birth Control")

"We can always convict such people of sentimentalism by their weakness for euphemism. The phrase they use is always softened and suited for journalistic appeals. They talk of free love when they mean something quite different, better defined as free lust. But being sentimentalists they feel bound to simper and coo over the word "love." They insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control. We could smash them to atoms, if we could be as indecent in our language as they are immoral in their conclusions." ("Obstinate Orthodoxy" The Thing)

http://www.chesterton.org/qmeister2/24.htm
Most of the HV enthusiasts I've come across would be quite fine if a couple exercized no control, as long as they bred like rabbits.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #149 on: November 29, 2010, 10:32:55 AM »
The Vatican can't teach.

True enough.

Quote
It's a Roman hill. Hills don't talk.

They don't have official websites either, but
http://www.vatican.va/

Quote
Now the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church

I suspect you are alluding to the Vatican's innovation.
The stricture not to use artificial birth control only applies to those times when one is actually engaging conjugally.  The moral teaching does NOT insist on sex on demand in a marriage, for either the man or the woman.
An irrelevant detail thrown in to paint other non-abortifacient methods in a dark light. And also incorrect: the penitentiary has some discussion about a spouse's insistence, enshrined in that romantic term "marital debt" of which St. Jerome is fond. And he is clear, a husband who ejaculates in his wife's womb when it cannot conceive, is as guilty of wasting seed "the despicable crime of Onanism" as the husband who spills his seed outside his wife's womb when she can conceive, as St. Clement states
And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

As for "MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers," well, if you hold intercourse (including marital, during fertile periods) unclean like St. Jerome, to be tolerated only for the unpleasant duty of begetting children (preferably to redeem their parents by choosing monasticism over marriage), well there is patristic basis for that.  But not for the scheme set up by Humanae Vitae.

"To outrage nature"="frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will" (HV).
The concept of sexual pleasure in the Catholic moral tradition By Shaji George Kochuthara
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZFbjyIn6j4oC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=Clement+Alexandria+outrage+nature&source=bl&ots=vD8iy14csh&sig=_9D3f87h0vxqrXdsGGLUu9RYm0A&hl=en&ei=X0XbTIrLNtyrnAez2p0W&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Clement%20Alexandria%20outrage%20nature&f=false
shows that many (but not all, there were exceptions) of those Fathers that HV claims as its basis basically view marriage like animal husbandry, an ironic mix as they both condemn those who enjoy intercourse as animals while as the same time calling us to imitate animals in breeding only during estris, demanding that the image and likeness of God overcome his nature and imitate angels while demanding that "we should take nature as our instructor," i.e. natural law (the book also shows that these Fathers adopted pagan Stoicism as the basis of their views). St. Clement says "a man who marries for the sake of begeting children [which he states is the only reason to marry] must practice continence so that it is not desire that he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love [he insists that there's an opposition of desire and love, based on Stoicism], so that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will." In other words, marital embrace should resemble an artifical insemination, ironic as I am sure that St. Clement would join HV in condemning that, as both are inconsistent in the same way.

Quote
(also immemorial for Orthodoxy until recently)
The Western Captivity wasn't from immemoria, and unfortunately not all have been freed of it.

Quote
is another matter. :)
Yes, scholasticism brought in tow by Latinization is another matter from the immemorial Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 10:35:00 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #150 on: November 29, 2010, 10:39:14 AM »
I find truth in the words. You mistake that as using the Vatican as my teacher. There is a difference.

As you admit, you took those words right out of the ex cathedra's mouth. You haven't backed those words up, just took them as a given. So unless you are claiming to speak ex cathedra, we have to go to the Vatican to see the basis of your teaching (or rather, your preaching of their teaching).

Stop twisting my words, would you?

I'm not accepting an authority. Therefore, it doesn't matter who said it.

I'm debating the validity of that claim.

Don't worry, the Vatican's not gonna get you. ...wait.. what's that....   just kidding.. made you jump!
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 10:39:45 AM by Azurestone »

I'm going to need this.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #151 on: November 29, 2010, 10:42:44 AM »
You keep saying that the decision to not conceive is "sexual immorality" and I'm simply asking why this is so, because I honestly am not familiar with the sources that say this.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. It's based on morality. I'm defending why it is or is not morality. Thus the debate is reduced to a simple morality debate.


What you seem to be reducing it to is not a question of morality but to whom you give the authority to define morality.  In this instance the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church teach a different morality.  To which of them do you assign the superior authority?

At the moment, I don't assign either an authority.

When I speak of "the Church", I speak generically of "whichever church is the Church", this one should probably teach this.

I'm going to need this.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #152 on: November 29, 2010, 10:54:50 AM »
The decision to NEVER have sex during a fertile period in a marriage is contra-conception, inherently sinful, and grounds for a nullification of that marriage if the marriage was avowed based on a tacit mutual promise of a contra-conceptive union, or the expectation of one or the other of a contra-conceptive union.

The decision to have sex and either bar conception or abort in some fashion is intrinsically evil in each case.

The decision to not engage conjugally, now and then, in order to space children is neither inherently nor intrinsically evil.  

There is no demand on a married couple that they engage sexually at all times.  That is the fallacy that one sees in some responses to this issue.  There is the tacit and sometimes explicit presumption that being married and open to life is the one to one equivalent of the requirement that both husband and wife must be open at all times to sex on demand.  That is simply not true, nor real.  If one does not want I child at this or that moment, or if the health of one or the other precludes pregnancy then there is nothing at all inherently evil or intrinsically evil in continence.  The worst you can say about it is that it might be difficult for one or both...but impossible?...or evil?...no.

M.


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #153 on: November 29, 2010, 01:24:24 PM »
I find truth in the words. You mistake that as using the Vatican as my teacher. There is a difference.

As you admit, you took those words right out of the ex cathedra's mouth. You haven't backed those words up, just took them as a given. So unless you are claiming to speak ex cathedra, we have to go to the Vatican to see the basis of your teaching (or rather, your preaching of their teaching).

Stop twisting my words, would you?

I'm not accepting an authority. Therefore, it doesn't matter who said it.

It doesn't matter who says 2+2=4. It's right.

It doesn't matter who says 2+2=5. It's wrong.

So you are saying it on your own authority? What is the basis of your autority, and of your argument?

Quote
I'm debating the validity of that claim.

No, you are claiming it is valid.

Quote
Don't worry, the Vatican's not gonna get you. ...wait.. what's that....   just kidding.. made you jump!
LOL. The good fathers and brothers of the Resurrectionists and others were rather perplexed how they didnt manage to get me for the Vatican, but the Orthodox got me within a year of high school.


At the moment, I don't assign either an authority.

When I speak of "the Church", I speak generically of "whichever church is the Church", this one should probably teach this.
On what authority do you expect that?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 01:25:42 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #154 on: November 29, 2010, 01:37:07 PM »
The decision to NEVER have sex during a fertile period in a marriage is contra-conception,

The decision to EVER have sex during a fertile period in a marriage is contra-conception.

Quote
inherently sinful, and grounds for a nullification of that marriage if the marriage was avowed based on a tacit mutual promise of a contra-conceptive union, or the expectation of one or the other of a contra-conceptive union.

According the standard set by HV, so would the rhythm method:
Quote
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Quote
The decision to have sex and either bar conception or abort in some fashion is intrinsically evil in each case.

You are equating the unequal here.

Quote
The decision to not engage conjugally, now and then, in order to space children is neither inherently nor intrinsically evil. 


and has nothing to do with abstinence combined with prayer.

Quote
There is no demand on a married couple that they engage sexually at all times.  That is the fallacy that one sees in some responses to this issue.  There is the tacit and sometimes explicit presumption that being married and open to life is the one to one equivalent of the requirement that both husband and wife must be open at all times to sex on demand.  That is simply not true, nor real.  If one does not want I child at this or that moment, or if the health of one or the other precludes pregnancy then there is nothing at all inherently evil or intrinsically evil in continence.  The worst you can say about it is that it might be difficult for one or both...but impossible?...or evil?...no.
That is not what the standard HV sets up says. That is simply not true, not real. St Augustine has a case of a woman he counseled to talk her husband into living like brother and sister. He ended up taking a mistress, the very thing St. Paul is (and not "NFP") talking about.
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

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #155 on: November 29, 2010, 01:37:13 PM »
I find truth in the words. You mistake that as using the Vatican as my teacher. There is a difference.

As you admit, you took those words right out of the ex cathedra's mouth. You haven't backed those words up, just took them as a given. So unless you are claiming to speak ex cathedra, we have to go to the Vatican to see the basis of your teaching (or rather, your preaching of their teaching).

Stop twisting my words, would you?

I'm not accepting an authority. Therefore, it doesn't matter who said it.

It doesn't matter who says 2+2=4. It's right.

It doesn't matter who says 2+2=5. It's wrong.

So you are saying it on your own authority? What is the basis of your autority, and of your argument?

Yep. // My own God given mind, and hopefully God's help. It's, you know, how people choose between McDonalds and Subway.

Quote
I'm debating the validity of that claim.

No, you are claiming it is valid.

Uh, yeah. It's kinda hard to defend/debate a side when your first assumption is it's fallacy.

Quote
Don't worry, the Vatican's not gonna get you. ...wait.. what's that....   just kidding.. made you jump!
LOL. The good fathers and brothers of the Resurrectionists and others were rather perplexed how they didnt manage to get me for the Vatican, but the Orthodox got me within a year of high school.

Behind you!!!    HA, got ya, again!


At the moment, I don't assign either an authority.

When I speak of "the Church", I speak generically of "whichever church is the Church", this one should probably teach this.
On what authority do you expect that?

Magic Eightball.

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #156 on: November 29, 2010, 01:47:59 PM »
I find truth in the words. You mistake that as using the Vatican as my teacher. There is a difference.

As you admit, you took those words right out of the ex cathedra's mouth. You haven't backed those words up, just took them as a given. So unless you are claiming to speak ex cathedra, we have to go to the Vatican to see the basis of your teaching (or rather, your preaching of their teaching).

Stop twisting my words, would you?

I'm not accepting an authority. Therefore, it doesn't matter who said it.

It doesn't matter who says 2+2=4. It's right.

It doesn't matter who says 2+2=5. It's wrong.

So you are saying it on your own authority? What is the basis of your autority, and of your argument?

Yep. // My own God given mind, and hopefully God's help. It's, you know, how people choose between McDonalds and Subway.

I sorry. I thought you were trying to make a serious argument.

Quote
I'm debating the validity of that claim.

No, you are claiming it is valid.

Uh, yeah. It's kinda hard to defend/debate a side when your first assumption is it's fallacy.

No, unlike you (judging from the lack of substantiation of this position) I have received the Orthodox revealed teleology of the matter.  Coming across the Vatican's arguments from natural law with conflict with the principles revealed in Orthodoxy, I examined Humanae Vitae et alia.  Thus, unless some new justification is dreamt up, I need not hoe that row again.

Quote
Don't worry, the Vatican's not gonna get you. ...wait.. what's that....   just kidding.. made you jump!
LOL. The good fathers and brothers of the Resurrectionists and others were rather perplexed how they didnt manage to get me for the Vatican, but the Orthodox got me within a year of high school.

Behind you!!!    HA, got ya, again!

way behind me.  I need not fear.


At the moment, I don't assign either an authority.

When I speak of "the Church", I speak generically of "whichever church is the Church", this one should probably teach this.
On what authority do you expect that?

Magic Eightball.

Again my apologies. I was fooled into thinking you were serious.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 01:48:31 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #157 on: November 29, 2010, 02:04:01 PM »
The decision to NEVER have sex during a fertile period in a marriage is contra-conception,

The decision to EVER have sex during a fertile period in a marriage is contra-conception.

Quote
inherently sinful, and grounds for a nullification of that marriage if the marriage was avowed based on a tacit mutual promise of a contra-conceptive union, or the expectation of one or the other of a contra-conceptive union.

According the standard set by HV, so would the rhythm method:
Quote
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Quote
The decision to have sex and either bar conception or abort in some fashion is intrinsically evil in each case.

You are equating the unequal here.

Quote
The decision to not engage conjugally, now and then, in order to space children is neither inherently nor intrinsically evil. 


and has nothing to do with abstinence combined with prayer.

Quote
There is no demand on a married couple that they engage sexually at all times.  That is the fallacy that one sees in some responses to this issue.  There is the tacit and sometimes explicit presumption that being married and open to life is the one to one equivalent of the requirement that both husband and wife must be open at all times to sex on demand.  That is simply not true, nor real.  If one does not want I child at this or that moment, or if the health of one or the other precludes pregnancy then there is nothing at all inherently evil or intrinsically evil in continence.  The worst you can say about it is that it might be difficult for one or both...but impossible?...or evil?...no.
That is not what the standard HV sets up says. That is simply not true, not real. St Augustine has a case of a woman he counseled to talk her husband into living like brother and sister. He ended up taking a mistress, the very thing St. Paul is (and not "NFP") talking about.

The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.






Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #158 on: November 29, 2010, 02:05:17 PM »
Quote
I'm debating the validity of that claim.

No, you are claiming it is valid.

Uh, yeah. It's kinda hard to defend/debate a side when your first assumption is it's fallacy.

No, unlike you (judging from the lack of substantiation of this position) I have received the Orthodox revealed teleology of the matter.  Coming across the Vatican's arguments from natural law with conflict with the principles revealed in Orthodoxy, I examined Humanae Vitae et alia.  Thus, unless some new justification is dreamt up, I need not hoe that row again.

And on what authority do you accept the Orthodox revealed theology? It works both ways.

       Only difference is I'm debating morality, you're debating against the Vatican. Authorities are irrelevant.


On what authority did you accept Orthodoxy?

      You'll might say, examination of the facts. In which case it's still your own authority. OR. You might say, by guidance from the Holy Spirit. I hope so, though I wonder about our RC friends.

Therefore, without accepting an 'authority' other than my own God given ability to see good, and without accepting your claim that I must accept your authority, as I am not Orthodox. I am still, as before, merely debating the morality of the issue.

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #159 on: November 30, 2010, 11:43:01 PM »
The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.
Then why do they not withstand scrutiny?

Quote
That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.
True enough, but what does that have to do with the point at hand?

Quote
The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

What pastoral counsels are you talking about? (I'm guessing they will explain what you mean by "not to be able to control themselves sexually."

Quote
Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.


Sounds like bladder control.

Quote
It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Is that so? Some yes, some, not so much.

Quote
Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand

Quit projecting.

I haven't argued a thing for your feared "right to sex on demand."

Quote
and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.

Sex is not evil nor impure, no matter what St. Jerome told you.

Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
Yes, I forgot how you are in touch with hoards of nameless Orthodox priests, monks and hiearchs let alone Faithful who are more "conservative" than me.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 11:43:49 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #160 on: December 01, 2010, 12:25:20 AM »
Quote
I'm debating the validity of that claim.

No, you are claiming it is valid.

Uh, yeah. It's kinda hard to defend/debate a side when your first assumption is it's fallacy.

No, unlike you (judging from the lack of substantiation of this position) I have received the Orthodox revealed teleology of the matter.  Coming across the Vatican's arguments from natural law with conflict with the principles revealed in Orthodoxy, I examined Humanae Vitae et alia.  Thus, unless some new justification is dreamt up, I need not hoe that row again.

And on what authority do you accept the Orthodox revealed theology?
Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, etc.
Quote
It works both ways.
No, the Vatican makes it up as it goes along, claiming magisterial privilege.
Quote
Only difference is I'm debating morality, you're debating against the Vatican. Authorities are irrelevant.
But you keep on asserting it.

Quote
On what authority did you accept Orthodoxy?

Christ's.

If you mean, how did I learn that, it began with the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Quote
You'll might say, examination of the facts. In which case it's still your own authority.

It's also my acceptance.

Quote
OR. You might say, by guidance from the Holy Spirit. I hope so, though I wonder about our RC friends.


What else? The Vatican.

Quote
Therefore, without accepting an 'authority' other than my own God given ability to see good, and without accepting your claim that I must accept your authority, as I am not Orthodox. I am still, as before, merely debating the morality of the issue.
No, you are attempting to speak ex cathedra. What is your basis of your morality, and for the postulates thereof that you have asserted here?
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

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,591
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #161 on: December 01, 2010, 12:26:31 AM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #162 on: December 01, 2010, 12:34:40 AM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

I notice you took the references to phyletism and nominalism off your avatar. What happened?
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

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #163 on: December 01, 2010, 12:38:45 AM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

I notice you took the references to phyletism and nominalism off your avatar. What happened?

He moved.  :D

I'm going to need this.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,591
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #164 on: December 01, 2010, 12:44:05 AM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

I notice you took the references to phyletism and nominalism off your avatar. What happened?
I joined the OCA or the Antiochians, I forgot now, one of the non phyletistic jurisdictions, you know.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #165 on: December 01, 2010, 07:07:05 AM »

I joined the OCA or the Antiochians, I forgot now, one of the non phyletistic jurisdictions, you know.

People have told me that the OCA provides multiple bishops for the same territories on the basis of race - Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian... etc.  Is this an example of the phyletism (Greeks and Bulgars) forbidden by the Church?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #166 on: December 01, 2010, 12:03:33 PM »

I joined the OCA or the Antiochians, I forgot now, one of the non phyletistic jurisdictions, you know.

People have told me that the OCA provides multiple bishops for the same territories on the basis of race - Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian... etc.  Is this an example of the phyletism (Greeks and Bulgars) forbidden by the Church?
No.
Quote
The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America
Article XII - National Groups

When the good of the Church requires that particular national groups receive an assurance of identity, the Holy Synod may establish dioceses and/or deaneries and set standards for their participation in the life of the Orthodox Church in America by mutual agreement with the group and until such time as the diocesan structure of the Church can be organized on an exclusively territorial basis. If a given group is organized as a diocese, the bishop of this diocese is a member of the Holy Synod and receives an episcopal title defined territorially. The Statute shall constitute the fundamental law for the existence of all such groups within the Orthodox Church in America.

http://www.oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=12 

« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 12:04:38 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #167 on: December 01, 2010, 01:20:57 PM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.

The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #168 on: December 01, 2010, 01:23:04 PM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.

Great point. He is treating sex as nothing more than functional and fun.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #169 on: December 01, 2010, 01:40:19 PM »
Did you post that once already Elijah or am I having deja vu?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #170 on: December 01, 2010, 01:56:18 PM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.

Great point. He is treating sex as nothing more than functional and fun.
Do see about that projection problem.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #171 on: December 01, 2010, 02:02:05 PM »
Did you post that once already Elijah or am I having deja vu?
Not exactly. This is new:
Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.
As I favor Aristotle over Plato, and am an Existentialist, this is actually an accusation that has some merit.

But the rest, yes, it's a mantra.
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

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #172 on: December 01, 2010, 02:12:30 PM »

The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America
Article XII - National Groups

When the good of the Church requires that particular national groups receive an assurance of identity, the Holy Synod may establish dioceses and/or deaneries and set standards for their participation in the life of the Orthodox Church in America by mutual agreement with the group and until such time as the diocesan structure of the Church can be organized on an exclusively territorial basis. If a given group is organized as a diocese, the bishop of this diocese is a member of the Holy Synod and receives an episcopal title defined territorially. The Statute shall constitute the fundamental law for the existence of all such groups within the Orthodox Church in America
http://www.oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=12



Phyletism, albeit seemingly transitory in intention, officially sanctioned in the legislation of the Orthodox Church in America.

Thank you, Isa, for drawing this to our attention.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #173 on: December 01, 2010, 03:05:15 PM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.

Great point. He is treating sex as nothing more than functional and fun.
Do see about that projection problem.
Nope
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #174 on: December 01, 2010, 03:31:06 PM »

The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America
Article XII - National Groups

When the good of the Church requires that particular national groups receive an assurance of identity, the Holy Synod may establish dioceses and/or deaneries and set standards for their participation in the life of the Orthodox Church in America by mutual agreement with the group and until such time as the diocesan structure of the Church can be organized on an exclusively territorial basis. If a given group is organized as a diocese, the bishop of this diocese is a member of the Holy Synod and receives an episcopal title defined territorially. The Statute shall constitute the fundamental law for the existence of all such groups within the Orthodox Church in America
http://www.oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=12



Phyletism, albeit seemingly transitory in intention, officially sanctioned in the legislation of the Orthodox Church in America.

Thank you, Isa, for drawing this to our attention.
Not to further unravel another thread:
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 03:31:24 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #175 on: December 01, 2010, 03:32:02 PM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.

Great point. He is treating sex as nothing more than functional and fun.
Do see about that projection problem.
Nope
is that denial or non-compliant?
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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #176 on: December 01, 2010, 03:37:48 PM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.

Great point. He is treating sex as nothing more than functional and fun.
Do see about that projection problem.
Nope
is that denial or non-compliant?
A truthful person has to deny most of what you say on these forums.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #177 on: December 01, 2010, 03:42:07 PM »
Quote
Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.
I, for one, don't agree with ialmisry.
Yes, since I am against phyletism and nominalism, I am sure you would disagree.

Oddly enough, in this discussion, you are actually the nominalist.The moral principles laid out by my Church are sound.

That there are sinners does not defeat the principles in any way.

The fact that many people are weak explains why there are pastoral counsels that help the not-so-faithful and priests to work around the tendency for some not to be able to control themselves sexually.

Many can and do exhibit the capacity to exercise continence.  It is a virtuous way to live because that discipline generally extends to many other things in life as well.

Your arguments seek the right to sex on demand and your arguments try to defeat the moral principles by elevating what is evil above what is good in terms of defining priorities.  Thankfully not all Orthodox priests and faithful have minds and hearts that work as do your own.

Great point. He is treating sex as nothing more than functional and fun.
Do see about that projection problem.
Nope
is that denial or non-compliant?
A truthful person has to deny most of what you say on these forums.
Ah. Severe denial.
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

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #178 on: December 01, 2010, 05:29:47 PM »

There is no demand on a married couple that they engage sexually at all times.  That is the fallacy that one sees in some responses to this issue.  There is the tacit and sometimes explicit presumption that being married and open to life is the one to one equivalent of the requirement that both husband and wife must be open at all times to sex on demand.



The above is an anti-Christian approach.  The Apostle Paul is very clear that couples may not refuse one another sex. 

If they wish to abstain from sex for a period of greater prayer he says that this must be by mutual consent.   If there is no mutual consent then one spouse is entitled to ask for sex from the other.

The Church, in her wisdom, has actually formulated rules about this, making precise what Saint Paul left vague.

On Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays, couples may have sex on demand.

On Wednesdays and Fridays they may not engage in sex.

In the 7 week fast prior to Pascha, the 2 weeks prior to Dormition, the 6 weeks prior to Christmas, the varying 1-6 week fast prior to the Apostles, sex is forbidden.

Sex is forbidden during the days when one of the couple is preparing for Holy Communion.


When you add up the days when Christian couples are forbidden to have sex, it amounts to, roughly, 210 days each year  (this depends on the length of thre Apostles' Fast.)

Sex on demand is permitted for 155 days of the year.


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,242
Re: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms
« Reply #179 on: December 01, 2010, 05:41:59 PM »

There is no demand on a married couple that they engage sexually at all times.  That is the fallacy that one sees in some responses to this issue.  There is the tacit and sometimes explicit presumption that being married and open to life is the one to one equivalent of the requirement that both husband and wife must be open at all times to sex on demand.



The above is an anti-Christian approach.  The Apostle Paul is very clear that couples may not refuse one another sex. 

If they wish to abstain from sex for a period of greater prayer he says that this must be by mutual consent.   If there is no mutual consent then one spouse is entitled to ask for sex from the other.

The Church, in her wisdom, has actually formulated rules about this, making precise what Saint Paul left vague.

On Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays, couples may have sex on demand.

On Wednesdays and Fridays they may not engage in sex.

In the 7 week fast prior to Pascha, the 2 weeks prior to Dormition, the 6 weeks prior to Christmas, the varying 1-6 week fast prior to the Apostles, sex is forbidden.

Sex is forbidden during the days when one of the couple is preparing for Holy Communion.


When you add up the days when Christian couples are forbidden to have sex, it amounts to, roughly, 210 days each year  (this depends on the length of thre Apostles' Fast.)

Sex on demand is permitted for 155 days of the year.


And of coure, Father, all this without a single reference to fertile and infertile periods. No correlation between prayer and fertility at all.
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