OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 10:41:41 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: Russian Orthodox Church issues statement about the use of condoms  (Read 15728 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #225 on: December 04, 2010, 02:19:21 AM »


Is it paranoia if everyone is against you?

When substance fails....
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #226 on: December 04, 2010, 02:29:42 AM »


I haven't seen one Catholic venue not give you the same response to this survey as I have...skewed. 


Mary, I believe you have told us that you have been banned from the major Catholic internet forums (and that raises a lot of questions) but if you participate in any, would you please let us know.  I would like to interact with you in a Catholic environment where the odds will be weighted in your favour.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #227 on: December 04, 2010, 02:38:55 AM »

I haven't seen one Catholic venue not give you the same response to this survey as I have...skewed. 

Dear Mary,  You keep repeating this piece of disinformation even though I have told you several times that it is NOT a survey.  If others have told you that the survey is skewed, they need to have their IQ checked; it is NOT a survey.


Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #228 on: December 04, 2010, 12:20:03 PM »

I haven't seen one Catholic venue not give you the same response to this survey as I have...skewed. 

Dear Mary,  You keep repeating this piece of disinformation even though I have told you several times that it is NOT a survey.  If others have told you that the survey is skewed, they need to have their IQ checked; it is NOT a survey.


Source :: Theresa Notare, the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp

"You can probably guess-timate that 2 or 3 percent of Catholic women use it [Natural Family Planning]," says Theresa Notare, assistant director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and secretariat for pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."


 laugh laugh laugh

Well maybe if you go back to the UCCB site which is where you generally send people you'll remember that there are surveys there from which Ms. Theresa takes her WAGs!!... Smiley

Now you are playing games so I'll leave you to them.

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: 37,472



« Reply #229 on: December 04, 2010, 01:19:48 PM »


Is it paranoia if everyone is against you?

When substance fails....
I'll take your word for it.  I wouldn't know.
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: 37,472



« Reply #230 on: December 04, 2010, 03:46:41 PM »


If only 1 Catholic couple out of millions followed the immemorial teaching about artificial birth control, that doesn't mean it isn't the truth.


If only 4 Catholics out of 10 believe in the Real Presence that doesn't mean it isn't true, but it sure as eggs points to a crisis in your Church.

If 97 out of 100 Catholic couples reject the teaching of Humanae Vita, that too indicates that you have a profound crisis in your Church.  The Petrine ministry is becoming irrelevant to the faithful.
Not necessarily, Father. We still can't get a straight answer on whether HV is ex cathedra or not.
Father Francis A. Sullivan has raised some questions on whether or not this decision was infallible. See: Fr. Francis Sullivan, S.J., : Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, Dublin, Gill & Macmillan, 1983, pp. 143ff.
However, there are theologians who disagree and say the decision was infallible.


Why do you think the Popes allow this confusion to continue?
I don't know, but I would guess that Father Sullivan has the credentials to know what he is talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_A._Sullivan
In other words, my guess is that the decision was part of the ordinary magisterium of the RCC, which is binding, but it is possible for the decision to be modified or reformed to some extent in the future.


Francis Sullivan has been, is and always will be a dissenter in the Church.  It is how he makes his living. 

That is not the worst thing to be in the world but he does need to be known for what he is: a Catholic priest cheer leading those who dissent from Catholic teaching.

Well, well. So?

You continually claim all these Orthodox priests and monks "more conservative than Fr. Ambrose" who agree with you and the Vatican, and not with the statements evidently of their Holy Synods.  You, of course, refuse to name names. I'll give you one: Fr. Schroedel.  It would seem the OCA shares the views of the Russian Holy Synod, but Fr. Schroedel does not.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041010000111/www.paratheke.net/stephanos/
Do you condemn his dissent?

Or do you rather cheer it as support of the Vatican and against the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox Church in America, an Orthodox priest cheer leading those who dissent from Orthodox teaching?

Quote
Again we have the protestant "I know best" mentality at work...or how about "You aren't my MOM!!"
Bishops know best. Protestants don't know that, because they do not have them.

I do not see much about this priest's site that is in contradiction with the Russian Holy Synod at all.  He promotes a better alternative to artificial methods but he does not speak out against the Synodal statement, which by the way, does not actively promote the use of artificial birth control, but rather quite straightforwardly notes it as a condescension to weakness.

In that light the Catholic Church accepts that there will be a pastoral need to deal with people where they are spiritually as well.  The difference is that the Russian Church presents the rule and the exception to the rule in one document.  The Catholic Church takes two documents: one to present the rule, and the other to present the exception.

That is a far cry from promoting the exception as the rule as you and Father Ambrose appear to be doing here...again.
The Holy Synod said:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».
You said:
"the Synodal statement....does not actively promote the use of artificial birth control, but rather quite straightforwardly notes it as a condescension to weakness...That is a far cry from promoting the exception as the rule."

The Holy Synod stays away from the error of Humanae Vitae one size fits all. Fr. Ambrose explicitely has spoken of practicing abstinence for most of the year.  How have you missed that?
Btw,for comparison, the OCA, Fr. John's jurisdiction, at its 10th All American Council, stated
Quote
On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life
The Procreation of Children

 
The procreation of children in marriage is the "heritage" and "reward" of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into "one flesh" (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.).

The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the "sacrament of love" (Orthodox Marriage Service; St. John Chrysostom, On Ephesians, Homily 20).

Married couples are encouraged to abstain from sexual union at times for the sake of devotion to prayer (as, for example, on the eves of the eucharist, and during lenten seasons). They are to do so, however, only "for a season by agreement" since their bodies are not their own but belong to each other; and they are to "come together again lest Satan tempt" them (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:2-7).

God himself "knits together" the child conceived in the mother's womb, beholding its "unformed substance" as it is being intricately wrought before his all-knowing eyes (Psalm 139:13-18). The Lord Jesus himself was first acknowledged on earth by John the Baptist when both the Lord and His Forerunner were still embryos within their mothers' wombs (Luke 1:39-45).

Orthodox Christians have always viewed the willful abortion of unborn children as a heinous act of evil. The Church's canonical tradition identifies any action intended to destroy a fetus as the crime of murder (Ancyra, Canon 21; Trullo, Canon 91; St. Basil, Canon 2).

Convinced of these God-revealed truths, we offer the following affirmations and admonitions for the guidance of the faithful:

The procreation of children is to take place in the context of marital union where the father and mother accept the care of the children whom they conceive.

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.

Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden. 
http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19
The newely autocephalous Holy Synod issued an "Encyclical Letter of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America on Marriage"
Quote
H. Birth Control
1. The greatest miracle and blessing of the divinely sanctified love of marriage is the procreation of children, and to avoid this by the practice of birth control (or, more accurately, the prevention of conception) is against God's will for marriage.
The love of God has been manifested in His loving creation of the world, and the divinely sanctified love of marriage -a love filled with the life-creating Spirit-brings forth the fruit of children, to be cared for by parents as the greatest of God's gifts - the gift of life.

The Marriage Service establishes an inseparable link between marriage and the begetting of children. In the litanies, petitions asking for the procreation of fair children immediately follow those invoking a blessing upon the couple being joined in the community of marriage. The same relationship is expressed in all three of the great prayers of the Service. Thus we pray: Give them offspring in number like unto full ears of grain, so that having enough of all things, they may abound in every work that is good and acceptable unto Thee. Let them see their children's children, like olive shoots around their table, so that finding favor in Thy sight, they may shine like stars of heaven, in Thee our God.

Orthodox Christians must not allow themselves to be manipulated by the abstract calculations of statisticians regarding such matters as the population explosion and the need for birth control and family planning. The Church is aware of the complexities which can arise in life due to social, medical and economic problems, but she still affirms that statistics do not reflect God's loving and providential care and inconceivable manner of bringing about the salvation of the world. Preoccupation with statistics can depersonalize us and our co-creativity with God in the begetting of children. The goal of the Christian life is the accomplishment of God's will, which may involve the begetting of children.
2. In all the difficult decisions involving the practice of birth control, Orthodox families must live under the guidance of the pastors of the Church and ask daily for the mercy and forgiveness of God.
Orthodox husbands and wives must discuss the prevention of conception in the light of the circumstances of their own personal lives, having in mind always the normal relationship between the divinely sanctified love of marriage and the begetting of children. Conception control of any sort motivated by selfishness or lack of trust in God's providential care certainly cannot be condoned
http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #231 on: December 04, 2010, 06:00:12 PM »



Well maybe if you go back to the UCCB site which is where you generally send people

A porky.

Quote
you'll remember that there are surveys there from which Ms. Theresa takes her WAGs!!... Smiley

Another porky.  I have never been to the USCCB for this information.  I have never seen these "surveys" there from which you claim Notare takes her information.

Please direct us to the surveys on the USCCB site or you may be suspected of spreading more disinformation.

Quote
Now you are playing games so I'll leave you to them.

YOU are playing games AND you are giving the impression that I am lying!  I award you a
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: 37,472



« Reply #232 on: December 04, 2010, 08:38:27 PM »

Elijahmaria, you might like to add Fr. Alexei Young to your collection of nameless Orthodox clerics supporting your views. Do let me know if I am mistaken in that.
Quote
This brings me to the most difficult and controversial question of all - what everyone wants to know about and no one wants to ask about: birth control.

Frankly, it is difficult to know where to start because the subject has many ramifications. Perhaps I might begin by mentioning how other churches tend to view this question. In the Roman Catholic Church, for example, artificial birth control is forbidden under any circumstances. The reason is because the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that the primary purpose and function of marriage is to have children; thus, procreation is the primary reason for sexual intercourse. This teaching is rooted in the augustinian tradition, which treats sexuality, even within marriage, as basically sinful, and therefore procreation is held to be a necessary justification for the marriage act, as it serves to fulfill God's command to be fruitful and multiply. In Old Testament times there was a legitimate concern to perpetuate the human race. Today, however, that argument is unpersuasive, and many Roman Catholics feel justified in disregarding it.

Protestants, on the other hand, had never developed a clear teaching on marriage and sex. Nowhere was birth control explicitly mentioned in the Bible, so when the Pill became available in the early '60s, they welcomed it and other reproductive technologies as milestones in the march of human progress. Very soon these came a proliferation of sex manuals, all developed on the notion that God had given man sexuality for pleasure. The primary purpose of the marriage act became not procreation but recreation, an attitude which simply fortified the Protestant teaching that God wants man to be personally fulfilled and happy, and therefore sexually gratified.

Even abortion was accepted. It was only in the mid '70s, when the Roe v. Wade debate heated up, and it became increasingly evident that abortion was murder that evangelical Protestants began to rethink their position. In the late '70s they came aboard the pro-life cause, where they remain in the forefront today. It was the issue of abortion that made them realize that human life must be protected from the moment of conception, and that contraception by means of abortifacients was impermissible. Meanwhile, liberal Protestant mainline churches remain committed to the pro-abortion position, and have no restrictions on birth control.

It is important for us to be aware of the teachings of these other churches on the subject of sexuality, for they can unconsciously affect our own views. We must be aware, furthermore, of the pervasive influence on our society of the sexual revolution unleashed by the availability of the Pill. The promiscuous attitude that it fostered still prevails today. Because of our culture's obsession with sex and sexual gratification, it is essential that we have a clear understanding of our Church's teaching concerning sexuality. This teaching is found in Scripture, in the canons of various Ecumenical and Local Councils, in the writings and commentaries of various Holy Fathers of the Church, who far from avoiding or tiptoeing around this issue, write about it very frankly and at length; and, finally, this teaching is mirrored in the lives of many of the saints (the parents of Saint Sergius of Radonezh come to mind).
Does anyone know what this last reference is to?
Quote
The specific subject of birth control is less readily accessible; one cannot simply look it up in a concordance or index. It can, however, be extrapolated from the very clear teachings of the Church on abortion, on marriage, and on asceticism. Before plunging into a discussion on the subject, we should point out that the Orthodox Church is not as dogmatic here as the Roman Catholic Church, and it is very much a pastoral issue where there may be multiple considerations. Nevertheless, liberty should not be used for license, and we would all do well to keep before us the age-old standard given us by the Church.

Having said all this, what exactly is the Church's teaching concerning birth control?

The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Anyone have the particulars of this 1937 encyclical?
Quote
Likewise, the Romanian and Russian Churches, to name just two others among many - have more than once, in former times, spoken out against this practice. It is only in recent times, only in the generation since World War II, that some local Churches (the Greek Archdiocese in this country, for example) have begun to teach that it "might" be all right to practice birth control in certain circumstances, as long as this is discussed with the priest beforehand and has his agreement.

This teaching of our Church, however, should not be construed as being the same kind of teaching as is found in the Roman Catholic Church. The consistent teaching of the Church of Rome has been and is that having children is the primary function of marriage. This is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy, by contrast, gives the first place to the spiritual purpose of marriage - which is the mutual salvation of the husband and wife. Each is to help and encourage the other in save his or her soul. Each exists for the other, as a companion, a helper, a friend.

But secondarily, children are the natural result of a marriage, and, until relatively recent times, they were the expected and much-desired result of a marriage. Children were sought as a fruit of the marriage union, a proof that a man and a woman had become one flesh, and this was always seen as a very great blessing on a marriage. It was considered a great tragedy, a great sorrow, if the marriage was childless; so much so that, although the Church always permitted a childless couple to continue to live together as man and wife, if a wife was barren or a husband was impotent, it was accepted by the Church as grounds for divorce, so that either would be free to enter into a marriage relationship with another, in the hope of having children.
This last part I find interesting, but not for the reason that the father brings it up.
Quote
Nowadays, of course, our society considers children more of a nuisance than a blessing, and many couples wait one, two, three, or even more years before they have a child. Indeed, some decide never to have children. And so, although in the Orthodox Church the first purpose of marriage is not merely to have children, the desire of most young marrieds today to wait before having children is considered sinful. As a priest, I must say to any couple that approaches me for marriage that, if they are not prepared and willing to conceive and bear a child, without interfering with the will of God by means of artificial birth control, then they are not ready to be married. If they are not prepared to accept the natural and blessed fruit of their union - that is, a child - then it is clear that their primary purpose in marrying is to have legalized fornication. This is a very serious problem today, possibly the most serious and the most difficult a priest has to deal with when counselling a young couple.
My position has always been that if you wait until you are ready to have kids, you will never have them, but I don't think this translates into postponing marriage until you want to have children right away.
Quote
I've used the term "artificial" birth control because I want to point out that the Church does permit the use of certain natural methods for avoiding conception, but these methods may not be used without the knowledge and blessing of the priest, and only if the physical and moral well-being of the family demands it. These methods are acceptable to the Church under the right circumstances and can be used by a couple without burdening their consciences, because they are "ascetical" methods; that is, they have to do with self-denial, self-control. Those methods are three:

1. Total abstinence. In very pious families this is not at all as uncommon, either today or yesterday, as one might think. It often happens that after an Orthodox husband and wife have brought a number of children into this world, they agree to abstain from one another, both for spiritual and worldly reasons, living the rest of their lives in peace and harmony as brother and sister. This has happened in the lives of saints - most notably in the life of Saint John of Kronstadt.
I'm afraid his praise of this aspect of St. John's life, particularly suggesting it as a model of emulation, calls into question everything else he says here
Quote
As a Church which very much cherishes and protects monastic life, we Orthodox have no fear of celibacy, and no silly ideas about how we will not be fulfilled or happy if we cease to have sexual activity with our spouse.

2. A limitation on sexual relations. This of course already happens with the Orthodox couple that sincerely tries to observe fully all of the fast days and fasting periods of the year.

3. Finally, the Church allows the use of the so-called "rhythm" or the more recently developed Natural Family Planning method, about which ample information is available today.

In former times, when poor parents knew nothing about contraceptions, they relied exclusively on God's will - and this should in fact be an example for us today. Children were born and they accepted the last one just as they had the first, saying, "God gave the child; He will also give what we need for the child." Such was their faith, and it often happened that the last child proved to be the greatest blessing of all.

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
The dear Father also seems to forget that in such former times poor parents had 12 children, hoping that at least one or two would survive into adulthood. Not an insignificant detail as to the circumstances.  My favorite example was a family who named all 8 sons after the father, hoping one would live to carry on the name.  They were blessed in that all 8 survived to marry and raise families of their own, leading to quite some confusion at family gatherings Cheesy
This circumstance is not exactly the same as the one change he does mention:
Quote
Now, what about the size of a family? Well, one thing that has a tremendous affect on how we view this is the fact that over the last one hundred years we have changed from a mostly agrarian or agricultural society, to a mostly urban and industrial society. This means that whereas in previous times large families were actually needed in order to run the farm or ranch - and there was always enough food and work to go around - today we have the opposite problem, and it is sometimes very difficult to support a very large family, although there are people who manage to do it. From a strictly spiritual point of view, one should try to have a large family so that the family will be strong and durable and full of love, with all of its members bearing the burdens of life together. A large family accustoms children to being concerned about others, makes them more sensitive, etc. And while a small family might be able to provide more of this world's goods for each child, a small family does not at all guarantee a good upbringing. Single children are sometimes the most difficult of all, for they often grow up spoiled and self-centered. No general rule can be given about this here, but we should be prepared and expect to have as many children as God will send and the moral and physical health of the mother and the family as a whole will allow, always staying in close touch with one's priest on these matters.

We must be careful, however, not to over-emphasize this whole business of having children, having a certain number, etc. Saint John Chrysostom says, "Giving birth to children is a matter of nature. Far more important is the parents' task of educating their children's hearts in virtue and piety." Indeed, this puts the emphasis back where it belongs, rather than on negative things about birth control and family size. For what the Church wants us to understand and remember is that the children we bring into the world do not belong to us; they belong to God. We did not give them life; rather, God, using us as His instruments, called them into existence. In a certain way, we parents are really only babysitters for God's children. And so our greatest responsibility as parents is to bring up our children "in the Lord," so that they come to know, love, and serve their Heavenly Father.

Eternal salvation is the whole goal of our earthly life. It is a goal that requires a constant striving, for it is not easy to be a Christian. The influence of our society make it extremely hard. The parish church and the home are the only bastions where God can be praised in spirit and in truth. Our lives, our marriages, and our homes will remain as inferior, poor wine, however, like the wine that was served first at the wedding feast at Cana, if we do not actively seek to be mature men and women, mature husbands and wives, and mature Orthodox Christians, willing to accept the responsibilities of the position in life to which we have been called. And it is only after we work - hard - at preparing ourselves, as individuals, and our families and home in order to receive Christ, that our lives, our marriages, and our homes will become like the good wine which Christ miraculously made from water at that joyous wedding. Amen.
http://www.roca.org/OA/155-156/155h.htm
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #233 on: December 04, 2010, 08:50:00 PM »


Quote

The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Anyone have the particulars of this 1937 encyclical?


Over many years people have sought this claimed 1937 Encyclical when it has been mentioned in contraception discussions.  All searches have proved to be only wild goose chases and the Encyclical seems to be a piece of mythology.

A direct approach to Fr Ambrose (Alexey Young) revealed that he himself has never sighted it and has no personal knowledge of it.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #234 on: December 04, 2010, 09:19:47 PM »


[You continually claim all these Orthodox priests and monks "more conservative than Fr. Ambrose"...

It stems from Mary's inexplicable belief that I advocate "sex on demand."

What I in fact advocate is *exactly* what my Church teaches...

210 days of the year - sex is not allowed

155 days of the year - "sex on demand."

This discipline of my Church hardly seems to be the promiscuous attitude which frightens Mary.

It is all the more extraordinary that she has this fear since I assume that her Ruthenian Catholic Church follows the same sexual activity pattern for its married people as my own?  I think that since she herself follows a celibate path that she is not familiar with the discipline of her Church in this matter.


I understand that "sex on demand" is permitted by Roman Catholic priests.  They even allow it on Good Friday.  I find this hard to believe so can anyone confirm this?  When are Roman Catholics forbidden to engage in sex on demand?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #235 on: December 04, 2010, 11:37:30 PM »

Francis Sullivan has been, is and always will be a dissenter in the Church.  It is how he makes his living. 

That is not the worst thing to be in the world but he does need to be known for what he is: a Catholic priest cheer leading those who dissent from Catholic teaching.

Again we have the protestant "I know best" mentality at work...or how about "You aren't my MOM!!"

M.
That's curious because the Pope has chosen William Cardinal Levada to be the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. And Cardinal Levada received his doctorate under the guidance of Father Sullivan in 1971. If Father Sullivan is leading those who dissent from Catholic teaching, then why did the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church choose a doctoral student of Father Sullivan to head the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith?
The fact is that Pope Paul VI himself indicated that the teaching could be changed: È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.
Further, one of the criteria mentioned by Father Sullivan for a declaration to be infallible, is that it receive general acceptance in the Church, which has not been met by HV.

In the first place, a grad student of a professor is not the professor.  My PhD chairman was a Marxist, for example.

Also, Pope Benedict, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, gave up teaching and his own speculative theology when he was elected to head the CDF.  What is to say that Cardinal Levada has not done the same thing?

So your arguments are somewhat baseless depending on your point, which is not clear to me.  But if you are suggesting that Father Francis is not a dissenter because Cardinal Levada heads the CDF, then I think that is a silly train of thought for the reasons mentioned above.

I see you've shied away from posting the Pope's comments in English.  Apparently you have the same stylistic as your good friend Father Ambrose.

M.
Have you read the PhD dissertation of Cardinal Levada or not? If you did, you would see that it correlates very closely to the ideas and theology of Father Sullivan. For example:
"The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience.... The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition.... For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark man's understanding of himself.... Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the "prudential" certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension....The Church has never in fact made an infallible declaration about a particular norm of the natural moral law."[
So if the theological writings of Cardinal Levada correlate closely to the theological teachings of Father Sullivan, why did the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church choose Cardinal Levada to head the Congregation of Catholic Faith and Doctrine, unless the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church apporves and applauds the theological thinking of Father Sullivan?

As I noted, and will take time to note again, the current pope, better than anyone in the Vatican, knows what it means to have to give up all that freedom to do speculative theology and leave it all behind when actively heading the congregation charged with protecting the faith.

So I don't think he thinks much at all about Cardinal Levada's dissertation.  It isn't relevant to the job that Cardinal Levada is doing today any more than Cardinal Ratzinger's speculative work followed him into the CDF.  If anything, because of his broad knowledge of theological thinking, Cardinal Ratzinger's level of precision in guarding the faith as it is handed down was sharpened, rather than being diffused by his earlier speculative work.

You seem to think that a dissertation is the key to heading a curial office... Smiley

ok
No. I don't think it adds up to say that Father Sullivan is a dissident.
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: 37,472



« Reply #236 on: December 04, 2010, 11:53:58 PM »


[You continually claim all these Orthodox priests and monks "more conservative than Fr. Ambrose"...

It stems from Mary's inexplicable belief that I advocate "sex on demand."

What I in fact advocate is *exactly* what my Church teaches...

210 days of the year - sex is not allowed

155 days of the year - "sex on demand."

This discipline of my Church hardly seems to be the promiscuous attitude which frightens Mary.

It is all the more extraordinary that she has this fear since I assume that her Ruthenian Catholic Church follows the same sexual activity pattern for its married people as my own?  I think that since she herself follows a celibate path that she is not familiar with the discipline of her Church in this matter.


I understand that "sex on demand" is permitted by Roman Catholic priests.  They even allow it on Good Friday.  I find this hard to believe so can anyone confirm this?  When are Roman Catholics forbidden to engage in sex on demand?

It does bring up an intriguing question: since EM and others insist that the rhythm method is what St. Paul is talking about, if the wife's infertile period fell on Good Friday, or rather if Good Friday fell on her infertile period-as it seems they have the tail wag the dog-then why not?
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: 37,472



« Reply #237 on: December 04, 2010, 11:55:52 PM »

Francis Sullivan has been, is and always will be a dissenter in the Church.  It is how he makes his living. 

That is not the worst thing to be in the world but he does need to be known for what he is: a Catholic priest cheer leading those who dissent from Catholic teaching.

Again we have the protestant "I know best" mentality at work...or how about "You aren't my MOM!!"

M.
That's curious because the Pope has chosen William Cardinal Levada to be the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. And Cardinal Levada received his doctorate under the guidance of Father Sullivan in 1971. If Father Sullivan is leading those who dissent from Catholic teaching, then why did the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church choose a doctoral student of Father Sullivan to head the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith?
The fact is that Pope Paul VI himself indicated that the teaching could be changed: È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.
Further, one of the criteria mentioned by Father Sullivan for a declaration to be infallible, is that it receive general acceptance in the Church, which has not been met by HV.

In the first place, a grad student of a professor is not the professor.  My PhD chairman was a Marxist, for example.

Also, Pope Benedict, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, gave up teaching and his own speculative theology when he was elected to head the CDF.  What is to say that Cardinal Levada has not done the same thing?

So your arguments are somewhat baseless depending on your point, which is not clear to me.  But if you are suggesting that Father Francis is not a dissenter because Cardinal Levada heads the CDF, then I think that is a silly train of thought for the reasons mentioned above.

I see you've shied away from posting the Pope's comments in English.  Apparently you have the same stylistic as your good friend Father Ambrose.

M.
Have you read the PhD dissertation of Cardinal Levada or not? If you did, you would see that it correlates very closely to the ideas and theology of Father Sullivan. For example:
"The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience.... The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition.... For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark man's understanding of himself.... Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the "prudential" certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension....The Church has never in fact made an infallible declaration about a particular norm of the natural moral law."[
So if the theological writings of Cardinal Levada correlate closely to the theological teachings of Father Sullivan, why did the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church choose Cardinal Levada to head the Congregation of Catholic Faith and Doctrine, unless the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church apporves and applauds the theological thinking of Father Sullivan?

As I noted, and will take time to note again, the current pope, better than anyone in the Vatican, knows what it means to have to give up all that freedom to do speculative theology and leave it all behind when actively heading the congregation charged with protecting the faith.

So I don't think he thinks much at all about Cardinal Levada's dissertation.  It isn't relevant to the job that Cardinal Levada is doing today any more than Cardinal Ratzinger's speculative work followed him into the CDF.  If anything, because of his broad knowledge of theological thinking, Cardinal Ratzinger's level of precision in guarding the faith as it is handed down was sharpened, rather than being diffused by his earlier speculative work.

You seem to think that a dissertation is the key to heading a curial office... Smiley

ok
No. I don't think it adds up to say that Father Sullivan is a dissident.
It is rather odd how EM faults Fr. Ambrose of obeying his Holy Synod, but dismisses anyone she reckons as in dissent from the magisterium, as she interprets it.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #238 on: December 05, 2010, 12:30:02 AM »



Well maybe if you go back to the UCCB site which is where you generally send people

A porky.

Quote
you'll remember that there are surveys there from which Ms. Theresa takes her WAGs!!... Smiley

Another porky.  I have never been to the USCCB for this information.  I have never seen these "surveys" there from which you claim Notare takes her information.

Please direct us to the surveys on the USCCB site or you may be suspected of spreading more disinformation.

Quote


Now you are playing games so I'll leave you to them.

YOU are playing games AND you are giving the impression that I am lying!  I award you a

Impression?...or perhaps you were thinking of "impressionable"

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #239 on: December 05, 2010, 12:30:02 AM »

Well now!!  It seems you've gotten a tag team together? 

I wonder if somebody out there is paying to have Father Ambrose [Young] depicted so that he looks quite foolish in the eyes of Internet Orthodoxy.  What do ya think?...eh?

I hope that you all die with the same dignity and humility that he is gaining with each passing day.

You mock him but he is not alone in Orthodoxy with his teaching against artificial birth control. 

BTW...the emphasis is on control...as in self-control.  You might have heard of it.

Blessings to you all!, in Christ.



Quote

The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Anyone have the particulars of this 1937 encyclical?


Over many years people have sought this claimed 1937 Encyclical when it has been mentioned in contraception discussions.  All searches have proved to be only wild goose chases and the Encyclical seems to be a piece of mythology.

A direct approach to Fr Ambrose (Alexey Young) revealed that he himself has never sighted it and has no personal knowledge of it.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #240 on: December 05, 2010, 01:23:28 AM »


I wonder if somebody out there is paying to have Father Ambrose [Young] depicted so that he looks quite foolish in the eyes of Internet Orthodoxy.  What do ya think?...eh?

You mock him but he is not alone in Orthodoxy with his teaching against artificial birth control. 


Why do you impute to people such evil thoughts?  Who is mocking Father Ambrose (Young)?

These were obviously his honest thoughts on the topic many years ago.

If he still holds them today he is in a precarious position since he is advising the faithful in sharp contradiction to the teachings of his bishop.  And In his case his bishop is also his abbot.  This is a very serious and rebellious and indeed sinful thing for a monk to do, and knowing his sense of monastic obedience I am sure he would not be doing it.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #241 on: December 05, 2010, 01:45:08 AM »

Quote
Fr Ambrose Young:  ""As a priest, I must say to any couple that approaches me for marriage that, if they are not prepared and willing to conceive and bear a child, without interfering with the will of God by means of artificial birth control, then they are not ready to be married."

This is outrageously in dissent from the teaching of the living "magisterium" of Orthodoxy [her bishops] and any priest giving such marriage instruction to those in marriage formation should be forbidden by his bishop to undertake such work.  This is a grossly misleading thing and I would hope that no priest is teaching young couples like this.  Is he actually saying he would refuse to marry a couple thinking of birth control !!?

In Fr Ambrose's defence we should consider that the article which has been referenced was written many years ago.  Even in those days it placed him in a position of dissent from the teaching of the Church.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 02:04:24 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #242 on: December 05, 2010, 01:50:39 AM »


BTW...the emphasis is on control...as in self-control.  You might have heard of it.


Yes, probably heard of it.   It sort of comes into the picture when I am explaining to convert couples that they are restricted from sex for 210 days of the year, in other words for all the fasting days.

Different of course for Roman Catholic priests who don't need to teach any restraint.  They allow sex on demand 24/7 and every day of the year.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #243 on: December 05, 2010, 02:01:24 AM »



Well maybe if you go back to the UCCB site which is where you generally send people

A porky.

Quote
you'll remember that there are surveys there from which Ms. Theresa takes her WAGs!!... Smiley

Another porky.  I have never been to the USCCB for this information.  I have never seen these "surveys" there from which you claim Notare takes her information.

Please direct us to the surveys on the USCCB site or you may be suspected of spreading more disinformation.

Quote


Now you are playing games so I'll leave you to them.

YOU are playing games AND you are giving the impression that I am lying!  I award you a

Impression?...or perhaps you were thinking of "impressionable"


Mary, why is it that you give the impression that you would always rather run a mile than handle requests for information.  WHERE are the USCCB websites with these surveys?
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: 37,472



« Reply #244 on: December 05, 2010, 04:31:15 PM »

Well now!!  It seems you've gotten a tag team together? 

I wonder if somebody out there is paying to have Father Ambrose [Young] depicted so that he looks quite foolish in the eyes of Internet Orthodoxy.  What do ya think?...eh?

Why do you say foolish?

Quote
I hope that you all die with the same dignity and humility that he is gaining with each passing day.

Are you speaking from personal knowledge of Father's situation?

Quote
You mock him but he is not alone in Orthodoxy with his teaching against artificial birth control.
 

I know: I provided you with several names.  Or are you still sticking with your nameless Orthodox clerical friends?

Quote
BTW...the emphasis is on control...as in self-control.  You might have heard of it.

Better yet, I'm initmately familiar with it.

I'm not sure self-control is what is going on here.

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
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #245 on: December 05, 2010, 04:39:51 PM »


My thoughts exactly.



....scratching head.

I was hoping that the Orthodox Church would stay out of this seemingly contradictory issue.
What is contradictory about it?

The Church should strictly preach abstinence.  Making the argument that people will have sex anyway...so, why not be safe....has no place in the Church.

The Church should put down the law....and we may choose to follow it, or not.   

The Church says we should fast...(not just fast just from cheese, but, from all non-Lenten foods, behavior, etc)...whether we do or not is up to us.
The Church says we should pray...(not just when we are scared)....whether we do or not is up to us.
The Church says we should not steal...(not just from a supermarket...but, never)...whether we do so or not is up to us.

Am I making sense?

The Church should preach what is right...and not alleviate the degrees of our sinful nature.

Outside of marriage, the Church should ONLY teach abstinence.

If we don't abstain, it's our fault, our sin and we are responsible.


Well said Liza!

Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
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: 37,472



« Reply #246 on: December 05, 2010, 04:57:57 PM »

Quote
Fr Ambrose Young:  ""As a priest, I must say to any couple that approaches me for marriage that, if they are not prepared and willing to conceive and bear a child, without interfering with the will of God by means of artificial birth control, then they are not ready to be married."

This is outrageously in dissent from the teaching of the living "magisterium" of Orthodoxy [her bishops] and any priest giving such marriage instruction to those in marriage formation should be forbidden by his bishop to undertake such work.  This is a grossly misleading thing and I would hope that no priest is teaching young couples like this.  Is he actually saying he would refuse to marry a couple thinking of birth control !!?

In Fr Ambrose's defence we should consider that the article which has been referenced was written many years ago.  Even in those days it placed him in a position of dissent from the teaching of the Church.

It would seem that Fr. Josiah would agree with what Fr. Ambrose has written:
Quote
sexual relations are good only when used according to God's design. God has designed sexual relations for three basic reasons: to avoid fornication, to unite the husband and wife as a powerful adhesive, and to bring forth children to be raised to worship God and for the upbuilding of the Church. St. Paul wrote, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Since our fall from grace our passions have been disordered. For most people this disorder is particularly noticeable in powerful sexual drives.

Sexual relations in marriage provide a safe and calm harbor to tame and redirect these unruly passions and desires. Sexual relations are also designed to serve as marital glue. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh." The physical union of intercourse is designed to strengthen the marital bond by both enacting a very real physical unity and by producing a child, who is a creation not from only husband or wife alone, buy from both the husband and wife together.

For this reason this powerful sexual relation is not to be accomplished with anyone but one's God-given spouse. Sexual relations are also designed to bring forth children. For the married sexual relations are not only an unspeakable blessing but one of the main ways to fulfill God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply." The procreation of children is the duty of Christian spouses, and can no more be avoided or tampered with than can the other purposes of sexual relations.

Those not prepared to assume the responsibility of sexual relations ought not engage in them. The intense pleasure of sexual relations are designed by God to promote the procreation of children, since the difficulties inherent in childbearing and Christian parenting might otherwise tempt spouses to avoid this solemn responsibility.

Today's contraception culture strikes at the heart of the God-designed unity of pleasure and responsibility, opting to embrace pleasure while avoiding the responsibility of childbearing and calling it "family planning." Such planned parenthood and family planning is in reality planned barrenhood and family banning, and as such has been vigorously forbidden by the Holy Fathers throughout the history of the Church. St. Paul teaches that married women find their salvation in and through childbearing.

Having documented what the Church says is the God designed purpose of sexual relations let us conclude by noting what sexual practices are clearly outside that purpose, and thus are sinful.

Marriage itself does not make legitimate all forms of sexuality. The sexual intercourse of the married is to be modest, and within its proper limits. Moderation is determined both by regulation of time and method of sexual relations. Relations on fast days, on the eve prior to one's reception of Holy Communion, and on days on which one receives the Holy Gifts are forbidden as an illegitimate indulgence to the flesh. Anal and oral intercourse, as well as the use of pornography and sexual toys, are sexual perversions and are always sinful, even for married Christians. The unnatural prolongation of sexual desire, through the use of drugs such as viagra, is forbidden. On the contrary, such decline in sexual desire is to warmly welcomed by aging Orthodox Christians as a divine help in one's life long preparation for departure from this life.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/TrenhamSexuality.php

though the statement is not as clear as Fr. Ambrose (at least once) said.  It might be clearer here
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frjosiah_holycross06.aspx
but I cannot get the recoring to work.
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: 37,472



« Reply #247 on: December 05, 2010, 05:07:52 PM »


My thoughts exactly.



....scratching head.

I was hoping that the Orthodox Church would stay out of this seemingly contradictory issue.
What is contradictory about it?

The Church should strictly preach abstinence.  Making the argument that people will have sex anyway...so, why not be safe....has no place in the Church.

The Church should put down the law....and we may choose to follow it, or not.   

The Church says we should fast...(not just fast just from cheese, but, from all non-Lenten foods, behavior, etc)...whether we do or not is up to us.
The Church says we should pray...(not just when we are scared)....whether we do or not is up to us.
The Church says we should not steal...(not just from a supermarket...but, never)...whether we do so or not is up to us.

Am I making sense?

The Church should preach what is right...and not alleviate the degrees of our sinful nature.

Outside of marriage, the Church should ONLY teach abstinence.

If we don't abstain, it's our fault, our sin and we are responsible.


Well said Liza!

Selam

I agree, well said, and agree with all that Panna Liza said, but I am still perplexed by what she meant by "contradictory."  I don't see anything that the Russia Church has said, either in the Holy Synod document or the Father's statement in the OP, that is contradictory.

It contradicts what the Vatican teaches on this subject, but so what?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #248 on: December 05, 2010, 05:27:34 PM »


It would seem that Fr. Josiah would agree with what Fr. Ambrose has written:

My understanding of what Fr Ambrose (Young) wrote is that NO contraception may be used at any time and he does not allow that people may use it in the initial period of their marriage (when ,for example they are both finishing college and there may be solid reasons to postpone conceiving a child.)  He apparently would refuse to marry such a couple.  He is saying point blank:  no contraception.
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: 37,472



« Reply #249 on: December 05, 2010, 05:31:16 PM »


It would seem that Fr. Josiah would agree with what Fr. Ambrose has written:

My understanding of what Fr Ambrose (Young) wrote is that NO contraception may be used at any time and he does not allow that people may use it in the initial period of their marriage (when ,for example they are both finishing college and there may be solid reasons to postpone conceiving a child.)  He apparently would refuse to marry such a couple.  He is saying point blank:  no contraception.
On that, I think Fr. Josiah is clear that he would agree with such a position.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #250 on: December 05, 2010, 05:34:39 PM »

It would seem that Fr. Josiah would agree with what Fr. Ambrose [Young] has written:

Haven't we been told that Fr Josiah Trenham has been forbidden by his bishop to preach and enforce his views on contraception on the laity in his parish?  Have I got that right?  Can anybody confirm this?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #251 on: December 05, 2010, 05:48:53 PM »


I wonder if somebody out there is paying to have Father Ambrose [Young] depicted so that he looks quite foolish in the eyes of Internet Orthodoxy.  What do ya think?...eh?

You mock him but he is not alone in Orthodoxy with his teaching against artificial birth control. 


Why do you impute to people such evil thoughts?  Who is mocking Father Ambrose (Young)?

These were obviously his honest thoughts on the topic many years ago.

If he still holds them today he is in a precarious position since he is advising the faithful in sharp contradiction to the teachings of his bishop.  And In his case his bishop is also his abbot.  This is a very serious and rebellious and indeed sinful thing for a monk to do, and knowing his sense of monastic obedience I am sure he would not be doing it.

Obedience in all things but sin.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #252 on: December 05, 2010, 05:48:54 PM »

Quote
Fr Ambrose Young:  ""As a priest, I must say to any couple that approaches me for marriage that, if they are not prepared and willing to conceive and bear a child, without interfering with the will of God by means of artificial birth control, then they are not ready to be married."

This is outrageously in dissent from the teaching of the living "magisterium" of Orthodoxy [her bishops] and any priest giving such marriage instruction to those in marriage formation should be forbidden by his bishop to undertake such work.  This is a grossly misleading thing and I would hope that no priest is teaching young couples like this.  Is he actually saying he would refuse to marry a couple thinking of birth control !!?

In Fr Ambrose's defence we should consider that the article which has been referenced was written many years ago.  Even in those days it placed him in a position of dissent from the teaching of the Church.

Do what you usually do.  Write to his bishop...write to all the bishops!!  Write to the pope maybe...

Write to God!!
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #253 on: December 05, 2010, 05:48:54 PM »



Well maybe if you go back to the UCCB site which is where you generally send people

A porky.

Quote
you'll remember that there are surveys there from which Ms. Theresa takes her WAGs!!... Smiley

Another porky.  I have never been to the USCCB for this information.  I have never seen these "surveys" there from which you claim Notare takes her information.

Please direct us to the surveys on the USCCB site or you may be suspected of spreading more disinformation.

Quote


Now you are playing games so I'll leave you to them.

YOU are playing games AND you are giving the impression that I am lying!  I award you a

Impression?...or perhaps you were thinking of "impressionable"


Mary, why is it that you give the impression that you would always rather run a mile than handle requests for information.  WHERE are the USCCB websites with these surveys?

You want me to give it back to you?   You've already sent those links to me many many times.  I see no need to hand them back to you.

Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #254 on: December 05, 2010, 05:57:49 PM »

Quote
Fr Ambrose Young:  ""As a priest, I must say to any couple that approaches me for marriage that, if they are not prepared and willing to conceive and bear a child, without interfering with the will of God by means of artificial birth control, then they are not ready to be married."

This is outrageously in dissent from the teaching of the living "magisterium" of Orthodoxy [her bishops] and any priest giving such marriage instruction to those in marriage formation should be forbidden by his bishop to undertake such work.  This is a grossly misleading thing and I would hope that no priest is teaching young couples like this.  Is he actually saying he would refuse to marry a couple thinking of birth control !!?

In Fr Ambrose's defence we should consider that the article which has been referenced was written many years ago.  Even in those days it placed him in a position of dissent from the teaching of the Church.

Do what you usually do.  Write to his bishop...write to all the bishops!!  Write to the pope maybe...

Write to God!!


This is a sick accusation!  God forgive you.  I have written to my bishop about another clergyman once in my life, in 1997.  It was justified and the bishop acted accordingly.  There is no need for you to know the details.

But to say that writing to the bishop is what I "usually do" really is sick.  I would like an apology.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 06:11:26 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #255 on: December 05, 2010, 06:00:04 PM »



Well maybe if you go back to the UCCB site which is where you generally send people

A porky.

Quote
you'll remember that there are surveys there from which Ms. Theresa takes her WAGs!!... Smiley

Another porky.  I have never been to the USCCB for this information.  I have never seen these "surveys" there from which you claim Notare takes her information.

Please direct us to the surveys on the USCCB site or you may be suspected of spreading more disinformation.

Quote


Now you are playing games so I'll leave you to them.

YOU are playing games AND you are giving the impression that I am lying!  I award you a

Impression?...or perhaps you were thinking of "impressionable"


Mary, why is it that you give the impression that you would always rather run a mile than handle requests for information.  WHERE are the USCCB websites with these surveys?

You want me to give it back to you?   You've already sent those links to me many many times.  I see no need to hand them back to you.



I have never sent you any links to surveys on the site of the USCCB.  I am simply unawerae of these surveys. 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #256 on: December 05, 2010, 08:01:45 PM »

Quote
Fr Ambrose Young:  ""As a priest, I must say to any couple that approaches me for marriage that, if they are not prepared and willing to conceive and bear a child, without interfering with the will of God by means of artificial birth control, then they are not ready to be married."

This is outrageously in dissent from the teaching of the living "magisterium" of Orthodoxy [her bishops] and any priest giving such marriage instruction to those in marriage formation should be forbidden by his bishop to undertake such work.  This is a grossly misleading thing and I would hope that no priest is teaching young couples like this.  Is he actually saying he would refuse to marry a couple thinking of birth control !!?

In Fr Ambrose's defence we should consider that the article which has been referenced was written many years ago.  Even in those days it placed him in a position of dissent from the teaching of the Church.

Do what you usually do.  Write to his bishop...write to all the bishops!!  Write to the pope maybe...

Write to God!!


This is a sick accusation!  God forgive you.  I have written to my bishop about another clergyman once in my life, in 1997.  It was justified and the bishop acted accordingly.  There is no need for you to know the details.

But to say that writing to the bishop is what I "usually do" really is sick.  I would like an apology.

No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here.  So no.  There isn't an apology forthcoming. 

You have a history of suggesting that this or that person should be reported to their bishop as well, so if you don't intend to do something, don't threaten it or encourage it.  It gives people the wrong impression.  You really seem to be fixated on this topic in very destructive ways.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #257 on: December 05, 2010, 08:53:37 PM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here.  So no.  There isn't an apology forthcoming.<

Will you send me copies of my messages, please.  I simply do not trust your interpretation of whatever I wrote.

>Mary:  You have a history of suggesting that this or that person should be reported to their bishop as well, <


Would you substantiate this accusation.  Name the persons whom I have threatened to report to a bishop.    You are surely aware that I am forbidden to write to any bishop other than my own.  If I had a complaint against a clergyman in another diocese I would have to inform my bishop and he would contact the other bishop.  If if leapfrogged over my bishop I would be in serious trouble.  That's just the way it works in the Church.


>Mary: You really seem to be fixated on this topic in very destructive ways.<

So, another defamatory statement against an Orthodox priest appears on the Forum courtesy of Mary.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #258 on: December 05, 2010, 09:25:01 PM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here. 


The issues were not the same as are being discussed here.  The young monk (novice?) was excessively laudatory of the monastic and celibate state as greatly superior to the married state.   He went so far astray as to contend that married couples who enjoy the marital embrace are quite unable to make any progress in theosis.  I remember being very distressed indeed that this piece of nonsense was being promoted as Orthodoxy on your list before a Catholic audience.  I was very happy when his own spiritual father (the same Father Ambrose [Young] under discussion here) stepped in and told him he was very much mistaken.
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: 37,472



« Reply #259 on: December 05, 2010, 10:04:01 PM »


Quote

The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Anyone have the particulars of this 1937 encyclical?


Over many years people have sought this claimed 1937 Encyclical when it has been mentioned in contraception discussions.  All searches have proved to be only wild goose chases and the Encyclical seems to be a piece of mythology.

A direct approach to Fr Ambrose (Alexey Young) revealed that he himself has never sighted it and has no personal knowledge of it.
There is a reference to it being issued October 14, 1937, Archbishop Chrystodoulos and 55 other bishops signing this "Encyclical of the Hiearchy of Greece" The foundations of Christian bioethics By Hugo Tristram Engelhardt
http://books.google.com/books?id=BMAtHATrlq4C&pg=PA298&dq=Greek+Orthodox+encyclical+1937&hl=en&ei=n-b6TM7nLIK9nAeYrtnICg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Greek%20Orthodox%20encyclical%201937&f=false

What is not clear is what it actually said, except that condemned contraception for selfish purposes and eliminating procreation from marriage.  The note is for this
Quote
For example, if one in any way limits the number of children in order to live lavishly, one acts against the spirit of the Gospel. Such an ethos of reproduction does not aim at humbly, selflessly, and ascetically pursuing holiness. The contraceptive ethos directs marriage away from the cardinal goal of all human life; pursuit of union with God.  It directs one's life to oneself, not to God. Out of all these considerations and more, Christian marriage is not to be taken for self-satisfaction.  To the contrary, marriage involves a form of pleasant ascetic struggle of mutual love and sacrifice: a joyful companionship of spouse and children in the pursuit of holiness.  Husband and wife are called to turn away from self-love through love of each other and of God.  They are called to be chaste with respect to eschewing sexual acts with others and to turn with love to each other and their children.  In all of this, they are like martyrs; they are to die to their passions.  In this context, the decision to limit children because of health or due to limited familial or societal resources need not suffer from a misdirection of energies; it can be make out of love of others and with humility before God.
Despite detalied considerations of sexual offenses by ecumenical councils, and by generally accepted local councils, and despite a recognition that marriage is orientated toward reproduction, there is no condemnation of limiting births, apart from the condemnation of abortion...

A little further down, footnote 102 says something cogent:
Quote
The differnce between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic views regarding contraception lie in the first being primarily articulated in terms of an asceticism directed to approaching holiness and the second being directed to confroming to impersonal norms.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #260 on: December 05, 2010, 10:11:26 PM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here. 


The issues were not the same as are being discussed here.  The young monk (novice?) was excessively laudatory of the monastic and celibate state as greatly superior to the married state.   He went so far astray as to contend that married couples who enjoy the marital embrace are quite unable to make any progress in theosis.  I remember being very distressed indeed that this piece of nonsense was being promoted as Orthodoxy on your list before a Catholic audience.  I was very happy when his own spiritual father (the same Father Ambrose [Young] under discussion here) stepped in and told him he was very much mistaken.

Your memory has failed you here, Father.  I don't remember at all that he was told that he was MUCH mistaken.   He certainly was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Fathers.  There was quite a good bit of material presented by the monk in question and none of it was addressed substantively...In other words there was no real defense against the patristic consensus that virginity is the highest moral state in this life, for example.  But that is another topic entirely.

You are working much too hard on this topic, per usual.  I have, for some time, thought that it might be a real spiritual trap for you because of how engrossed you become in defending something that we all know is an innovation in Orthodox moral teaching.

Actually I don't think it is an innovation at all.  I simply think that to keep pace with the times, some bishops and patriarchs are willing to allow the moral exception to be presented as the moral rule.

Very confusing to everyone and clearly has you in a state every time the subject comes up.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #261 on: December 05, 2010, 10:24:32 PM »

[There is a reference to it being issued October 14, 1937, Archbishop Chrystodoulos and 55 other bishops signing this "Encyclical of the Hiearchy of Greece" The foundations of Christian bioethics By Hugo Tristram Engelhardt

We had tracked down the reference to Engelhardt previously but it is far from convincing and he gives no reference at all as to where he has sighted this supposed 1937 Encylical.

Message 121 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.msg322576/topicseen.html#msg322576
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 10:35:20 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #262 on: December 05, 2010, 10:30:48 PM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here. 


The issues were not the same as are being discussed here.  The young monk (novice?) was excessively laudatory of the monastic and celibate state as greatly superior to the married state.   He went so far astray as to contend that married couples who enjoy the marital embrace are quite unable to make any progress in theosis.  I remember being very distressed indeed that this piece of nonsense was being promoted as Orthodoxy on your list before a Catholic audience.  I was very happy when his own spiritual father (the same Father Ambrose [Young] under discussion here) stepped in and told him he was very much mistaken.

Your memory has failed you here, Father.  I don't remember at all that he was told that he was MUCH mistaken.   He certainly was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Fathers.  There was quite a good bit of material presented by the monk in question and none of it was addressed substantively...In other words there was no real defense against the patristic consensus that virginity is the highest moral state in this life, for example.  But that is another topic entirely.

You are working much too hard on this topic, per usual.  I have, for some time, thought that it might be a real spiritual trap for you because of how engrossed you become in defending something that we all know is an innovation in Orthodox moral teaching.

Actually I don't think it is an innovation at all.  I simply think that to keep pace with the times, some bishops and patriarchs are willing to allow the moral exception to be presented as the moral rule.

Very confusing to everyone and clearly has you in a state every time the subject comes up.

M.

Reminder to self....

Cease engaging with Mary.  All she does is try to personally denigrate any correspondent not in agreement with her.  She never substantiates,  she never provides references, she never answers question.  Waste of time.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #263 on: December 05, 2010, 11:03:37 PM »


Your memory has failed you here, Father.  I don't remember at all that he was told that he was MUCH mistaken.   He certainly was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Fathers.
M.



He most certainly was misrepresenting both the teachings of the Holy Fathers and even the teaching of his own spiritual father.

The messages which I have in the computer folders are not failing in their memory. .  Here is the "teaching" of the young novice monk in question.

> theosis this side of the grave is closed to
> those still making use of sexual intercourse.
> He [Father Ambrose Young] assured me that it was,
> from his very own mouth.

> and my own spiritual father has told me),
> this means that IN THIS LIFE, that path is
> closed to the married

Father Ambrose [Young] then came in very swiftly to deny that this is his teaching or the teaching of the Holy Fathers.

In terms of an error in teaching this is a COLOSSAL blunder.  The novice was in fact claiming that the great majority of the Church, those who are married and including the married clergy, are unable to make any spiritual progress for as long as they do not renounce all sexual intercourse.  Madness!

« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 11:04:29 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #264 on: December 05, 2010, 11:08:41 PM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here. 


The issues were not the same as are being discussed here.  The young monk (novice?) was excessively laudatory of the monastic and celibate state as greatly superior to the married state.   He went so far astray as to contend that married couples who enjoy the marital embrace are quite unable to make any progress in theosis.  I remember being very distressed indeed that this piece of nonsense was being promoted as Orthodoxy on your list before a Catholic audience.  I was very happy when his own spiritual father (the same Father Ambrose [Young] under discussion here) stepped in and told him he was very much mistaken.

Your memory has failed you here, Father.  I don't remember at all that he was told that he was MUCH mistaken.   He certainly was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Fathers.  There was quite a good bit of material presented by the monk in question and none of it was addressed substantively...In other words there was no real defense against the patristic consensus that virginity is the highest moral state in this life, for example.  But that is another topic entirely.

You are working much too hard on this topic, per usual.  I have, for some time, thought that it might be a real spiritual trap for you because of how engrossed you become in defending something that we all know is an innovation in Orthodox moral teaching.

Actually I don't think it is an innovation at all.  I simply think that to keep pace with the times, some bishops and patriarchs are willing to allow the moral exception to be presented as the moral rule.

Very confusing to everyone and clearly has you in a state every time the subject comes up.

M.

Reminder to self....

Cease engaging with Mary.  All she does is try to personally denigrate any correspondent not in agreement with her.  She never substantiates,  she never provides references, she never answers question.  Waste of time.

Forgive me, please.  What I did was like poking at a lion in a cage.  I did not start out intending to be mean but it ended that way and for that I am ashamed and contrite.

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #265 on: December 05, 2010, 11:08:42 PM »


A little further down, footnote 102 says something cogent:
Quote
The differnce between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic views regarding contraception lie in the first being primarily articulated in terms of an asceticism directed to approaching holiness and the second being directed to confroming to impersonal norms.

So the continence exercised using NFP is a conformation to impersonal norms, and using a condom is directed toward approaching holiness?

Condom manufacturers Rejoice in Your Holiness!!

ok
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: 37,472



« Reply #266 on: December 06, 2010, 12:26:21 AM »


A little further down, footnote 102 says something cogent:
Quote
The differnce between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic views regarding contraception lie in the first being primarily articulated in terms of an asceticism directed to approaching holiness and the second being directed to confroming to impersonal norms.

So the continence exercised using NFP is a conformation to impersonal norms, and using a condom is directed toward approaching holiness?
What continence?  As long as a couple is willing to be "open to life"/risk pregancy/throw caution to providence-however you want to phrase/look at it-they can have all the sex on demand 27/7 they want according to HV (but not the Fathers now quoted to support it), and the teaching of the Vatican up to 1853 before it introduced this articial distinction between "natural" family planning and contraception-a distinction those Fathers not only did not recognize but EXPLICITELY condemned.

Quote
Condom manufacturers Rejoice in Your Holiness!!

That would explain the spike in condom sales after the end of the fasts.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2010, 12:39:39 AM by ialmisry » 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: 37,472



« Reply #267 on: December 06, 2010, 12:35:33 AM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here. 


The issues were not the same as are being discussed here.  The young monk (novice?) was excessively laudatory of the monastic and celibate state as greatly superior to the married state.   He went so far astray as to contend that married couples who enjoy the marital embrace are quite unable to make any progress in theosis.  I remember being very distressed indeed that this piece of nonsense was being promoted as Orthodoxy on your list before a Catholic audience.  I was very happy when his own spiritual father (the same Father Ambrose [Young] under discussion here) stepped in and told him he was very much mistaken.

Your memory has failed you here, Father.  I don't remember at all that he was told that he was MUCH mistaken.   He certainly was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Fathers.  There was quite a good bit of material presented by the monk in question and none of it was addressed substantively...In other words there was no real defense against the patristic consensus that virginity is the highest moral state in this life, for example.  But that is another topic entirely.

You are working much too hard on this topic, per usual.  I have, for some time, thought that it might be a real spiritual trap for you because of how engrossed you become in defending something that we all know is an innovation in Orthodox moral teaching.

Actually I don't think it is an innovation at all.  I simply think that to keep pace with the times, some bishops and patriarchs are willing to allow the moral exception to be presented as the moral rule.

Very confusing to everyone and clearly has you in a state every time the subject comes up.

M.

Up until the recent leak of your supreme pontiff's remarks, I do not recall any mention from you about any "moral exception."  Are you trying to keep pace with the times?

If you can produce a post of yours speaking of a "moral exception" before the recent leaks, I will apologize.

As for the Vatican's innovating in its "patristic" support with "NFP," and the good sense of the Orthodox Church to deal with these issues at the pastoral level, now as from time immorial, what more can be said?
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #268 on: December 06, 2010, 11:08:55 AM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here. 


The issues were not the same as are being discussed here.  The young monk (novice?) was excessively laudatory of the monastic and celibate state as greatly superior to the married state.   He went so far astray as to contend that married couples who enjoy the marital embrace are quite unable to make any progress in theosis.  I remember being very distressed indeed that this piece of nonsense was being promoted as Orthodoxy on your list before a Catholic audience.  I was very happy when his own spiritual father (the same Father Ambrose [Young] under discussion here) stepped in and told him he was very much mistaken.

Your memory has failed you here, Father.  I don't remember at all that he was told that he was MUCH mistaken.   He certainly was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Fathers.  There was quite a good bit of material presented by the monk in question and none of it was addressed substantively...In other words there was no real defense against the patristic consensus that virginity is the highest moral state in this life, for example.  But that is another topic entirely.

You are working much too hard on this topic, per usual.  I have, for some time, thought that it might be a real spiritual trap for you because of how engrossed you become in defending something that we all know is an innovation in Orthodox moral teaching.

Actually I don't think it is an innovation at all.  I simply think that to keep pace with the times, some bishops and patriarchs are willing to allow the moral exception to be presented as the moral rule.

Very confusing to everyone and clearly has you in a state every time the subject comes up.

M.

Up until the recent leak of your supreme pontiff's remarks, I do not recall any mention from you about any "moral exception."  Are you trying to keep pace with the times?


I have no idea what you are talking about here.  If you are still trying to tell me that I am wrong for saying that there have always been pastoral guidelines for priests in the confessional to deal with issues of birth control...well....trying to talk to you one this issue would be like...trying to talk to you.

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: 37,472



« Reply #269 on: December 06, 2010, 04:16:55 PM »

>Mary:  No apology.  I still have the private notes from you telling me you were going to write to the bishop of an Orthodox monk with whom you disagreed on many the same issues of human sexuality that are at risk here. 


The issues were not the same as are being discussed here.  The young monk (novice?) was excessively laudatory of the monastic and celibate state as greatly superior to the married state.   He went so far astray as to contend that married couples who enjoy the marital embrace are quite unable to make any progress in theosis.  I remember being very distressed indeed that this piece of nonsense was being promoted as Orthodoxy on your list before a Catholic audience.  I was very happy when his own spiritual father (the same Father Ambrose [Young] under discussion here) stepped in and told him he was very much mistaken.

Your memory has failed you here, Father.  I don't remember at all that he was told that he was MUCH mistaken.   He certainly was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Fathers.  There was quite a good bit of material presented by the monk in question and none of it was addressed substantively...In other words there was no real defense against the patristic consensus that virginity is the highest moral state in this life, for example.  But that is another topic entirely.

You are working much too hard on this topic, per usual.  I have, for some time, thought that it might be a real spiritual trap for you because of how engrossed you become in defending something that we all know is an innovation in Orthodox moral teaching.

Actually I don't think it is an innovation at all.  I simply think that to keep pace with the times, some bishops and patriarchs are willing to allow the moral exception to be presented as the moral rule.

Very confusing to everyone and clearly has you in a state every time the subject comes up.

M.

Up until the recent leak of your supreme pontiff's remarks, I do not recall any mention from you about any "moral exception."  Are you trying to keep pace with the times?


I have no idea what you are talking about here.  If you are still trying to tell me that I am wrong for saying that there have always been pastoral guidelines for priests in the confessional to deal with issues of birth control

none that involved "moral exceptions" that you mentioned, before this bizarre situation of male prostitutes made headlines.

Of course, the Roman Penitentiary made what it considered a moral exception into the moral rule in 1853 and 1880.

Quote
...well....trying to talk to you one this issue would be like...trying to talk to you.

You will have to edit this into English for me to respond.
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
Tags: Russian Orthodox Church contraception condoms natural family planning fasting 
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 0.215 seconds with 72 queries.