Topic: Re: Sexuality

[FormerReformer]

The works of the Fathers must also be balanced with the understanding of the Church, evidence of which may be found in the Constitutions, Synods, and Canons (as well as the Marriage Ceremony as stated by an earlier poster).  Starting with Apostolic Canon 51: "If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman."

Likewise the Synod of Gangra Canon I: "If any one shall condemn marriage, or abominate and condemn a woman who is a believer and devout, and sleeps with her own husband, as though she could not enter the Kingdom [of heaven] let him be anathema."

None of which contradicts the Patristic quotes provided.

I wouldn't say "contradict", "clarify" I believe is the better word.  Those who would use the Fathers as a proof-text against marriage are corrected by the above canons.

[Iconodule]

The works of the Fathers must also be balanced with the understanding of the Church, evidence of which may be found in the Constitutions, Synods, and Canons (as well as the Marriage Ceremony as stated by an earlier poster).  Starting with Apostolic Canon 51: "If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman."

Likewise the Synod of Gangra Canon I: "If any one shall condemn marriage, or abominate and condemn a woman who is a believer and devout, and sleeps with her own husband, as though she could not enter the Kingdom [of heaven] let him be anathema."

None of which contradicts the Patristic quotes provided.

I wouldn't say "contradict", "clarify" I believe is the better word.  Those who would use the Fathers as a proof-text against marriage are corrected by the above canons.

And also corrected by the scriptures, the Fathers, the hymns of the Church, etc. I agree.

[jckstraw72]

The works of the Fathers must also be balanced with the understanding of the Church, evidence of which may be found in the Constitutions, Synods, and Canons (as well as the Marriage Ceremony as stated by an earlier poster).  Starting with Apostolic Canon 51: "If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman."

Likewise the Synod of Gangra Canon I: "If any one shall condemn marriage, or abominate and condemn a woman who is a believer and devout, and sleeps with her own husband, as though she could not enter the Kingdom [of heaven] let him be anathema."

None of which contradicts the Patristic quotes provided.

I wouldn't say "contradict", "clarify" I believe is the better word.  Those who would use the Fathers as a proof-text against marriage are corrected by the above canons.

sure, but i dont think anyone is actually against marriage (at least no one on here)

[peteprint]

"No. Sexual reproduction is natural and blameless in the animals- at least, so says St. Gregory Palamas. It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly."

Just an observation.  Animals eat and drink and pass bodily wastes, are these not fitting to man as well?

While the Church spoke out against the Gnostics and others that denigrated the material aspect of creation, there does seem to be a tendency on the part of some of the Fathers to equate "spiritual" as being superior to "material".

Our material bodies are going to be resurrected and glorified.  A New Earth is going to be created.  The angels are, and will continue to be immaterial, while man will be material in some sense after his glorification.

[jckstraw72]

"No. Sexual reproduction is natural and blameless in the animals- at least, so says St. Gregory Palamas. It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly."

Just an observation.  Animals eat and drink and pass bodily wastes, are these not fitting to man as well?

While the Church spoke out against the Gnostics and others that denigrated the material aspect of creation, there does seem to be a tendency on the part of some of the Fathers to equate "spiritual" as being superior to "material".

Our material bodies are going to be resurrected and glorified.  A New Earth is going to be created.  The angels are, and will continue to be immaterial, while man will be material in some sense after his glorification.

in the Garden Adam and Eve did not eat out of necessity and they did not void waste. here you can download an article of the Orthodox Word entitled "Created in Incorruption" - it goes into all of this in depth:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37605616/Hieromonk-Damascene-Created-in-In-Corruption

[peteprint]

"No. Sexual reproduction is natural and blameless in the animals- at least, so says St. Gregory Palamas. It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly."

Just an observation.  Animals eat and drink and pass bodily wastes, are these not fitting to man as well?

While the Church spoke out against the Gnostics and others that denigrated the material aspect of creation, there does seem to be a tendency on the part of some of the Fathers to equate "spiritual" as being superior to "material".

Our material bodies are going to be resurrected and glorified.  A New Earth is going to be created.  The angels are, and will continue to be immaterial, while man will be material in some sense after his glorification.

in the Garden Adam and Eve did not eat out of necessity and they did not void waste. here you can download an article of the Orthodox Word entitled "Created in Incorruption" - it goes into all of this in depth:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37605616/Hieromonk-Damascene-Created-in-In-Corruption

Thank you jckstraw72,

I will read this when I return home later this evening.  I was always under the impression that man needed to eat and God told man what he could, and could not eat in the garden.

I will see what this article says about it when I read it.

Thank you again.

[jckstraw72]

no prob. enjoy!

[Iconodule]

"No. Sexual reproduction is natural and blameless in the animals- at least, so says St. Gregory Palamas. It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly."

Just an observation.  Animals eat and drink and pass bodily wastes, are these not fitting to man as well?

While the Church spoke out against the Gnostics and others that denigrated the material aspect of creation, there does seem to be a tendency on the part of some of the Fathers to equate "spiritual" as being superior to "material".

Our material bodies are going to be resurrected and glorified.  A New Earth is going to be created.  The angels are, and will continue to be immaterial, while man will be material in some sense after his glorification.

The Gnostics not only saw spirit as superior to matter- they were condemned for saying the material creation is evil, a mistake, a prison for souls. None of the Fathers teach this. We will be resurrected with our bodies and they will always be a part of us. There is a radical difference between saying the body should serve the spirit, and saying the body is a prison to be abolished.

[minasoliman]

I have a question about divorce.  Divorce is allowed under infidelity, but would it be more virtuous for someone to forgive his/her spouse for the said infidelity?

[ialmisry]

If sex/marriage were not part of God's plan prior to the fall, and humanity was going to be "fruitful and multiply" in some other way, what about the birds and fish and other animals, were they going to reproduce in a non-sexual way as well?

No. Sexual reproduction is natural and blameless in the animals- at least, so says St. Gregory Palamas. It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly.

Man and Woman were created so in the Image and Likeness of God, not of the animals.

Animals eat too. Angles do not eat. Should we say that precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man?

The Jehovah's Witnesses follow that line of thinking in denying the Real Presence in John 6.

That's interesting, since denying the Real Presence doesn't follow at all from this line of thinking.

Tell your JW friends: they claim John 6:23 (in connection with v. 27-9) is the key to the whole passage.

25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" 26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on Him has God the Father set His seal." 28 Then they said to Him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent." 30 So they said to Him, "Then what sign do You do, that we may see, and believe You? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." 34 They said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me; and him who comes to Me I will not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My Own will, but the will of Him who sent Me; 39 and this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life; and I will raise Him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then murmured at Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 59 This He said in the synagogue, as He taught at Caper'na-um. 60 Many of His disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in Himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where He was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with Him.

The JWs (and Baptists and a whole host of Protestants) claim that since "the flesh profiteth nothing," Christ can only mean a spiritual communion.  If we set up a dichotomy between the spiritual part and the fleshy part of man, rather than focus on the physical side of spirituality, then we have to concede the argument to them.   There is a problematic strain in Athonite spirituality envying the bodiless powers.

[ialmisry]

I have a question about divorce.  Divorce is allowed under infidelity, but would it be more virtuous for someone to forgive his/her spouse for the said infidelity?

Yes. St. Basil was wrong on this (as he was on the question of baptism by laymen).

[Iconodule]

Isa, if you're going to talk about my "JW friends" I don't see any purpose in continuing the discussion. Perhaps when the Church proclaims you "Pillar of Orthodoxy" or "Enlightener of the Universe" your personal interpretations will carry more weight for me.

[ialmisry]

but both Tertullian and St. Gregory of Nyssa were married, and probably some others. furthermore, why do we assume they are writing out of their ignorance, rather than writing out of their holiness and experiences of God? why is first-hand experience of marriage necessary to write about it when you're holy?

Because a lot of what the monastic Fathers write desplays their ignorance of marriage.  Holiness does not confer omniscience.

Take for instance the praise of St. John of Kronestadt, for something for which he should be condemned?

What in particular are you refering to in Tertullian (who has his own problems) and St. Gregoy tows the same line as the monastic Fathers?

im just referring to the general teaching that virginity is a higher path than marriage. St. Gregory and Tertullian would both agree to that and they were both married.

Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were "made a little lower than the angels ," to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker.
- St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man

Angels don't increase.

How do you know that?

I have it on good authority.  Matthew 22:30

As to their (actually our) ancient state,

"Then God said, "Let us make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness...

So God created man in His Own Image,
    in the Image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply..."

Yes. And... ?

and so male and female is our ancient state, not the sexless state of angels.

[ialmisry]

Isa, if you're going to talk about my "JW friends" I don't see any purpose in continuing the discussion. Perhaps when the Church proclaims you "Pillar of Orthodoxy" or "Enlightener of the Universe" your personal interpretations will carry more weight for me.

I didn't write the rite or marriage, nor the Bridegroom matins. Nor did I make marriage a Holy Mystery/Sacrament (is there a Church which puts tonsuring on a par with the rite of marriage?). When you sing on Pascha about about Christ coming forth from the Tomb like a Bridegroom from the Bridal Chamber, are you imagining life stock, like you quote from St. Gregory implies?  Or do you sing "Like a monk emerging from his cell?"

Envy of the bodiless powers among the Fathers I'm afraid at times does degenerate into cryptognosticism and cryptomanicheism.  That hasn't weighed the Church down being His Bride.

[deusveritasest]

the understanding that sexual division is a result of the Fall which needs to be overcome.

...

Huh?

I'm really confused now.

Was not Adam sexually divided to become Adam and Eve before the Fall?

[Iconodule]

Isa, if you're going to talk about my "JW friends" I don't see any purpose in continuing the discussion. Perhaps when the Church proclaims you "Pillar of Orthodoxy" or "Enlightener of the Universe" your personal interpretations will carry more weight for me.

I didn't write the rite or marriage, nor the Bridegroom matins. Nor did I make marriage a Holy Mystery/Sacrament (is there a Church which puts tonsuring on a par with the rite of marriage?). When you sing on Pascha about about Christ coming forth from the Tomb like a Bridegroom from the Bridal Chamber, are you imagining life stock, like you quote from St. Gregory implies?  Or do you sing "Like a monk emerging from his cell?"

And when St. Paul says the Lord will come "like a thief in the night", do you get the sudden urge to start breaking into places and grabbing stuff? Or does your Apostol read "like a paying customer during normal store hours"?

Marriage is a Holy Mystery and is good- no one is disputing that, including the Fathers cited here.

Envy of the bodiless powers among the Fathers I'm afraid at times does degenerate into cryptognosticism and cryptomanicheism.  

Good thing Almisryism isn't our standard of Orthodoxy.

[Iconodule]

the understanding that sexual division is a result of the Fall which needs to be overcome.

...

Huh?

I'm really confused now.

Was not Adam sexually divided to become Adam and Eve before the Fall?

Yes, because God knew they would fall, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus.

[deusveritasest]

It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly.

This seems like a rather contorted manner of logic. It seems like you are suggesting that the way of the flesh and the way of the spirit are in all manners contradictory, and thus that the spirit's mastery over the flesh must always lead to termination of properly fleshly things. But I have never seen something to support the idea that the spirit cannot exercise its way of being at the same time that the flesh exercises its own in a hypostatic union. It would seem, rather, that the Fall is when the flesh obtains enslavement of the spirit and prevents it from exercising its proper parallel way of being.

[deusveritasest]

the understanding that sexual division is a result of the Fall which needs to be overcome.

...

Huh?

I'm really confused now.

Was not Adam sexually divided to become Adam and Eve before the Fall?

Yes, because God knew they would fall, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus.

Well that still doesn't make sense. If this basic sexual division is such a fallen problem, then it doesn't make sense for God to pre-empt the Fall by generating the problem before it occurs. My guess is that if some sort of sexual division is recognized as a problem of the Fall that you are misinterpreting the exact nature of it.

[Iconodule]

the understanding that sexual division is a result of the Fall which needs to be overcome.

...

Huh?

I'm really confused now.

Was not Adam sexually divided to become Adam and Eve before the Fall?

Yes, because God knew they would fall, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus.

Well that still doesn't make sense. If this basic sexual division is such a fallen problem, then it doesn't make sense for God to pre-empt the Fall by generating the problem before it occurs. My guess is that if some sort of sexual division is recognized as a problem of the Fall that you are misinterpreting the exact nature of it.

I'm just paraphrasing the words of the Fathers. Perhaps I'm doing it badly. You can follow the link in the OP to see them yourself.

[Iconodule]

It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly.

This seems like a rather contorted manner of logic. It seems like you are suggesting that the way of the flesh and the way of the spirit are in all manners contradictory, and thus that the spirit's mastery over the flesh must always lead to termination of properly fleshly things.

I don't think that is the case at all, but rather, when the spirit has mastery of the flesh, then even fleshly activities have a tendency to be spiritualized. So St. Symeon the Theologian, for instance, says that the new creation will not be "sensuous" as this one, the food will be "immaterial" (not literally), we will have "bodiless bodies". Perhaps the body does participate in this other mode of reproduction but in a very different way.

[ialmisry]

Isa, if you're going to talk about my "JW friends" I don't see any purpose in continuing the discussion. Perhaps when the Church proclaims you "Pillar of Orthodoxy" or "Enlightener of the Universe" your personal interpretations will carry more weight for me.

I didn't write the rite or marriage, nor the Bridegroom matins. Nor did I make marriage a Holy Mystery/Sacrament (is there a Church which puts tonsuring on a par with the rite of marriage?). When you sing on Pascha about about Christ coming forth from the Tomb like a Bridegroom from the Bridal Chamber, are you imagining life stock, like you quote from St. Gregory implies?  Or do you sing "Like a monk emerging from his cell?"

And when St. Paul says the Lord will come "like a thief in the night", do you get the sudden urge to start breaking into places and grabbing stuff? Or does your Apostol read "like a paying customer during normal store hours"?

Someone just brought that up, on the point of the Fathers saying that marriage was a "concession," and asked if there were any blessed concessions for theft or murder.

Don't rightly know if it is theft if you go and take what is yours and has been wrongfully taken from you.


And as to your question to I Thess. 5:3, I don't go into labor pains either.  I don't know about Thief Matins, but I do go to Bridegroom Matins.

 

Marriage is a Holy Mystery and is good- no one is disputing that, including the Fathers cited here.

Damning with faint praise doesn't count. St. Jerome's praise of marriage "because it gives me virgins" reflects his own teaching that "even the blood of martyrdom does not wash away the defilement of marriage," not the teaching of the Church.

Envy of the bodiless powers among the Fathers I'm afraid at times does degenerate into cryptognosticism and cryptomanicheism.  

Good thing Almisryism isn't our standard of Orthodoxy.

Good thing neither is cryptognosticism.

[ialmisry]

It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly.

This seems like a rather contorted manner of logic. It seems like you are suggesting that the way of the flesh and the way of the spirit are in all manners contradictory, and thus that the spirit's mastery over the flesh must always lead to termination of properly fleshly things.

I don't think that is the case at all, but rather, when the spirit has mastery of the flesh, then even fleshly activities have a tendency to be spiritualized. So St. Symeon the Theologian, for instance, says that the new creation will not be "sensuous" as this one, the food will be "immaterial" (not literally), we will have "bodiless bodies". Perhaps the body does participate in this other mode of reproduction but in a very different way.

There is no other mode of reproduction.

[Riddikulus]

Yes Riddikulus,

Since becoming Orthodox I have been studying a lot about the Church of the past.  Of course we can see much of the same in the Catholic Church (one hour pre-communion fast today for example), but we Orthodox are not supposed to have watered down the praxis.  I find myself reading today where I have to question some of the saints and Fathers on certain beliefs.  It is very troubling to me.

I wouldn't see this particular issue as a watering down, but a basic improvement in the area of human rights. Whose business is it what a husband and wife agree to do in the privacy of their bedroom? Why do we throw out the old burdensome law only to create another for the faithful? Oh mankind, that rule making creature! And I would consider it very dangerous to stop questioning the opinions of others, even those opinions of saints and fathers. They aren't infallible and I figure that if I'm going to be judged in some way for error, I would rather it was my error than a blind following of other people's errors.

What is this idea of rights? A Christian has no rights, only the responsibility to obey Christ and his Body. That isn't to say that individual saints are right on everything, but Holy Tradition and the collective witness of the Church must be obeyed.

And there is no privacy for a Christian either. Since every aspect of life has a spiritual dimension, including bedroom activity, Christ and the Church have a say in it. That isn't to say we should talk about sex to everyone, but it's not something that's absolutely private and sacrosanct and up to the husband and wife to decide alone. The Church gives us rules and guidelines about what and how much we can eat, so it has every right to do so with sex as well. Both are spiritual activities.

To say "It's my life and I'll live like I want" (or the more nuanced version, "I'll take it under advisement, but I make the final choice") is the opposite of the point.

And the Christian slave should have remained a slave? No one should have considered his/her dignity as a human being? No one should have spoken for the abolition of such a vile institution? After all, the Christian slave's only responsibility is to obey Christ and his Body. It seems that you are saying that we shouldn't be concerned when the rights of a human being is being violated by unjust or cruel behaviour.

While I might agree with taking upon myself such a burden (slavery, or some third party having a say in the positions I might employ during sex with my spouse), I could never place such imposition upon the shoulders of others and call it Christian. And that such a policing/punishment policy was considered acceptable is beyond me.

Why did I read this thread? Ignorance is bliss.  

[Iconodule]

It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly.

This seems like a rather contorted manner of logic. It seems like you are suggesting that the way of the flesh and the way of the spirit are in all manners contradictory, and thus that the spirit's mastery over the flesh must always lead to termination of properly fleshly things.

I don't think that is the case at all, but rather, when the spirit has mastery of the flesh, then even fleshly activities have a tendency to be spiritualized. So St. Symeon the Theologian, for instance, says that the new creation will not be "sensuous" as this one, the food will be "immaterial" (not literally), we will have "bodiless bodies". Perhaps the body does participate in this other mode of reproduction but in a very different way.

There is no other mode of reproduction.

Again, when the Church sanctions your private revelations as Orthodox then I will take them seriously.

[ialmisry]

It's precisely because it is proper to animals that it is not fitting to man, whose spiritual part should predominate over the fleshly.

This seems like a rather contorted manner of logic. It seems like you are suggesting that the way of the flesh and the way of the spirit are in all manners contradictory, and thus that the spirit's mastery over the flesh must always lead to termination of properly fleshly things.

I don't think that is the case at all, but rather, when the spirit has mastery of the flesh, then even fleshly activities have a tendency to be spiritualized. So St. Symeon the Theologian, for instance, says that the new creation will not be "sensuous" as this one, the food will be "immaterial" (not literally), we will have "bodiless bodies". Perhaps the body does participate in this other mode of reproduction but in a very different way.

There is no other mode of reproduction.

Again, when the Church sanctions your private revelations as Orthodox then I will take them seriously.

When you can cough up an example of other modes of reproduction, then I will give your private conjectures serious thought.  Revelation given in Scripture only gives one (unless you consider parthenogenesis and the meiosis of Eve as other modes).

[jckstraw72]

my understanding is that the Fathers just say it would have happened some other way, they dont attempt to explain how.

[ialmisry]

my understanding is that the Fathers just say it would have happened some other way, they dont attempt to explain how.

Yes, I'm aware many try to get around the obvious by supporting their hyposthesis by speculation.  The facts remain, that God revealed that He created man in His Image and Likeness, that God revealed that when He did so He created them male and female, and that He then commanded them in Paradise to be fruitful and multiply.  Not being bound by anything, He could have done it another way.  The fact remains, He didn't.

[jckstraw72]

my understanding is that the Fathers just say it would have happened some other way, they dont attempt to explain how.

Yes, I'm aware many try to get around the obvious by supporting their hyposthesis by speculation.  The facts remain, that God revealed that He created man in His Image and Likeness, that God revealed that when He did so He created them male and female, and that He then commanded them in Paradise to be fruitful and multiply.  Not being bound by anything, He could have done it another way.  The fact remains, He didn't.

yes, but i dont see how that contradicts the Fathers.

[Iconodule]

The Holy Fathers are not "crypto-gnostics." Enough said.

[ialmisry]

The Holy Fathers are not "crypto-gnostics." Enough said.

Ever read St. Jerome?

There are some who encrust the teachings of Christ with the teachings of Plato.

[ialmisry]

my understanding is that the Fathers just say it would have happened some other way, they dont attempt to explain how.

Yes, I'm aware many try to get around the obvious by supporting their hyposthesis by speculation.  The facts remain, that God revealed that He created man in His Image and Likeness, that God revealed that when He did so He created them male and female, and that He then commanded them in Paradise to be fruitful and multiply.  Not being bound by anything, He could have done it another way.  The fact remains, He didn't.

yes, but i dont see how that contradicts the Fathers.

The consensus of the Fathers? It doesn't. Some would, however, disagree on the particulars.

[jckstraw72]

you seem to be arguing against the teaching that Adam and Eve were meant to remain virginal, although that is the consensus of the Fathers ....

[Shiny]

Fwiw, I gave some quotes from EO Fathers (including St. John Chrysostom) on this thread defending the idea that it's ok to enjoy sex.

Just asking for a quick answer, but only if it's goal is to conceive right?

[Justin Kissel]

Fwiw, I gave some quotes from EO Fathers (including St. John Chrysostom) on this thread defending the idea that it's ok to enjoy sex.

Just asking for a quick answer, but only if it's goal is to conceive right?

Fwiw, from my reading, the Fathers did seem to feel the need to justify sexual relations, leaving with the impression that just having sex for the sake of having it wasn't ok. Procreation seemed the most common justification, then avoiding lust, and some seem speak as though the connection formed through the act could be a justifiable reason. However, in all the justifications and discussions that I remember reading about, it seems like most indeed thought that the possibility of conception had to be left open. I suppose some would have said that the direct goal had to be to conceive, while others might have just said that the possibility should exist and you shouldn't try to use contraception in an attempt to avoid conceiving a child.

EDIT--I should add that some, like St. John Chrysostom, specifically mentioned how some couples couldn't conceive, but he defended their right to have sexual relations even when they thought that they couldn't conceive--but the lack of children was attributed to the will of God and/or nature, not an effort to avoid them.

[ialmisry]

you seem to be arguing against the teaching that Adam and Eve were meant to remain virginal, although that is the consensus of the Fathers ....

Most Fathers do not indulge in speculation.  Those that do, many do have to bend Genesis:

"Then God said, "Let us make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness...

So God created man in His Own Image,
    in the Image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply... Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."...So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man He made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed."

But they do not explain away Christ's explicit exegesis on it (Mattew 19:)4 He answered, "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"  That they are ashamed of His words, I argue against.

[jckstraw72]

you seem to be arguing against the teaching that Adam and Eve were meant to remain virginal, although that is the consensus of the Fathers ....

Most Fathers do not indulge in speculation.  Those that do, many do have to bend Genesis:

"Then God said, "Let us make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness...

So God created man in His Own Image,
    in the Image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply... Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."...So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man He made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed."

But they do not explain away Christ's explicit exegesis on it (Mattew 19:)4 He answered, "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"  That they are ashamed of His words, I argue against.

but again, the teaching that man was virginal in the Garden does not contradict this ....

you're treating this as if there's some obvious, glaring contradiction that the Fathers either were too stupid to see, or ignored because of some perverted agenda on their part. im not ok with either of those options ...

[peteprint]

I am still reading the article by Heiromonk Damascene that jckstraw72 linked to.  I must say that it is very interesting and full of citations, however it seems to me that some of the Fathers were engaging in speculation at times.  For example,

It mentions in the footnotes that St. Symeon wrote that man needed to eat before the fall, while SS. Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Sinai wrote that the need to eat was a mark of the corruption that happened after the fall.

In one of the passages cited from St. Symeon, the saint writes:

...you see then that not unreasonably do we say that...

That sounds like reasoning and personal interpretation to me with regards to the subject that he was addressing.  Nothing wrong with that at all, but it does not sound like he is stating dogmatic truths.  Many of the writings of the Fathers use such terminology, qualifying what they are saying as being "reasonable," or it "seems to be,"  "we can infer," etc.

There is nothing in Holy scripture that goes into the kind of detail that some of the Fathers do about such things.  Did they receive this understanding from unwritten tradition, or personal reasoning?  Another issue is, to what extent was a particular Father simply professing what he had read in an earlier Fathers writings?  As generations go by, Father C repeats what Father B wrote, which he learned from the writings of Father A, resulting in us stating that Father's A, B, and C all believed such-and-such.

To what extent do we view the writings of the Fathers as speculation/conjecture?  Did any claim that their writings were divinely inspired, or that what they were writing was revealed by God?  This is important to the entire discussion.  Without doubt the Church recognizes the holiness and devotion of the Fathers; do we then accept what they have to say on theological issues as dogma?

[jckstraw72]

...you see then that not unreasonably do we say that...

i dont think this indicates that he arrived at the idea through mere human reasoning, but rather simply that the truth he is teaching can be stated and demonstrated to be quite reasonable. and even if it is human reasoning, its highly purified human reasoning. the Saints would still be reasoning based on spiritual insights that most of us know nothing of.

 Without doubt the Church recognizes the holiness and devotion of the Fathers; do we then accept what they have to say on theological issues as dogma?

as i see it, if the answer is "no" then there's no reason to be Orthodox. i didnt convert cause i thought the Fathers had neat opinions.

[jckstraw72]

on which page is the footnote that says St. Symeon taught that man needed to eat before the Fall? that sounds strange to me because St. Symeon is quite explicit that the only reason anything dies in all of creation is because of man's sin, but to say that they had to eat implies that they would have died had they not eaten.

[peteprint]

on which page is the footnote that says St. Symeon taught that man needed to eat before the Fall? that sounds strange to me because St. Symeon is quite explicit that the only reason anything dies in all of creation is because of man's sin, but to say that they had to eat implies that they would have died had they not eaten.

Footnote 21 on  page 15.  As I said, this is a very interesting article, and will take me more than one evening to read and process. 

[jckstraw72]

on which page is the footnote that says St. Symeon taught that man needed to eat before the Fall? that sounds strange to me because St. Symeon is quite explicit that the only reason anything dies in all of creation is because of man's sin, but to say that they had to eat implies that they would have died had they not eaten.

Footnote 21 on  page 15.  As I said, this is a very interesting article, and will take me more than one evening to read and process. 

yah i found it, thank you. that is interesting ... not sure what Fr. Damascene means by that, considering other statements of St. Symeon.

anyhoo, take your time, its a great resource - i come back to this article again and again and again in discussions of the spiritual life and of creation especially (obviously)

[ialmisry]

Yes Riddikulus,

Since becoming Orthodox I have been studying a lot about the Church of the past.  Of course we can see much of the same in the Catholic Church (one hour pre-communion fast today for example), but we Orthodox are not supposed to have watered down the praxis.  I find myself reading today where I have to question some of the saints and Fathers on certain beliefs.  It is very troubling to me.

I wouldn't see this particular issue as a watering down, but a basic improvement in the area of human rights. Whose business is it what a husband and wife agree to do in the privacy of their bedroom? Why do we throw out the old burdensome law only to create another for the faithful? Oh mankind, that rule making creature! And I would consider it very dangerous to stop questioning the opinions of others, even those opinions of saints and fathers. They aren't infallible and I figure that if I'm going to be judged in some way for error, I would rather it was my error than a blind following of other people's errors.

What is this idea of rights?

I Cor. 8:9; 9:4-5, 12

A Christian has no rights,

St. Paul disagrees. Col 2:16.

only the responsibility to obey Christ and his Body. That isn't to say that individual saints are right on everything, but Holy Tradition and the collective witness of the Church must be obeyed.

That it does. But part of that Tradition is that authority has been abused, e.g. against St. John Chrysostom and St. Maximos the Confessor and, more to the point, the authority of the Pope of Rome to mandate celibacy on all the clerics.

And there is no privacy for a Christian either. Since every aspect of life has a spiritual dimension, including bedroom activity, Christ and the Church have a say in it. That isn't to say we should talk about sex to everyone, but it's not something that's absolutely private and sacrosanct and up to the husband and wife to decide alone.

Besides certain absolutes, yes it is.

The Church gives us rules and guidelines about what and how much we can eat, so it has every right to do so with sex as well. Both are spiritual activities

And neither require a one size fits all, beyond certain absolutes.

To say "It's my life and I'll live like I want" (or the more nuanced version, "I'll take it under advisement, but I make the final choice") is the opposite of the point.

What point?

but both Tertullian and St. Gregory of Nyssa were married, and probably some others. furthermore, why do we assume they are writing out of their ignorance, rather than writing out of their holiness and experiences of God? why is first-hand experience of marriage necessary to write about it when you're holy?

Does holiness = experiential knowledge about all things?

I wouldn't say "equal to", but funny things happen when a person is deified and starts to live the life of the Trinity.

Infallibility isn't one of them.

More insight is available to a holy saint than to the rest of us. If theosis can lead saints to things like clairvoyance (which seems to be a lot more bizarre than teaching people things), I hardly think their opinions on married life are free to be ignored.

Depends if the know what they are talking about.  St. Basil, for instance, was a great saint. But when he lays down as an absolute that a wronged spouse cannot forgive the adulter(ess) and must put them away (and on top of it, remain unmarried), he is absolutely and 100% wrong.  And that can be directly attributed to his ignorance of the married estate.

I would say a true saint, who lives the life of the Trinity, has more spiritual insight about activity n than a person who engages in n but is subject to the passions.

Unfortunately neither Christ nor His Most Pure Mother left us any of their writings.

Or in other words, experiential knowledge isn't all it's cracked up to be. (Nor is it spiritually objective.)

Nor is sainthood all knowing, nor as immaculate, as is claimed.  St. Basil is not the only one to err, and err badly.

[peteprint]

I am looking forward to taking it all in.  I am sure that there is a lot of food for thought there.  

By the way, the monastery at Platina is part of my diocese (Serbian Diocese of Western America).  St. John Maximovitch is always commemorated at our liturgy by the priest.  

One of the monks from St. Herman's visited our parish a few months ago and attended for two consecutive Sundays while visiting family in San Diego.

[peteprint]

Thank you ialmisry and jackstraw72 for all of your insights.  I see both your sides on these issues.