So, you folks really want to make this about the Papacy, huh? The truth is Orthodoxy has suffered for lack of the Papacy, in more recent times especially in the area of sexual morality in matters closely related to faith. For over 1900 years, based on patristic consensus, all Christian denominations were unanimous in declaring the sin of Onan to be contraception, the term onanism described a grave sin just as the term sodomy did.
LOL. Another "Apostolic" tradition invented in these latter days, nearly two thousand years after the last Apostle breathed his last on earth. Like "Pastor Aeternus."
Onan barely caught the attention of the Fathers. Even those like Clement of Alexandria, who espoused the error of the Stoics on semen, never mentions him in this connection. There is no term "Onanism" in patristics. The term "sodomy" also does not exist: it was coined in the West after the schism, by someone who railed against priests sleeping with their wives as a grave sin.
The Protestants liberalized in the 1930s, with a modernist exegesis of that passage, after the Lambeth Conference - not surprising since Tradition and the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity never meant much to them. Against immense worldwide pressure (especially in light of hte fact that decisions Catholic hospitals make impact millions worldwide), the Roman Catholic Church stood Her ground in upholding the tough truth that sets us free. As late as Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, Patriarch Athenagoras was still saying, “He could not have spoken in any other way.”
It wasn't EP Athenagoras' only error.
HV was not the majority report on the issue by the bishops of Vatican II. A certain Archbishop Karol Wojtyła worked behind the scenes for your supreme pontiff to promulgate the minority report.
Its position dispenses with Tradition entirely, not citing any patristics in its support because it can't. As Noonan noted, HV blesses the one method that the few fathers who opined on contraception universally condemn.
And yet today, as one article put it, "Take, for instance, the issue of contraception. It is no exaggeration that a faithful Orthodox Christian can go to three different priests in the same American city and receive three disparate answers expressing everything from absolute prohibition to prohibition of abortifacient only to complete permissibility. Who is right? Who is wrong?" ... other North American Orthodox jurisdictions “have laymen in good standing, and even clergy, who are openly advocating for gay marriage, and proclaim that committed monogamous homosexual relationships are not sinful.” What authority exists in Orthodoxy to tell them otherwise?" (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/what-not-to-learn-from-eastern-orthodoxy)
you can get the same variety and more from the Vatican's priests.
Some bishops within the Catholic Church in Canada had already made moves to dissent from traditional Catholic teaching on contraception. An expert, or peritus, accompanying the Canadian bishops to the Second Vatican Council, Gregory Baum was a prominent dissident on the subject and at the third session of Vatican II Cardinal Leger of Montreal advocated that the duty to bearing children should be a duty pertaining to the state of matrimony as a whole rather than to an individual act, saying that "Confessors are assailed by doubts. They no longer know what to answer."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement
The Orthodox will complain, justly, about the scandalously lax praxis in certain regions (not in any protected by infallibility) in Catholicism where annulments are granted all too frequently. A more detailed discussion of that will have to wait for the marriage thread. A quick word on the doctrine of annulment, it is perfectly and absolutely sound
it is complete idiocy wallowing in sanctimony.
- consider a man who, cheating a woman, pretended to take her as his wife, while fully intending to leave her in a few months. The matrimonial covenant is invalid, because true consent does not exist.
LOL. Yeah, that won't fly in divorce court.
Engineers use formulas predicated on absolute space, vacuums and other non-existent entities existing only in theory. And yet they still build, using margin of error/engineering tolerance. With your Corban factories' Donatism, no one is married (or baptized, ordained, confirmed, absolved, communed).
A forced "marriage" is not a marriage, any more than the attempted marriage of a man and a child (there is no consent) would be valid.
it doesn't take study years later to find that out. If it is not obviously invalid at the time, it doesn't become invalid ex post facto decades later.
This rarest of the rare case, in principle, is perfectly legitimate. It was abused by both unscrupulous couples and bishops starting a few decades ago. And yet, however bad that is, what has tragically happened in Orthodoxy is worse still, because you have given up even in principle, not only in practice, the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage.
Honesty is the best policy. I can see Jesuitry beat that out of you.
You cannot maintain Christ's truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery. And that's why traditional and conservative Catholics oppose what happened many centuries ago in Orthodoxy happening today - it has not yet happened, and God willing, never shall - in the Roman Catholic Church.
I recall your supreme pontiff giving someone dispensation centuries ago for a man to marry his sister. Ah! the magic of the Petrine privilege!