Topic: Orthodox patriarch, Anglican leader to attend Vatican II celebration

[Gunnarr]

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is going to the Vatican to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. Link below for a tad more info, but not much. There are lots of comments though, and it was interesting to read them.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/09/17/archbishop-of-canterbury-and-orthodox-patriarch-to-join-vatican-ii-celebration/

Some interesting comments in my opinion (for those who are too lazy to look at all of them, but still like to read them!):

-------------------------------

"Celebrate Vatican II? Vatican II set the Catholic Church on a path of self destruction. There was the wholesale dismantling of tradition in the Catholic liturgy, and the creation of the Protestant-Catholic hybrid Mass known as the Novus Ordo. Nuns shed their religious habits and went "secular." Priests began to add and subtract from the liturgy in a fever of experimentation. Church architecture was changed, high altars were demolished, communion rails ripped out, and communion in hand was instituted. Why is the Orthodox patriarch taking part in this? The Orthodox have a dim view of the Catholic Mass since Vatican II, and the Orthodox Church is filled with former Catholics who became Orthodox because of what the Council did to the Catholic Church. Vatican II was a sham."

  While it was very kind of you to post various comments from the site/link, this is expressly prohibited by our posting rules:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30655.0.html

Please consider this a formal warning, and please make sure you read through ALL of the rules of the forum:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=rules
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.0.html

- Serb1389. General Fora Moderator. 

[primuspilus]

I have no problem with the Patriarch going to celebrate Vatican II. If I were Patriarch, I'd shake the Pope's hand for giving the Orthodox Church alot of new converts. I say lets add another 5 million Orthodox and have a Vatican III.


PP

[Monk Vasyl]

If it wasn't for Vatican II, would there have been such a great influx of Catholics converting to the Orthodox Church?  That's reason enough for the Orthodox to celebrate.

[mike]

If it wasn't for Vatican II, would there have been such a great influx of Catholics converting to the Orthodox Church?  That's reason enough for the Orthodox to celebrate.

My thoughts exactly.

[Cyrillic]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from? At least remarriage is not as hypocritical as that ridiculous annulment system. And what percentage of the RC's used contraception again?

[ErmyCath]

Well, I am a convert to Catholicism (from Atheism) and I must say that the reason I am on this board is because I am investigating Orthodoxy in light of my further reading, study, and comparison of pre- and post-Vatican II Catholicism. 

In other words, the lack of consistency between the pre- and post-Conciliar Roman Catholic Church is astounding.  Yet, this was not something that was apparent to me prior to my conversion 4.5 years ago...  I don't know how many Catholics are coming around to investigating Orthodoxy as a result of the apparent dogmatic and liturgical discrepancies, though.  Many retreat into "Traditional Catholicism" taking refuge at parishes with Tridentine Masses - a very small minority of Catholic parishes.  And even then, the mere fact that the vast majority of the Roman Catholic Church appears to have abandoned the pre-Conciliar faith is a difficult situation to rationalize even for the most devout Roman Catholic.  It is surely a struggle for me!

[Nephi]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from?

Yeah, I've wondered this as well. I've seen many cases when they've been more concerned with contraception/remarriage than other theological issues. Of course most Catholics don't do this, but there are those that make it seem like the primary issue.

And isn't allowance of contraception more rare than its rejection anyway?

[Alpo]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from?

It's called "ethics" and "dogmatics".

[Cyrillic]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from?

It's called "ethics" and "dogmatics".

But are those issues as all-deciding as some Romans make them out to be?

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from?

Yeah, I've wondered this as well. I've seen many cases when they've been more concerned with contraception/remarriage than other theological issues. Of course most Catholics don't do this, but there are those that make it seem like the primary issue.

+1

[dzheremi]

Guys, if you haven't figured it out yet, marriage and contraception are pretty much the two (maybe the only two, but I don't spend much time in RC apologetics land, so maybe there are more) issues that RCs can push in order to say that their church hasn't changed, while the Orthodox Church and other churches have. Granted, that's not true, but what else do they have? "The Orthodox Church allows remarriage, while the RCC keeps the practice given to us by Christ of one man and one woman, and that's it", or "Up until the 1930s (or whenever), all Christian churches agreed that contraception was not in keeping with the faith, but then they all changed...except for the RCC! Yay! See, so we are the unchanged ancient church and they are not."

Okay, farcical reconstructions above, but they are reconstructions of arguments I do remember hearing in my RCC and just post-RCC days, i.e., as recently as a few years ago.

[Cyrillic]

How much contraception was there back in the old days anyway? They didn't have the pill when the apostles were writing their epistles.

[dzheremi]

Contraception as a thing (rather than any one method of it, which might be the result of medical technology advances) has been around since ancient times, long before the apostles. Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians practiced it, for instance.

[orthonorm]

How much contraception was there back in the old days anyway? They didn't have the pill when the apostles were writing their epistles.

Not up on ancient infertility practices?

[Alpo]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from?

It's called "ethics" and "dogmatics".

But are those issues as all-deciding as some Romans make them out to be?

Every aspect of dogmatics is all-deciding issue. It's about gospel after all.

[orthonorm]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from?

It's called "ethics" and "dogmatics".

But are those issues as all-deciding as some Romans make them out to be?

Every aspect of dogmatics is all-deciding issue. It's about gospel after all.

It's no longer ethics in any meaningful sense. It is politics. While often entangled they at times are at odds.

The majority of RCs (in USoA) use some form of contraception or see nothing wrong with it.

Sorry, it's no longer a point of ethics anymore nor politics save for a few strident voices.

[Cyrillic]

Contraception as a thing (rather than any one method of it, which might be the result of medical technology advances) has been around since ancient times, long before the apostles. Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians practiced it, for instance.

I wonder if those potions actually worked.

How much contraception was there back in the old days anyway? They didn't have the pill when the apostles were writing their epistles.

Not up on ancient infertility practices?

Only the Origen-method.

[orthonorm]

Contraception as a thing (rather than any one method of it, which might be the result of medical technology advances) has been around since ancient times, long before the apostles. Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians practiced it, for instance.

I wonder if those potions actually worked.

How much contraception was there back in the old days anyway? They didn't have the pill when the apostles were writing their epistles.

Not up on ancient infertility practices?

Only the Origen-method.

A lazy google will show many methods, some of which we have just slightly improved on and some which are still practiced in less medically sophisticated environments.

[Cyrillic]

How much contraception was there back in the old days anyway? They didn't have the pill when the apostles were writing their epistles.

It seems I was wrong on this one.

[Alpo]

The majority of RCs (in USoA) use some form of contraception or see nothing wrong with it.

Probably but that doesn't really change anything since we are talking about "whose Church is the right one". The Catholic Church could still be right even if the most of her people doesn't adhere to her teachings. It's quite natural that they are obsessed with sexual ethics like we are obsessed with Filioque even though most of the lay folks probably doesn't really understand what's the fuss about it.

[dzheremi]

Wow...that's the first time I've ever seen those two things linked together.

The Filioque: Is there anything it can't do?

[William]

Cute, you guys, but seriously. The EP should not be celebrating a victory of the devil.

[Alpo]

Wow...that's the first time I've ever seen those two things linked together.

The Filioque: Is there anything it can't do?

You've been an RC. Wouldn't their theologically nerdy folks say exactly the same thing that Cyrillic said about divorce and contraception?

Where does their obsession with Filioque comes from?

[stanley123]

Guys, if you haven't figured it out yet, marriage and contraception are pretty much the two (maybe the only two, but I don't spend much time in RC apologetics land, so maybe there are more) issues that RCs can push in order to say that their church hasn't changed, while the Orthodox Church and other churches have. Granted, that's not true, but what else do they have? "The Orthodox Church allows remarriage, while the RCC keeps the practice given to us by Christ of one man and one woman, and that's it", or "Up until the 1930s (or whenever), all Christian churches agreed that contraception was not in keeping with the faith, but then they all changed...except for the RCC! Yay! See, so we are the unchanged ancient church and they are not."

Okay, farcical reconstructions above, but they are reconstructions of arguments I do remember hearing in my RCC and just post-RCC days, i.e., as recently as a few years ago.

Since people here are speaking about changes in the RC and EO Churches, is it true that the EO Church has changed its teaching on whether or not women are to wear headcovering in Church? In the early Church, St. Paul seems to have insisted on it.  I was at a Greek Orthodox Liturgy recently, and I noticed that almost none of the women were wearing headcovering.

[Basil 320]

The 2nd Vatican Council is a historic event in the history of Christianity.  Whether we as Eastern Orthodox Christians agree or disagree with its decisions, it is a significant event in the life of the most populous Christian Church.  It is fitting that the leading clergy of Christendom symbolically mark the commemoration with the Church of Rome.  And so, it is fitting too, that the "First Among Equals" of the second most populous Christian Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, the "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome; and Ecumenical Patriarch, by the Grace of God," the 270th successor to St. Andrew the First Called Apostle and brother of St. Peter the Chief Apostle, the founders of the Churches of Constantinople and Rome respectively, represents Orthodox Christianity at this milestone event.

[mike]

It is fitting that the leading clergy of Christendom symbolically mark the commemoration with the Church of Rome.

There isn't a Church of Rome.

[podkarpatska]

Wow...that's the first time I've ever seen those two things linked together.

The Filioque: Is there anything it can't do?

You've been an RC. Wouldn't their theologically nerdy folks say exactly the same thing that Cyrillic said about divorce and contraception?

Where does their obsession with Filioque comes from?

Ironically, the obsession rests more in the minds of the indoctrinated faithful and apologists who hold to it firmly and literally while at the same time their theologians have, for the most part, moved beyond the lclassical interpretationl of the same in order to better understand the proper context of the Orthodox teaching. I would direct your attention to the paper 'Filoque - Church Dividing Issue?' published by the North American Theological Consultation several years ago: "We believe, rather, that our profession of the ancient Creed of Constantinople must be allowed to become, by our uniform practice and our new attempts at mutual understanding, the basis for a more conscious unity in the one faith that all theology simply seeks to clarify and to deepen. Although our expression of the truth God reveals about his own Being must always remain limited by the boundaries of human understanding and human words, we believe that it is the very “Spirit of truth,” whom Jesus breathes upon his Church, who remains with us still, to “guide us into all truth” (John 16.13). We pray that our Churches’ understanding of this Spirit may no longer be a scandal to us, or an obstacle to unity in Christ, but that the one truth towards which he guides us may truly be “a bond of peace” (Eph 4.3), for us and for all Christians."  http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

[Alpo]

LOL. I don't want to start yet another discussion about Filioque. All I'm saying is that it's quite natural that RCs criticize us for more lenient approach to divorce and contraception. If they take their faith seriously, it's the only right and fitting thing to do.

[Gunnarr]

The 2nd Vatican Council is a historic event in the history of Christianity.  Whether we as Eastern Orthodox Christians agree or disagree with its decisions, it is a significant event in the life of the most populous Christian Church.  It is fitting that the leading clergy of Christendom symbolically mark the commemoration with the Church of Rome.  And so, it is fitting too, that the "First Among Equals" of the second most populous Christian Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, the "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome; and Ecumenical Patriarch, by the Grace of God," the 270th successor to St. Andrew the First Called Apostle and brother of St. Peter the Chief Apostle, the founders of the Churches of Constantinople and Rome respectively, represents Orthodox Christianity at this milestone event.

Why should it be attended again? We don't celebrate the anniversary of the Robber Council of Ephesus, nor the Council of Florence. Why attend a celebration of heretical teaching? Seems counter to the entire history of the church.

[Nephi]

Why should it be attended again? We don't celebrate the anniversary of the Robber Council of Ephesus, nor the Council of Florence.

Celebrating and attending a celebration are two different, albeit related, things.

[choy]

The 2nd Vatican Council is a historic event in the history of Christianity.  Whether we as Eastern Orthodox Christians agree or disagree with its decisions, it is a significant event in the life of the most populous Christian Church.  It is fitting that the leading clergy of Christendom symbolically mark the commemoration with the Church of Rome.  And so, it is fitting too, that the "First Among Equals" of the second most populous Christian Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, the "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome; and Ecumenical Patriarch, by the Grace of God," the 270th successor to St. Andrew the First Called Apostle and brother of St. Peter the Chief Apostle, the founders of the Churches of Constantinople and Rome respectively, represents Orthodox Christianity at this milestone event.

Why should it be attended again? We don't celebrate the anniversary of the Robber Council of Ephesus, nor the Council of Florence. Why attend a celebration of heretical teaching? Seems counter to the entire history of the church.

Vatican II has been pretty good to the Eastern Catholic Churches, which is basically the RCIA program of the Orthodox Church

[Gunnarr]

Celebrating and attending a celebration are two different, albeit related, things.

huh?

One is attending a celebration. What does it mean to attend a celebration? It implies you agree with the celebration or at least think it not wrong to celebrate it.

To put it simply then,

The Patriarch sees that, at least, the Second Vatican Council is not heretical enough to disagree with so he thus attends the celebrations to improve its glory. You don't attend celebrations to say it is wrong, you attend them to say it is right.

If he does not believe in the Second Vatican Council he should not attend it.

EDIT: maybe I made a mistake in my first post, I meant to say we do not attend celebrations for those such things.

[Αριστοκλής]

Well, I am a convert to Catholicism (from Atheism) and I must say that the reason I am on this board is because I am investigating Orthodoxy in light of my further reading, study, and comparison of pre- and post-Vatican II Catholicism. 

In other words, the lack of consistency between the pre- and post-Conciliar Roman Catholic Church is astounding.  Yet, this was not something that was apparent to me prior to my conversion 4.5 years ago...  I don't know how many Catholics are coming around to investigating Orthodoxy as a result of the apparent dogmatic and liturgical discrepancies, though.  Many retreat into "Traditional Catholicism" taking refuge at parishes with Tridentine Masses - a very small minority of Catholic parishes.  And even then, the mere fact that the vast majority of the Roman Catholic Church appears to have abandoned the pre-Conciliar faith is a difficult situation to rationalize even for the most devout Roman Catholic.  It is surely a struggle for me!

I am afraid your contribution in this topic has gotten lost in all the noise and hand wringing that  accompany any time our bishop(s) have anything to do with Rome.
I'm glad you're here nonetheless and hope your endeavors are fulfilling and fruitful.

[Jetavan]

What's wrong with Vatican II?

When explaining why he was convening the Second Vatican
II, Pope John XXIII is reported to have said, “I want to throw
open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and
the people can see in.” This transparency is vividly reflected in
the conciliar documents Unitatis Redintegratio (the decree on
ecumenism) and Nostra Aetate (the declaration on relations
with non-Christians). Instead of the prior atmosphere of
avoidance and suspicion, Catholics were encouraged to
dialogue and collaborate as much as possible. After noting
important theological shifts in both documents, this session
will highlight the past fifty years of Catholic-Jewish relations
as an illustration of the new climate of interreligious amity
that is the gift of Vatican II for the church and the world. It
will conclude by asking what can we do as individuals and
communities to promote mutual understanding, mutual
enrichment, and collaborative action among people from
diverse religious traditions.

[augustin717]

I have no problem with the Patriarch going to celebrate Vatican II. If I were Patriarch, I'd shake the Pope's hand for giving the Orthodox Church alot of new converts. I say lets add another 5 million Orthodox and have a Vatican III.


PP

The number of Catholics that became Orthodox bc of VII is probably ludicrously small. but those that Uncle Joe brought in were in the millions indeed.

[#1Sinner]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from? At least remarriage is not as hypocritical as that ridiculous annulment system. And what percentage of the RC's used contraception again?

This is besides the point because it is officially condemned.

And the "obsession" comes from the fact that ABC is contrary to natural law and says "No" to God in frustrating the end of the marital act. We cannot say "yes" to God in every other aspect of our life but then turn around and kick Him out of the bedroom. This one issue has been my biggest obstacle in converting to Orthodoxy. There is an (mis?)understanding in traditional Catholic circles the Orthodox, unfairly or not, are lax when it comes to issues of sexual morality: marriage and divorce, ABC and sadly even abortion.

[Cyrillic]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from? At least remarriage is not as hypocritical as that ridiculous annulment system. And what percentage of the RC's used contraception again?

This is besides the point because it is officially condemned.

And the "obsession" comes from the fact that ABC is contrary to natural law and says "No" to God in frustrating the end of the marital act. We cannot say "yes" to God in every other aspect of our life but then turn around and kick Him out of the bedroom. This one issue has been my biggest obstacle in converting to Orthodoxy. There is an (mis?)understanding in traditional Catholic circles the Orthodox, unfairly or not, are lax when it comes to issues of sexual morality: marriage and divorce, ABC and sadly even abortion.

And this I do not understand. But perhaps that's just me.

I must admit (to my great shame) that I haven't read much of the scholastics and I never liked Aristotle, so I wouldn't know much about natural law.

[#1Sinner]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from? At least remarriage is not as hypocritical as that ridiculous annulment system. And what percentage of the RC's used contraception again?

This is besides the point because it is officially condemned.

And the "obsession" comes from the fact that ABC is contrary to natural law and says "No" to God in frustrating the end of the marital act. We cannot say "yes" to God in every other aspect of our life but then turn around and kick Him out of the bedroom. This one issue has been my biggest obstacle in converting to Orthodoxy. There is an (mis?)understanding in traditional Catholic circles the Orthodox, unfairly or not, are lax when it comes to issues of sexual morality: marriage and divorce, ABC and sadly even abortion.

And this I do not understand. But perhaps that's just me.

I must admit (to my great shame) that I haven't read much of the scholastics and I never liked Aristotle, so I wouldn't know much about natural law.

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

To intentionally and directly frustrate the primary end of the marriage act is to remove God from the equation. One could argue that the obscuring of this fact has also made the various "justifications" for abortion take hold. If procreation is not the primary end then that makes abortion easier to rationalize.

[Cyrillic]

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

Well, a primary end of marriage could be mutual support, but let's assume you're right and say procreation is the primary end of marriage, does that mean that infertile people could not marry? At least they would be frustrating the primary end and thus go against "natural law".  I'm not so sure to what extent Natural Law exists either.
 

One could argue that the obscuring of this fact has also made the various "justifications" for abortion take hold. If procreation is not the primary end then that makes abortion easier to rationalize.

How does that rationalize the killing of the unborn? I don't see it.

[jmbejdl]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from? At least remarriage is not as hypocritical as that ridiculous annulment system. And what percentage of the RC's used contraception again?

This is besides the point because it is officially condemned.

And the "obsession" comes from the fact that ABC is contrary to natural law and says "No" to God in frustrating the end of the marital act. We cannot say "yes" to God in every other aspect of our life but then turn around and kick Him out of the bedroom. This one issue has been my biggest obstacle in converting to Orthodoxy. There is an (mis?)understanding in traditional Catholic circles the Orthodox, unfairly or not, are lax when it comes to issues of sexual morality: marriage and divorce, ABC and sadly even abortion.

And this I do not understand. But perhaps that's just me.

I must admit (to my great shame) that I haven't read much of the scholastics and I never liked Aristotle, so I wouldn't know much about natural law.

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

To intentionally and directly frustrate the primary end of the marriage act is to remove God from the equation. One could argue that the obscuring of this fact has also made the various "justifications" for abortion take hold. If procreation is not the primary end then that makes abortion easier to rationalize.

I can see your point (though I disagree with the premise of it) but what I've never understood about the Roman Catholic position is how NFP doesn't fall prey to exactly the same condemnation, given that premise that the primary end of sex within is marriage is procreation. The saying no to God is equally there whether I say it by refusing to sleep with my wife at certain times or whether it's by recourse to some barrier method.

James

[Cyrillic]

"Two of them heretics. The Orthodox position on re-marriage in Church and (some Orthodox Churches) on artificial contraception are heretical."

Where does their obsession with contraception and remarriage come from? At least remarriage is not as hypocritical as that ridiculous annulment system. And what percentage of the RC's used contraception again?

This is besides the point because it is officially condemned.

And the "obsession" comes from the fact that ABC is contrary to natural law and says "No" to God in frustrating the end of the marital act. We cannot say "yes" to God in every other aspect of our life but then turn around and kick Him out of the bedroom. This one issue has been my biggest obstacle in converting to Orthodoxy. There is an (mis?)understanding in traditional Catholic circles the Orthodox, unfairly or not, are lax when it comes to issues of sexual morality: marriage and divorce, ABC and sadly even abortion.

And this I do not understand. But perhaps that's just me.

I must admit (to my great shame) that I haven't read much of the scholastics and I never liked Aristotle, so I wouldn't know much about natural law.

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

To intentionally and directly frustrate the primary end of the marriage act is to remove God from the equation. One could argue that the obscuring of this fact has also made the various "justifications" for abortion take hold. If procreation is not the primary end then that makes abortion easier to rationalize.

I can see your point (though I disagree with the premise of it) but what I've never understood about the Roman Catholic position is how NFP doesn't fall prey to exactly the same condemnation, given that premise that the primary end of sex within is marriage is procreation. The saying no to God is equally there whether I say it by refusing to sleep with my wife at certain times or whether it's by recourse to some barrier method.

James

+1

To me allowing NFP whilst disallowing all other forms of anticonception is as hypocritical as saying marriages didn't "really" take place after years of happy marriage.

[mike]

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

That's wrong answer accordingly to the Orthodox Church.

[podkarpatska]

I have no problem with the Patriarch going to celebrate Vatican II. If I were Patriarch, I'd shake the Pope's hand for giving the Orthodox Church alot of new converts. I say lets add another 5 million Orthodox and have a Vatican III.


PP

The number of Catholics that became Orthodox bc of VII is probably ludicrously small. but those that Uncle Joe brought in were in the millions indeed.

You confused me for a second, my uncle a large family but....

Seriously, Stalin's 'converts' were not, in the end, grafted onto the tree of the Church in a manner in which the graft would 'take.' And I agree that V2  did not cause any large influx of disaffected Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy. Most who were disaffected were more likely to join a schismatic Roman group if they were 'traditionalists' or one or another Protestant denomination if they were disappointed that the Council failed to go 'far enough.'

[podkarpatska]

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

That's wrong answer accordingly to the Orthodox Church.

Further proof that all Saints were hardly free of mistakes in all of their writings and teaching is St. Augustine of Hippo who we truly can point to as the father of the 'sex as pleasure-less guilt' school of thought which permeated and obsessed western thinking on these matters!  By the way, he is a Saint in the east anyway!

[#1Sinner]

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

Well, a primary end of marriage could be mutual support, but let's assume you're right and say procreation is the primary end of marriage, does that mean that infertile people could not marry? At least they would be frustrating the primary end and thus go against "natural law".  I'm not so sure to what extent Natural Law exists either.
 

One could argue that the obscuring of this fact has also made the various "justifications" for abortion take hold. If procreation is not the primary end then that makes abortion easier to rationalize.

How does that rationalize the killing of the unborn? I don't see it.

Traditionally speaking, infertility was an impediment to marriage, yes.

What I meant was that if you remove the premise that the primary end of the marital act being procreation, then an unwanted pregnancy could be more rationally aborted since this was an unintended consequence of abusing the marital act.

[#1Sinner]

Well in this case it would be: What is the primary end of the marriage act? The answer would be procreation. To intentionally frustrate the primary end of the marital act is contra the Natural Law. Mutual pleasure and strengthening of the marital union are secondary ends which serve to facilitate the primary.

That's wrong answer accordingly to the Orthodox Church.

Which is, as I said above, the major reason that is holding me up from becoming Orthodox. This seems a very worldly view of sexuality.