OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 07:00:47 AM *
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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox patriarch, Anglican leader to attend Vatican II celebration  (Read 2859 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« on: September 19, 2012, 12:18:40 PM »

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. 
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 02:45:35 PM by serb1389 » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2012, 12:34:39 PM »

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
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2012, 12:36:42 PM »

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.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2012, 12:41:11 PM »

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.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2012, 01:21:27 PM »

"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?


Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2012, 01:43:37 PM »

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!
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,474



« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2012, 01:50:46 PM »

"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?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 01:51:23 PM by Nephi » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 01:55:46 PM »

"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".
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 02:23:21 PM »

"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
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 02:25:38 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 02:32:12 PM »

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.
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2012, 02:47:52 PM »

How much contraception was there back in the old days anyway? They didn't have the pill when the apostles were writing their epistles.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 02:48:28 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 02:57:44 PM »

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.
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2012, 02:58:06 PM »

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?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2012, 02:59:47 PM »

"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.
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2012, 03:04:26 PM »

"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.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2012, 03:09:17 PM »

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.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2012, 03:12:43 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 03:13:38 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2012, 03:16:25 PM »

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.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2012, 11:42:01 PM »

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.
Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2012, 11:50:10 PM »

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

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

William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,353



« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2012, 11:55:52 PM »

Cute, you guys, but seriously. The EP should not be celebrating a victory of the devil.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 11:56:06 PM by William » Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2012, 03:44:58 AM »

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?
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2012, 04:44:20 AM »

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.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,066



« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2012, 06:12:58 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 06:14:18 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2012, 07:12:05 AM »

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.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2012, 08:00:16 AM »

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
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2012, 08:56:44 AM »

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.
Logged

Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2012, 05:20:36 PM »

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.
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,474



« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2012, 06:35:15 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 06:35:41 PM by Nephi » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2012, 06:40:22 PM »

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 Wink
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2012, 08:45:51 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 08:47:40 PM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2012, 08:55:59 PM »

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.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2012, 09:04:45 PM »

What's wrong with Vatican II?

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 09:06:28 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2012, 09:21:04 PM »

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.
Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2012, 06:45:00 AM »

"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.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 06:57:22 AM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2012, 08:44:02 AM »

"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.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2012, 09:08:10 AM »

"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.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2012, 09:16:45 AM »


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.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 09:18:26 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2012, 09:18:31 AM »

"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
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2012, 09:19:41 AM »

"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.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 09:20:04 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2012, 09:20:10 AM »

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.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2012, 09:21:57 AM »

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.... Wink

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.'
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2012, 09:24:58 AM »

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!
Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2012, 09:31:56 AM »


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.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2012, 09:33:48 AM »

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.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2012, 09:34:11 AM »


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.

So that's the fruit of scholasticism?


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.

Far fetched, but okay.

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.

They aren't supporters of anticonception I think, but they do apply oikonomia. And no, Orthodoxy doesn't do scholasticism.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 09:37:20 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2012, 09:36:48 AM »

"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.

NFP does not directly frustrate the marital act. NFP can certainly be abused but there is no interruption or direct frustration of the marital act. There is a much better chance of NFP "failing" then a condom.

What was the Orthodox Church's views on this 50 or 75 years ago? It seems that the OC has sadly gone the way of the World on this issue.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2012, 09:39:01 AM »


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.

So that's the fruit of scholasticism?


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.

Far fetched, but okay.

Not really. Why condemn homosexual relations then? Why condemn other sexual perversions that can't lead to conception? They are perversions precisely because they are an abuse of the God ordained end of marital love, procreation.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 09:39:23 AM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2012, 09:40:32 AM »


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.

So that's the fruit of scholasticism?


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.

Far fetched, but okay.

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.

They aren't supporters of anticonception I think, but they do apply oikonomia. And no, Orthodoxy doesn't do scholasticism.

This term seems to be confused with license as far as I can see.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2012, 09:48:07 AM »

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.

To me it seems a human view sexuality. It would only become worldly (to my understanding of what that means) if you were to divorce the act from the context of marriage. On the other hand the view that you describe seems positively Manichaean - dualist in the spiritual good/bodily bad sense that seems to be such a prominent current in the post-Augustinian west.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2012, 09:50:45 AM »

Not really. Why condemn homosexual relations then? Why condemn other sexual perversions that can't lead to conception? They are perversions precisely because they are an abuse of the God ordained end of marital love, procreation.

God created man and women to UNITE that's why homosexual sex is not OK. It has nothing in common with procreation.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2012, 09:51:16 AM »


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.

So that's the fruit of scholasticism?


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.

Far fetched, but okay.

Not really. Why condemn homosexual relations then? Why condemn other sexual perversions that can't lead to conception? They are perversions precisely because they are an abuse of the God ordained end of marital love, procreation.

Homosexual relations take place outside of the marital context. Trying to draw parallels between contraception within marriage and fornication without seems rather unsustainable.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #52 on: September 21, 2012, 09:51:25 AM »

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.

To me it seems a human view sexuality. It would only become worldly (to my understanding of what that means) if you were to divorce the act from the context of marriage. On the other hand the view that you describe seems positively Manichaean - dualist in the spiritual good/bodily bad sense that seems to be such a prominent current in the post-Augustinian west.

James

I don't see this at all. What was the OC's view of this 50 years ago?

The idea that a married couple need to "protect" themselves from the wife's fertility seems awfully selfish.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #53 on: September 21, 2012, 09:52:37 AM »

Not really. Why condemn homosexual relations then? Why condemn other sexual perversions that can't lead to conception? They are perversions precisely because they are an abuse of the God ordained end of marital love, procreation.

God created man and women to UNITE that's why homosexual sex is not OK. It has nothing in common with procreation.

Unite to what end?
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #54 on: September 21, 2012, 09:54:42 AM »


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.

So that's the fruit of scholasticism?


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.

Far fetched, but okay.

Not really. Why condemn homosexual relations then? Why condemn other sexual perversions that can't lead to conception? They are perversions precisely because they are an abuse of the God ordained end of marital love, procreation.

Homosexual relations take place outside of the marital context. Trying to draw parallels between contraception within marriage and fornication without seems rather unsustainable.

James

Would it be ok if we made SSM legal then?
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #55 on: September 21, 2012, 09:57:07 AM »

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I have to ask a question, though:

Is the attitude towards ABC shown in this thread a fair consensus of the overall attitude amongst the larger Orthodox community do you think?
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #56 on: September 21, 2012, 10:00:53 AM »


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.

So that's the fruit of scholasticism?


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.

Far fetched, but okay.

Not really. Why condemn homosexual relations then? Why condemn other sexual perversions that can't lead to conception? They are perversions precisely because they are an abuse of the God ordained end of marital love, procreation.

Homosexual relations take place outside of the marital context. Trying to draw parallels between contraception within marriage and fornication without seems rather unsustainable.

James

Would it be ok if we made SSM legal then?

You believe the state defines marriage?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #57 on: September 21, 2012, 10:01:13 AM »

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.

To me it seems a human view sexuality. It would only become worldly (to my understanding of what that means) if you were to divorce the act from the context of marriage. On the other hand the view that you describe seems positively Manichaean - dualist in the spiritual good/bodily bad sense that seems to be such a prominent current in the post-Augustinian west.

James

I don't see this at all. What was the OC's view of this 50 years ago?

The idea that a married couple need to "protect" themselves from the wife's fertility seems awfully selfish.

How exactly does this not apply to NFP? And what of post-menopausal women, are they supposed to cease to sleep with their husbands because they can no longer bear children? As far as I can see sex within marriage has never been just about procreation in the Orthodox Church.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #58 on: September 21, 2012, 10:02:30 AM »

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I have to ask a question, though:

Is the attitude towards ABC shown in this thread a fair consensus of the overall attitude amongst the larger Orthodox community do you think?

I don't support ABC but I think the scholastic arguments against it are silly.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #59 on: September 21, 2012, 10:03:10 AM »

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I have to ask a question, though:

Is the attitude towards ABC shown in this thread a fair consensus of the overall attitude amongst the larger Orthodox community do you think?

Out of the people I know in real life, almost down to a man. On the internet, I'd still say it's the majority attitude, though there are equally some who would vociferously side with you.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #60 on: September 21, 2012, 10:03:42 AM »


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.

So that's the fruit of scholasticism?


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.

Far fetched, but okay.

Not really. Why condemn homosexual relations then? Why condemn other sexual perversions that can't lead to conception? They are perversions precisely because they are an abuse of the God ordained end of marital love, procreation.

Homosexual relations take place outside of the marital context. Trying to draw parallels between contraception within marriage and fornication without seems rather unsustainable.

James

Would it be ok if we made SSM legal then?

You believe the state defines marriage?

A fair point I concede. I withdraw the question.

Have the Fathers, local synods et al spoken to these issues?

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #61 on: September 21, 2012, 10:06:34 AM »

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I have to ask a question, though:

Is the attitude towards ABC shown in this thread a fair consensus of the overall attitude amongst the larger Orthodox community do you think?

I don't support ABC but I think the scholastic arguments against it are silly.

I see no argument against any form of non-abortifacient birth control within marriage so long as it is not used to avoid children altogether. This is what I have always been taught was the Orthodox position but I respect anyone who disagrees so long as they don't seek to make a dogmatic issue out of their opinion. It's in doing the latter that I believe that Roman catholicism goes astray.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #62 on: September 21, 2012, 10:07:33 AM »

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.

To me it seems a human view sexuality. It would only become worldly (to my understanding of what that means) if you were to divorce the act from the context of marriage. On the other hand the view that you describe seems positively Manichaean - dualist in the spiritual good/bodily bad sense that seems to be such a prominent current in the post-Augustinian west.

James

I don't see this at all. What was the OC's view of this 50 years ago?

The idea that a married couple need to "protect" themselves from the wife's fertility seems awfully selfish.

How exactly does this not apply to NFP? And what of post-menopausal women, are they supposed to cease to sleep with their husbands because they can no longer bear children? As far as I can see sex within marriage has never been just about procreation in the Orthodox Church.

James

Neither has it been in the RCC. Where the disagreement is, I think, is that to the RCC it is the PRIMARY end while the other reasons serve to facilitate that end. Is mutual love/pleasure the primary end of the marital act or do those serve towards the end of creating new life?
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2012, 10:10:58 AM »

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I have to ask a question, though:

Is the attitude towards ABC shown in this thread a fair consensus of the overall attitude amongst the larger Orthodox community do you think?

I don't support ABC but I think the scholastic arguments against it are silly.

I see no argument against any form of non-abortifacient birth control within marriage so long as it is not used to avoid children altogether. This is what I have always been taught was the Orthodox position but I respect anyone who disagrees so long as they don't seek to make a dogmatic issue out of their opinion. It's in doing the latter that I believe that Roman catholicism goes astray.

James

Shouldn't God have more of a say in how many children we have? Is there a lack of trust in Him that He will not provide for those who seek to live according to His Will? None of my 5 children were planned but I have seen His mighty hand provide for all our needs when things did not look, humanly speaking, very optimistic.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #64 on: September 21, 2012, 10:13:09 AM »

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.

To me it seems a human view sexuality. It would only become worldly (to my understanding of what that means) if you were to divorce the act from the context of marriage. On the other hand the view that you describe seems positively Manichaean - dualist in the spiritual good/bodily bad sense that seems to be such a prominent current in the post-Augustinian west.

James

I don't see this at all. What was the OC's view of this 50 years ago?

The idea that a married couple need to "protect" themselves from the wife's fertility seems awfully selfish.

How exactly does this not apply to NFP? And what of post-menopausal women, are they supposed to cease to sleep with their husbands because they can no longer bear children? As far as I can see sex within marriage has never been just about procreation in the Orthodox Church.

James

Neither has it been in the RCC. Where the disagreement is, I think, is that to the RCC it is the PRIMARY end while the other reasons serve to facilitate that end. Is mutual love/pleasure the primary end of the marital act or do those serve towards the end of creating new life?

I see no necessity one aspect of sex within marriage as primary. Marriage is a sacrament. Sex within marriage is entirely good whether it results in a pregnancy or not. Marriages serve to create new life. I'd sooner take the whole marriage holistically and call it good rather than chop it up and analyse to see what I can find what is best or worst.

And you didn't answer the question about NFP. Your previous answer basically boiled down to 'my method of contraception is less reliable than yours', which, frankly is a nonsense.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #65 on: September 21, 2012, 10:13:52 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #66 on: September 21, 2012, 10:16:59 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2012, 10:17:37 AM »

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.

To me it seems a human view sexuality. It would only become worldly (to my understanding of what that means) if you were to divorce the act from the context of marriage. On the other hand the view that you describe seems positively Manichaean - dualist in the spiritual good/bodily bad sense that seems to be such a prominent current in the post-Augustinian west.

James

I don't see this at all. What was the OC's view of this 50 years ago?

The idea that a married couple need to "protect" themselves from the wife's fertility seems awfully selfish.

How exactly does this not apply to NFP? And what of post-menopausal women, are they supposed to cease to sleep with their husbands because they can no longer bear children? As far as I can see sex within marriage has never been just about procreation in the Orthodox Church.

James

Neither has it been in the RCC. Where the disagreement is, I think, is that to the RCC it is the PRIMARY end while the other reasons serve to facilitate that end. Is mutual love/pleasure the primary end of the marital act or do those serve towards the end of creating new life?

I see no necessity one aspect of sex within marriage as primary. Marriage is a sacrament. Sex within marriage is entirely good whether it results in a pregnancy or not. Marriages serve to create new life. I'd sooner take the whole marriage holistically and call it good rather than chop it up and analyse to see what I can find what is best or worst.

And you didn't answer the question about NFP. Your previous answer basically boiled down to 'my method of contraception is less reliable than yours', which, frankly is a nonsense.

James

Not at all what I was saying. NFP in no way directly seeks to frustrate the end of the marital act. It certainly allows the possibility of procreation. ABC takes direct and man-made methods to frustrate the marital act. God made women fertile for only a few days of the month. That is His method of BC. Condoms are a worldly introduction into the equation.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #68 on: September 21, 2012, 10:18:42 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I want to know what the historic Orthodox attitude towards ABC has been.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #69 on: September 21, 2012, 10:18:57 AM »

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I have to ask a question, though:

Is the attitude towards ABC shown in this thread a fair consensus of the overall attitude amongst the larger Orthodox community do you think?

I don't support ABC but I think the scholastic arguments against it are silly.

I see no argument against any form of non-abortifacient birth control within marriage so long as it is not used to avoid children altogether. This is what I have always been taught was the Orthodox position but I respect anyone who disagrees so long as they don't seek to make a dogmatic issue out of their opinion. It's in doing the latter that I believe that Roman catholicism goes astray.

James

Shouldn't God have more of a say in how many children we have? Is there a lack of trust in Him that He will not provide for those who seek to live according to His Will? None of my 5 children were planned but I have seen His mighty hand provide for all our needs when things did not look, humanly speaking, very optimistic.

You think a condom would thwart His will if He wished us to have a child? My first child was not planned - he was so emphatically not planned that he arrived despite our using two different contraceptive methods. I rather think that God's will, if it truly is His will, is not so easily thwarted - and yet I agree with you on the latter part of your comment and do so with the experience of raising that child behind me. It still does not alter my views on contraception whether artificial or 'natural'.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #70 on: September 21, 2012, 10:21:41 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 10:21:49 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2012, 10:23:25 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

I am almost the only former Protestant convert I know in real life. Parishes here are overwhelmingly populated by immigrants from nations that have been Orthodox since time immemorial. The fact that I know almost nobody who would condemn contraception in real life, and that's across three parishes from two different churches, should tell you that attitude to birth control is unrelated to ex-Protestant converts.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #72 on: September 21, 2012, 10:25:07 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.

Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. I asked, what I thought to be at least, a pertinent question.

Perhaps when you are done laughing you can offer your thoughts? Wink
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 21, 2012, 10:27:04 AM »


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.

You have a common, and erroneous viewpoint on sexuality, abortion and the Orthodox Church. Rather than get a series of polemical or confusing responses to your sincere questions - which are not as divergent in substance from our teachings as we make them out to be - we use different terms and different approaches but.... - please see an Orthodox priest and set up a relationship to enable you to better understand the Orthodox pov. Good luck!
Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #74 on: September 21, 2012, 10:28:44 AM »

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I have to ask a question, though:

Is the attitude towards ABC shown in this thread a fair consensus of the overall attitude amongst the larger Orthodox community do you think?

I don't support ABC but I think the scholastic arguments against it are silly.

I see no argument against any form of non-abortifacient birth control within marriage so long as it is not used to avoid children altogether. This is what I have always been taught was the Orthodox position but I respect anyone who disagrees so long as they don't seek to make a dogmatic issue out of their opinion. It's in doing the latter that I believe that Roman catholicism goes astray.

James

Shouldn't God have more of a say in how many children we have? Is there a lack of trust in Him that He will not provide for those who seek to live according to His Will? None of my 5 children were planned but I have seen His mighty hand provide for all our needs when things did not look, humanly speaking, very optimistic.

You think a condom would thwart His will if He wished us to have a child? My first child was not planned - he was so emphatically not planned that he arrived despite our using two different contraceptive methods. I rather think that God's will, if it truly is His will, is not so easily thwarted - and yet I agree with you on the latter part of your comment and do so with the experience of raising that child behind me. It still does not alter my views on contraception whether artificial or 'natural'.

James

James-

Well, my friend: I believe we have arrived at a, as we chess players say, a stalemate. We argue from different premises so I suppose this conversation is over. I do thank you for the opportunity of discussing these issues.

Take care and God bless.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #75 on: September 21, 2012, 10:31:47 AM »


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.

You have a common, and erroneous viewpoint on sexuality, abortion and the Orthodox Church. Rather than get a series of polemical or confusing responses to your sincere questions - which are not as divergent in substance from our teachings as we make them out to be - we use different terms and different approaches but.... - please see an Orthodox priest and set up a relationship to enable you to better understand the Orthodox pov. Good luck!

podkarpatska-

Thank you for your response. I am in the process of doing just that.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #76 on: September 21, 2012, 10:37:37 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.

Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. I asked, what I thought to be at least, a pertinent question.

Perhaps when you are done laughing you can offer your thoughts? Wink

The majority of the protestants who went to an apostolic Church swam the Tiber, so you tell us if it has any influence.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #77 on: September 21, 2012, 10:43:28 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.

Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. I asked, what I thought to be at least, a pertinent question.

Perhaps when you are done laughing you can offer your thoughts? Wink

The majority of the protestants who went to an apostolic Church swam the Tiber, so you tell us if it has any influence.

So you are avoiding the question. OK. If you are going to get bent out of shape then perhaps we should end this lest we be moved to anger.

And no. The Church of Rome has not changed Her teachings on this topic for that or any other reason.

I was specifically talking about the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox."
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #78 on: September 21, 2012, 10:45:24 AM »

"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.

This is one of the many reasons the Roman Catholic Church is wrong.

The primary end of marriage is the salvation of the couple & any potential children.

Procreation is simply a a blessing and a part of the working out of that salvation, and the extension of that work to the next generation. You also have mutual support and love (as mentioned by someone else) as additional parts of the marriage.

The concept of "Natural Law" as espoused by the Roman Catholic Church isn't apostolic and certainly isn't patristic in the sense that it conforms to the consensus of the Fathers (excluding the mistakes of one Father). It is one example of how St. Augustine fell into error occasionally, and how Thomas Aquinas was actually a heretic.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 10:48:29 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 21, 2012, 10:47:15 AM »

Like I said, online discussions can be fun, irritating, infuriating, educational and all of the above, but a serious inquiry like that of the OP requires time, prayer and a series of sessions with a well trained Orthodox priest.
Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #80 on: September 21, 2012, 10:47:36 AM »

"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.

This is one of the many reasons the Roman Catholic Church is wrong.

The primary end of marriage is the salvation of the couple & any potential children.

Procreation is simply a a blessing and a part of the working out of that salvation, and the extension of that work to the next generation. You also have mutual support and love (as mentioned by someone else) as additional parts of the marriage.

You seemed to confuse the marriage act with marriage itself. I stated the primary end of the marital ACT was procreation. I am in 100% agreement with you regarding the end of marriage itself.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #81 on: September 21, 2012, 10:51:13 AM »

"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.

This is one of the many reasons the Roman Catholic Church is wrong.

The primary end of marriage is the salvation of the couple & any potential children.

Procreation is simply a a blessing and a part of the working out of that salvation, and the extension of that work to the next generation. You also have mutual support and love (as mentioned by someone else) as additional parts of the marriage.

You seemed to confuse the marriage act with marriage itself. I stated the primary end of the marital ACT was procreation. I am in 100% agreement with you regarding the end of marriage itself.

If you are referring to sex (why not call it what it is? we are all adults here, mostly) then I would disagree with you again. As odd as it seems, it is a patristic idea that sex can be something that leads to a married couple's salvation. It also, for the married couple, is for pleasure and the intimacy of the relationship. Procreation is simply one part of it, not the primary end of sex itself.

Sex within marriage is a holy & blessed act. It unites the two people and is such a holy and spiritually mysterious act that the angelic powers marvel at it and can't comprehend it.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 10:56:28 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #82 on: September 21, 2012, 10:51:48 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.

Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. I asked, what I thought to be at least, a pertinent question.

Perhaps when you are done laughing you can offer your thoughts? Wink

The majority of the protestants who went to an apostolic Church swam the Tiber, so you tell us if it has any influence.

So you are avoiding the question. OK. If you are going to get bent out of shape then perhaps we should end this lest we be moved to anger.

And no. The Church of Rome has not changed Her teachings on this topic for that or any other reason.

I was specifically talking about the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox."

I'm not angry, rather the opposite, I'm quite amused.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #83 on: September 21, 2012, 10:57:27 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.

Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. I asked, what I thought to be at least, a pertinent question.

Perhaps when you are done laughing you can offer your thoughts? Wink

The majority of the protestants who went to an apostolic Church swam the Tiber, so you tell us if it has any influence.

So you are avoiding the question. OK. If you are going to get bent out of shape then perhaps we should end this lest we be moved to anger.

And no. The Church of Rome has not changed Her teachings on this topic for that or any other reason.

I was specifically talking about the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox."

I'm not angry, rather the opposite, I'm quite amused.

I'm glad I could provide some entertainment on this fine day.  Grin

Take care.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #84 on: September 21, 2012, 10:59:32 AM »

"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.

This is one of the many reasons the Roman Catholic Church is wrong.

The primary end of marriage is the salvation of the couple & any potential children.

Procreation is simply a a blessing and a part of the working out of that salvation, and the extension of that work to the next generation. You also have mutual support and love (as mentioned by someone else) as additional parts of the marriage.

You seemed to confuse the marriage act with marriage itself. I stated the primary end of the marital ACT was procreation. I am in 100% agreement with you regarding the end of marriage itself.

If you are referring to sex (why not call it what it is? we are all adults here, mostly) then I would disagree with you again. As odd as it seems, it is a patristic idea that sex can be something that leads to a married couple's salvation. It also, for the married couple, is for pleasure and the intimacy of the relationship. Procreation is simply one part of it, not the primary end of sex itself.

Sex within marriage is a holy & blessed act. It unites the two people and is such a holy and spiritually mysterious act that the angelic powers marvel at it and can't comprehend it.

It should also mirror the love and creative act of God in that He, being Love itself, created life in order to share His Life and Love with creatures.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #85 on: September 21, 2012, 11:01:11 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.

Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. I asked, what I thought to be at least, a pertinent question.

Perhaps when you are done laughing you can offer your thoughts? Wink

The majority of the protestants who went to an apostolic Church swam the Tiber, so you tell us if it has any influence.

So you are avoiding the question. OK. If you are going to get bent out of shape then perhaps we should end this lest we be moved to anger.

And no. The Church of Rome has not changed Her teachings on this topic for that or any other reason.

I was specifically talking about the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox."

I'm not angry, rather the opposite, I'm quite amused.

I'm glad I could provide some entertainment on this fine day.  Grin

Take care.

You too, I have learnt a thing or two in this thread, have a good day  Smiley
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #86 on: September 21, 2012, 11:02:30 AM »

"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.

This is one of the many reasons the Roman Catholic Church is wrong.

The primary end of marriage is the salvation of the couple & any potential children.

Procreation is simply a a blessing and a part of the working out of that salvation, and the extension of that work to the next generation. You also have mutual support and love (as mentioned by someone else) as additional parts of the marriage.

You seemed to confuse the marriage act with marriage itself. I stated the primary end of the marital ACT was procreation. I am in 100% agreement with you regarding the end of marriage itself.

If you are referring to sex (why not call it what it is? we are all adults here, mostly) then I would disagree with you again. As odd as it seems, it is a patristic idea that sex can be something that leads to a married couple's salvation. It also, for the married couple, is for pleasure and the intimacy of the relationship. Procreation is simply one part of it, not the primary end of sex itself.

Sex within marriage is a holy & blessed act. It unites the two people and is such a holy and spiritually mysterious act that the angelic powers marvel at it and can't comprehend it.

It should also mirror the love and creative act of God in that He, being Love itself, created life in order to share His Life and Love with creatures.

That is very true, but it isn't correct to say that very creative act is the primary purpose of sex within marriage.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #87 on: September 21, 2012, 11:03:08 AM »

Another question, no offense intended but am seeking answers:

Is the modern Orthodox acceptance of ABC partly due to the fact, perhaps, of the vast amount of protestant converts over the last several decades? I'm really interested in the historic teaching of the OC in this regard.

Former protestants support ABC?

There is certainly no condemnation of ABC amongst protestants. I'm wondering if this mentality comes with them when they convert.

I just laughed a little when you tried to blame it on former protestants, since I myself was raised in a very liberal, protestant environment and you seem to be able to read people's mids.

Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. I asked, what I thought to be at least, a pertinent question.

Perhaps when you are done laughing you can offer your thoughts? Wink

The majority of the protestants who went to an apostolic Church swam the Tiber, so you tell us if it has any influence.

So you are avoiding the question. OK. If you are going to get bent out of shape then perhaps we should end this lest we be moved to anger.

And no. The Church of Rome has not changed Her teachings on this topic for that or any other reason.

I was specifically talking about the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox."

Honestly the number of converts to Orthodoxy is a drop in the ocean. For example, there were a couple of converts at my last parish and  a couple at my current one. Assuming they're all ex-Protestant (and I don't know if they were), that's 4 converts total. To the best of my knowledge, there are twelve Romanian parishes in the UK so I'd guess that there can be no more than about 30 converts in total. There are probably some in other western European countries as well, but if the total number came to hundreds I'd be quite surprised. By comparison, there are about 20 million Orthodox Christians in the Romanian Church. Would you expect such a tiny to have any influence on the Church as a whole? The converts seem more influential than they really are, perhaps, because they seem proportionally more active on the internet, but I'm sure that they are a vanishingly small minority in all of the local churches, not just my own.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #88 on: September 21, 2012, 11:05:09 AM »

Have the Fathers, local synods et al spoken to these issues?

Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a document on social issues. It is written there that contraception is permissible in certain circumstances. I doubt there are many other documents related to that as the Church does not tend to have official opinion of every tiny issue like the Vatican has.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #89 on: September 21, 2012, 11:29:42 AM »

Have the Fathers, local synods et al spoken to these issues?

Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a document on social issues. It is written there that contraception is permissible in certain circumstances. I doubt there are many other documents related to that as the Church does not tend to have official opinion of every tiny issue like the Vatican has.

Thank you for this reference. I suppose we have differing views on what constitutes "tiny issues."
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #90 on: September 21, 2012, 11:39:31 AM »

I was taught that these issues should be talked on the confessor level. Some priest I know tell they do not want to hear anything about marital sex at all during confessions.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 21, 2012, 11:48:19 AM »

I was taught that these issues should be talked on the confessor level. Some priest I know tell they do not want to hear anything about marital sex at all during confessions.

I was suggesting that the OP discuss his or her overall views about sexuality and the Orthodox point of view with a priest, not in a confessional sense so as to learn the correct Orthodox teaching and be better able to understand the misconceptions which many Catholic posters have about our teachings.  I would agree with what you said about confession and marital sexual issues - excepting I think for forced acts....most of those should be addressed in a counseling setting before confession and absolution.
Logged
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #92 on: September 21, 2012, 11:56:05 AM »

Here's a question for our RC friend: If the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and doing otherwise is against God's will, then what of those who adopt rather than have biological children? (My grandparents on my father's side, for instance, who were both Catholics.) It is hard for me to see how the care of an otherwise neglected child as though it were your own could somehow be against God's will, as God Himself protects the orphan, and yet the couple in that situation did not preform the marital act to its "primary purpose" in creating the child.

And of course, there are all those Catholic adoption agencies...do they get a pass or what? I've never seen one with any sort of signage visible on it telling prospective parents to go home and make their own, in accordance with natural law. Wink
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 11:57:00 AM by dzheremi » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 21, 2012, 12:23:02 PM »

Here's a question for our RC friend: If the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and doing otherwise is against God's will, then what of those who adopt rather than have biological children? (My grandparents on my father's side, for instance, who were both Catholics.) It is hard for me to see how the care of an otherwise neglected child as though it were your own could somehow be against God's will, as God Himself protects the orphan, and yet the couple in that situation did not preform the marital act to its "primary purpose" in creating the child.

And of course, there are all those Catholic adoption agencies...do they get a pass or what? I've never seen one with any sort of signage visible on it telling prospective parents to go home and make their own, in accordance with natural law. Wink


And what of people beyond childbearing age or people who are sterile through no choice of their own? Why then does your church allow them to marry?  (Of course, I remember, we had an endless back and forth last year with a few Orthos who thought this was bad and not Orthodox either....Erroneous understandings of the Church's views on sexuality are not limited to the walls of churches in union with the Pope of Rome....)
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,726


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #94 on: September 21, 2012, 01:29:41 PM »

Some Catholic friends of mine were recently discussing someone's grandfather- a widower- who met another older woman, but they cannot get married in the RCC because he is impotent. I was shocked.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #95 on: September 21, 2012, 02:53:43 PM »

Is the RCC then going to pay for his Viagra? Or is that considered a form of "birth control"? Grin
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #96 on: September 21, 2012, 03:02:57 PM »

Is the RCC then going to pay for his Viagra? Or is that considered a form of "birth control"? Grin

Nope. If the man's impotence would be helped by viagra, he could marry. At least according the CAR theological people.

RC is nothing if not consistent.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #97 on: September 21, 2012, 03:03:48 PM »

Some Catholic friends of mine were recently discussing someone's grandfather- a widower- who met another older woman, but they cannot get married in the RCC because he is impotent. I was shocked.

See above. Any successful ED treatment would allow him to enter into the marriage.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #98 on: September 21, 2012, 03:07:25 PM »

That wasn't a serious question. But I guess it's true that I don't see how making a man get erections after God has decided he shouldn't anymore is any less controlling reproduction than contraception is. It's just going in the other direction in that case.

But, anyway...I should be careful with my rhetorical questions, as I know already that the RCC has an answer for everything. Cheesy
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 21, 2012, 03:07:57 PM »

Is the RCC then going to pay for his Viagra? Or is that considered a form of "birth control"? Grin

Nope. If the man's impotence would be helped by viagra, he could marry. At least according the CAR theological people.
What if he could be helped by viagra, but he chose not to use viagra. Could he be forced to use viagra?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #100 on: September 21, 2012, 06:31:19 PM »

That wasn't a serious question. But I guess it's true that I don't see how making a man get erections after God has decided he shouldn't anymore is any less controlling reproduction than contraception is. It's just going in the other direction in that case.

But, anyway...I should be careful with my rhetorical questions, as I know already that the RCC has an answer for everything. Cheesy

I would like to know a citation and or a credible source for this story - frankly, it sounds more like urban legend. What Diocese was this church and priest located within? It's one thing to disagree with our Roman brothers and sisters, but it is a far worse thing to spread false or incomplete stories. For all you know there may have been an impediment barring the wedding - even one which might have blocked the same in a canonical Orthodox parish.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,726


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #101 on: September 21, 2012, 06:56:35 PM »

That wasn't a serious question. But I guess it's true that I don't see how making a man get erections after God has decided he shouldn't anymore is any less controlling reproduction than contraception is. It's just going in the other direction in that case.

But, anyway...I should be careful with my rhetorical questions, as I know already that the RCC has an answer for everything. Cheesy

I would like to know a citation and or a credible source for this story - frankly, it sounds more like urban legend. What Diocese was this church and priest located within? It's one thing to disagree with our Roman brothers and sisters, but it is a far worse thing to spread false or incomplete stories. For all you know there may have been an impediment barring the wedding - even one which might have blocked the same in a canonical Orthodox parish.

I'm as credible a source as it's getting for that story. His granddaughter told us. I don't know what diocese because I didn't ask, but no one seemed surprised when it was discussed and a few gave the same exact response that orthonorm gave- he could be married if he could be helped by Viagra. The reasoning being that consummating the marriage is a requirement for a marriage to be valid. What I was left wondering was- what about saints who were married but lived "as brother and sister"?

Here's a citation from the code of canon law:


Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #102 on: September 21, 2012, 08:26:32 PM »

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.

Thank you.  I am glad this thread took the turn it did because it has actually helped answer quite a few questions I have about Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism!  I must say, although I tend toward legalistic thought (being a lawyer and all), I find myself in agreement with the Orthodox here who have pointed out the logical conclusion of legalism and scholasticism in terms of artificial birth control and the theology of marriage. 

I'm glad someone mentioned NFP in connection with artificial birth control.  Setting aside the possibility of the abortifacient qualities of artificial birth control, there is really no meaningful difference between NFP and artificial birth control in practice (assuming the intent of the couple is the same, namely the prevention of conception).  I wonder, though, what is the Orthodox response when considering the possibility of spontaneous (albeit unintended) abortion with artificial birth control...?
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #103 on: September 21, 2012, 11:13:45 PM »

That wasn't a serious question. But I guess it's true that I don't see how making a man get erections after God has decided he shouldn't anymore is any less controlling reproduction than contraception is. It's just going in the other direction in that case.

But, anyway...I should be careful with my rhetorical questions, as I know already that the RCC has an answer for everything. Cheesy

I would like to know a citation and or a credible source for this story - frankly, it sounds more like urban legend. What Diocese was this church and priest located within? It's one thing to disagree with our Roman brothers and sisters, but it is a far worse thing to spread false or incomplete stories. For all you know there may have been an impediment barring the wedding - even one which might have blocked the same in a canonical Orthodox parish.

I'm as credible a source as it's getting for that story. His granddaughter told us. I don't know what diocese because I didn't ask, but no one seemed surprised when it was discussed and a few gave the same exact response that orthonorm gave- he could be married if he could be helped by Viagra. The reasoning being that consummating the marriage is a requirement for a marriage to be valid. What I was left wondering was- what about saints who were married but lived "as brother and sister"?

Here's a citation from the code of canon law:


Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

I wonder if the pastor made an inquiry about this condition, or if the would be couple volunteered the same? I suspect that being of an older generation of catechized Catholics they volunteered this most personal information.

The fixation on matters pertaining to sex in the Roman Church, which has always perplexed me, is perhaps exacerbated by the tradition of forced clerical celibacy.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,726


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #104 on: September 21, 2012, 11:35:49 PM »

That wasn't a serious question. But I guess it's true that I don't see how making a man get erections after God has decided he shouldn't anymore is any less controlling reproduction than contraception is. It's just going in the other direction in that case.

But, anyway...I should be careful with my rhetorical questions, as I know already that the RCC has an answer for everything. Cheesy

I would like to know a citation and or a credible source for this story - frankly, it sounds more like urban legend. What Diocese was this church and priest located within? It's one thing to disagree with our Roman brothers and sisters, but it is a far worse thing to spread false or incomplete stories. For all you know there may have been an impediment barring the wedding - even one which might have blocked the same in a canonical Orthodox parish.

I'm as credible a source as it's getting for that story. His granddaughter told us. I don't know what diocese because I didn't ask, but no one seemed surprised when it was discussed and a few gave the same exact response that orthonorm gave- he could be married if he could be helped by Viagra. The reasoning being that consummating the marriage is a requirement for a marriage to be valid. What I was left wondering was- what about saints who were married but lived "as brother and sister"?

Here's a citation from the code of canon law:


Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

I wonder if the pastor made an inquiry about this condition, or if the would be couple volunteered the same? I suspect that being of an older generation of catechized Catholics they volunteered this most personal information.

The fixation on matters pertaining to sex in the Roman Church, which has always perplexed me, is perhaps exacerbated by the tradition of forced clerical celibacy.

I suspect you are correct. I'm certainly don't mean to come across as accusing any pastor of malice. It just seemed tangentially related to the turn of the conversation and since it just came up very recently, the issue was fresh in my mind. I'm trying to be very vague, also, because as you say- it's highly personal.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #105 on: September 22, 2012, 07:16:30 AM »

That wasn't a serious question. But I guess it's true that I don't see how making a man get erections after God has decided he shouldn't anymore is any less controlling reproduction than contraception is. It's just going in the other direction in that case.

But, anyway...I should be careful with my rhetorical questions, as I know already that the RCC has an answer for everything. Cheesy

I would like to know a citation and or a credible source for this story - frankly, it sounds more like urban legend. What Diocese was this church and priest located within? It's one thing to disagree with our Roman brothers and sisters, but it is a far worse thing to spread false or incomplete stories. For all you know there may have been an impediment barring the wedding - even one which might have blocked the same in a canonical Orthodox parish.

I'm as credible a source as it's getting for that story. His granddaughter told us. I don't know what diocese because I didn't ask, but no one seemed surprised when it was discussed and a few gave the same exact response that orthonorm gave- he could be married if he could be helped by Viagra. The reasoning being that consummating the marriage is a requirement for a marriage to be valid. What I was left wondering was- what about saints who were married but lived "as brother and sister"?

Here's a citation from the code of canon law:


Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

I wonder if the pastor made an inquiry about this condition, or if the would be couple volunteered the same? I suspect that being of an older generation of catechized Catholics they volunteered this most personal information.

The fixation on matters pertaining to sex in the Roman Church, which has always perplexed me, is perhaps exacerbated by the tradition of forced clerical celibacy.

I don't think this is quite fair. Human sexuality is a powerful gift given by God wherein we actually, like Him and with His cooperation, create new life. I have been equally disappointed with the rather, what I consider worldy, view of sex expressed here(sex for pleasure without being open to any unintended consequences.)

We see so much suffering in the world which can be directly related to Mankind's abuse of this awesome gift: broken families, abortion, pornography etc. The Church most certainly should and does have a lot to say in how it is used. It seems to me that God is not welcome in a lot of bedrooms

As for NFP, a couple refrains from the sex act rather then directly frustrating the end. I just don't see how ABC can be confused with NFP.

I found this link interesting in addressing my question regarding modern with traditional Orthodox teaching on ABC. It seems that for all the holding steadfast to everything else, the OC has waffled, and quite frankly, caved on this issue: http://www.hli.org/index.php/contraception/138?task=view

This thread has actually helped me quite a bit and I thank you all.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 07:18:18 AM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #106 on: September 22, 2012, 08:34:56 AM »

This thread:

Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #107 on: September 22, 2012, 09:33:35 AM »

This thread:



Indeed, with my apologies.

I have nothing more to say here so: back to the original topic.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #108 on: September 22, 2012, 03:26:44 PM »

I don't think this is quite fair. Human sexuality is a powerful gift given by God wherein we actually, like Him and with His cooperation, create new life. I have been equally disappointed with the rather, what I consider worldy, view of sex expressed here(sex for pleasure without being open to any unintended consequences.)

What about uniting husband and wife? Is this also "worldly"?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #109 on: September 22, 2012, 05:09:05 PM »

What the heck happened here!!! I was having this thread talking about the Patriarch attending Vatican II and it turns into some marriage argument!!!

Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #110 on: September 22, 2012, 05:12:12 PM »

What the heck happened here!!! I was having this thread talking about the Patriarch attending Vatican II and it turns into some marriage argument!!!

Welcome to the internet.
Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #111 on: September 22, 2012, 05:13:31 PM »

Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #112 on: September 22, 2012, 05:39:40 PM »

What the heck happened here!!! I was having this thread talking about the Patriarch attending Vatican II and it turns into some marriage argument!!!
Well, aren't Patriarchs prohibited from marrying?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #113 on: September 24, 2012, 12:46:06 AM »

Here's a question for our RC friend: If the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and doing otherwise is against God's will, then what of those who adopt rather than have biological children? (My grandparents on my father's side, for instance, who were both Catholics.) It is hard for me to see how the care of an otherwise neglected child as though it were your own could somehow be against God's will, as God Himself protects the orphan, and yet the couple in that situation did not preform the marital act to its "primary purpose" in creating the child.

And of course, there are all those Catholic adoption agencies...do they get a pass or what? I've never seen one with any sort of signage visible on it telling prospective parents to go home and make their own, in accordance with natural law. Wink
There is a difference between *primary* purpose and *only* purpose.
Logged
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #114 on: September 24, 2012, 12:51:05 AM »

Let me be more explicit, then: If a couple married and adopted children but did not produce their own biological children, would their marriage be somehow deficient of defective due to not having fulfilled its primary purpose of producing new human beings?
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #115 on: September 24, 2012, 12:56:51 AM »

Let me be more explicit, then: If a couple married and adopted children but did not produce their own biological children, would their marriage be somehow deficient of defective due to not having fulfilled its primary purpose of producing new human beings?
Each situation is different. If the couple only adopts children and aborts all of their own children, then it would be wrong. However, if the couple is unable to have any children due to some medical or biological problem then it would be praiseworthy for them to adopt children.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #116 on: September 24, 2012, 03:52:38 AM »

Let me be more explicit, then: If a couple married and adopted children but did not produce their own biological children, would their marriage be somehow deficient of defective due to not having fulfilled its primary purpose of producing new human beings?

Accordingly to the Vatican they could be divorced.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #117 on: September 24, 2012, 05:52:07 AM »



To bring this back to the OP.........  Cheesy

If the EP so desires, it would seem to me that sending someone to a commemoration ceremony is appropriate.   

The EP, along with many other Orthodox jurisdictions, sent observers to Vatican II. Examples include Father Alexander Schmemann, Father Nicholas Afanasiev, and (as I recall) the MP's Director of External Affairs (Metropolian +HILARION's predecessor).  Further, some Melkite Greek Catholics proudly assert that the Melkite church's interventions at the council for all intents and purposes represented the EP (https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction).   The general Melkite consensus regards the council as somewhat of a victory for "Byzantine" Christianity, in that the dialogue and final documents integrated perspectives from both the western patristic revival of the early 20th century, as well as perspectives from the Christian East, rather than solely post-Tridentine "scholastic" perspectives.   

In fact, it's alleged that the very important Vatican II document Lumen Gentium has a very heavy stamp from Father Nicholas Afanasiev (RO Western Europe Exarcahte), in particular how it integrates his work on ecclesiology.   The intro to the translation of his "Church of the Holy Spirit" -his look at pre-nicene ecclesiology and the role of the laity through the bishop in the church of the time - states that the Acta of the Council references him as a key contributor. 
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,066



« Reply #118 on: September 24, 2012, 07:23:44 PM »

Fr. Maximos Aghiogousis, the GOAA former Metropolitan of Pittsburgh, was also an observer to the Roman Catholic Church's 2nd Vatican Council, a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

P.S. If the Patriarchate of Moscow's representative was their Director of External Affairs, it would have been Metropolitan Nikodim, who served as an observer to the 2nd Vatican Council.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 07:27:41 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Tags: Vatican II Bartholomew  Ecumenical Patriarch  Ecumenism 
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.442 seconds with 145 queries.