OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 06:18:08 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 2902 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
#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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
#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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 8,576


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
#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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« 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: 8,576


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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
#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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,510


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« 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.
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 0.229 seconds with 71 queries.