OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 12:45:43 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: What is the genuine Orthodox position on Artificial Birth Control?  (Read 4156 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: November 15, 2012, 12:17:49 PM »

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2012, 12:25:18 PM »

The answer is unanimous:

"Ask your priest" if you are Orthodox.

Then again what goes on in the bedroom is private from what I hear from a few Orthodox here...
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,245



« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2012, 12:30:03 PM »

The answer is unanimous:

"Ask your priest" if you are Orthodox.

Then again what goes on in the bedroom is private from what I hear from a few Orthodox here...

It is a pastoral issue, for the couple to discuss with their priest or spiritual father.

And none of anyone else's beeswax.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2012, 04:36:35 PM »

The answer is unanimous:

"Ask your priest" if you are Orthodox.

Then again what goes on in the bedroom is private from what I hear from a few Orthodox here...

It is a pastoral issue, for the couple to discuss with their priest or spiritual father.

And none of anyone else's beeswax.

Like so much in Orthodoxy, it depends on who you ask  Wink.  I came across this from Met. Kallistos Ware, written before he was elevated to Met.: "Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church." Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 2nd edition, Penguin, 199E p.296.

Then there's this from Fr. Alexander Men: "This is not my own opinion. I have consulted with our bishops and they are of the opinion that a person has a right to practice birth control. Otherwise, they may bring more children into the world than they can support, in which case they will become animals rather than human beings." A. Men', Kul'tura i dukhovnoe vozrozhdenie, (Moscow 1992), pp. 445-450

St. John Chrysostom, I believe, did not countenance artificial contraception or abortion.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2012, 04:40:09 PM »

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2012, 04:42:26 PM »

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 04:43:33 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2012, 04:50:58 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2012, 05:01:53 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2012, 05:05:18 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2012, 05:07:42 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:07:59 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 159



« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2012, 05:08:15 PM »

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed.  So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism.  Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way.  The ABC issue is a good example.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:09:44 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2012, 05:09:05 PM »

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.
Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it").  They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2012, 05:12:47 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
Our Church also says that no one should masterbate, but just about every single male in the Church has done it. The Church says that no one should lie, yet every member of the Church has lied. Does that mean the Church should not just proclaim that these things are not sins?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:13:13 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2012, 05:13:30 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.
You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.
We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2012, 05:15:19 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Are speeding laws invalidated by the fact that many, if not most, people break them?  

It may be that it holds no merit to the faithful, but those faithful, unfortunately have not been educated in their faith very well.  But that's a whole other matter  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2012, 05:23:22 PM »

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2012, 05:23:40 PM »

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.
Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it").  They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.

I wasn't judging those luminaries, one of whom was St. John Chrysostom, on whether they were right or wrong about the matter.  That's above my pay-grade, as it were.  Just pointing out that the matter is more than *just* a pastoral thing between priest and parishioner(s), although it is that, too.

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

As for the comments on the luminaries of the Catholic Church about HiV, well....no comment  Wink.  I don't believe that anyone here is looking to find fault, judge or criticize, but rather to get some clarification about whether there is a consensus or an authoritative position in Orthodoxy about artificial contraception.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2012, 05:24:52 PM »

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

This is what I have heard, too, from a couple of Orthodox priests.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2012, 05:25:57 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

God is a God of love.  You cannot have one all-encompassing ruling on everything and expect that the ruling will fit everyone.  A doctor may prescribe 2 different treatments to two different people with the same condition.  That doesn't mean there's no medical standards or no authoritative medical book.  The Church is a hospital, not a law court.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2012, 05:27:39 PM »

I'm raising this question because of a discussion on another thread. It seems that two Orthodox posters are debating the EO position on birth control? Can some one point me to a the genuine position of the Orthodox Church? Thanks.

It is something not allowed, but can be accomodated by ekonomia if the spiritual father deems that the man/woman/couple cannot fully fast from sex and it is also beneficial to them to space out their children.

This is what I have heard, too, from a couple of Orthodox priests.

I got that from an Introduction to Orthodox Theology book.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2012, 05:28:05 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.
Sooo......this has what to do with  the official Church position on this issue?


Oh thatz right nothing.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2012, 05:30:14 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,539


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2012, 05:31:11 PM »

Quote
Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

Here you are:

Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

Link to the whole document, which deals with a variety of matters:

http://orthodoxeurope.org/print/3/14.aspx
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:31:37 PM by LBK » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2012, 05:31:33 PM »

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

It means the Church Laws are not helping anyone.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2012, 05:32:57 PM »

Quote
Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.

Here you are:

Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

Link to the whole document, which deals with a variety of matters:

http://orthodoxeurope.org/print/3/14.aspx

Muchas Gracias!!!!  Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2012, 05:33:14 PM »

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed.  So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism.  Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way.  The ABC issue is a good example.
Not when it concerns faith and morals. Church dogma is not up for debate or some priest's private" interpretations.


After all, we are not evangelicals.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2012, 05:33:34 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Are speeding laws invalidated by the fact that many, if not most, people break them?  

It may be that it holds no merit to the faithful, but those faithful, unfortunately have not been educated in their faith very well.  But that's a whole other matter  Wink.

Or simply don't care to be educated
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2012, 05:37:16 PM »

We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?

It means the Church Laws are not helping anyone.

It means that those who disobey the law are not "helped" by it, and it probably also means that their catechesis is sorely lacking--a major concern, imho, in the Catholic Church today, especially...well...pretty much everywhere.  It also means that people, being people, break laws and have done so since Adam took the apple offered by Eve.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2012, 05:38:27 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.

Are speeding laws invalidated by the fact that many, if not most, people break them?  

It may be that it holds no merit to the faithful, but those faithful, unfortunately have not been educated in their faith very well.  But that's a whole other matter  Wink.

Or simply don't care to be educated

I'm not sure that there's any defense against not caring to be educated, except, perhaps the prayers of others and good preaching in the parishes.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 159



« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2012, 05:39:44 PM »

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

This is also true of Roman Catholicism... Priests and bishops often engage in private interpretation. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, even in Roman Catholicism, there are instances where artificial birth control is allowed.  So, in a way, forcing people to discuss their particular situation with a priest is a much better solution as he can provide particularized guidance.

In other words, things aren't as simple as they may seem in Roman Catholicism.  Things are presented as this and not that in an incorrect way.  The ABC issue is a good example.
Not when it concerns faith and morals. Church dogma is not up for debate or some priest's private" interpretations.


After all, we are not evangelicals.

You have never encountered a priest or bishop providing a personal interpretation?  Theologians, who are normally priests and bishops, do this all the time -- in the realms of faith and morals. 

I agree the dogma is not up for debate, but its application certainly is.  As I pointed out, there is a general rule against ABC, but there are also certain situations where it may be used without sin. 

Moreover, there is a general rule against avoiding conception.  Yet, spouses may legitimately do so with NFP under certain circumstances.  But, then, NFP may be sinful when used with an illegitimate end in mind.  Our Orthodox posters have informed us that their teaching is the same for ABC...

The question, then, is whether there is a marked difference between ABC and NFP...

Really now... is there really much difference between the Catholic and Orthodox perspective here?  The Orthodox perspective adds another layer of assistance for the laity by placing these issues under the glance of a priest, which would be helpful for Catholics using NFP to do voluntarily, if they could find a priest to advise them...
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 05:40:17 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2012, 05:40:15 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.

But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?
How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2012, 05:41:56 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.
You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.
We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.
WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth
control are immoral and blameworthy?  Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the
first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is
abortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns
tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14).  Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,067


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2012, 05:43:15 PM »


How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?

Yes, and the other 2% lied.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2012, 05:44:46 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.
"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?
How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,067


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2012, 05:45:48 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.
"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?
How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo


Nice source. Where did St. Augustine say that? (not that I disagree with the quote, though)
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2012, 05:46:26 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.
"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?
How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo


That sounds familiar  Grin.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2012, 05:46:39 PM »

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo


No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 159



« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2012, 05:49:24 PM »

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo


No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Very succinctly put. I'd add: how is the allowance of NFP and disallowance of ABC helping people repent if the mentality is the same?  The selfish mentality is the root of the sin and it is merely manifesting in different ways -- NFP or ABC.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,245



« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2012, 05:50:02 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2012, 05:51:09 PM »

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo


No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Perhaps by getting them to actually think about what *is* right and what *is* wrong rather than the, "hey... if it feels good, do it" trap of relativism?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2012, 05:54:02 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

Yeah and your members of your church have no problem using artifical contraception.

Yes, you're right.  The fact that many Catholics do does not make *them* right, unless the Church has suddenly become a democracy of the worst kind.
"
But do you see the problem? Even if your church says "No artifical contraception", your members still do so, so that ruling is basically invalid. It holds no merit to the faithful.
We have many laws in this country and still people break them. doesn't mean the laws are thus invalid.

What kind of logic is this?
How many married in the catholic church use contraception? Wasn't that number like 98%?
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo


Nice source. Where did St. Augustine say that? (not that I disagree with the quote, though)
I want to say Confessiones or City of God, not really sure but I can get back to you on that.

I'm sure another more read RC will beat me to it. Wink
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2012, 05:54:59 PM »

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

― Saint Augustine of Hippo


No one here disagrees with this.  But the question is, how is this helping anyone repent?

Very succinctly put. I'd add: how is the allowance of NFP and disallowance of ABC helping people repent if the mentality is the same?  The selfish mentality is the root of the sin and it is merely manifesting in different ways -- NFP or ABC.
Agreed.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2012, 05:59:39 PM »

It's still a pastoral issue and that's how it should be.

That's as may be, but it certainly hasn't prevented some luminaries of the Church from commenting on it, thereby giving it a greater degree of importance than you suggest.
Certain luminaries of the Church have commented on burning down synagogues as well ("just do it").  They were wrong.

And, as the Winnipeg Statement, Cardinal Martini etc. show, some luminaries of your church haven't been prevented from commenting contrary to what your supreme pontiff said in HV.

The whole of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement on this, and I dare say most Orthodox (and most followers of the Vatican) are in agreement with it.

I wasn't judging those luminaries, one of whom was St. John Chrysostom
no, he was not.  I've dealt with that somewhere here.

on whether they were right or wrong about the matter.  That's above my pay-grade, as it were.  Just pointing out that the matter is more than *just* a pastoral thing between priest and parishioner(s), although it is that, too.
It is exactly that.  Those who (mostly celibates with issues with marriage) have tried to make it into a dogmatic issue have succeeded only in making fools of themselves.

Do you have a link (in English hopefully!) of the statement of the ROC that you referred to?  That's probably the kind of thing Papist may be looking for.
Michael gave it in the other thread which split into this thread.

As for the comments on the luminaries of the Catholic Church about HiV, well....no comment  Wink.  I don't believe that anyone here is looking to find fault, judge or criticize, but rather to get some clarification about whether there is a consensus or an authoritative position in Orthodoxy about artificial contraception.
So far such inquirers have not been satisfied by satisfactory answers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2012, 06:02:19 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.
You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.
We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.
WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth
control are immoral and blameworthy?  Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the
first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is
abortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns
tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14).  Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt
Yes, I've read Humanae Vitae.  Your source doesn't say a thing on its "ex cathedra" status.

Get back to us when you can give us an absolutely authoritative ruling on that status.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2012, 06:09:56 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.
You have an authoritative ruling that refuses to be definitely classed as "ex cathedra," depriving you of an absolute authoritative ruling.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.
We didn't.

When you all can make up your minds on Humanae Vitae and its innovative doctrines as "ex cathedra," get back to us.
WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth
control are immoral and blameworthy?  Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the
first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is
abortion (n. 14).[3]

Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns
tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill.

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14).  Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt
Yes, I've read Humanae Vitae.  Your source doesn't say a thing on its "ex cathedra" status.

Get back to us when you can give us an absolutely authoritative ruling on that status.

Burn!  Wink
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2012, 10:46:07 PM »

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.


The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2012, 11:27:16 PM »

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.


The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.
Then why does your "Magisterium" assiduously avoid saying that your supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra?

Btw, given the hairsplitting levels of your "magisterium,"  your supreme pontiffs invoking of it as above is not dispositive.

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 11:30:50 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2012, 01:50:42 AM »

Get back to us when you can give us an absolutely authoritative ruling on that status.


And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,941


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2012, 03:10:31 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.
Is there something intrinsically evil about "confusion," or must the Church speak with dogmatic authority on every possible issue known to man?
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,639



« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2012, 03:20:33 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,941


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2012, 03:32:07 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.
IYO.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,639



« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2012, 04:36:21 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.
IYO.

Why of course. Hence the "IMO". I don't subscribe to Orthodox version of Magisterium that there should be official declarations from councils or clergy for something to be an Orthodox teaching.
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 #52 on: November 16, 2012, 05:23:36 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2012, 07:38:47 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.
I agree.  I am opposed to both artificial birth control and NFP.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2012, 08:00:18 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,639



« Reply #55 on: November 16, 2012, 08:15:30 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

James

In what kind of conditions you consider ABC/NFP allowed?

I deem both as similar thing with divorce. ABC/NFP and divorce are all sinful in every case but in some situations all can be pastorally tolerated.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,030



WWW
« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2012, 08:38:00 AM »

“What? is marriage a theater? It is a mystery and a type of a mighty thing; and even if thou reverence not it, reverence that whose type it is.'This mystery,' saith he, 'is great, but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church.' (Eph. v. 32-41); It is a type of the Church, and of Christ…They come, about to be made one body.

See again a mystery of love! If the two become not one, so long as they continue two, they make not many, but when they are come into oneness, they then make many. What do we learn from this? That great is the power of union. The wise counsel of God at the beginning divided the one into two; and being desirous of showing that even after division it remaineth still one, He suffered not that the one should be of itself enough for procreation. For he is not one who is not yet [united] but the half of one; and it is evident from this, that he begetteth no offspring, as was the case also beforetime. Seest thou the mystery of marriage? He made of one, one; and again, having made these two, one, He so maketh one, so that now also man is produced of one. For man and wife are not two men, but one Man…Moreover, from the very fashioning of her body, one may see that they are one, for she was made from his side, and they are, as it were, two halves….

And how become they one flesh? As if thou shouldest take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourisheth it and cherisheth it, and withal contributing her own share, restoreth it back a Man. And the child is a sort of bridge, so that the three become one flesh, the child connecting, on either side, each to other.

For like as two cities, which a river divides throughout, become one, if a bridge connect them on both sides, so is it in this case; and yet more, when the very bridge in this case is formed of the substance of each. As the body and the head are one body; for they are divided by the neck; but not divided more than connected, for it, lying between them brings together each with the other…What then? when there is no child, will they not be two? Nay, for their coming together hath this effect, it diffuses and commingles the bodies of both.  And as one who hath cast ointment into oil, hath made the whole one; so in truth is it also here.
I know that many are ashamed at what is said, and the cause of this is what I spoke of, your own lasciviousness, and unchasteness. The fact of marriages being thus performed, thus depraved, hath gained the thing an ill name: for ‘marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled.’ (Heb. xiii. 4) Why art thou ashamed of the honorable, why blushest thou at the undefiled? This is for heretics, this is for such as introduce harlots thither. For this cause I am desirous of having it thoroughly purified, so as to bring it back again to its proper nobleness, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics.
The gift of God is insulted, the root of our generation; for about that root there is much dung and filth. This then let us cleanse away by our discourse. Endure then a little while, for he that holdeth filth must endure the stench. I wish to show you that ye ought not to be ashamed at these things, but at those which ye do; but thou, passing by all shame at those, art ashamed at these; surely then thou condemnest God who hath thus decreed….Shall I tell how marriage is also a mystery of the Church? As Christ came into the Church, and she was made of him, and he united with her in a spiritual intercourse, ‘for,’ saith one, ‘I have espoused you to one husband, a pure virgin.’ (2 Cor. xi. 2.) And that we are of Him, he saith, of His members, ‘and of His flesh.’ Thinking then on all these things, let us not cast shame upon so great a mystery.
Marriage is a type of the presence of Christ….If thou drive away all these things [Satanic reverie at the wedding feast], even Christ will come to such a marriage, and Christ being present, the choir of Angels is present also. If thou wilt, He will even now work miracles as He did then; He will make even now the water, wine (John ii.); and what is much more wonderful, He will convert this unstable and dissolving pleasure, this cold desire, and change it into the spiritual. This is to make of water, wine.”
--St John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2012, 09:01:01 AM »

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.


The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.
Then why does your "Magisterium" assiduously avoid saying that your supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra?

Btw, given the hairsplitting levels of your "magisterium,"  your supreme pontiffs invoking of it as above is not dispositive.

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?
the Magesterium doesn't have to explain everything that is painfully obvious and in line with Natural Law that neither they, nor the popes or any malformed thinking laity can twist or change to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" at the time.And there is no "hairsplitting" here, the pope has spoken plainly on the issue, there is no need to dissect what he says to avoid or conform to our own "interpretation" in order to have a clear conscience on the issues of ABC, contraception and Abortion. If anyone is splitting hairs  here it's people who want to use the non "ex cathedra" to get away with something or break Natural Law, which they can't. Or at least not change it. The pope has merely reaffirmed what's always been true and doctrinal, there's nothing new here.

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2012, 09:05:12 AM »

  On the Infallibility of Humanae Vitae. Some so-called 'Catholics' claim that the only teachings of the Church that its members are bound to follow are those that have solemnly been declared to be infallible.
       Conversely, they say, any teaching of the Church that has not specifically been declared infallible is open for individual interpretation. This category of teaching would, of course, include those that have addressed such sexual misconduct as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce, and the use of artificial contraception.        The question of conscience vs. authority must be answered on two levels, the most basic being from the standpoint of "natural law." As defined in Romans 2:12-16 and Jeremiah 31:33, God imprints the natural law on the heart and soul of man, and this leads him to know whether or not an act is moral or evil. In other words, "natural law" is man's instinctual knowledge of what is right and what is wrong — his "conscience."
       St. Thomas Aquinas, who is quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, says that "Natural law is simply the light of intelligence placed within us by God; by it we know what we should do and what we should avoid. God bestowed this light, or this law, with the creation."

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2012, 09:08:28 AM »

The practical effect of pronouncements made under natural law is that they can never be changed — not even by the Pope and all of his assembled Cardinals and Bishops. And they certainly cannot be tampered with by disgruntled lay people and dissident priests!
       But 'Catholics' for a Free Choice is always telling us that we can choose abortion if we do so with a clear conscience. In other words, just as homosexuals are "born that way," some people are born with a conscience that is vestigial in that it does not restrict their activities in the slightest.
       Occasionally these pro-abortion 'Catholics' will quote a Vatican II document entitled Declaration on Religious Freedom in support of their contention that we should be able to do anything our 'conscience' does not object to.
       However, Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principal author of the Declaration, anticipated this kind of dishonesty. He stated in a footnote to the Abbott-Gallagher edition of the Council texts that

The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on 'freedom of conscience.' Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism — the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.[8]


http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view


Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #60 on: November 16, 2012, 09:13:10 AM »

"After settling the question of "natural law," we must turn our attention to the related issue of ex cathedra ('from the chair') pronouncements of the Pope.
       There are two methods by which Catholics may know that a teaching of the Church is infallible and therefore must be obeyed by all Catholics in order to remain Catholic.
       The first of these, of course, is an ex cathedra pronouncement. Popes use this mechanism very infrequently, and then only to address the very fundamentals of Catholic faith. Only once since 1870 has the Pope spoken ex cathedra; on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
       Many pro-life theologians have debated the wisdom of having the Church's teachings on birth control and abortion be formally declared infallible, and have decided that this would not be wise in the larger scheme of things. The reason is that such a pronouncement in an area of morals (as opposed to fundamental beliefs) would give the impression that all other moral teachings of the Church were optional. This might lead to a situation where disbelief would run rampant in the areas not specifically addressed ex cathedra, and would lead to more and more demands for such pronouncements in almost every area of Church teaching.


http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #61 on: November 16, 2012, 09:15:52 AM »

"The Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz declares that any doctrine that has been taught semper ubique obomnibus — always, everywhere, and by everyone — makes it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterial teaching.[9]
       As shown by the quotes of ancient and modern Catholic theologians in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3, the prohibition against abortion has indeed been taught semper ubique obomnibus. Therefore, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae does not declare or create some new doctrine or dogma. It simply reiterates the infallible doctrine that human life is sacred from conception to natural birth.
       From this, we may state without fear of contradiction (from anyone who counts, that is) that the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed, derived from an infallible doctrine.
       Before wrapping up this discussion on infallibility, we must consider this question: Do we really think that 'Catholic' abortophiles would suddenly stop their child killing if the Pope suddenly issued an ex cathedra decree that abortion was a mortal sin?       Obviously, they would not. Just as with the question of ensoulment, the pro-aborts couldn't really care less about the degree of solemnity of Catholic condemnation of abortion. This is another red herring they use to distract attention from the real issue.
"

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #62 on: November 16, 2012, 09:23:50 AM »

There, I gave some answers by some greater minds than me on the issue and I think they pretty much nailed it.

I think the RCC is pretty clear on the issue and is certainly not what one "feels" or "interprets" regardless of the pope speaking "ex cathedra" or infallibly. It's all in line with Truth and Natural Law, there's nothing to debate here.

So chew on this for a while and get back to me ialmisry and perhaps give me your own "interpretation" of what the Holy Father was talking about in HV.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 09:26:06 AM by Charles Martel » Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #63 on: November 16, 2012, 09:25:01 AM »

Get back to us when you can give us an absolutely authoritative ruling on that status.


And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?

You can take it easy now there fanboy. Wink
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
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: November 16, 2012, 09:43:51 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

James

In what kind of conditions you consider ABC/NFP allowed?

I deem both as similar thing with divorce. ABC/NFP and divorce are all sinful in every case but in some situations all can be pastorally tolerated.

I have previously been told by clergy that it was OK for spacing children and the like but sinful to use them for avoiding children completely. Given that the Russian church seems to have the exact same view, judging by what was posted here, and I've yet to see anyone come up with any patristic argument against contraception which doesn't smack of a conflation with abortion, I see no reason dispute what I've been taught.

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #65 on: November 16, 2012, 09:56:45 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #66 on: November 16, 2012, 09:58:33 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.
Is there something intrinsically evil about "confusion," or must the Church speak with dogmatic authority on every possible issue known to man?
Did they ever decide how many angels were on a pinhead?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #67 on: November 16, 2012, 10:01:43 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.
IYO.
I would say that most Orthodox, like the Fathers, do not make the distinction, instead making the distinction between abortifacients and non-abortifacients.

How they come down on how "sinful" "NFP" and "ABC" is another matter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,639



« Reply #68 on: November 16, 2012, 10:12:11 AM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.

Whilst I don't agree completely with your conclusion (the use or otherwise of contraception really is a pastoral and not a dogmatic issue), I do agree that non-abortifacient ABC and NFP are equivalent and that use of either can be sinful.

James

In what kind of conditions you consider ABC/NFP allowed?

I deem both as similar thing with divorce. ABC/NFP and divorce are all sinful in every case but in some situations all can be pastorally tolerated.

I have previously been told by clergy that it was OK for spacing children and the like but sinful to use them for avoiding children completely. Given that the Russian church seems to have the exact same view, judging by what was posted here, and I've yet to see anyone come up with any patristic argument against contraception which doesn't smack of a conflation with abortion, I see no reason dispute what I've been taught.

James

I don't think there is actual disagreement between us. It's just that I'd replace "OK" with "unfortunate practice within the fallen World" i.e. economy. That's how I interpret, say, MPs teaching about the issue.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 16, 2012, 10:12:56 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.


Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?



Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 16, 2012, 10:17:18 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."


I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area. There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world. And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.



Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #71 on: November 16, 2012, 10:17:27 AM »

In Humanea Vitae contains intrinsically infallible pronouncements because the encyclical itself contains an "ex cathedra" definition like in Article 14 as follows;

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.


The pope is definitely speaking ex cathedra  here using papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I.
Then why does your "Magisterium" assiduously avoid saying that your supreme pontiff has spoken ex cathedra?

Btw, given the hairsplitting levels of your "magisterium,"  your supreme pontiffs invoking of it as above is not dispositive.

And "intrinsically infallible": don't recall that in the hierarchy of theological certitude.  Is this another development of doctrine?
the Magesterium doesn't have to explain everything that is painfully obvious and in line with Natural Law
as we have discussed here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
"Natural Law" is an invention of your "Magisterium," and hence anything it doesn't explain not only is not "painfully obvious," but non-existent as well.

that neither they, nor the popes or any malformed thinking laity can twist or change to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" at the time.  And there is no "hairsplitting" here, the pope has spoken plainly on the issue
He spoke plainly in "Unam Sanctam" as well, and in Dictatae Papae, and....in a lot of other documents which you all disown now. Who is twisting or changing to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" on "Unam Sanctam" etc.
there is no need to dissect what he says to avoid or conform to our own "interpretation" in order to have a clear conscience on the issues of ABC, contraception and Abortion. If anyone is splitting hairs  here it's people who want to use the non "ex cathedra" to get away with something or break Natural Law, which they can't. Or at least not change it. The pope has merely reaffirmed what's always been true and doctrinal, there's nothing new here.
Au contraire, quite new, which is why your supreme pontiff had to make Humanae Vitae out of of whole cloth from "Natural Law," devoid of any patristics or scriptural authority (on the linked thread I started to go through it section by section on that.  Maybe I'll see about finishing it, Lord willing).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #72 on: November 16, 2012, 10:19:17 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.


Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?

Selam
No, since they had both warfare and what the Vatican calls ABC and NFP.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #73 on: November 16, 2012, 10:19:50 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.


Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?



Selam

I don't think so. When you find the Fathers arguing 'against contraception' they always (unless you know of some passages I've never previously seen) seem to actually be arguing against abortion (either directly or because their understanding of what conception entailed was incorrect). I agree with Isa, the distinction they make appears be between abortifacients and non-abortifacients, but you are, of course, free to disagree with me.

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #74 on: November 16, 2012, 10:27:29 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."


I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area.
Much of life is lived in "grey area."  If the path was marked in black and white, it wouldn't be so narrow and less traveled.

There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world.

There are poor who claim the same thing, especially if someone else is paying for it.  Money, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.
If there was a magic book of answers like the Muslims have
http://books.google.com/books?id=54TYAAAAMAAJ&q=A+Clarification+of+questions&dq=A+Clarification+of+questions&cd=1
we wouldn't have any need for useless (as you describe them) spiritual fathers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,208


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #75 on: November 16, 2012, 10:49:08 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."


I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area.
Much of life is lived in "grey area."  If the path was marked in black and white, it wouldn't be so narrow and less traveled.

There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world.

There are poor who claim the same thing, especially if someone else is paying for it.  Money, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.
If there was a magic book of answers like the Muslims have
http://books.google.com/books?id=54TYAAAAMAAJ&q=A+Clarification+of+questions&dq=A+Clarification+of+questions&cd=1
we wouldn't have any need for useless (as you describe them) spiritual fathers.

Now don't create a straw man here brother. Where have I said that there is no need for economy or for personal guidance from our spiritual fathers? My point is that spiritual advice regarding birth control should be commensurate with Church Teaching and apostolic Tradition. Why do we suddenly take a Protestant approach when it comes to the issue of artificial birth control, elevating individual opinions above the clear indications of apostolic truth?


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #76 on: November 16, 2012, 11:05:55 AM »

  On the Infallibility of Humanae Vitae. Some so-called 'Catholics' claim that the only teachings of the Church that its members are bound to follow are those that have solemnly been declared to be infallible.
       Conversely, they say, any teaching of the Church that has not specifically been declared infallible is open for individual interpretation. This category of teaching would, of course, include those that have addressed such sexual misconduct as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce, and the use of artificial contraception.        The question of conscience vs. authority must be answered on two levels, the most basic being from the standpoint of "natural law." As defined in Romans 2:12-16 and Jeremiah 31:33, God imprints the natural law on the heart and soul of man, and this leads him to know whether or not an act is moral or evil. In other words, "natural law" is man's instinctual knowledge of what is right and what is wrong — his "conscience."
       St. Thomas Aquinas, who is quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, says that "Natural law is simply the light of intelligence placed within us by God; by it we know what we should do and what we should avoid. God bestowed this light, or this law, with the creation."
http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view
Yeah, we dealt with this silliness here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
One would think that the proposition that fallen man with "disordered" (to use the scholastics' term) faculties and "darkened" (to use the scholastics' term) intellect can see Creation clearer than Moses and the Evangelists would be laughed at on its face-at least by those who believe in Revelation (for full disclosure: this is why I became Orthodox). It is why you CCC quotes Cicero as its authority on "Natural Law." As for reading it into Romans, that's like Martin Luther wretching Rom. 1:17 out of the context of the Church and building Protestantism on it.

As for confusing "Natual Law" for the promise of the New Covenant in Jermiah "31:33" (according to the Rabbis, 38:33), constituting blasphemy of the highest order, that the places that in the future contradicts the characterization of the "Natural Law" as eternal: those hearts were already created long before.  If "Natural Law" "is bestowed...with creation," it could not be implanted in hearts already created.

The "Spirit of Vatican II" made it clear, you have to obey your supreme pontiff even when he doesn't speak infallibly, underlining the uselessness of Vatican I's solemn pronouncement "for everlasting memorial."

As for divorce, your "Magisterium"'s creation of its Corban factories has solved that.  As to adultery and abortion, the revelation of "Thou shallt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not kill" suffices.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2012, 11:13:17 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."


I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area.
Much of life is lived in "grey area."  If the path was marked in black and white, it wouldn't be so narrow and less traveled.

There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world.

There are poor who claim the same thing, especially if someone else is paying for it.  Money, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.
If there was a magic book of answers like the Muslims have
http://books.google.com/books?id=54TYAAAAMAAJ&q=A+Clarification+of+questions&dq=A+Clarification+of+questions&cd=1
we wouldn't have any need for useless (as you describe them) spiritual fathers.
Now don't create a straw man here brother. Where have I said that there is no need for economy or for personal guidance from our spiritual fathers? My point is that spiritual advice regarding birth control should be commensurate with Church Teaching and apostolic Tradition. Why do we suddenly take a Protestant approach when it comes to the issue of artificial birth control, elevating individual opinions above the clear indications of apostolic truth?
We don't, and I haven't.

There is no such thing as "artificial birth control" in apostolic truth, nor in Apostolic Tradition, nor Church Teaching.  It is an invention of the Vatican in Humanae Vitae.  You will not find a Father speaking of it, which is why HV is devoid of patristics.

To give a specific, take the man who wants to get a vasectomy (something I oppose, though it is my opinion and, as grounded as I think that is, I cannot at this moment speak of it as an absolute with 100% surety) because his wife has suffered a half dozen or more miscarriages and been told that she cannot carry to term.  Would a spiritual Father err and betray Apostolic Truth, Apostolic Tradition and Church Teaching by giving his blessing and sparing them the heartache of going through that, over and over?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2012, 11:20:26 AM »

The practical effect of pronouncements made under natural law is that they can never be changed — not even by the Pope and all of his assembled Cardinals and Bishops. And they certainly cannot be tampered with by disgruntled lay people and dissident priests!
       But 'Catholics' for a Free Choice is always telling us that we can choose abortion if we do so with a clear conscience. In other words, just as homosexuals are "born that way," some people are born with a conscience that is vestigial in that it does not restrict their activities in the slightest.
       Occasionally these pro-abortion 'Catholics' will quote a Vatican II document entitled Declaration on Religious Freedom in support of their contention that we should be able to do anything our 'conscience' does not object to.
       However, Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principal author of the Declaration, anticipated this kind of dishonesty. He stated in a footnote to the Abbott-Gallagher edition of the Council texts that

The Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on 'freedom of conscience.' Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism — the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right and wrong, true or false.[8]


http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view
Yes, we have dealt with that silliness already
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
the very idea that fallible man's "Natural Law" cannot be changed, whereas God's revealed Law can be voided (Matthew 15:4-6 giving the only scriptural "warrant" for marriage tribunals and annullments) or nullified (as the OT is often, incorrectly, viewed), or the direct Apostolic injunction (Acts 15 on blood eating) can be laid aside-stuff and nonsense.

"Natural Law"-subjectivism posing as objective Truth.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #79 on: November 16, 2012, 11:23:35 AM »

"After settling the question of "natural law," we must turn our attention to the related issue of ex cathedra ('from the chair') pronouncements of the Pope.
       There are two methods by which Catholics may know that a teaching of the Church is infallible and therefore must be obeyed by all Catholics in order to remain Catholic.
       The first of these, of course, is an ex cathedra pronouncement. Popes use this mechanism very infrequently, and then only to address the very fundamentals of Catholic faith. Only once since 1870 has the Pope spoken ex cathedra; on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
       Many pro-life theologians have debated the wisdom of having the Church's teachings on birth control and abortion be formally declared infallible, and have decided that this would not be wise in the larger scheme of things. The reason is that such a pronouncement in an area of morals (as opposed to fundamental beliefs) would give the impression that all other moral teachings of the Church were optional. This might lead to a situation where disbelief would run rampant in the areas not specifically addressed ex cathedra, and would lead to more and more demands for such pronouncements in almost every area of Church teaching.


http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view
LOL. No shortage of the ex cathedra excuses.  Once again demonstrating not only the uselessness of the nonsense of Pastor Aeternus, but its harm as well.

The lack of the IC and Assumption among "fundamental beliefs" didn't stop your supreme pontiff from speaking up.  If this is so vital (and the constant appeal to it as proof of the Vatican's superiority over Orthodoxy would make it so), he can speak on the record as well.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2012, 11:30:55 AM »

"The Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz declares that any doctrine that has been taught semper ubique obomnibus — always, everywhere, and by everyone — makes it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterial teaching.[9]
       As shown by the quotes of ancient and modern Catholic theologians in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3, the prohibition against abortion has indeed been taught semper ubique obomnibus. Therefore, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae does not declare or create some new doctrine or dogma. It simply reiterates the infallible doctrine that human life is sacred from conception to natural birth.
There is no dispute as to abortion.  But thanks for again demonstrating that many can't make the distinction between abortifacient birth control (which would include killing the mother, btw) and non-abortifacient birth control.
       From this, we may state without fear of contradiction (from anyone who counts, that is) that the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed, derived from an infallible doctrine.
       Before wrapping up this discussion on infallibility, we must consider this question: Do we really think that 'Catholic' abortophiles would suddenly stop their child killing if the Pope suddenly issued an ex cathedra decree that abortion was a mortal sin?       Obviously, they would not. Just as with the question of ensoulment, the pro-aborts couldn't really care less about the degree of solemnity of Catholic condemnation of abortion. This is another red herring they use to distract attention from the real issue.[/i]"

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/398?task=view
As you demonstrate, you're the expert on red herring.  I don't touch the stuff.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2012, 11:37:17 AM »

There, I gave some answers by some greater minds than me

was that hard?
on the issue and I think they pretty much nailed it.
Ah, so we are back to your testimony.
I think the RCC is pretty clear on the issue
98% vs. 2%, plus a "magisterium" for whom this is only a theoretical issue, with no "absolute, definitive authoritative ruling" not so clear.

and is certainly not what one "feels" or "interprets" regardless of the pope speaking "ex cathedra" or infallibly. It's all in line with Truth and Natural Law, there's nothing to debate here.
You're right: that it is nonsense is not debatable.
So chew on this for a while and get back to me ialmisry and perhaps give me your own "interpretation" of what the Holy Father was talking about in HV.
though it is not my problem, I've already started on that long ago here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
but that was documenting what he was talking about.  My interpretation is I don't care what he had to say.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2012, 11:49:06 AM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."
Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #83 on: November 16, 2012, 12:03:29 PM »

Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.

It's innovation that people try to define that time.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #84 on: November 16, 2012, 12:06:24 PM »

Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.

It's innovation that people try to define that time.
People were absolutely incapable of doing this before HV?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #85 on: November 16, 2012, 12:09:47 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."
Really? It's an innovation that sex during certain times of a woman's cycle does not produce children? Wow. That's news to me.
It was news to those Fathers you depend on (St. Jerome, Lactiantus, St. Clement of Alexandria etc.) that it was OK to have sex during certain times of a woman's cycle so as to not produce children.  In fact, St. Clement tells us to imitate animals and have sex (making love seems a foreign concept to him) ONLY during certain times of a woman's cycle when she WILL produce children.  St. Augustine was also of a like mind, after using the rhythm method (incorrectly, and unsuccessfully) while a Manichean.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,843


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #86 on: November 16, 2012, 01:27:10 PM »

St. Clement of Alexandria
Is St. Clement of Alexandria a saint in the EO Church?

I thought he wasn't.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,941


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #87 on: November 16, 2012, 01:50:39 PM »

IMO Orthodoxy is even stricter than Catholicism on this. NFP is an Artificial Birth Control method and therefore sinful.
IYO.

Why of course. Hence the "IMO". I don't subscribe to Orthodox version of Magisterium that there should be official declarations from councils or clergy for something to be an Orthodox teaching.
But without a definitive statement of dogma from the Church, your "Orthodox teaching" is merely someone else's theologoumen.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,941


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #88 on: November 16, 2012, 01:52:25 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
What evidence is there from Scripture, the Apostles, or the Church Fathers to support your opinions that the Church is universally opposed to artificial birth control?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,941


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #89 on: November 16, 2012, 02:06:40 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam
There is no evidence from Scripture, the Apostles or the Church Fathers that supports the use of the artificial category of "artificial birth control," an invention of Humanae Vitae.


Isn't this like arguing that since the Church fathers never spoke about nuclear warfare that we should therefore not logically assume that they would naturally oppose it?
That assumes that the Fathers never knew of artificial birth control, a charge I find rather preposterous, since means to prevent the conception of a child are much easier to use than creating a nuclear bomb and have likely been used for centuries before Jesus walked the earth.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 02:07:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,941


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #90 on: November 16, 2012, 02:10:03 PM »

This is precisely one of the examples I have with Orthodoxy, there seems to be no absolute authoritative ruling on the issue.

Just a whole lot of "opinions" or some priest's private interpretations of Church Doctrine.

There even seems to be a lot of that secular "stay out of our bedroom" drama we here from the pro-abort and homosexual camps.

A whole lot of confusion if you ask me.

What's confusing about "it is a pastoral issue." Seems pretty clear to me.

It's only a "pastoral issue" in the sense that our Priests and spiritual fathers are there to guide us in conformity to truth, not to provide a subjective and private imprimatur on unorthodox behaviors or ideas. The Orthodox view of sexuality is that it is a divine gift that is only blessed within the confines of marriage. And the gift of sexuality is to be understood in its holistic context. God designed sex for intimacy, pleasure, and procreation. Attempts to artificially restrict and reduce the sexual act to one of these aspects alone will inevitably result in the crippling of all aspects. The Orthodox pastoral counsel should simply be: "If you do not wish to have children or cannot afford children at this time, then struggle to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when pregnancy is likely to occur. And if you do conceive anyway, recognize that conception as a blessing from God. This may not be easy, but it is the Orthodox approach."

There is no evidence from Scripture, the apostles, or the Church fathers that supports the use of artificial birth control.


Selam

The need of pastoral concern is to ascertain and make sure that the couple are not avoiding children, as the Russian statements put it, "for egotistical reasons."


I agree in theory, but that leaves too much grey area.
Much of life is lived in "grey area."  If the path was marked in black and white, it wouldn't be so narrow and less traveled.

There are millionaires in the world who commit abortion because they claim that it would be egotistical and selfish to bring children into the world.

There are poor who claim the same thing, especially if someone else is paying for it.  Money, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it.

And since our spiritual fathers cannot judge our hearts, then they should simply affirm and instruct married couples on the purpose of sexuality and affirm the unequivocal Orthodox principles of Life affirmation.
If there was a magic book of answers like the Muslims have
http://books.google.com/books?id=54TYAAAAMAAJ&q=A+Clarification+of+questions&dq=A+Clarification+of+questions&cd=1
we wouldn't have any need for useless (as you describe them) spiritual fathers.

Now don't create a straw man here brother. Where have I said that there is no need for economy or for personal guidance from our spiritual fathers? My point is that spiritual advice regarding birth control should be commensurate with Church Teaching and apostolic Tradition. Why do we suddenly take a Protestant approach when it comes to the issue of artificial birth control, elevating individual opinions above the clear indications of apostolic truth?
Why do you take the equally Protestant approach of elevating your personal opinions to the level of apostolic truth?
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,030



WWW
« Reply #91 on: November 16, 2012, 02:41:35 PM »

I believe the principle that supports what the Fathers have to say about it is that sex, to be whole, must have the whole of the each of the two persons involved.

By whole it means heart, imagination, attention, presence, feelings, desire, past, present and future.

The several forms of sexual sins basically involving not engaging one or many of the parts of the whole of us. We deny our partner our past, we deny them our future, we deny them the fullness of our desire, sharing it with other people, we deny the fullness of our imagination and feelings by commiting adultery in mind and in practice.

Also, we tend to see the partner as just part and not a whole. Fetishes, "consensual unchastity" - which is the norm today, seeing the other as just "a very intimate friend" with whom you share a pleasure not fundamentally different from sharing a intimate conversation, just more fun. Because this is  wrong vision that debase human dignity, it is also sinful.

Plus, spiritually, we become one flesh with everybody with have sex with- at least that's how I understand the biblical teaching to be, and the ultimate reason why sex outside marriage is a sin - and that is a reason even stronger than the problem of dignity and why it is a sin of the flash. If we fornicators - and 99% of us modern people are, were or will be - could see ourselves spiritually, we would see a mass of flash from deformed bodies grotesquely united. Only repetance, baptism and confession can heal us into health individuality or to the proper union with a spouse.

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,245



« Reply #92 on: November 16, 2012, 04:41:59 PM »

What might be the problem here is that RCs may be missing the point on the whole "talk to your priest" thing.
What better way to educate, inform and inspire a couple to strive for the fullness of the Orthodox understanding of marriage, including our beliefs and teachings about having children. After all, which is more likely to bear fruit - to lay down laws that most will disregard or to attempt to help a couple understand?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #93 on: November 16, 2012, 04:56:41 PM »

That assumes that the Fathers never knew of artificial birth control, a charge I find rather preposterous, since means to prevent the conception of a child are much easier to use than creating a nuclear bomb and have likely been used for centuries before Jesus walked the earth.

Actually it's not preposterous. People discovered how fertilisation works no sooner than in the XVIIIth century (or thee XIXth). Before that view that sperm contains miniature human beings and women are just incubators were fairly common. People did not know what is the difference between abortion and contraception.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,138


« Reply #94 on: November 16, 2012, 09:28:20 PM »

"as we have discussed here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
"Natural Law" is an invention of your "Magisterium," and hence anything it doesn't explain not only is not "painfully obvious," but non-existent as well." -ialmisry



So now the Magisterium "invented" the laws of nature which govern the activities of the material universe? Huh

Whatever.

Oh wait they don't exist at all.

Uhh, right.

And no, I'm not reading 12 more pages of this nonsense from another thread, I've had quite my fill of your "logic" on this one already.

"He spoke plainly in "Unam Sanctam" as well, and in Dictatae Papae, and....in a lot of other documents which you all disown now. Who is twisting or changing to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" on "Unam Sanctam" etc
"


 What are you talking about? nobody's "disowned" anything, they're still in effect, nothing's changed.

But you do have to understand the history of why and when and what the context was of when the those popes wrote them.




Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,677


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #95 on: December 05, 2012, 01:01:54 PM »


"He spoke plainly in "Unam Sanctam" as well, and in Dictatae Papae, and....in a lot of other documents which you all disown now. Who is twisting or changing to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" on "Unam Sanctam" etc
"


 What are you talking about? nobody's "disowned" anything, they're still in effect, nothing's changed.

But you do have to understand the history of why and when and what the context was of when the those popes wrote them.


To contextualize its meaning away?
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #96 on: December 05, 2012, 01:40:39 PM »


"He spoke plainly in "Unam Sanctam" as well, and in Dictatae Papae, and....in a lot of other documents which you all disown now. Who is twisting or changing to suit their "feelings" or "conscience" on "Unam Sanctam" etc
"


 What are you talking about? nobody's "disowned" anything, they're still in effect, nothing's changed.

But you do have to understand the history of why and when and what the context was of when the those popes wrote them.


To contextualize its meaning away?

I don't think so.  Rather, to more fully understand what was meant.  Context, after all can be critical.


Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2012, 01:44:57 PM »

What might be the problem here is that RCs may be missing the point on the whole "talk to your priest" thing.
What better way to educate, inform and inspire a couple to strive for the fullness of the Orthodox understanding of marriage, including our beliefs and teachings about having children. After all, which is more likely to bear fruit - to lay down laws that most will disregard or to attempt to help a couple understand?

I actually think that sounds like a great idea, but here's my question (and believe it or not, I don't mean it to be polemic!  Shocked ) - does that actually happen in Orthodoxy? Do couples really talk to their priest before deciding to use contraception? I'm just curious about how Orthodox interact with their priests in general - is it really such a more intimate relationship than it is in the RC?
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,245



« Reply #98 on: December 05, 2012, 02:23:34 PM »

What might be the problem here is that RCs may be missing the point on the whole "talk to your priest" thing.
What better way to educate, inform and inspire a couple to strive for the fullness of the Orthodox understanding of marriage, including our beliefs and teachings about having children. After all, which is more likely to bear fruit - to lay down laws that most will disregard or to attempt to help a couple understand?

I actually think that sounds like a great idea, but here's my question (and believe it or not, I don't mean it to be polemic!  Shocked ) - does that actually happen in Orthodoxy? Do couples really talk to their priest before deciding to use contraception? I'm just curious about how Orthodox interact with their priests in general - is it really such a more intimate relationship than it is in the RC?

This is probably going to drive you a little crazy, but, like a lot of other things in Orthodoxy - it depends. Naturally it depends on the priest and the parishioners - some people are more approachable than others. But yes, anecdotally and generally speaking, from my observation, Orthodox have a closer relationship with their priests.  For one thing, the parishes are smaller!
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #99 on: December 05, 2012, 02:32:44 PM »

What might be the problem here is that RCs may be missing the point on the whole "talk to your priest" thing.
What better way to educate, inform and inspire a couple to strive for the fullness of the Orthodox understanding of marriage, including our beliefs and teachings about having children. After all, which is more likely to bear fruit - to lay down laws that most will disregard or to attempt to help a couple understand?

I actually think that sounds like a great idea, but here's my question (and believe it or not, I don't mean it to be polemic!  Shocked ) - does that actually happen in Orthodoxy? Do couples really talk to their priest before deciding to use contraception? I'm just curious about how Orthodox interact with their priests in general - is it really such a more intimate relationship than it is in the RC?

Depends on the priest, how good a pastor he is.  I've had an Orthodox priest spend more time with me than any Catholic priest, and I have not converted yet at this point.  It is telling.  And I try.  I'm saddened by this.  It would have made a huge difference for me is there was a priest who would sit down with me, teach me, give me direction, etc.  Given that the priest who has given me the time and direction is an Orthodox priest, it pretty much makes that decision for me.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #100 on: December 05, 2012, 02:38:39 PM »

What might be the problem here is that RCs may be missing the point on the whole "talk to your priest" thing.
What better way to educate, inform and inspire a couple to strive for the fullness of the Orthodox understanding of marriage, including our beliefs and teachings about having children. After all, which is more likely to bear fruit - to lay down laws that most will disregard or to attempt to help a couple understand?

I actually think that sounds like a great idea, but here's my question (and believe it or not, I don't mean it to be polemic!  Shocked ) - does that actually happen in Orthodoxy? Do couples really talk to their priest before deciding to use contraception? I'm just curious about how Orthodox interact with their priests in general - is it really such a more intimate relationship than it is in the RC?

Depends on the priest, how good a pastor he is.  I've had an Orthodox priest spend more time with me than any Catholic priest, and I have not converted yet at this point.  It is telling.  And I try.  I'm saddened by this.  It would have made a huge difference for me is there was a priest who would sit down with me, teach me, give me direction, etc.  Given that the priest who has given me the time and direction is an Orthodox priest, it pretty much makes that decision for me.

I'd just add, speaking from experience--depends on the priest, how good a pastor he thinks he is.  They all have their own quirks, strong points, and uh.....weak points.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #101 on: December 06, 2012, 12:43:13 PM »

"as we have discussed here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
"Natural Law" is an invention of your "Magisterium," and hence anything it doesn't explain not only is not "painfully obvious," but non-existent as well." -ialmisry



So now the Magisterium "invented" the laws of nature which govern the activities of the material universe? Huh
So Sir Isaac Newton is equal-to-the-apostles.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
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 0.403 seconds with 129 queries.