Are the Orthodox Catholic?

[Cavaradossi]

Please: it is not a matter of “… no matter what I say…”. I have no interest in tearing down the OC in any way whatsoever, nor in tearing down Orthodox posters. I think that pointing to readings that should help people correct erroneous views should be considered building up, not tearing down.

Perhaps. The issue is that history is quite unclear. If it were clear, there would be one unmistakable Church, with one unmistakable standard of morality. Unfortunately, the Creed doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit “spoke clearly through the prophets.” So many problems could have been avoided had the scriptures just been 100% clear, but I suppose if that were the case, there would be no mystery in Christianity.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

NFP, with every union, there are no barriers to conception other than what God has created… NOT so with ABC.

I fail to see how the “creator” of the barrier has any bearing on this discussion. Both methods exploit means in which the ability to conceive is stifled. If you want to play scholastic, mental gymnastics to convince yourself they are somehow different, then fine, but you are fooling yourself to think they serve a different purpose. I will reiterate the words of St. Augustine :

“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children.”

 

[mardukm]

Annulments did not exist until a few hundred years ago.

That’s a polemic myth, brother. The Church has been recognizing the invalidity of marriages for various reasons (e.g., consanguinity, prior marriage, holy orders, etc.) from the earliest days.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

Don’t worry, annulments aren’t our thing.

That’s a loaded statement,.especially with the .

Why do you give a thumbsup to this? Are you proud of the alternative - divorces and remarriages?

And are you seriously unaware that the Orthodox Churches (both Eastern and Oriental) do in fact grant annulments to marriage?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I fail to see how the “creator” of the barrier has any bearing on this discussion.

It has great bearing, if you accept God’s Natural Law. I’ve noticed that EO usually deride that patristic teaching.

Both methods exploit means in which the ability to conceive is stifled.

NFP does not stifle conception. NFP stifles conception only as much as my act of cooking a meal (i.e., not having sex) stifles conception. Barrier methods do something that NFP does not - it intentionally prevents the sperm produced by a man from meeting the ovum. That’s a very big difference.

If you want to play scholastic, mental gymnastics to convince yourself they are somehow different, then fine, but you are fooling yourself to think they serve a different purpose.

Same purpose, but the ends to do not justify the means. Wouldn’t you agree?

I will reiterate the words of St. Augustine :

“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children.”

St. Augustine was debating against a belief that having children was inherently evil (because, it supposedly entangled the pure soul in the evil flesh). So you are taking this passage out of context.

This passage does not preach against the use of NFP, but against a marriage that refuses to have children AT ALL. There is another passage from St. Augustine where he states that for two people who are otherwise open to having children, having sex while not having the intention of having children is at best a venial sin. This latter passage is more applicable to the case of NFP (but not the one you gave, which is in an altogether different context). Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Churches would agree with St. Augustine on this point. But making love without the intention of having children is a very different matter than trying to prevent the sperm from reaching the ovum during an act of love.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think it is important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church permits the use of contraception as well (NFP).

Mark you? I’m surprized.

First of all Romes behavior justifys yours? Thats what your saying? Good we been telling all you this right along.

Second of all you might want to read up on NFP it is not a Contraceptive. Natural Family Planning is GOOD LOGIC. Here…

"Natural family planning (NFP) is a term referring to the family planning methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church. In accordance with the Church’s requirements for sexual behavior in keeping with its philosophy of the dignity of the human person, NFP excludes the use of other methods of birth control.

Periodic abstinence and the natural infertility caused by breastfeeding are the only methods deemed moral by the Church for avoiding pregnancy. When used to avoid pregnancy, NFP limits sexual intercourse to naturally infertile periods: portions of the menstrual cycle, during pregnancy, or after menopause. Various methods may be used to identify whether a woman is likely to be fertile; this information may be used in attempts to either avoid or achieve pregnancy." Wikipedia

Third of all what does any of this have to do with what YOU are doing???

Four of all church history has no bearing since these methods didn’t exist just as nuclear weapons didn’t exist. So the issue wouldn’t have existed. Of course this is YOUR brothers own argument inverted from above:shrug:

Justify, Rationalize away…Contraceptives have no place in Gods Kingdom. And the Creator most definatly has a bearing on this concept Mark. One only needs to honestly ask themself ONE QUESTION…“Is this what God would do”

Peace

 

[mardukm]

"Natural family planning (NFP) is a term referring to the family planning methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church. In accordance with the Church’s requirements for sexual behavior in keeping with its philosophy of the dignity of the human person, NFP excludes the use of other methods of birth control.

Periodic abstinence and the natural infertility caused by breastfeeding are the only methods deemed moral by the Church for avoiding pregnancy. When used to avoid pregnancy, NFP limits sexual intercourse to naturally infertile periods: portions of the menstrual cycle, during pregnancy, or after menopause. Various methods may be used to identify whether a woman is likely to be fertile; this information may be used in attempts to either avoid or achieve pregnancy." Wikipedia

NFP is also approved for use by the Coptic Orthodox Church, and several jurisdictions in the EOC. The Coptic Orthodox Church affirms the relevance of God’s Natural Law as the justification for the use of NFP.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

NFP is also approved for use by the Coptic Orthodox Church, and several jurisdictions in the EOC. The Coptic Orthodox Church affirms the relevance of God’s Natural Law as the justification for the use of NFP.

Blessings,
Marduk

I could see why mardukm, it really makes the most sense. Granted one would have to be in tune with their wife, which I would hope everyone would want to be anyway. However once this is accomplished we are talking what, one week out of the month? Rational thinking adults shouldn’t find this difficult to reconcile.

Peace

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

NFP does not stifle conception. NFP stifles conception only as much as my act of cooking a meal (i.e., not having sex) stifles conception. Barrier methods do something that NFP does not - it intentionally prevents the sperm produced by a man from meeting the ovum. That’s a very big difference.

Abstinence certainly plays a role, but your analogy fails at accurately describing the situation because it discounts one very important detail. This is of course, that sex occurs during the infertile periods for the sole purpose of avoiding pregnancy.

St. Augustine was debating against a belief that having children was inherently evil (because, it supposedly entangled the pure soul in the evil flesh). So you are taking this passage out of context.

This passage does not preach against the use of NFP, but against a marriage that refuses to have children AT ALL. There is another passage from St. Augustine where he states that for two people who are otherwise open to having children, having sex while not having the intention of having children is at best a venial sin. This latter passage is more applicable to the case of NFP (but not the one you gave, which is in an altogether different context). Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Churches would agree with St. Augustine on this point.

The passage is quite applicable, in fact, the meaning I wished to convey is not lost in context. Regardless of the intended audience, St. Augustine criticizes the method (i.e. the rhythm method).

But making love without the intention of having children is a very different matter than trying to prevent the sperm from reaching the ovum during an act of love.

Not at all. Regardless of whether the means used are natural or artificial, the intent is sex without procreation (i.e. for the pleasure of the flesh).

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Mark you? I’m surprized.

First of all Romes behavior justifys yours? Thats what your saying? Good we been telling all you this right along.

We are inferring something that I did not wish to imply. I was refuting the commonly held misconception that Rome prohibits contraception.

Third of all what does any of this have to do with what YOU are doing???

It is relevant insomuch as Latins will often criticize the Orthodox on grounds in which even they themselves do not adhere.

Justify, Rationalize away…Contraceptives have no place in Gods Kingdom. And the Creator most definatly has a bearing on this concept Mark. One only needs to honestly ask themself ONE QUESTION…“Is this what God would do”

Peace

Sex has no place in God’s Kingdom (neither does carnal marriage for that matter). The Church, through her ability to “bind and loose” has granted these things to men out of the “hardness of their hearts”. If people were to live “ideally” they would abandon these practices entirely and pursue celibacy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We are inferring something that I did not wish to imply. I was refuting the commonly held misconception that Rome prohibits contraception…

Apparently you haven’t been reading and have become a clanging cymbal. Natural Family Planning is NOT Contraception. What part of this are you not grasping?

It is relevant insomuch as Latins will often criticize the Orthodox on grounds in which even they themselves do not adhere…

You still going with the ASSUMPTION that NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING is contraception which it isn’t.

Sex has no place in God’s Kingdom (neither does carnal marriage for that matter)…

And you say this to say what?

The Church, through her ability to “bind and loose” has granted these things to men out of the “hardness of their hearts”. If people were to live “ideally” they would abandon these practices entirely and pursue celibacy.

Gods not maintaining this, stop fooling yourself. Thats nonsense and more rationalizing and justifying INCORRECT behavior, You are referring to mans EGO, which has nothing to do with God. Nice try though. If man were to live ideally they would stop entertaining their own EGO and listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit in their own mind. The hardness is in the head, and we uphold it, simply be not listening to God and entertaining ego and allowing illusion to live. And that is whats happening here.

Peace

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

You still going with the ASSUMPTION that NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING is contraception which it isn’t.

Call it what you will.

If it looks like a duck, and swims like a duck…

And you say this to say what?

I wished to bring attention to the fact that the Church often permits that which is not ideal. In Orthodoxy, a spiritual father may allow for the use of contraception to those unable to bear the burden of a marriage without it. This is a concession to human weakness. Marriage is likewise a concession granted to those unable to bear the burden of celibacy.

Gods not maintaining this, stop fooling yourself. Thats nonsense and more rationalizing and justifying INCORRECT behavior, You are referring to mans EGO, which has nothing to do with God. Nice try though. If man were to live ideally they would stop entertaining their own EGO and listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit in their own mind. The hardness is in the head, and we uphold it, simply be not listening to God and entertaining ego and allowing illusion to live. And that is whats happening here.

Peace

Why did Moses permit divorce?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The OT has NOTHING to do with 2011. We can no longer ignore what knowledge we do have. Educated minds can’t reconcile the church vs truth. When they see a hole to be punched like this it confirms their thinking. Thus it must be eliminated. Geez,by your logic we would still sacrifice animals and take slaves.

Show me the Contraceptive device in NFP:shrug: There is NONE it doesn’t exist, it a falacy you are upholding in YOUR mind because you somehow have concluded it helps you failing case.

" wished to bring attention to the fact that the Church often permits that which is not ideal. In Orthodoxy, a spiritual father may allow for the use of contraception to those unable to bear the burden of a marriage without it."

And two wrongs still equal WRONG.

Maybe its best I just leave this be

Peace

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

The OT has NOTHING to do with 2011. We can no longer ignore what knowledge we do have. Educated minds can’t reconcile the church vs truth. When they see a hole to be punched like this it confirms their thinking. Thus it must be eliminated. Geez,by your logic we would still sacrifice animals and take slaves.

Actually, the OT has a lot to do with 2011 - many of its teachings and concepts are still quite applicable. The idea of granting concession (on the basis of human weakness) is still very much a part of the Faith. Read St. Paul’s writings on marriage and celibacy.

Show me the Contraceptive device in NFP:shrug: There is NONE it doesn’t exist, it a falacy you are upholding in YOUR mind because you somehow have concluded it helps you failing case.

I already have, but I shall reiterate if need be. Planning one’s sex life so as to purposely engage in sex throughout the “infertile” period is no different than using artificial contraception. Regardless of whether the means are natural or artificial, the goal is sex without pregnancy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Regardless of whether the means are natural or artificial, the goal is sex without pregnancy.”

“Regardless” is the Rationalization. The thinking is correct behavior vs incorrect behavior, and somehow you interpreted this as co-existing equals to achieve the same goal.

And which one is more logical Mark? What is Natural or what is built at the GoodYear Tire factory.

And btw St. Paul isn’t encouraging Negative Behavior, by agreeing with it thus encouraging it.

Peace

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

“Regardless of whether the means are natural or artificial, the goal is sex without pregnancy.”

“Regardless” is the Rationalization. The thinking is correct behavior vs incorrect behavior, and somehow you interpreted this as co-existing equals to achieve the same goal.

Ah, but to the contrary, it is only through flawed rationalization that one can see the two as different concepts. How could it be denied that they achieve the same goal? Let me ask you this :

What is the difference between ABC sex and NFP sex (during the “infertile” period)?

And which one is more logical Mark? What is Natural or what is built at the GoodYear Tire factory.

Logical? I am not quite sure I understand your meaning. If your goal is pregnancy prevention, then I suppose either would be a “logical” choice.

 

[GaryTaylor]

THE BEHAVIOR!!! Think both methods through carefully and observe the BEHAVIOR.

Flawed thinking to justify irrational behavior which you continue to promote though the illusion in your mind which all your sense’s continue to confirm. I could lead you to the water but YOU must drink it. apparently you are not ready.

By you own analogy we could both drive across the USA and end up in the same spot on the other coast, so it doesn’t matter how we get there.

However, if your wanton act of driving across includes running others over to accomplish this, there becomes a glaring difference in behavior. And this is what I am talking about with Logic, broke down as simple as I could think to do. You see A and Z, you do not see B through Y which you chose to ignore. The B through the Y resides the abomination, the incorrect behavior. And its an Elephant not a little pebble.

You also continue to use Rome to justify your own behavior. Your behavior must stand on its own regardless of what Rome is doing. And it simply does not. However I shall leave you at the water troth. its up to you to drink.

Peace

 

[steve_b]

I fail to see how the “creator” of the barrier has any bearing on this discussion. Both methods exploit means in which the ability to conceive is stifled.

God didn’t create a woman to be fertile 24/7/365. There’s no exploitation here with NFP. Neither wife nor husband can know when an egg is actually present. With NFP there is NOTHING to prevent pregnancy. THAT’s the point. ABC deliberately intends to exploit conception artificially. Nothing is natural about it.
M:

If you want to play scholastic, mental gymnastics to convince yourself they are somehow different, then fine, but you are fooling yourself to think they serve a different purpose. I will reiterate the words of St. Augustine :

“Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children.”

Before Augustine converted he was a manicheist. So he knows very well the mindset he is writing against. I gave that link to manicheism and the followers of Mani. Don’t confuse what Augustine writes against, with NFP. Look at the context Augustine writes.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

THE BEHAVIOR!!! Think both methods through carefully and observe the BEHAVIOR.

Flawed thinking to justify irrational behavior which you continue to promote though the illusion in your mind which all your sense’s continue to confirm. I could lead you to the water but YOU must drink it. apparently you are not ready

By you own analogy we could both drive across the USA and end up in the same spot on the other coast, so it doesn’t matter how we get there.

However, if your wanton act of driving across includes running others over to accomplish this, there becomes a glaring difference in behavior. And this is what I am talking about with Logic, broke down as simple as I could think to do. You see A and Z, you do not see B through Y which you chose to ignore. The B through the Y resides the abomination. And its an Elephant not a little pebble.

You have not answered my question. I asked how the two were different, and you reply that the difference lies in behavior. What behavior in specific? Both involve non-procreative intercourse. Both require approximately the same amount of time. Both involve the same people. What behavior defines the difference? Your selected variable (natural or artificial) has no impact on the behavior.

You also continue to use Rome to justify your own behavior. Your behavior must stand on its own regardless of what Rome is doing. And it simply does not. However I shall leave you at the water troth. its up to you to drink.

Peace

How have I used Rome to justify anything. I was merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies of claiming to be “hardliner” in contraception rejection, all while supporting NFP.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

God didn’t create a woman to be fertile 24/7/365. There’s no exploitation here with NFP. Neither wife nor husband can know when an egg is actually present. With NFP there is NOTHING to prevent pregnancy. THAT’s the point. ABC deliberately intends to exploit conception artificially. Nothing is natural about it.

The whole purpose of NFP is the prevention of pregnancy. With a calendar and careful planning, natural means are exploited so as to avoid conception.

Before Augustine converted he was a manicheist. So he knows very well the mindset he is writing against. I gave that link to manicheism and the followers of Mani. Don’t confuse what Augustine writes against, with NFP. Look at the context Augustine writes.

I have. What he writes to Manicheans is just as applicable to anyone else. The followers of Mani were doing the exact same thing the practitioners of NFP are doing.