Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Ferde_Rombola]

[continued from last post] the Orthodox understand the keys are given to the Church and not to Peter alone.

Book, chapter and verse please where the keys are given to anyone but Peter.

Binding and loosing is given to Peter first, then to the others. The keys are in the hands of Peter.

 

[Madaglan]

Book, chapter and verse please where the keys are given to anyone but Peter.

Binding and loosing is given to Peter first, then to the others. The keys are in the hands of Peter.

It’s from interpreting the passage in light of other Scripture and the Church’s Tradition.

You believe that Peter received the keys and that he passed down the keys to his single successor, the Pope of Rome. This latter part is nowhere found in Scripture, yet you believe it because of how you and other Catholics interpret Matthew 16. No dig. I’m simply pointing to how it is interpreted along with Tradition, as understood by Roman Catholicism.

If you see Peter as only an individual, then of course you will say that Peter alone received the keys. If you see Peter as representative of the Apostolic Body and of the Church, then it is not far-fetched to see the giving of the keys to Peter as symbolically giving the keys to the Apostles and to the Church.

Might this seem strange to you, Catholics do interpret other passages of Scripture in a symbolic way. For example, Jn 19:26-27:

“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’. Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!’”

While it is true Jesus entrusts Mary and John to each other, the interpretation does not end here. Mary is understood personally but also as a perfect symbol of Church, to whom motherhood is also intended and given. Likewise John, who is understood as one disciple but also as a symbol for every disciple, and thence all disciples have Mary and the Church as their mother.

 

[skeyes]

So, after reading all the responses to the OP, it can be said that the Orthodox do not seek reunification if the Catholic Church is to be the successor. Is that correct?
In Christ,
Stan

 

[malphono]

If you see Peter as only an individual, then of course you will say that Peter alone received the keys. If you see Peter as representative of the Apostolic Body and of the Church, then it is not far-fetched to see the giving of the keys to Peter as symbolically giving the keys to the Apostles and to the Church.

I don’t know whether it was intentional or not, but the above can be read as a good example of the “High Petrine” view.

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t know whether it was intentional or not, but the above can be read as a good example of the “High Petrine” view.

Peter is the mouthpiece of the Apostles. He speaks for and with the Apostles.

It’s a different perception…

Catholics see Matthew 16 primarily as the Institution of the Papacy. Christ singles out Peter amongst the Apostles, gives him the keys, and the other Apostles are understood as witnesses but not partakers of this enthronement. The impression I received as a Roman Catholic was that only Peter knew what to say, the other Apostles being in ignorance of the answer. It mattered less what Peter actually said, or how he was able to say it, than the fact that it was he of the Apostles who said it. The Church is built on the person of Peter, not so much faith in the Son of the living God (perceived as a Protestant interpretation by many Catholics). Per Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox elevate Peter quite highly but without making any Petrine authority superior to that received by the Apostles, or subordinating the authority given the Apostles.

 

[malphono]

Peter is the mouthpiece of the Apostles. He speaks for and with the Apostles.

It’s a different perception…

Which still sounds like the “High Petrine” view.

Perhaps this is overly simplified, but in the “High Petrine” view, we can say that Peter is the “keystone” of the Church.

Let’s take the example of a vaulted building, which requires a keystone and a superstructure. The keystone without the superstructure is meaningless, but the keystone is integral to the superstructure: it keeps the superstructure from collapsing in on itself. In other words, the keystone is not more important than the other stones in the superstructure, but rather the superstructure depends on it and it, in turn, depends on the superstructure. Neither the keystone itself nor the rest of the superstructure is of much use without the other, but they keystone plays a particular role. Not much of surprise, then, when I (Oriental that I am ) say this is where my position lies.

Catholics see Matthew 16 primarily as the Institution of the Papacy. Christ singles out Peter amongst the Apostles, gives him the keys, and the other Apostles are understood as witnesses but not partakers of this enthronement. The impression I received as a Roman Catholic was that only Peter knew what to say, the other Apostles being in ignorance of the answer. It mattered less what Peter actually said, or how he was able to say it, than the fact that it was he of the Apostles who said it. The Church is built on the person of Peter, not so much faith in the Son of the living God (perceived as a Protestant interpretation by many Catholics).

Yes, and that sounds more like the “Absolutist Petrine” view. In that view, using the same vaulted analogy, Peter is both keystone and superstructure. The other Apostles are more-or-less buttresses, in that they are less integral to the integrity of the structure.

The third option is the “Low Petrine” view, where there really is no keystone. The vaulted analogy doesn’t work here since the superstructure is flat-roofed: the walls are necessary to support the roof, and the roof is necessary to keep out the elements.

To my eye, the vaulted building is superior to the flat-roofed one, if for no other reason than it allows much more light.

FWIW, another :twocents"

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

It’s from interpreting the passage in light of other Scripture and the Church’s Tradition.

Let the record show I asked you to show me from Scripture where the Keys to the Kingdom were given to anyone but Peter and you did not do it.

You believe that Peter received the keys and that he passed down the keys to his single successor, the Pope of Rome. This latter part is nowhere found in Scripture, yet you believe it because of how you and other Catholics interpret Matthew 16.

We believe, based on the evidence in Scripture, that the Lord gave the Keys to Peter and intended him to be the head of His Church. We believe in Apostolic Succession. We believe the Lord meant it when He said, “When he comes, therefore, being the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” Jn. 16:13. We believe what the Church has believed and taught from the beginning. We believe, based on all of that, it was the Lord who “passed down the keys to [Peter’s] single successor.”

Ask us and we’ll be happy to tell you what we believe. Please don’t make things up like a protestant does.

No dig. I’m simply pointing to how it is interpreted along with Tradition, as understood by Roman Catholicism.

You mean you think that’s what you were doing.

If you see Peter as only an individual, then of course you will say that Peter alone received the keys. If you see Peter as representative of the Apostolic Body and of the Church, then it is not far-fetched to see the giving of the keys to Peter as symbolically giving the keys to the Apostles and to the Church.

I think we owe it to ourselves to find something more substantial than the merely ‘not far-fetched’ to believe.

Peter is both of what you say above. He was the individual the Lord was speaking to in Mt. 16:19 and the CHIEF rep of the Lord’s Church. Again, the Lord gave the Keys to Peter and to Peter only. Throughout the Gospels it is Peter who is singled out for leadership and responsibility. It’s all right there in plain words. If you don’t believe the English translation, read the Greek or the Vulgate. They say the same thing.

It’s very disheartening to me to see you Orthodox – who are Catholics – straining like protestants to make the words say what they clearly don’t say.

Might this seem strange to you, Catholics do interpret other passages of Scripture in a symbolic way. For example, Jn 19:26-27:

I don’t know what that does for your argument. If you mean, since it’s this way in that book it must be the same way in this book, you’re being protestant again.

What you say about Mary and John is correct.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

So, after reading all the responses to the OP, it can be said that the Orthodox do not seek reunification if the Catholic Church is to be the successor. Is that correct?
In Christ,
Stan

Yes and no. Orthodox laity do not seek unity without Complete Catholic Capitulation. Unconditional surrender.

Orthodox and Catholic clergy are trying to find a way to make it work. We must pray for their success.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Neither, Nor. My point, still tied up to your earlier comment, trace back this reply you will find out that it is you who lost track of himself. Post #220 You started speaking about the Council of Jerusalem and you tied it with the authority of the Bishop of Rome, I mean after all when a RC mention the word authority, what could that be or lead to? other then the Pope, if you say anything other then the Pope, then I will refer you back to CCC #882,#883 and #884.

I still say you’ve lost the thread of the conversation. Here’s how it went, starting with #220:

   Originally Posted by Ferde Rombola (re: the Orthodox)

Of course. That’s because there is no authority higher than his bishop and no Church other than his own that he’s interested in.

   Ignatios responded:

That is the way the Apostles had set up the Churches to be and since we were established by the Apostles

   Ferde:

In the early Church, the Council of Jerusalem sent a letter to the distant churches with instructions which were to be believed by all, indicating from the first days, a central authority to bind the Church to true doctrines.

  __________________________

As we see, I didn’t tie it to the pope. Your implication was that the Apostles set up the Churches as independent bodies who saw no higher authority than the local bishop. I showed you the central authority of the Council of Jerusalem to counter your claim. Successfully.

…E.C. is achieved through “ALL” the Bishops meeting together,…what makes it Ecumenical and Authoritative. [T]he Bishop, Bishopric, are the set up of the Apostles to oversee and that the Bishops in the Orthodox Church have no one to overshadow them, where in your Church they are the shadow of the Pope, but you contented this by going to the Jerusalem Council, the Councils again are occasional and the work of ALL THE BISHOPS to all the Bishops, in the case of the RCC it is the ONE BISHOP over all the Bishops.

You are wrong. You don’t know how the Catholic Church operates. Pope Paul VI was Pope at the end of Vatican II. There was much in the documents of that Council he didn’t like, but he signed off on them anyway because the assembled bishops had voted to accept them. Your ideas about all the bishops in council reflects Catholic councils as well.

“IF” the Pope wills it i.e., and IF the pope wills not, then it is not, it is gone. If you deny it I refer you to the CCC#883 and CCC#884.

Please read these paragraphs again. For content this time.

…that is why you had a schism in your Church when infallibility was promulgated by your Pope, and others like the Old Catholic, the Patriarch of the Melkite rejected it not to mention also Bishop Strossmayer’s Speech:
** ““Reading then the sacred books with that attention with which the Lord has made me capable, I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse, in which Jesus Christ gives to St. Peter the mastery over the apostles, his fellow-workers.”**
Spoken like a 21st Century, garden-variety Orthodox. Let’s just say he’s not a very attentive reader and let it go at that.

The infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium was ‘promulgated’ by Our Lord when He said, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” You guys read all these words and they go in one eyeball and out the other. They never get to the brain. The Church defines doctrine only when it’s challenged. Otherwise it’s assumed. You should know that, too.
Ignatios;6280074:

Mt. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be** loosed in heaven."
I still do not see from the above any thing that would suggest that those Keys to be given to the Pope ONLY. If you see it, please point it out for me.**

You just pointed it out to yourself. You either understand it or you don’t. I can’t help you there.

I am only interested in the truth, and if what you are saying is the truth, then how come it is not in the Tradition, Oral or Written, nor in the Canons of the Church?

It’s written in Scripture and in the history of the Church.

Ferde Rombola, Sorry, If I have some times I will respond to you more other wise it is JOSIE’s time now, you had enough I think.

LOL! My friend, the day will never come when you will out-debate me. . Take your time. You have a lot of work to do and won’t have it any easier with Josie.

God bless you, too.

 

[josie_L]

Josie L. Maybe I could have helped you if I knew you wanted to copy and paste so many things, because I have them all mean while why don’t you do some study on the Canons because at the end it is the Canon what makes the last call concerning the jurisdiction of your Pope.

Well, if you have them all why don’t you tell me how you interpret them, i.e., the ball’s in your court Ignatios? As for myself, I take to heart what the fathers of the Church said, literally, i.e., it was not a primacy of honour that was given to Peter (no such thing was expressed by the patristic quotes I posted) but a primacy of prerogatives (which allowed for the pope to intervene in matters of faith and discipline everywhere throughout the Church that is, to ratify or revoke conciliar decisions). To further my arguments I will quote some fathers to put into perspective what I wish to convey. First let me begin with this, the pope is the supreme guardian of Christian tradition in that he had the final say, a last court of appeal if you will (likened to a secular supreme Court). You see this most especially through the appeals of orthodox and unorthodox alike to the bishop of Rome, here are but a few of these examples:

This heretical doctrine spread throughout the Eastern Church, and forced St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, to call a local synod to condemn it. However, Eutyches refused to submit to the synod, appealing his case to Pope Leo I. This is what he wrote:

I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith. – Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep 21.

Take note of the fact that Eutyches refused to submit to the synod and as a result sought out Pope Leo I to appeal his case. Why did he appeal his case to the bishop of Rome when a conciliar decision had already been rendered (are not all bishops supposed to be equal in authority)? I’ll tell you why because no conciliar decisions could be ratified without the consent of the Pope so Eutyches knowing this made proper haste to use the prerogatives that only the Bishop of Rome was entitled to. But Pope Leo I being the supreme guardian of Christian tradition refused to side with Eutyches and it was here wherein after being appealed to by Patriach Flavian that he produced his famous tome. Unfortunately it never got to be read because at the council of Ephesus (the robber council) the Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria (and other such inclined bishops) prevented the pope’s legates from reading it, in the ensuing events poor Flavian was beaten and died three days later. Let me rehash his appeal to the Pope:

When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. – Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449

Notice the word “obedient”, again why be obedient to a bishop who does not have an authority higher than yours, i.e., this was the patriarch of Constantinople no less issuing an appeal to the bishop of Rome. And then, he uses the words “authoritative instruction”, which Pope St. Leo I did fulfill when he wrote his tome which was eventually read in the council of Chalcedon, and expressed with these words:

“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Now apart from Flavian they were other bishops who were dispossessed:

At this same “Robber Council” of Ephesus, several other Eastern bishops were deposed from their sees for refusing to embrace Monophysitism. Among them, were Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum, both of whom appeal to Pope Leo, saying…

We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. – Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113

The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. – Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo

These are words that indeed express the primacy for which the Catholic Church believes, i.e., the bishop of Rome is the supreme guardian of Christian tradition (and all within the Church sought his help including patriarchs).

to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

I did not take it to mean “lords it over.”

The power of the keys is closely associated with the power of binding and loosing, which is given to all the Apostles.

The Roman Catholic viewpoint, as I have seen it, is that supreme authority is given to Peter alone, who then grants authority to the other Apostles. However,

The view point of the Catholic Church is that no one can have the power of loosing and binding if they are not in communion with Rome, i.e., because Peter was entrusted with the keys the power of the keys emanates/extends from him to the rest of the Church (Church fathers such as Tertullian and Optatus Milevus have stated this).

 

[josie_L]

Josie L. Maybe I could have helped you if I knew you wanted to copy and paste so many things, because I have them all , Now would you like to discuss them each one separately or you like to lump them all together,??? I will be waiting for your reply, Now you are the first on my list, all the others are really getting dull, mean while why don’t you do some study on the Canons because at the end it is the Canon what makes the last call concerning the jurisdiction of your Pope.

GOD bless you all †††

Here are other examples of appeals (or that bespeak of appeals by orthodox and unorthodox alike) to the bishops of Rome:

These statement was made by St. Cyprian of Carthage

"With false bishops appointed for themselves, they (Novatian heretics) dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source*; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access." (Cyp. ad. Cornelius).

Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 370 -444)

“He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already, as having become His own. But by a title suitable to the thing, he changed his name into Peter, from the word petra (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found his Church.”

“They (the apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter.”

**“We have not openly and publicly separated from communion with Nestorians before making known the whole matter to your holiness. Be pleased then to prescribe what you think right to be done. Whether it behooves us to persevere in communion with him, or to declare openly that communion is impossible with one who fosters and teaches doctrines so erroneous.” **

Pope Leo I - written in July A.D. 445

". . . . The apostolic see (Rome)- out of reverence for it, I mean, has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your province. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom."

Let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. **All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . ****Through them [bishops with greater responsibility] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should be at odds with this head." **

Basil the Great (c. A.D. 330-379)

“When we hear the name of Peter, that name does not cause our minds to dwell on his substance, but we figure to our minds the properties that are connected with him. For we at once, on hearing that name, think of the son of him that came from Bethsaida, Andrew’s brother; him that was called from amongst fishermen unto the ministry of the Apostleship; who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

“One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build His Church.”

"It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him [the bishop of Rome] to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey, - suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here."

to be continued. . . .

 

[sidbrown]

The view point of the Catholic Church is that no one can have the power of loosing and binding if they are not in communion with Rome, i.e., because Peter was entrusted with the keys the power of the keys emanates/extends from him to the rest of the Church (Church fathers such as Tertullian and Optatus Milevus have stated this).

I don’t think so.
The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, and yet their Sacrament of Penance is recognised as valid.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think so.
The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, and yet their Sacrament of Penance is recognised as valid.

I believe that loosing and binding as it was defined in the days of Jesus had something to do with rabbinical teaching, i.e., declaring dogmatic truths, it was to this I was refering to (not loosing and binding of sins). I believe I read this in Stephen K. Ray’s “Upon this Rock”. I will give you the exact reference to it. God bless.

Edit: I should have clarified this in my earlier post.

 

[sidbrown]

I believe that loosing and binding as it was defined in the days of Jesus had something to do with rabbinical teaching, i.e., declaring dogmatic truths, it was to this I was refering to (not loosing and binding of sins). I believe I read this in Stephen K. Ray’s “Upon this Rock”. I will give you the exact reference to it. God bless.

Edit: I should have clarified this in my earlier post.

I was thinking of loosing people from their sins or the power of absolution.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

IGNATIOS:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferde Rombola
You’re either not reading me carefully or you’re misunderstanding.

Neither, Nor. My point, still tied up to your earlier comment, trace back this reply you will find out that it is you who lost track of himself. Post #220 You started speaking about the Council of Jerusalem and you tied it with the authority of the Bishop of Rome, I mean after all when a RC mention the word authority, what could that be or lead to? other then the Pope, if you say anything other then the Pope, then I will refer you back to CCC #882,#883 and #884.

Quote:
I did not mention the Council as evidence of the authority of the pope. It’s evidence of a central authoritative body whose interpretation of doctrine was required to be believed by the entire Church. See Acts 16:4.

well then it is you who misunderstood what I was talking about because I simply was not talking about the “Interpretation of an authoritative body” this is what you call an Ecumenical Council, and there is a special purpose for the E.C. which is to solve a NEW problem or define what the Teaching is, and the E.C. is achieved through “ALL” the Bishops meeting together, in another words, it is the words of “ALL” the Bishop(s) combined together what makes it Ecumenical and Authoritative. But the subject is not here, it is clear what I was talking about (Post#215) and that is the Bishop, Bishopric, are the set up of the Apostles to oversee (Episkopos=overseer) and that the Bishops in the Orthodox Church have no one to overshadow them, where in your Church they are the shadow of the Pope, but you contented this by going to the Jerusalem Council, the Councils again are occasional and the work of ALL THE BISHOPS to all the Bishops, in the case of the RCC it is the ONE BISHOP over all the Bishops.

Ignatios, you are unaware of your own churches theology. The ecumenical council is not numerical! Look at the council of constantinople. 180 bishops. look at Ephesus: 250 bishops. Look at Chalcedon. 630 Bishops. In Orthodox theology the ecumenical council is not so much authoritative as much as it supposedly reveals the mind of the church. and the Orthodox claim a council is known to be ecumenical when the decrees of the council are embraced by the conscience of the church; that is the sense of the faithful approves it.

Also, keep in mind, at the first council of constnatinople, the pope did not want it called or to have anything to do with it. But its faith shone forth and penetrated the hearts of the faithful and eventually the universal acclaim of the truths made known triumphed over the pope’s will. The pope is not infallible in what he WANTS the faith to be, he cannot ARBITRARILY declare doctrine. He CANNOT issue proclamations divorced from his brother bishops. He is sworn to abide by tradition. His Personal infallibility is an extension of the churches own infallibility and indefectability. The pope is recognized as the Supreme head of the Church. THerefore, he is its voice. THerefore, he cannot issue a dogmatic decree that would contradict the faith of the church or the church would cease to exist, because it would be shaken to its temporal foundations. The day a pope makes a dogmatic decree on an issue of faith or MORALS that contradicts the constant witness of the Catholic church, then I will become Orthodox.

Oh, wait, THEY did that. In accepting contraception they have compromised on an issue of faith and departed from the pre 1930’s tradition of their fathers.

 

[Aramis]

I was thinking of loosing people from their sins or the power of absolution.

The biblical references grants the apostles the power to hold bound and to forgive on earth and in heaven. They already had been permitted to forgive sins.

 

[Mickey]

Oh, wait, THEY did that. In accepting contraception they have compromised on an issue of faith and departed from the pre 1930’s tradition of their fathers.

Instead of posting this common attack against the Holy Orthodox Church here, perhaps you could start the one-millionth thread about contraception. We can review some issues about some Orthodox Churches allowing condom use for extra-ordinary circumstances as per a spiritual father. And then we could move on to a nice discussion about NFP and how it is more effective in preventing conception than condoms. After that we can discuss percentages of RC’s who practice **all **types of birth control.

So go ahead…start the thread. It’ll be fun!

 

[Mickey]

The day a pope makes a dogmatic decree on an issue of faith or MORALS that contradicts the constant witness of the Catholic church, then I will become Orthodox.

Pope Honorius has already done that…he was declared a heretic. This shows us that the Pope of Rome, (even when the Churches were one), was not infallible in matters of faith and morals when speaking “ex-cathedra”.

Welcome to the Holy Orthodox Church!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Instead of posting this common attack against the Holy Orthodox Church here, perhaps you could start the one-millionth thread about contraception. We can review some issues about some Orthodox Churches allowing condom use for extra-ordinary circumstances as per a spiritual father. And then we could move on to a nice discussion about NFP and how it is more effective in preventing conception than condoms. After that we can discuss percentages of RC’s who practice **all **types of birth control.

That’s called the ‘so’s-your-old-man’ argument. Never very effective.

NFP is a natural process given by God. If He didn’t want the process to be available to His children, He wouldn’t have created us that way. The subject is artificial contraception and the acceptance of something once unacceptable.

Catholics who use artificial contraception are violating Church doctrine and committing sin. As are Catholics who fornicate, rob, steal, murder and lie. Among other things. What’s your point?