How does an unlearned person know if Catholic Church or Orthodox is true?

[phil19034]

I believe that the difference is that in NFP, the couple purposefully engages in the pleasure of the marital acts during a time when they are nearly 100% certain their action will Not produce an heir…this is what is seen as the same as any other form of birth control - open to the pleasure while not open to a child.

I think perhaps, you’re focused on the less than 1% chance the NFP practicing couple could conceive (at which point they’ll accept the child), while Seraphim73 is focused on the over 99% chance it won’t.

I’m not sure why NFP is considered “open to life” when it’s used to keep the pleasure act, but only during time the couple is as certain that no life will be created. (although, I do believe it is successful in using to achieve pregnancy and that would certainly be open to life)

Are the Orthodox allowed to have sex when the wife if barren? Are the Orthodox allowed to have sex at times of the month when the woman can’t conceive?

Do the Orthodox believe that sex between husband and wife serves no purpose other than making babies? Do the Orthodox not believe that making love strengthens the relationship between husband and wife?

If what you say is true, then Orthodox couple with one child should be able to count the number of times they have had sex on their fingers.

Intent is very important when it comes to sin. The person using ABC is refusing to abstain from sex during the fertile time of the month and “spitting in God’s face.” They take comfort in the fact that they feel they have mastery over nature. This is very prideful. Hence inherently sinful for multiple reasons.

NFP is ABSTAINING. It is NOT inherently sinful. Can it be abused? Yes, which would be sinful.

But I would argue that MOST people who would abuse NFP are already using ABC anyway.

But even if someone was abusing NFP and sinning, their sin isn’t has grave as using ABC.

ABC is SELFISH. You prevent pregnancy without giving up sex. With NFP, you give up sex for several days, plus have to put in the work to track. The couple makes a sacrifice to SPACE CHILDREN. While ABC requires no sacrifice to COMPLETELY AVOID PREGANCY.

Catholics MUST be open to children. They cannot be intent on never having more children.

So NFP and ABC are different regarding their inherent nature AND often different in their intent.

Happy Thanksgiving and Gob Bless

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Are the Orthodox allowed to have sex when the wife if barren? Are the Orthodox allowed to have sex at times of the month when the woman can’t conceive?

Your first question…I really don’t know. I’m not barren. I suppose I’d ask my spiritual father if I were.

Your second question…that is how many Bishops in some jurisdictions interpret the Fathers. My Bishop in the GOC, allows all non-abortive forms of birth control (NFP, condoms, etc.)provided the intent is not to have a childless marriage.

Do the Orthodox believe that sex between husband and wife serves no purpose other than making babies?

That was the stance of the Fathers.

Think about it from another perspective, Gluttony. The purpose of eating is for the body to get necessary nutrition for the energy & strength to do God’s Will, the extra benefit or blessing God gives us when we eat for nutrition, energy & strength, is pleasure, the ability to taste and enjoy out food. If we eat, when we’re not hungry ie not for nutrition for energy & strength, but instead just for the pleasure it brings our taste buds - that is the sin of gluttony.

Likewise, the Fathers teach us that if our purpose for sex within marriage is for anything besides it’s purpose, children, that is the sin of lust. Therefore, purposefully having sex during a time when it is relatively certain to Not produce a child, the married couple have fallen into the sin of Lust. It is for this reason, you will often hear Orthodox Christians condemn ALL forms of birth control, including NFP, as a sin.

That being said, Orthodox Bishops have been handed down the authority to loose or bind. And some Bishops, like my own, have loosed this and now allow for sex between married couple for a second purpose, strengthening the marriage bond - which originally was only considered a benefit or blessing, like pleasure is a benefit of doing the act for the primary purpose of having children.

Do the Orthodox not believe that making love strengthens the relationship between husband and wife?

Yes, that has always been recognized as a benefit of the purpose of sexual relations, having children. Some Bishops now recognize it as, not just a benefit, but a second purpose and have consequently given permission for the use of non-abortive birth control methods to achieve this second propose, so long as the first propose isn’t ignored completely in the marriage.

If what you say is true, then Orthodox couple with one child should be able to count the number of times they have had sex on their fingers.

Usually takes more than one try to achieve conception. But you are correct for an Orthodox Christian couple who maintains the Fasts of the Church, obeys the Church’s rules on not having sex during menstruation, during pregnancy, etc. and is obedient to a Bishop who has not loosed the purpose of sex to include anything besides producing children, the number of sexual encounters is greatly reduced compared to society.

Intent is very important when it comes to sin. The person using ABC is refusing to abstain from sex during the fertile time of the month and “spitting in God’s face.” They take comfort in the fact that they feel they have mastery over nature. This is very prideful. Hence inherently sinful for multiple reasons.

NFP is ABSTAINING. It is NOT inherently sinful. Can it be abused? Yes, which would be sinful.

But I would argue that MOST people who would abuse NFP are already using ABC anyway.

But even if someone was abusing NFP and sinning, their sin isn’t has grave as using ABC.

ABC is SELFISH. You prevent pregnancy without giving up sex. With NFP, you give up sex for several days, plus have to put in the work to track. The couple makes a sacrifice to SPACE CHILDREN. While ABC requires no sacrifice to COMPLETELY AVOID PREGANCY.

Catholics MUST be open to children. They cannot be intent on never having more children.

So NFP and ABC are different regarding their inherent nature AND often different in their intent.

Happy Thanksgiving and Gob Bless

I can’t respond to the rest right now, being called to the table for or Thanksgiving Dinner. Happy Thanksgiving to you too!!!

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Intent is very important when it comes to sin.

Exactly and that’s why many of Orthodox Bishops have not allowed any form of birth control, including NFP…because the intent of each of those methods, including NFP, is to enjoy the pleasure of sexual relations during a time when it’s relatively certain conception of a child won’t happen (isn’t the rate of unintended conception less then 1% with NFP?). This intent, is seen by the Fathers, as the sin of Lust.

The person using ABC is refusing to abstain from sex during the fertile time of the month and “spitting in God’s face.” **They take comfort in the fact that they feel they have mastery over nature. ** This is very prideful. Hence inherently sinful for multiple reasons.

You don’t think couples who practice NFP successfully also feel that they have achieved mastery over nature, their fertility? I’m not sure I’d call it prideful.

NFP is ABSTAINING. It is NOT inherently sinful. Can it be abused? Yes, which would be sinful.

To an Orthodox Christian couple who lives their Faith, they already Abstain for over 50% of each year.

NFP is an intentional Indulgence in sexual relations when conception is less than 1% likely. In many jurisdictions of the Orthodox Faith, the intent behind this method is seen as the sin of Lust.

But I would argue that MOST people who would abuse NFP are already using ABC anyway.

But even if someone was abusing NFP and sinning, their sin isn’t has grave as using ABC.

I don’t know about this first comment. To your second comment, I’ll say that it’s important to make a distinction between abortive and non-abortive method of birth control. All abortive methods would be a double sin, Lust and Murder. While non-abortive forms would only entail the sin of Lust, unless the Bishop using his powers to Loose on earth, permits couples to indulge in sexual relations for another reason besides procreation.

ABC is SELFISH. You prevent pregnancy without giving up sex. With NFP, you give up sex for several days, plus have to put in the work to track. The couple makes a sacrifice to SPACE CHILDREN. While ABC requires no sacrifice to COMPLETELY AVOID PREGANCY.

Orthodox Christian couples give up sex for more then 50% of every year whether or not they have received a blessing to use a non-abortive form of birth control, whether NFP, condom, sponge, etc. The sacrifice is already built into an Orthodox Christian marriage whether they try to space their children or not.

Catholics MUST be open to children. They cannot be intent on never having more children.

Your first sentence applies to Orthodox as well. Your second sentence would have to be modified, if the Bishop grants the use of birth control, if they already have children, they are not obligated to have more children.

So NFP and ABC are different regarding their inherent nature AND often different in their intent.

I don’t agree. The nature of all non-abortive birth control, including NFP, are all the same, they were all designed with the purpose to avoid conception. And the intent of the users or practioners is identical, do the act to receive pleasure while nearly eliminating any chance of having the responsibility of having & raising a child.

Happy Thanksgiving and Gob Bless

Thank you, you too!!!

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

First, it is utterly misleading to assert in this conversation that 'the Church Fathers teach “the only purpose of Marriage is procreation,” ’ to answer questions on NFP and ABC. This would predicate culpability, not the essence, nature or result of an act. Indeed, its wholly backwards reasoning cripples the analysis needed as to whether the differences of NFP and ABC are relevant. Note to: all Christian authorities teach that the purpose of everything [including marriage] is the glory of God. When one says “purpose” in these contexts you narrowly construe intention (mens rea) as final design of conduct (actus reus) when here it also pertains to natural designs and occasions. This (unfortunately) does grave service both to an otherwise complex topic, but also to your ability to construe Catholic teaching – which I can humbly submit you definitely do not grasp well – or apply it within the Patristic/Scriptural/Magisterial framework of Christian conduct and duty.

Second, pages 2-4 listed a CCC reference which entirely undermined the only case made: that the “purpose” of NFP is misaligned – the Church condemns the manipulation of NFP which would import that purpose. NFP further doesn’t need technology, or device, to judge fertility nor does discerning these cycles form an intervening act into the Sacramental union–rather they are one among many circumstance elements (external ones–at that) to its essential condition (fertility) as well as the acts of the Sacrament-- its actus reus and the actus reus sufficient to culpably (mens rea) that one be liable in failure of a requisite duty in its end. The Fathers will quickly tell you that God’s creation of all women was with purpose to specifically involve a substantial, natural time when a woman cannot bear children, circumstances in which it is holy to naturally cooperate with God (and not acting as God) to best facilitate God’s will for family type or size. NFP doesn’t effect these circumstances, it doesn’t create them, their nature, change their designed it can’t even possibly occasion them.
The cycles NFP discerns-- women’s fertility, are divinely created. Not only are their occasions within the Sacramental union not intrinsically disordered as sins (like many ABC’s are regardless of the time), but they actually CAN’T be intrinsically disordered or even themselves occasion a sinful risk of the actus reus of a sin of thwarting the purpose of solemnizing marriage. Moreover, they can’t even create culpability for a sinful omission without adding much more.Should one honestly believe the contrary, it would lead to the conclusion that the Divine plan for marriage ensured that couples sin against God in roughly 1/6 - 1/8 times solemnizing the sacrament: the height of hubris.
Unlike ABC which actually is i) conduct; ii) intruding as cause; iii) intrinsically as a iv) thwarting effect to the v) actus reus in the solemnity of the Sacrament–NFP can’t even possibly i) as an act, ii) intrinsically iii) intrude as a iii) causal iv) actus reus of solemnizing marriage. It discerns an independent circumstance element and cannot even itself occasion a sin or inherently create a mens rea susceptible to becoming the same.
Culpability as to its sinful cases, namely a condemned manipulative use to enact purpose to be barred–which you yourself, and another pius Orthodox who honestly analyzed cases of NFP pointed out–is an entirely separate analysis from what NFP is or what it occasions. In other words, a mens rea of an inconsistent family size as to God’s will as a purpose does not attach to NFP even if NFP is used–nor does it occasion that sin or itself create such an occasion. Properly speaking, NFP can be (sinfully) used to manipulate external circumstances by a pre-existing sinful purpose, to ensure an omission of the duty to procreate. The misuse of NFP pertains to a culpability element of circumstance, namely purposeful manipulation to exclusively ignore fertile cycles–which is almost impossible, I might add-- it is not conduct thwarting the proscribed result (a sin). It can effect the result, but this is sinful if a pre-existing Mens Rea appears and even then would have to be inconsistent with the result–which sometimes it is not. For, while you may charge this as an omission of a universal duty such that any omission is culpable–even that would be false–because a couple may be called by God to ensure a family of a size or type. And, for Patristic exegesis, I leave all this caveat: the Fathers cannot just be subjectively incorporated to a whole–they must be read in the same Living Church by and from and in Whose Authority they originally spoke. Recall the obvious too: as most people err–some Fathers err (yes, this does include all different types of Fathers, regardless of ethnic heritage) as some err, the prelates who interpret them err, and equally as often, a communion of Churches.

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

Please, to all my brothers be careful on this topic, especially my pious, Orthodox Christian brothers who see the ABC is gravely sinful and should not be ever taught as proper. The differences are tremendous; ABC and NFP are irreducibly, absolutely different in Christian Marriage and the duty of Procreation–these differences are essential, each quickly produce others and dictate even more because of how the analysis relates to the nature and duties of the Sacrament:

1. the very actus reus in question and
2. how mens rea attaches the these; and for
3. both (and not just one, as in ABC) of the agents, while at the same time involving;
4. inherently separate forms of attempting to solemnizing marriage in natural course;
5. where nature furthers another duty to be enacted (procreative) independent of culpable occasion; where nature (and not actor) will be
6. proximity to occasion that duty, and thus a proper means that is natural as to this (as a separate element now, but couldn’t be in the comparison); and so because this will
7. at least be the Sacrament’s own natural means (as always pe se within this duty; showing it clear that
8. design of that cause for the end of procreation; and thus this specifically, and not some external force–again as would be denied by the comparison;
9. implicates showing of a breach in the natural design – and in which all the previous AR, MR now carry-- occasioning this duty as to a specific result of the procreative plan (namely, whichever Divine providence previously gives each specific family natural conditions of cooperation); and all this consistently only bc
10. the non-natural/thwart/intrusion case as intervening/altering cause into the Sacrament’s procreative-result is condemned; (again, the false comparison of ABC/NFP can’t even fathom this) . . natural occasions
11. will therefore only ever involve natural circumstances of the previous (the false comparison of ABC to NFP thus misses both that this is the case of the exception, and the basis of the duty which distinguishes the omission of the act in a circumstance);
12. which may actually further reveal the duty as to that occasion one to be per-se omit solemnizing marriage as to that result. (This is impossible to conclude under the false equivalence of NFP/ABC thinking, because the results have already been blurred with the mens rea confusion-- but common-sense to an NFP couple–indeed its very provisions commend it

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

First, it is utterly misleading to assert in this conversation that 'the Church Fathers teach “the only purpose of Marriage is procreation,” ’ to answer questions on NFP and ABC.

I’d be willing to review any evidence showing it’s “misleading”. Do you have a Church Father that you’d like to quote that says that the marital act is to be performed for another reason besides procreation?

you definitely do not grasp well

I think comments of this type, personal attack, questioning of intelligence, etc., are contrary to this Forum’s Rules.

NFP further doesn’t need technology, or device, to judge fertility

A thermometer is a man-made piece of technology or device?

A major aspect of the several forms of NFP, that I have researched, involve taking temperatures using a basal thermometer on a daily basis to determine precisely when ovulation occurs.

nor does discerning these cycles form an intervening act into the Sacramental union

Yes and neither does the pill, norplant, the shot or the patch form an intervening act yet Exomologetarion by Nikodemos the Hagiorite with of the Canons of St. John the Faster Canon 21 (Canon 91 of the 6th Ec. C., Canon 21 of Ancyra & Canon 2 & 8 of Basil) “We have designated that women who make it their practice to destroy embryos, and those who give or take poisons so as to abort and prematurely miscarry babies, are to be accommodated with up to 5 years, or for the most part, three years.” & in the manuscript codex containing the Canons of the Faster was also found “women employ these herbs in various ways. Some eat or drink then in order to ** never** become pregnant and have a child. Others murder the babies as soon as they are conceived or when they are close to giving birth, which is worse than the first. And still others commit murder every month with these herbs, which is the worst of them all. Therefore, those who do such things are impeded from Divine Communion for three years, and are to eat dry foods and do one hundred prostrations daily.” And from the 6th Ecumenical Council 91st Canon “But out of philanthropy they do not do penance them not to commune until the end of their life, but for 10 years.”

The Fathers will quickly tell you that God’s creation of all women was with purpose to specifically involve a substantial, natural time when a woman cannot bear children, circumstances in which it is holy to naturally cooperate with God (and not acting as God) to best facilitate God’s will for family type or size. NFP doesn’t effect these circumstances, it doesn’t create them, their nature, change their designed it can’t even possibly occasion them.

The Fathers didn’t know the science of NFP. Now that NFP science is known, Catholics say it’s perfectly fine for married couples to indulge themselves in the pleasure of the martial act during the time they are relatively certain that no children could be conceived. This is considered honorable & chaste to Catholics, but to Orthodox it’s considered sinful, lust & selfishness.

To Orthodox, perhaps it could be akin to indulging in the sin of Gluttony, but vomiting so the natural consequences aren’t realized and then saying the Gluttony wasn’t really a sin because I didn’t get fat. - to us, it’s like, HUH!?!

Lust is lust. Even when it happens in marriage by having martial relations when you Know you won’t get pregnant. It’s Lust - seeking & indulging in the pleasure while purposefully trying not to get pregnant.

Marital relations are not sinful when open to life. When a couple purposefully has martial relations when they Know they can’t conceive, that’s NOT open to life.

The Orthodox point of view stated, I’ll reiterate that Some Orthodox Bishops have used their power to bind & loose and do now permit martial relations for reasons other than procreation without sin as long as they’re Not avoiding children permanently and that they’re Not using an abortive method of Birth Control - NFP is Birth Control, but isn’t abortive, neither are several other methods, so it would be permitted for those under a Bishop who has loosed the reason for martial relations from procreation only.

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

procreation? . . . Yes and neither does the pill, norplant, the shot or the patch form an intervening act yet Exomologetarion by Nikodemos the Hagiorite with of the Canons of St. John the Faster Canon 21 (Canon 91 of the 6th Ec. C., Canon 21 of Ancyra & Canon 2 & 8 of Basil) “We have designated that women who make it their practice to destroy embryos, and those who give or take poisons so as to abort and prematurely miscarry babies, are to be accommodated with up to 5 years, or for the most part, three years.” & in the manuscript codex containing the Canons of the Faster was also found “women employ these herbs in various ways. Some eat or drink then in order to ** never** become pregnant and have a child. Others murder the babies as soon as they are conceived or when they are close to giving birth, which is worse than the first. And still others commit murder every month with these herbs, which is the worst of them all. Therefore, those who do such things are impeded from Divine Communion for three years, and are to eat dry foods and do one hundred prostrations daily.” And from the 6th Ecumenical Council 91st Canon “But out of philanthropy they do not do penance them not to commune until the end of their life, but for 10 years. The Fathers didn’t know the science of NFP. Now that NFP science is known, Catholics say it’s perfectly fine for married couples to indulge themselves in the pleasure of the martial act during the time they are relatively certain that no children could be conceived. This is considered honorable & chaste to Catholics, but to Orthodox it’s considered sinful, lust & selfishness.”
Read the previous sentence as to what “misleading” means – “purpose” predicated only one fraction of the relevant question and was scapegoated with broader Patristic support. It doesn’t hold. Nor was my response to the confident claim made to present the Catholic Church teaching on NFP a personal attack – it was a statement on the doctrine posted on the words of the forum and whether or corresponded to the CCC that I pointed you to (which I reitorate–undermines the only argument ever put forth in this forum to the contrary).

PLEASE go back and read the CCC it undermines the possibility that NFP apply. And, please stop and slowly analyze what would need to be mean by a i) ‘non-natural’ and ii) ‘intervening’ / ‘intruding’ iii) ‘cause’ in the actus reus in question. Literally none of what you said above is relevant to NFP–though I’m grateful for your further demonstration of the evils of ABC.

You further continue:
"*To Orthodox, perhaps it could be akin to indulging in the sin of Gluttony, but vomiting so the natural consequences aren’t realized and then saying the Gluttony wasn’t really a sin
because I didn’t get fat. - to us, it’s like, HUH!?!

Marital relations are not sinful when open to life. When a couple purposefully has martial relations when they Know they can’t conceive, that’s NOT open to life.
The Orthodox point of view stated, I’ll reiterate that Some Orthodox Bishops have used their power to bind & loose and do now permit martial relations for reasons other than procreation without sin as long as they’re Not avoiding children permanently and that they’re Not using an abortive method of Birth Control - NFP is Birth Control, but isn’t abortive, neither are several other methods, so it would be permitted for those under a Bishop who has loosed the reason for martial relations from procreation only.*"

Thank you for outlining further your position. I would ask you to please re-read my post as you have saliently articulated the exact same error I tirelessly critiqued of independently attaching to the issue of the methods (ABC and NFP) a mens rea (“lust”) and then not even by a relevant actus reus in the comparison (say, consummation). Lust is a pre-existing vice that is precursory to the entire discussion. You cannot assert that NFP just IS this vice without actus reus analysis. You’re not actually saying anything about whether either NFP (frankly, even ABC if this were the only reasoning you put forth) would be impermissible. Most (if not all) of the many evils of ABC, and those explicitly taught by the Fathers even you yourself have now quoted–are in the actus reus of the analysis – and not just the mens rea where-as you’ve not once relevantly analyzed the AR or MR of NFP to discern a single, sinful agency or proximate occasion within the same–or even possibly an inherent danger within NFP to bring about the same.

I understanding many may disagree. I ask this: (as I have honestly tried to provide all others with the same):

1. Humbly absorb at least the sources cited (FIRST–the CCC reference denouncing lustful-NFP on occasion and act–this would have taken roughly dozens of false claims made in this thread off the table from the beginning if it weren’t ignored); take note of
2. the actus reus the Fathers denounce; search for whether
3. the mens rea is accidental and/or an independent description pace the methods (it has been in EVERY citation so far); to see whether
4. it is essential to the actus reus on sinful cases in the fathers (as of yet, every single case reveals ABC gravely sinful and NFP not, when answering viz-a-viz the very Patristic sources cited] and only thereafter, and very specifically…
5. parse any arguments–I would be very open to the 12 differences I thoroughly went through being among these.

NFP and ABC are entirely different.

Pax

 

[Randy_Carson]

A thermometer is a man-made piece of technology or device?

A major aspect of the several forms of NFP, that I have researched, involve taking temperatures using a basal thermometer on a daily basis to determine precisely when ovulation occurs.

Useful but not necessary to practice NFP.

Here is another approach:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_ovulation_method

thebillingsovulationmethod.org/

It works. I know. :yup:

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Your only source cited is the CCC*. Do you have any direct quotes from any of the commonly honored Church Fathers that substantiates your position that NFP, namely indulging in the pleasure of marital relations only during times it’s certain no child could be conceived, is not lustful and is an acceptable practice for Christians?

*FYI: as Orthodox Christians, the CCC of the Catholics has no more authority for us than the Qu’ran of the Muslims or the Bhaktiva of the Hindus.

Read the previous sentence as to what “misleading” means – “purpose” predicated only one fraction of the relevant question and was scapegoated with broader Patristic support. It doesn’t hold. Nor was my response to the confident claim made to present the Catholic Church teaching on NFP a personal attack – it was a statement on the doctrine posted on the words of the forum and whether or corresponded to the CCC that I pointed you to (which I reitorate–undermines the only argument ever put forth in this forum to the contrary).

PLEASE go back and read the CCC it undermines the possibility that NFP apply. And, please stop and slowly analyze what would need to be mean by a i) ‘non-natural’ and ii) ‘intervening’ / ‘intruding’ iii) ‘cause’ in the actus reus in question. Literally none of what you said above is relevant to NFP–though I’m grateful for your further demonstration of the evils of ABC.

You further continue:
"*To Orthodox, perhaps it could be akin to indulging in the sin of Gluttony, but vomiting so the natural consequences aren’t realized and then saying the Gluttony wasn’t really a sin
because I didn’t get fat. - to us, it’s like, HUH!?!

Marital relations are not sinful when open to life. When a couple purposefully has martial relations when they Know they can’t conceive, that’s NOT open to life.
The Orthodox point of view stated, I’ll reiterate that Some Orthodox Bishops have used their power to bind & loose and do now permit martial relations for reasons other than procreation without sin as long as they’re Not avoiding children permanently and that they’re Not using an abortive method of Birth Control - NFP is Birth Control, but isn’t abortive, neither are several other methods, so it would be permitted for those under a Bishop who has loosed the reason for martial relations from procreation only.*"

Thank you for outlining further your position. I would ask you to please re-read my post as you have saliently articulated the exact same error I tirelessly critiqued of independently attaching to the issue of the methods (ABC and NFP) a mens rea (“lust”) and then not even by a relevant actus reus in the comparison (say, consummation). Lust is a pre-existing vice that is precursory to the entire discussion. You cannot assert that NFP just IS this vice without actus reus analysis. You’re not actually saying anything about whether either NFP (frankly, even ABC if this were the only reasoning you put forth) would be impermissible. Most (if not all) of the many evils of ABC, and those explicitly taught by the Fathers even you yourself have now quoted–are in the actus reus of the analysis – and not just the mens rea where-as you’ve not once relevantly analyzed the AR or MR of NFP to discern a single, sinful agency or proximate occasion within the same–or even possibly an inherent danger within NFP to bring about the same.

I understanding many may disagree. I ask this: (as I have honestly tried to provide all others with the same):

1. Humbly absorb at least the sources cited (FIRST–the CCC reference denouncing lustful-NFP on occasion and act–this would have taken roughly dozens of false claims made in this thread off the table from the beginning if it weren’t ignored); take note of
2. the actus reus the Fathers denounce; search for whether
3. the mens rea is accidental and/or an independent description pace the methods (it has been in EVERY citation so far); to see whether
4. it is essential to the actus reus on sinful cases in the fathers (as of yet, every single case reveals ABC gravely sinful and NFP not, when answering viz-a-viz the very Patristic sources cited] and only thereafter, and very specifically…
5. parse any arguments–I would be very open to the 12 differences I thoroughly went through being among these.

NFP and ABC are entirely different.

Pax

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Useful but not necessary to practice NFP.

Here is another approach:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_ovulation_method

thebillingsovulationmethod.org/

It works. I know. :yup:

Thank you, Randy. Always good to learn about new science.

 

[Randy_Carson]

*FYI: as Orthodox Christians, the CCC of the Catholics has no more authority for us than the Qu’ran of the Muslims or the Bhaktiva of the Hindus.

Now this is an interesting statement.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes Sacred Scripture, Church Councils and the Fathers of the Church in support of doctrines that you accept as true.

Do you find this to be the case with the Qu’ran or the Bhagavad gita?

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Now this is an interesting statement.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes Sacred Scripture, Church Councils and the Fathers of the Church in support of doctrines that you accept as true.

Do you find this to be the case with the Qu’ran or the Bhagavad gita?

Bhagavad gita! Of course thanks for the correction, Randy. I used to own a copy, but no longer have it on hand for reference.

Granted, on occasion something in the CCC may be true, just like the Qu’ran gets it right about Jesus being born of a Virgin and while the CCC might get it right more frequently than the others since Catholics believe along with us that Jesus is God But that certainly does Not make any of those books Authoritative for an Orthodox Christian.

Catholics wouldn’t accept the Book of Mormon as an Authoritative source to learn the truth of the Catholic Faith. Why should anyone be under the impression that Orthodox Christians would accept the CCC as an Authoritative source for truth of the Orthodox Faith?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Bhagavad gita! Of course thanks for the correction, Randy. I used to own a copy, but no longer have it on hand for reference.

Granted, on occasion something in the CCC may be true, just like the Qu’ran gets it right about Jesus being born of a Virgin and while the CCC might get it right more frequently than the others since Catholics believe along with us that Jesus is God But that certainly does Not make any of those books Authoritative for an Orthodox Christian.

Catholics wouldn’t accept the Book of Mormon as an Authoritative source to learn the truth of the Catholic Faith. Why should anyone be under the impression that Orthodox Christians would accept the CCC as an Authoritative source for truth of the Orthodox Faith?

For starters, because neither Joseph Smith nor Mohammed were Christians.

But in the end, I suppose it depends on whether you, personally, believe that the Pope is in heresy or merely in schism.

So, if you were on a desert isle with with Skipper, Gilligan and the gang, and you were trying to explain a point about what you as an Orthodox believe, I think you would be more likely to pull the Catechism off the Professor’s shelf before you ever reached for the Qu’ran or the BoM. You’d read what the Catechsim said, and if you found the passage to be acceptable, you would say, “Mary Ann, I don’t care what you Lutherans think; here is what the Church (see that?) has taught from the beginning.”

And you would feel good about quoting the Catholic Catechism as authoritative because you and Mary Ann would both recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to speak on religious matters and because you know that we Catholics agree with you about most things and that our doctrine is based on the same bed rock you believe Orthodoxy to be built upon.

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

Granted, on occasion something in the CCC may be true, just like the Qu’ran gets it right about Jesus being born of a Virgin and while the CCC might get it right more frequently than the others since Catholics believe along with us that Jesus is God But that certainly does Not make any of those books Authoritative for an Orthodox Christian.

First . .and this really will be the third time I’ve made this point, and the 5th overall in this thread:
the charge originally was that NFP by a circumstance can be practiced sinfully (via lust–I also, seperately refuted the relevance this has, and the error Mens Rea imputation involved to no response), and therefore that the Catholic Church-- in permitting NFP permits such a sin. Please take note: what is ignored is that the CCC DOES NOT teach that this situation is NFP, but rather CONDEMNS IT as a manipulation of NFP that cannot be practiced. The Catholic Church doesn’t allow you or anyone to make the charge in question against it. The only formal charge made has inaccurately distorted Catholic teaching. The citation, if it would only have been read, would immediately have undermined the only argument thus put forward. The facts aren’t actually being engaged and fairly appraised.

Second, NFP’s relationship to the Sacrament itself has been distorted in the ways I showed. I await a response.

Third, the Fathers that were quoted aren’t possibly interpreted (nor have I seen reason to think an autocephalous common has a vested authority to finally do) to condemn NFP. Rather, the Fathers cited are supporting its actus reus, as I showed. I await a response.

Fourth, the Fathers that were quoted ARE plausibly interpreted to be condemning ABC, as I showed. I await a response.

Fifth, I tirelessly gave twelve detailed reasons that NFP and ABC are necessarily different. I await a response.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

For starters, because neither Joseph Smith nor Mohammed were Christians.

But in the end, I suppose it depends on whether you, personally, believe that the Pope is in heresy or merely in schism.

So, if you were on a desert isle with with Skipper, Gilligan and the gang, and you were trying to explain a point about what you as an Orthodox believe, I think you would be more likely to pull the Catechism off the Professor’s shelf before you ever reached for the Qu’ran or the BoM. You’d read what the Catechsim said, and if you found the passage to be acceptable, you would say, “Mary Ann, I don’t care what you Lutherans think; here is what the Church (see that?) has taught from the beginning.”

And you would feel good about quoting the Catholic Catechism as authoritative because you and Mary Ann would both recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to speak on religious matters and because you know that we Catholics agree with you about most things and that our doctrine is based on the same bed rock you believe Orthodoxy to be built upon.

Both Muslims & Latter day Saints consider themselves as the true followers of Jesus Christ.

No, under no circumstances would an Orthodox Christian pull out a CCC to use as an Authority for the Teachings of the Orthodox Church.

It has nothing to do with the Catholic Pope.

It has everything to do with the CCC is Not an Orthodox document.

A non-Orthodox document, the CCC, Book of Mormon, Qu’ran, could never be an Authoritative Orthodox Christian document.

A CCC can and should be used by an Orthodox Christian as a reference to find out what Catholics believe, or are supposed to believe. But Never to find out what the Orthodox Church teaches.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Both Muslims & Latter day Saints consider themselves as the true followers of Jesus Christ.

No, under no circumstances would an Orthodox Christian pull out a CCC to use as an Authority for the Teachings of the Orthodox Church.

It has nothing to do with the Catholic Pope.

It has everything to do with the CCC is Not an Orthodox document.

A non-Orthodox document, the CCC, Book of Mormon, Qu’ran, could never be an Authoritative Orthodox Christian document.

A CCC can and should be used by an Orthodox Christian as a reference to find out what Catholics believe, or are supposed to believe. But Never to find out what the Orthodox Church teaches.

I’m not concerned with what the Mormon or the Muslim believe. I’m asking what YOU would do. And under most circumstances, if you had no access to any document other than the three mentioned, you would open the Catechism to teach Mary Ann before you would ever open the other two.

You would be able to do this precisely because Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach much of the same doctrine.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Is it correct for me to gather from this that you have no other source besides the CCC? Orthodox Christians do not accept as an Authoritative.

If you do have a specific quote from a commonly, both Catholic & Orthodox, accepted document please share. For example, a canon of an Ecumenical Council like I cited for you.

First . .and this really will be the third time I’ve made this point, and the 5th overall in this thread:
the charge originally was that NFP by a circumstance can be practiced sinfully (via lust–I also, seperately refuted the relevance this has, and the error Mens Rea imputation involved to no response), and therefore that the Catholic Church-- in permitting NFP permits such a sin. Please take note: what is ignored is that the CCC DOES NOT teach that this situation is NFP, but rather CONDEMNS IT as a manipulation of NFP that cannot be practiced. The Catholic Church doesn’t allow you or anyone to make the charge in question against it. The only formal charge made has inaccurately distorted Catholic teaching. The citation, if it would only have been read, would immediately have undermined the only argument thus put forward. The facts aren’t actually being engaged and fairly appraised.

Second, NFP’s relationship to the Sacrament itself has been distorted in the ways I showed. I await a response.

Third, the Fathers that were quoted aren’t possibly interpreted (nor have I seen reason to think an autocephalous common has a vested authority to finally do) to condemn NFP. Rather, the Fathers cited are supporting its actus reus, as I showed. I await a response.

Fourth, the Fathers that were quoted ARE plausibly interpreted to be condemning ABC, as I showed. I await a response.

Fifth, I tirelessly gave twelve detailed reasons that NFP and ABC are necessarily different. I await a response.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

I’m not concerned with what the Mormon or the Muslim believe. I’m asking what YOU would do. And under most circumstances, if you had no access to any document other than the three mentioned, you would open the Catechism to teach Mary Ann before you would ever open the other two.

You would be able to do this precisely because Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach much of the same doctrine.

Randy, Let me be clear here. If the CCC, BG & Q were the only books left in the world, I would Not use any of them to teach the Orthodox Faith to my Orthodox children, to any Orthodox Christians or to any non-Orthodox inquirer. In that situation, I would teach orally the Traditions of the Orthodox Christian Faith. Ref. 2 Thes. 2:15 - notice the conjunction is “OR”.

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

Is it correct for me to gather from this that you have no other source besides the CCC? Orthodox Christians do not accept as an Authoritative.

I already relied on Fathers previously cited for the arguments made, and await a response.
On the CCC–it goes to correct a false assertion being made about the Catholic Faith. It has been the only argument presented against the Catholic faith (viz-a-viz NFP/ABC) in this thread. The citation to the** CCC is a correction to the error in presentation of Catholic Doctrine previously made**. It goes to the validity of the argument–the assertion that the Catholic Church permits the lustful manipulation of NFP. This was deceitful and has been corrected. The citation corrects that misrepresentation. You, nor anyone else, can validly and honestly claim that Catholic Church teaching in any way permits the lustful-sinful misuse of NFP in that manner – and so (and because you yourself have already admitted that this isn’t the only way NFP be used) the claim against Catholic teaching is proven false.

As to Patristic citations, the ones already given by a previous poster (that I’ve referred to 5 times) are sufficient to determine the actus reus. In fact, I’ve relied on them throughout. I wrote this relying heavily on those previous Patristic citations:

'Unlike ABC which actually is i) conduct; ii) intruding as cause; iii) intrinsically as a iv) thwarting effect to the v) actus reus in the solemnity of the Sacrament–NFP can’t even possibly i) as an act, ii) intrinsically iii) intrude as a iii) causal iv) actus reus of solemnizing marriage. It discerns an independent circumstance element and cannot even itself occasion a sin or inherently create a mens rea susceptible to becoming the same.
Culpability as to its sinful cases, namely a condemned manipulative use to enact purpose to be barred–which you yourself, and another pius Orthodox who honestly analyzed cases of NFP pointed out–is an entirely separate analysis from what NFP is or what it occasions. In other words, a mens rea of an inconsistent family size as to God’s will as a purpose does not attach to NFP even if NFP is used–nor does it occasion that sin or itself create such an occasion.

The differences are tremendous; ABC and NFP are irreducibly, absolutely different in Christian Marriage and the duty of Procreation–these differences are essential, each quickly produce others and dictate even more because of how the analysis relates to the nature and duties of the Sacrament:

1. the very actus reus in question and
2. how mens rea attaches the these; and for
3. both (and not just one, as in ABC) of the agents, while at the same time involving;
4. inherently separate forms of attempting to solemnizing marriage in natural course;
5. where nature furthers another duty to be enacted (procreative) independent of culpable occasion; where nature (and not actor) will be
6. proximity to occasion that duty, and thus a proper means that is natural as to this (as a separate element now, but couldn’t be in the comparison); and so because this will
7. at least be the Sacrament’s own natural means (as always pe se within this duty; showing it clear that
8. design of that cause for the end of procreation; and thus this specifically, and not some external force–again as would be denied by the comparison;
9. implicates showing of a breach in the natural design – and in which all the previous AR, MR now carry-- occasioning this duty as to a specific result of the procreative plan (namely, whichever Divine providence previously gives each specific family natural conditions of cooperation); and all this consistently only bc
10. the non-natural/thwart/intrusion case as intervening/altering cause into the Sacrament’s procreative-result is condemned; (again, the false comparison of ABC/NFP can’t even fathom this) . . natural occasions
11. will therefore only ever involve natural circumstances of the previous (the false comparison of ABC to NFP thus misses both that this is the case of the exception, and the basis of the duty which distinguishes the omission of the act in a circumstance);
12. which may actually further reveal the duty as to that occasion one to be per-se omit solemnizing marriage as to that result. (This is impossible to conclude under the false equivalence of NFP/ABC thinking, because the results have already been blurred with the mens rea confusion-- but common-sense to an NFP couple–indeed its very provisions commend it

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, Let me be clear here. If the CCC, BG & Q were the only books left in the world, I would Not use any of them to teach the Orthodox Faith to my Orthodox children, to any Orthodox Christians or to any non-Orthodox inquirer. In that situation, I would teach orally the Traditions of the Orthodox Christian Faith. Ref. 2 Thes. 2:15 - notice the conjunction is “OR”.

If true, this is quite possibly the most extreme example of anti-Catholic prejudice I have ever witnessed.

Let me get this straight:

I begin by acknowledging that you, an Orthodox Christian, would not agree with every paragraph of the book. Yet, I maintain that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains not only a massive amount of Sacred Scripture and quotations from the Fathers, Saints and Doctors of the Church, but also it represents the summation of some of the finest theological thought of the past 2,000 years.

But rather than availing yourself of that incredible wealth of information, you would rather attempt to explain a wide variety of complex theological issues purely on the strength of your own ability, memory and authority.

Really? Good luck with that.

How would you answer the person who asks why anyone should believe that what you are telling them represents the authentic apostolic faith?

To what authority would you appeal? You deny infallibility for anyone - yourself included - and you would have no Sacred Scripture or other ancient writings to which you might refer them.

And what would be the reason for your decision to ignore that book?

That nothing in it could possibly be correct? That it was written by Catholics and can’t be trusted? That it must be avoided at all costs precisely because it was written by Catholics?

I really want to believe that you aren’t as anti-Catholic as this sounds and that you simply haven’t thought this through very carefully before posting.