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

[Nektarios_Lady]

Please, name one Father, or more Fathers, & cite the name of their writing in which the teach it’s okay for a Christian to practice NFP, namely engaging in sexual pleasure during a time when a married couple is certain to Not get pregnant. I’d like a response, if you have one. I’m willing to consider evidence you’re willing to present.

I’ve not seen it claimed that the “Catholic Church” promoted a lustful manipulation of NFP (NFP is lustful & selfish by nature when used to prevent pregnancy no manipulation required), so I don’t understand why your saying that claim was ever made in your attached comment.

What has been said is that Lust a sin, a sin the Fathers taught against. A sin which is the very nature of NFP. Separating sexual pleasure from God’s purpose of sex, procreation.

With the birth control aspect of NFP, the purpose is to enjoy the pleasure of sex without having to deal with the consequences of sex, a child.

NFP, just like the pill, the patch, norplant, iud, etc., separates what God combined…procreation & pleasure.

NFP practicing couple is following their own will of pleasure without procreation, rather than following God’s Will by taking part in the pleasure that naturally comes with procreation.

God also combined nutrition with pleasure. The Fathers often linked Gluttony with Lust (St. John of the Ladder of Divine Ascent - Rungs/Steps 14 & 15 ***wait a minute, what’s this oh it’s a commonly held Church Father reference awesome how that works. It’s not hard to do, please try). Separating the pleasure of sex from it’s purpose, procreation, is a sin & separating the pleasure of eating from it’s purpose, bodily nutrition, is also a sin. Too much of either isn’t good and, per the Fathers, leads to additional sins Philokalia “Eating beyond satiety is the door to belly-madness, through which lust comes in.”

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:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please, name one Father, or more Fathers, & cite the name of their writing in which the teach it’s okay for a Christian to practice NFP, namely engaging in sexual pleasure during a time when a married couple is certain to Not get pregnant.

“Not get pregnant”? If a couple engages in sexual activity when she is guaranteed to NOT get pregnant, why would that be a sin?

It’s certainly not Church teaching that we can only have sex during fertile times, is it? :nope:

I’ve not seen it claimed that the “Catholic Church” promoted a lustful manipulation of NFP (NFP is lustful & selfish by nature when used to prevent pregnancy no manipulation required), so I don’t understand why your saying that claim was ever made in your attached comment.

Sure, NFP can be used by those who wish to avoid conception without a valid reason. In that situation, NFP can be just as sinful as ABC.

However, when used as approved by the Church, it is not intrinsically evil.

 

[YADA]

Please, name one Father, or more Fathers, & cite the name of their writing in which the teach it’s okay for a Christian to practice NFP, namely engaging in sexual pleasure during a time when a married couple is certain to Not get pregnant. I’d like a response, if you have one. I’m willing to consider evidence you’re willing to present.

I’ve not seen it claimed that the “Catholic Church” promoted a lustful manipulation of NFP (NFP is lustful & selfish by nature when used to prevent pregnancy no manipulation required), so I don’t understand why your saying that claim was ever made in your attached comment.

What has been said is that Lust a sin, a sin the Fathers taught against. A sin which is the very nature of NFP. Separating sexual pleasure from God’s purpose of sex, procreation.

With the birth control aspect of NFP, the purpose is to enjoy the pleasure of sex without having to deal with the consequences of sex, a child.

NFP, just like the pill, the patch, norplant, iud, etc., separates what God combined…procreation & pleasure.

NFP practicing couple is following their own will of pleasure without procreation, rather than following God’s Will by taking part in the pleasure that naturally comes with procreation.

God also combined nutrition with pleasure. The Fathers often linked Gluttony with Lust (St. John of the Ladder of Divine Ascent - Rungs/Steps 14 & 15 ***wait a minute, what’s this oh it’s a commonly held Church Father reference awesome how that works. It’s not hard to do, please try). Separating the pleasure of sex from it’s purpose, procreation, is a sin & separating the pleasure of eating from it’s purpose, bodily nutrition, is also a sin. Too much of either isn’t good and, per the Fathers, leads to additional sins Philokalia “Eating beyond satiety is the door to belly-madness, through which lust comes in.”

When you reach menopause - will you abstain from further sexual relations?
If you or your husband took a medication that rendered you sterile will you forever abstain from sexual relations …

So in Orthodoxy - all couples who are unable to conceive are 100% prohibited from engaging in sexual behavior?

In fact - the way you present it here … unless the couple is absolutely sure they will conceive they should not engage in relations … perhaps they should be using NFP to know when and only when they should be engaging in sexual relations only those most fertile times.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

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

“Anti-Catholic” for a non-Catholic to Not use a Catechism of the Catholic Church to teach their non-Catholic Faith to their children & any inquirers?

My jaw just hit the floor.

Lol, on that basis I guess I’m “Anti-Semetic” too because I don’t use the Talamud while teaching the Old Testament either.

Let me get this straight:

I begin by acknowledging that you, an Orthodox Christian, would not agree with every paragraph of the book.

It would be very confusing for both the learner & the Orthodox Christian teacher use a document that (From an Orthodox point of view) has theological mistakes, mis-interpretations Sacred Scripture & the Fathers, cites non-Orthodox Saints and non-Orthodox Councils considered Ecumenical by Catholics, but otherwise, in some beliefs, are very similar, yet totally different in other ways, to use something like that to teach someone the Orthodox Faith…that would be so confusing…“okay the first sentence of this paragraph is authentic Orthodox Teaching, but the next three sentences are a little off, the Orthodox understand it this way so they should really read like this, the forth sentence is totally wrong…” That’s what’s called a Teacher’s Nightmare!

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.

Yes and all used to confirm Catholic Teachings. This is truly an amazing and valuable resource for anyone who wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches. I own one for that very purpose.

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.

I rely on the strength of God, Who is far greater than me. I know, through the daily readings of the Prologue of Orhid that there are Saints & Martyrs who have been accurately taught the Orthodox Faith by the direct divine intervention of God when in a similar position as your hypothetical scenario places me in - although in those cases I’m recalling, like with the Holy Martyr Christina celebrated in July, they had no one in their life who was Orthodox to teach them.

Orthodox Christian pray what they believe and believe what we pray. It’s through the Divine Liturgy (easily memorized within several visits to an Orthodox Church), through the daily Prayers (easily memorized with frequency so that prayers can enter the heart & nous), and the Bible readings (also traditionally memorized - my youngest who just turned 3 has almost mastered a first verse Matthew 24:13). In addition, hearing & reading the stories of the Martyrs and Saints day after day, year after year, we naturally come to memorize those stories as well. While, it may not be a Seminary quality education, if all the books of the world were removed most Orthodox Christians would be able to successfully transmit the Faith to an inquirer or a child.

Really? Good luck with that.

Yes, really Thanks for the good luck wishes, with God, all things are possible.

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

I’d tell them the truth, It’s what has been handed down to me. It’s been passed down generation to generation starting with the Apostles. If the Orthodox Teachings aren’t the truth, we’ve all been duped for almost 2,000 years. But since it’s a lived experience, not just academia, it’d be really hard to fake what has been a collective witness & experience.

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.

The Authority is Jesus Christ and His Holy Orthodox Church. I would say Jesus is infallible, He is someone, a real Person with an authentic humanity and divinity. You created the hypothetical scenario where there is no Bible or ancient writings. Jesus said to Preach & Hear the gospel, He never said to write it down & read it. It’sgreat that we do, but Many people down through the centuries have come to the knowledge of the Truth of the Orthodox Church without ever reading a single word, whether due to inability to read, a disability or simply no access.

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

Ignore it as in not use it to teach the Orthodox Faith?..It’s not an Orthodox book. That’s the only reason.

The authors of the CCC wrote down what must be believed by Catholics. They didn’t write it to teach Hindus what the Hindu Religion teaches. They didn’t write it to teach Buddhists what Buddhism teaches. They didn’t write it to teach Orthodox Christians what the Orthodox Church teaches.

Let it be used for it’s purpose…to educate Catholics and everyone else what Catholics believe.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

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.

Your personal attacks against me is incredibly offensive. Please don’t make any additional accusations towards me. Twice is more than enough for completely unfounded accusations.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

“Not get pregnant”? If a couple engages in sexual activity when she is guaranteed to NOT get pregnant, why would that be a sin?

It’s certainly not Church teaching that we can only have sex during fertile times, is it? :nope:

Sure, NFP can be used by those who wish to avoid conception without a valid reason. In that situation, NFP can be just as sinful as ABC.

However, when used as approved by the Church, it is not intrinsically evil.

Lust is a sin. This has already been explained in great detail.

Purposefully, having sex for pleasure, not procreation, is purposefully going against God’s Will which for martial relations is procreation which He created in such a way to be pleasurable. While not all martial relations will result in pregnancy, to go out of the way to only have relations when pregnancy isn’t possible is Lust - totally disordered - separating what God joined for our good procreation and pleasure…

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

[1 of 3]

I have parsed your comments into sections as best I can (I’m sorry if I made any errors); red. These are mainly things I have already directly discussed.

‘[1] Please, name one Father’
I have already said, I have relied on the actus reus in Fathers right here:
“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature - Clement
]Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? - St Augustine
]the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny - Jerome
They exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption - Epiphanius”

Now, you’ll note actus reus described. I developed each into sections and differentiated ABC from NFP systematically in light of this. I await a response. These Fathers sufficiently outline the actus reus in the discussion and there-by develop an argument about nature to proscribe culpability states (duties about these acts, and how actors relate to them in their design and intention); and so long as the previous error I keep honing in on is dropped (the misstatement that NFP practiced with lust is permitted by the Catholic Church) you’ll be able to see through the smoke.

After you, seeming surprised, requested this proof (“Which paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns the use of NFP for specific purposes, ie. selfishness?” it was immediately given to you and undermined the only argument made–that NFP is permitted to be practiced with lustful intentions:
“2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality”

2]“to practice NFP] namely engaging in sexual pleasure during a time when a married couple is certain to Not get pregnant. "
This is a FALSE definition of NFP. I’ve addressed this. NFP is not a different act than the actus reus involved than the Sacrament of Marriage (this is not true of ABC); NFP is not even properly an act or even a cause-- at most (in its sinful manipulation) it’s an OMISSION, but only if you add a mens rea. Rather, the actus reus (of NFP) involves a circumstance that is judged (fertility cycles) on natural occasions. If you think this advances an argument on actus reus, you would have to somehow show that solemnizing marriage during these natural occasions is disordered-- I directed precisely this at that error of obfuscation:
'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. . .
Culpability as to its sinful cases, namely a condemned manipulative use to enact purpose to be barred . . .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.”

[1 of 3]
. . . . . . . . .

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 of 3 ]
"[3] I’ve not seen it claimed that the “Catholic Church” promoted a lustful manipulation of NFP (NFP is lustful & selfish by nature when used to prevent pregnancy no manipulation required), . . . ] What has been said is that Lust a sin, a sin the Fathers taught against. A sin which is the very nature of NFP. "

I’ve addressed this as well. The Catholic Church DOES NOT permit use of NFP in this sinful fashion, as we’ve cited, as it condemns NFP in such cases.
Secondly on this–>“NFP is lustful & selfish by nature” this is wildly false. Now you’re attaching the ESSENCE of lust to the actus reus of NFP?! Glaringly absurd. Conduct does not have intentions (mens rea as purposes), people do.
Next, “[a]sin which is the very nature of NFP. Separating sexual pleasure from God’s purpose of sex, procreation,” . . But none of the Fathers cited reason by honing in on a proper mens rea (culpability) of the actor, to an experience. They describe the objective nature of conduct, and proscribe all actus reus unto to that end, regardless of experience. They then condemn a disordered mens rea that is contrary to its end. Now, “Purpose” may also predicate a designed occasion of a duty to that end, and thus “the purpose of marriage is for procreation,” can mean many different things. But where it involves the designed-nature of conduct itself this is an actus reus. Thus I stressed:
"“t 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 [when we began talking about their conduct]. This would predicate culpability, not the essence, nature or result of an act. . . .Note: 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.”

"[4] . .NFP, the purpose is to enjoy the pleasure of sex without having to deal with the consequences . . . ] NFP practicing couple is following their own will of pleasure without procreation, rather than following God’s Will by taking part in the pleasure that naturally comes with procreation. "
The same mistake. You attach a mens rea to NFP as if it is universally applicable as an essence–as if always and everywhere there is only one corresponding mens rea to one actus reus, as if this were always the case for all NFP actors: ** this is false**.
It is not the “purpose” of NFP to “enjoy pleasure.” And, if couples do, misappropriating NFP in that way, the Catholic Church condemned this, as proven. Nor does the NFP couple “follow their own will” in practicing NFP, as showed–the duty in question is an end following upon a natural occasion that NFP is ordered towards–nor can that natural condition be intrinsically disordered (say to lust, as you assert), I refuted this:
“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.ABC. .), 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.”

2 of 3 ]

 

[YADA]

Lust is a sin. This has already been explained in great detail.

Purposefully, having sex for pleasure, not procreation, is purposefully going against God’s Will which for martial relations is procreation which He created in such a way to be pleasurable. While not all martial relations will result in pregnancy, to go out of the way to only have relations when pregnancy isn’t possible is Lust - totally disordered - separating what God joined for our good procreation and pleasure…

But that fails to acknowledge that the couple engaging in sexual relations is open to any life that results … just because a women is ‘less likely’ to get pregnant does not mean its an impossibility … and the couple is not placing an artificial barrier between their union and God’s working through their love to bring a new life into the world … vastly different then with ABC which seeks to use artificial means to prevent God’s ability to bring forth new life … that is not lust at work . that is using God’s natural processes while ultimately accepting joyfully any and all life that results. With NFP - every encounter has the potential of new life … the probability may be low or high - but it exists

Many couples who have problems conceiving use NFP as an aid to conception - successfully to I might add …

You never answer the question about whether Orthodox are required to abstain from sexual relations once the woman reaches menopause … 100% - never ever engage in marital relations - ever because without the possibility of conception - the couple is engaging in Lust - correct?

Or the person made infertile through cancer treatments … once infertile - are they no longer allowed to engage in relations? … What if a couple married and only after marriage discovered one was infertile from birth … knowing that conception is impossible for them would in your theology mean that engaging in sex equates to Lust

And most of the quotes of the early church fathers clearly are dealing with ABC methods even as they talk of sexual relations being solely and or primarily for conceiving offspring. They discuss the methods people use to thwart God giving new life … not one discusses the sinfulness of engaging in relations during natural periods of infertility.

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

[3 of 3]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And so, I still await a response on the conclusions on the actual conduct and intention of actors, their duty, the circumstances and how all of the same pertain to the design of marriage and its ends–when analyzing NFP and ABC. The Fathers condemn the conduct latent in the unnatural acts in ABC as well as their many thwarting causes, while approving entirely of every conduct involved in what the Catholic Church teaches about NFP. These Fathers condemn the causally unnatural effects of ABC categorically, as gravely sinful–meaning those communions permitting it are in grave error and reveal to not have authority to teach souls-- where-as the Fathers, as to the mens rea of such causes, condemn just the same, and no more or different, that what is condemned in the Catholic Church. Namely, ultimately avoiding the proper end of consummation, by circumstances, to ensure non-conformity–the breach of the duty-- with God’s will for the family (size, type, etc); and this usually by a disordered vice of lust (but they don’t say it always or even has to be by the only vice latent in the sin in order for the act to be gravely sinful). NFP can only be misused in this sinful fashion, onto the same breach of duties, in fashions amounting to misuse–that the Catholic Church, with the Fathers, condemn.

Thus I went through the differences systematically, and proved that ABC and NFP are different. I await a response.
ABC and NFP are irreducibly, absolutely different in

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

[3 of 3]

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lust is a sin. This has already been explained in great detail.

And I agree with this.

Purposefully, having sex for pleasure, not procreation, is purposefully going against God’s Will which for martial relations is procreation which He created in such a way to be pleasurable. While not all martial relations will result in pregnancy, to go out of the way to only have relations when pregnancy isn’t possible is Lust - totally disordered - separating what God joined for our good procreation and pleasure…

Ah…now I see. I think.

The Catholic Church teaches that sex has two positive purposes: procreation and union. The latter means the intimacy of giving oneself completely to the other as well as the receiving of that gift. (Contraception, of course, prevents the complete giving and the full reception of all that the man has to give to his wife.)

Now, not every act of sex has to result in conception; in fact, the Father’s design makes it obvious that He did not intend for this to be the case since He ordered that there are times when it is not possible for a woman to conceive.

I should say that as we have agreed, there is also a negative use of sex: lust. However, it seems that whereas I would say that sex can be procreative, unitive or lustful, you seem to be saying that sex is either procreative or lustful.

IOW, you deny that the unitive aspect of sex is healthy and good and hold any act of sex that does not have the possibility of procreation is merely lust.

Is that an accurate understanding of your belief?

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

And I agree with this.

Ah…now I see. I think.

The Catholic Church teaches that sex has two positive purposes: procreation and union. The latter means the intimacy of giving oneself completely to the other as well as the receiving of that gift. (Contraception, of course, prevents the complete giving and the full reception of all that the man has to give to his wife.)

Now, not every act of sex has to result in conception; in fact, the Father’s design makes it obvious that He did not intend for this to be the case since He ordered that there are times when it is not possible for a woman to conceive.

I should say that as we have agreed, there is also a negative use of sex: lust. However, it seems that whereas I would say that sex can be procreative, unitive or lustful, you seem to be saying that sex is either procreative or lustful.

IOW, you deny that the unitive aspect of sex is healthy and good and hold any act of sex that does not have the possibility of procreation is merely lust.

Is that an accurate understanding of your belief?

From the Fathers I’ve read, that does sound pretty accurate. I’d just add that having sex for “unity” or anything not “procreation” is what is considered lustful.

Now, coming back to current day, I’ll again mention as I had in prior posts, I believe prior to our conversation, that there are some Orthodox Bishops, my own included, who now permit the use of marital union for a non-procreative purpose (I forget the exact language used by my Greek Orthodox ArchDiocese of America, so let’s use the term you use “union”) and so now it’s allowed to use non-abortive forms of birth control, like NFP, without sin as long as the couple doesn’t intend to completely ingnore the primary propose of procreation - in other words they have to have or plan to have a child during their marriage. The Orthodox Bishops, with the keys to loose & bind, have the ability to do this. Not all Orthodox Bishops have.

This is why you will come across Orthodox Christians who say ALL Birth Control, including NFP, is forbidden. And some Orthodox Christians say it’s through economia from a couple’s spiritual father who may allow the use. And why you’ll come across some Orthodox who say all non-Abortive Birth Control, including NFP, is okay.

My spiritual father, a priest in a different jurisdiction than mine, has 9 children…so while I’ve not asked him about it (I’m single, so no need), I’m relatively certain where his Bishop stands on the issue.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From the Fathers I’ve read, that does sound pretty accurate. I’d just add that having sex for “unity” or anything not “procreation” is what is considered lustful.

Now, coming back to current day, I’ll again mention as I had in prior posts, I believe prior to our conversation, that there are some Orthodox Bishops, my own included, who now permit the use of marital union for a non-procreative purpose (I forget the exact language used by my Greek Orthodox ArchDiocese of America, so let’s use the term you use “union”) and so now it’s allowed to use non-abortive forms of birth control, like NFP, without sin as long as the couple doesn’t intend to completely ingnore the primary propose of procreation - in other words they have to have or plan to have a child during their marriage. The Orthodox Bishops, with the keys to loose & bind, have the ability to do this. Not all Orthodox Bishops have.

This is why you will come across Orthodox Christians who say ALL Birth Control, including NFP, is forbidden. And some Orthodox Christians say it’s through economia from a couple’s spiritual father who may allow the use. And why you’ll come across some Orthodox who say all non-Abortive Birth Control, including NFP, is okay.

My spiritual father, a priest in a different jurisdiction than mine, has 9 children…so while I’ve not asked him about it (I’m single, so no need), I’m relatively certain where his Bishop stands on the issue.

Okay.FWIW, Humanae Vitae states:

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

. . . ] I believe prior to our conversation, that there are some Orthodox Bishops, my own included, who now permit the use of marital union for a non-procreative purpose . . . ] The Orthodox Bishops, with the keys to loose & bind, have the ability to do this.

I don’t mean to press you (you have no obligation to respond to all my previous arguments, though I have afforded you this respect and you are certainly welcome to–and though I’d prefer you beginning as to my tireless demonstrating the unbridgeable differences between NFP and ABC, rather than here . . ) . . surely you don’t honestly believe this?

First, even if the “Orthodox Bishops” do have the keys (more than a little debatable–the Fathers DENY that the authority vested in the Keys was distributed equally, or could be exercised per-se by local Bishops, or even as official and final by councils of the same character); it is unequivocally impossible for a valid Christian authority to contradict, ‘unbind,’ or do anything but expound, explain and defend Sacred Tradition. We’ve already seen (and its just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence, I might add), that the Fathers whole-sale condemn every single type of ABC (I honestly know of NO form of ABC that is an exception to this as to the gravity of the actus reus–my previous posts outlining the same). All one needs to do is begin by seeing the condemnation of certain actus reus viz-a-viz the Sacrament of Marriage. And,** not only is it not within the scope of vested Christian authority to contradict this – the very attempt to do solemnly demonstrably reveals the claim to such authority to be wanting**, and so ultimately incomplete in validity.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

You have mis-quoted my words, so I hope that anyone following this conversation will click on the little blue box next to my name in your mis-quote of me on your post to read my actual words rather than your mis-quote of me. I hope this is accidental and not something done on purpose.

The Church Fathers & Ecumenical Council, which I have previously quoted here on this thread do confirm that the Church Fathers taught specifically against Abortive Forms of Birth Control. They also taught against Lust.

As of yet, I’ve not seen you quote a single Church Father or Ecumenical Council to prove your ideas. With your mis-quote of me, it’s probably a good thing, and yet it shows that either you are unfamiliar with the ancient Church’s teachings on the issue OR it shows that you think you can have a discussion asserting claims for which you’re either unwilling or unable to provide evidence. That’s simply a waste of my time and I don’t have time to waste. I’ve come to realize that spending my time in this forum has been a tremendous waste, I was especially convicted last night when reading the Bible and I came across a verse saying that we need to, instead, be “redeeming the time”. With that in mind, I will very rarely take the time to log onto Catholic.com.

Your discussion with me on this issue has come to an end due to your lack of ancient Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils or any other mutually (by both our Churches) accepted sources.

I don’t mean to press you (you have no obligation to respond to all my previous arguments, though I have afforded you this respect and you are certainly welcome to–and though I’d prefer you beginning as to my tireless demonstrating the unbridgeable differences between NFP and ABC, rather than here . . ) . . surely you don’t honestly believe this?

First, even if the “Orthodox Bishops” do have the keys (more than a little debatable–the Fathers DENY that the authority vested in the Keys was distributed equally, or could be exercised per-se by local Bishops, or even as official and final by councils of the same character); it is unequivocally impossible for a valid Christian authority to contradict, ‘unbind,’ or do anything but expound, explain and defend Sacred Tradition. We’ve already seen (and its just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence, I might add), that the Fathers whole-sale condemn every single type of ABC (I honestly know of NO form of ABC that is an exception to this as to the gravity of the actus reus–my previous posts outlining the same). All one needs to do is begin by seeing the condemnation of certain actus reus viz-a-viz the Sacrament of Marriage. And,** not only is it not within the scope of vested Christian authority to contradict this – the very attempt to do solemnly demonstrably reveals the claim to such authority to be wanting**, and so ultimately incomplete in validity.

Again, name a single Father to back-up your accusation here that Bishops, through the ApostleS, were Not given the keys to both “loose” & “bind”. I have 5 early Church Fathers just off the top of my head that I could cite proving the ApostleS, pural, received the Keys from Jesus Christ and that they were passed down to the Bishops; however, again and again and again and again you fail to provide any proof for your accusations so I place the ball in your court.

Merry Christmas to you & yours!

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Church Fathers & Ecumenical Council, which I have previously quoted here on this thread do confirm that the Church Fathers taught specifically against Abortive Forms of Birth Control. They also taught against Lust.

Sure. But do you have any quotes which specifically state that sex when procreation is not possible (infertile period of the cycle or after menopause) is automatically lust?

FWIW, I actually think it’s possible that quotes like this exist, because IMO the early Church was excessively influenced by Augustine in this regard. You may recall that he took a mistress at a young age, lived with her for many years, and fathered a child by her. After his conversion, I think his moral pendulum swung just a little too far in the opposite direction with the result being that the Church’s teaching for many centuries was overly harsh with regard to marital union.

So, you have asked for quotes from Fathers who allow unitive sex, but do you have any that prohibit it?

Finally, in the absence of either (not saying that’s the case), would the Church itself have the authority to determine the matter? If so, have the Orthodox churches specifically prohibited sex during infertile times of a woman’s life?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Church Fathers & Ecumenical Council, which I have previously quoted here on this thread do confirm that the Church Fathers taught specifically against Abortive Forms of Birth Control. They also taught against Lust.

Sure. But it does not follow that every act of intercourse is the result of only two desires: lust or want of children, does it?

I believe you said that you are single. Have you ever been married? (That’s rhetorical.) I have been married for 25 years. From my own experience, I think it is possible for there to be a third reason for having sex with your spouse: the desire to express your love for the person with whom you have become one through marriage.

I’m also going to say that the definition of “lust” is “very strong sexual desire”. Now, when a woman ovulates, her body produces hormones that increase her desire for sex dramatically. Does that mean that she is lusting for her husband when she engages in sex that is potentially procreative? She also produces pheromones that attract her husband, she even walks in a more sensuous manner; does that mean that he is lusting when he responds to those signals? So, right at the moment when a woman is most capable of conceiving - the only time permitted for sexual activity according to your understanding - both the husband and the wife may actually be reacting out of lust to physiological changes that are purely natural and designed by God. The Fathers knew nothing of this science, of course.

Now, about the Fathers: any quick Google search should yield boatloads of articles concerning the negative view of sex seen in the writings of the Fathers. Why? Well, maybe some of those guys never married and didn’t really have a clue what they were talking about.

But more seriously, Plato, no Christian, heavily influenced the philosophy of the ECF’s. Additionally, Augustine, having had his own fill of sexual enjoyment, ruined it for the rest of us by over-reacting to his own sexual demons. I’m not kidding.

I think it is safe to say that people like Paul (who anticipated the return of Christ within his own lifetime) or the desert Fathers (who were monks, for Pete’s sake) were not the most balanced individuals when it comes to marriage.

Now, I want to close with the admission that LUST is or can be a problem even within marriage. But just as I can enjoy a glass of wine with my dinner without becoming an alcoholic, I can enjoy the gift of human sexuality with my wife later that same night without become a sex addict.

Augustine, apparently, could not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Now, I want to close with the admission that LUST is or can be a problem even within marriage. But just as I can enjoy a glass of wine with my dinner without becoming an alcoholic, I can enjoy the gift of human sexuality with my wife later that same night without become a sex addict.

Augustine, apparently, could not.

Agree’d, the point, so what do we say in elaboration much further. I mentioned the same to this sister some where. Oh, just to add, this is same the point with same sex also?

 

[GaryTaylor]

OK (I wish Prodigal Son was here now) its a matter of separating wants from needs and love from lust and with the Church teaching (Christ) always in mind. The issue is as with wine and wants and needs this is easily blurred in spontaneous action. If you can’t control yourself you don’t have control nor over others.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Basil exclaims: “[Man], be mindful of your greatness, remembering the price paid for you: look at the price of your redemption and comprehend your dignity!” (In Psalmum 48, 8: PG 29, 452b).

Christians in particular, conforming their lives to the Gospel, recognize that all people are brothers and sisters; that life is a stewardship of the goods received from God, which is why each one is responsible for the other, and whoever is rich must be as it were an “executor of the orders of God the Benefactor” (Hom 6 de avaritia: PG 32, 1181-1196). We must all help one another and cooperate as members of one body (Ep 203, 3).

Basil recommended above all that young people grow in virtue, in the right way of living: “While the other goods… pass from one to the other as in playing dice, virtue alone is an inalienable good and endures throughout life and after death” (Ad Adolescentes 5).

Dear brothers and sisters, I think one can say that this Father from long ago also speaks to us and tells us important things.

In the first place, attentive, critical and creative participation in today’s culture.

Then, social responsibility: this is an age in which, in a globalized world, even people who are physically distant are really our neighbours; therefore, friendship with Christ, the God with the human face.

And, lastly, knowledge and recognition of God the Creator, the Father of us all: only if we are open to this God, the common Father, can we build a more just and fraternal world.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fbenedict_xvi%2Faudiences%2F2007%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_ben-xvi_aud_20070801_en.html&ei=AgOHVIO6KYmmNp2jg7AJ&usg=AFQjCNEeGL8AHpxjgkT0DeUaEXRND_PGPA